Assignment 1A: Review of two research papers
Intissar Mzalouat
Intelligent Embedded Systems master program
imt10001@student.mdh.se
Paper 1: Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis for Dynamic Branch Predictors
Iain Bate and Ralf Reutemann
This paper is well organized. It has the structure of a standard paper; the authors started by
giving a brief abstract of the work and the paper contain. After the abstract comes the
introduction. The work done is well explained and detailed in the main sections. The authors
showed in one section the results and evaluated their work. Finally come the conclusion and
references list.
Title:
I think that the title is simple, clear and informative.
Abstract:
I found its length good (not so long, not so short). It’s well structured; it starts by a brief
description of the problem. Then, the work done and results achieved are presented. Finally, it
shows the reader how the results have been obtained.
Introduction:
I think that it is clear and well organized. The presentation of the background idea and the
problem gives the reader an idea about what the authors want to achieve with the paper. It ends
by a summary of the organization of the paper which gives an idea to the reader about the
different parts of the paper.
Main sections:
In the main sections, the authors explained their work in a good and clear way. The sections are
organized in paragraphs which helps the reader to follow the different ideas. The authors use
figures, tables and formulas which is a good way to explain and make it easier to the reader to
understand.
Conclusions:
I found it written in a good and structured way. The authors summarized the work presented
earlier in the paper and the results achieved. Then they discussed the results and give the pros
and cons of their work. The final part was the future work.
References:
I found the references well organized and structured in a correct way.
I think that the language used in this paper is simple and clear which makes the paper
understandable and gets the attention of the reader who is able to follow.
In general, I found this paper interesting and well written. It is well structured which makes it
easy to follow.
Paper 2: Improving Direct-Mapped Cache Performance by the Addition of a Small Fully
Associative Cache and Prefetch Buffers
Norman P.Jouppi
I think this paper is not well organized. First, I found the abstract, the introduction and the
conclusions not well structured and longer than needed. Then, the main sections were hard to
follow and the ideas were not well structured.
Title:
I think that the title is informative. It gives an idea about what the paper will be about. But it is
too long.
Abstract:
I found the abstract long. The author explained some techniques in details more than presenting
the work done and the problem in this paper.
Introduction:
An idea of the background and the problem assessed in the paper are well presented in the
beginning of the introduction. This makes the reader understanding what the paper is about and
what the author is going to solve. The final part of the introduction is a summary of the paper
organization which I found interesting because it gives to the reader an idea about the content of
the paper. But, I think that an important part which is related work is missed in this introduction.
Main sections:
In the main sections the author explained and detailed his work. Many figures are added which
helps the reader to understand and follow but the ideas were not well organized which makes this
part of the paper hard and the reader needs to do more effort to follow the ideas.
Conclusions:
I think that this section is well written but so long.
I found the results well presented and commented. I appreciated the way how the author showed
the improvement s on the system performances (figure) which permits to highlight his
contribution in this research field. The future work is presented as a last part of the conclusion.
References:
I found the references organized and structured in a correct way except the reference 5 which I
found not clear and not easy to be found by readers.
I think that the language used in this paper is good and understandable. The author used simple
and structured sentences.
In general, I found this paper almost good except some organization problems. I found some
parts longer than needed but the results are well presented.