Assignment 1A: individual paper review
Sina Tebiani(sti10003@student.mdh.se)
Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis for Dynamic Branch Predictors
Iain Bate and Ralf Reutemann
This paper is well organized with regarding the skeleton of general papers. As a scientific paper it starts
with abstract and continues with good introduction, methods, results, conclusion and references.
Title:
Title is completely clear and reader understands what will be explained through the article. Author has
avoided any misunderstanding words.
Abstract:
The whole part of abstract is meaningful and it is summarized in good way and problems have been
presented through the abstract while try to get the readers’ attention. Number of words are 123 which
is enough for writing a good abstract. Classification has been considered clearly and reader is not
confused in the beginning of the paper with references and acronyms.
Introduction:
In my view the first sentence is not perfect enough as beginning of the introduction. To have an
excellent introduction the first sentence has to be most significant part of it and author should write the
best one as much as possible. All parts of introduction are well organized and it starts with a concise
background of subject and ends with paper organization. In the beginning it explains the most important
problem and short background summary and then what has to be obtained as a result. The references
have been mentioned during the passage and every idea has been supported with references and
phrases in the other hand are not so superlative. Comparing mentioned ideas by author and introducing
problems existed in the previous investigations is done by author in this paper.
Main section:
In the main section author at first separates his work in two categories and it helps reader to follow the
article easily and get all aspects. Author at first identify he will not mention the various techniques for
space reasons then it comes to related works and highlights to analysis which has been done with others
while he gives references during the introduction of other performances. In the next part, authors
describe how they get to specific approach by classifying of analysis method to two branches by
introduction of some tables and theorems and figures. Figures are in order and they have been
identified with specific numbers. Examples are clear and they describe the approach with meaningful
concepts. The proofs are great and it is explained obviously while the beginning and end of the proof has
been identified. Author continues article with more explanations to complex approaches in the next
parts and uses good presentation of tables and formulas again without any confusion.
Summary:
Based on my opinion, it has good summary for some reasons. It uses graphs with mixing theorems
through the passage with clarifying all aspects of paper aim and giving neat results to readers to satisfy
them.
Conclusion:
When it comes to conclusion, it says what has been done during this paper and how authors have
extended others’ works and what is the benefits of this work with comparing previous ones. At the end
they identify their future work so it can be consider a concrete conclusion.
References:
References have been clarified neatly and all of them has name of author, title, publisher and year of
publishing and in a one word it has good reference part.
The language of paper:
In this paper actually every concept has been explained perfectly and author has tried to avoiding
misconceptions. Although the paper is not empty of grammatical errors like a lot of other papers, the
used language in this paper is fluent, simple and easy to understand.
General comments:
Regarding all aspects of writing scientific paper, this paper is kind of perfect which all parts are in order
and well explained although number of pages is lower than standard paper which should be around ten
pages.
Assignment 1B: individual paper review
Sina Tebiani (sti10003@student.mdh.se)
Improving Direct-Mapped Cache Performance by the Addition of a Small FullyAssociative Cache and Prefetch Buffers
Norman P.Jouppi
This paper is not completely well organized although it includes all parts of standard paper such as
abstract, introduction, main section, conclusion, acknowledgment and references but without result
parts, it has tiny fonts and narrow margins which look like kind of cheating.
Title:
This title seems to me a kind of stressful title which is not clear and short to understand totally. It needs
more time to focus on and get approach.
Abstract:
Abstract has summarized the problem and reader is able to catch the concept of paper. It includes five
paragraphs and some of them begin with font not similar to others so in my mind it is weird. There is
acronym in this part that is not usual in papers.
Introduction:
Introduction is well organized and it starts with good sentence and it can catch the attention of readers.
Through the passage author declares references when it is necessary and explains the main problem
which will be discussed in the paper. I could not find superlative phrases in explanations and all
descriptions are fluent and humble.
Main section:
The main part describes the whole concept with details and it uses graphs and tables and test results to
give reader more interpretation of subject. It starts with baseline design and gives examples and some
results which are explained in next main part with declaring classification in four branches conflict,
compulsory, capacity and coherence. Then author refers to figures to describe how this each
classification affects the catch performance. Some figures quality is not good anyway and it leads to
misunderstanding. All paragraphs have continues structure and reader is notified with details and all
concepts.
Conclusion:
The conclusion has good interpretation for reader and each concept is understandable even without
studying previous parts. The future work is mentioned at the end of conclusion and author’s software
Linpack includes in this part also.
Acknowledgment:
Acknowledgment involves all people who helped in this paper.
References:
References are clear and complete with authors name title and publication year.
Language:
This paper has clear and concrete language and it is successful in transferring the right sense to reader.
General comment:
In my view, it is not excellent paper but acceptable. Although its scientific worth is admirable but the
quality of paper could be better.