Assignment 1
Paper 1:
Author: Iain Bate and Ralf Reutemann
Department of Computer Science, University of York
York, United Kingdom
Title : Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis for Dynamic Branch Predictors
The article is very well organized as it contains an appropriate meaningful title defining the area of interest of the article, a clear introduction, the analysis made using theorems and the proof of the theorems, appropriate references are made.
Title :
The title is clear, informative and meaningful readily saying it is a real time system based article.
Abstract :
The abstract is very well written as it defines importance of the article and briefs the problem and the result.
Introduction :
The introduction showcases on the importance of the article, problem definition and the approach to the problem. References are cited for more details, the end of the introduction gives the clear idea of what is dealt in each section; hence making the introduction interesting.
Main Section :
The article cites the methods used for the analysis, and has references to another article for more details on the methods hence making proper use of the space in the article making it more simpler.

Further the article talks the previous work on the topic, the analysis made, the outcome of the analysis. The detailed approach to the analysis is explained, the terminologies used in the analysis are defined.
The article supports its analysis making use of the theorems that are clearly defined and hence made easier to understand and verifiable by the reader. The graphs used here provides a better idea to understand the analysis and helps in a better visualization of the result. The time complexities are explained with the help of the mathematical equations while keeping the elements used simple to understand.
Conclusion :
The article concludes with the problem it has tried to analyze, the result of the study, the future work that can be done on the problem. The improvement achieved by this article over the previous work of another article referenced clearly.
The abstract of the article is sounds interesting making a reader to go for a further reading of the article. The article is written in very simpler English sentences which makes the reader understand the sentence at a very first chance. The article is more interesting because of the theorems, construct flow graphs and the transition tables that helps a better readability and verifiable too.
Paper 2:
Author: Norman P. Jouppi,
HP Labs,
Director,Exascale Computing Lab,
Palo Alto
Title : Improving Direct-Mapped Cache Performance by the Addition of a Small Fully-Associative Cache and Prefetch Buffers

The article is well organized as it has a motivation clearly stated, informative title, problem is explained in detail, solution is defined with the help of graphs and tables for a better visualization of the concept to the reader, includes a remainder and the future works.
Title :
The article title though lengthy gives the information regarding the subject of his article and the way he has analyzed it.
Abstract :
The abstract of the article helps the reader to gain an idea about the techniques used, talks about the problem and the result but exceeds more than 250 words, hence making it lengthy.
Introduction :
The introduction talks about the reason behind writing the article. It gives the reader an unclear idea about the table he has used to compare about different microprocessors performance and does not mention the type of the microprocessor he uses for the study. A reference is cited which deals about the microprocessor that is used here for comparison; this makes the reader difficult to understand the article. The article lets the reader know about what the author deals in his next sections by giving a one line introduction to each of the sections hence making the reader easy to choose his interest of section for the further study of the paper which meets the needs of the standards of an article.
Main Section :

The article defines the baseline system which is required to understand on the parameters used in the article. The author defines the problem in detail giving examples for a better understandability.
The analysis of the problem is explained in details and the methods to the problem solving are explained citing the definitions of the terms used hence making it easy to understand. The author has made clear how much a method can improvise on a problem over all the benchmarks and has cited clearly how a method actually fails on a certain benchmarks and then explains the other methods in order to overcome it.
The author has used relevant graphs to explain the effectiveness of the methods he uses; but since the article talks on six benchmarks, some of the graphs looks clumsy and makes difficult for the user to understand it.
Summary :
The author defines advantages and disadvantages of each method over the benchmarks he references in the article. Using a graph,defines how his study has helped for an improved system and suggests for a future work.
The reader of the article needs to know about the numeric programs utilized by the author through another source.
References :
Most of the references made by the author are IEEE journals and he has referenced all of them in the article for the more understanding to a reader.
The author has used a simpler formation of English sentences which is easier to understand and the definitions of the terms made (section 3) also easily digestible, I personally had difficulty in understanding the phrase “have our cake and eat it too” ; at the same time such phrases makes an article interesting.

The article gets interesting as the author keeps defining the methods in details, an attempt can be made to make the abstract much simpler while meeting the standards.