Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAn Empirical Exploration on the Supervision of PhD Students Closely Collaborating with Industry
103
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Eduard Paul Enoiu
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Eduard Paul Enoiu
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
With an increase of PhD students working in industry, there is a need to understand what factors are influencing supervision for industrial students. This paper aims at exploring the challenges and good approaches to supervision of industrial PhD students. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews of six PhD students and supervisors with experience in PhD studies at several organizations in the embedded software industry in Sweden. The data was anonymized and it was analyzed by means of thematic analysis. The results indicate that there are many challenges and opportunities to improve the supervision of industrial PhD students.
rate research
Read More
The notion of individual fairness requires that similar people receive similar treatment. However, this is hard to achieve in practice since it is difficult to specify the appropriate similarity metric. In this work, we attempt to learn such similarity metric from human annotated data. We gather a new dataset of human judgments on a criminal recidivism prediction (COMPAS) task. By assuming the human supervision obeys the principle of individual fairness, we leverage prior work on metric learning, evaluate the performance of several metric learning methods on our dataset, and show that the learned metrics outperform the Euclidean and Precision metric under various criteria. We do not provide a way to directly learn a similarity metric satisfying the individual fairness, but to provide an empirical study on how to derive the similarity metric from human supervisors, then future work can use this as a tool to understand human supervision.
In-app advertising closely relates to app revenue. Reckless ad integration could adversely impact app reliability and user experience, leading to loss of income. It is very challenging to balance the ad revenue and user experience for app developers. In this paper, we present a large-scale analysis on ad-related user feedback. The large user feedback data from App Store and Google Play allow us to summarize ad-related app issues comprehensively and thus provide practical ad integration strategies for developers. We first define common ad issues by manually labeling a statistically representative sample of ad-related feedback, and then build an automatic classifier to categorize ad-related feedback. We study the relations between different ad issues and user ratings to identify the ad issues poorly scored by users. We also explore the fix durations of ad issues across platforms for extracting insights into prioritizing ad issues for ad maintenance. We summarize 15 types of ad issues by manually annotating 903/36,309 ad-related user reviews. From a statistical analysis of 36,309 ad-related reviews, we find that users care most about the number of unique ads and ad display frequency during usage. Besides, users tend to give relatively lower ratings when they report the security and notification related issues. Regarding different platforms, we observe that the distributions of ad issues are significantly different between App Store and Google Play. Moreover, some ad issue types are addressed more quickly by developers than other ad issues. We believe the findings we discovered can benefit app developers towards balancing ad revenue and user experience while ensuring app reliability.
We conducted a questionnaire study aimed towards PhD students in the field of visualization research to understand how they cope with paper rejections. We collected responses from 24 participants and performed a qualitative analysis of the data in relation to the provided support by collaborators, resubmission strategies, handling multiple rejects, and personal impression of the reviews. The results indicate that the PhD students in the visualization community generally cope well with the negative reviews and, with experience, learn how to act accordingly to improve and resubmit their work. Our results reveal the main coping strategies that can be applied for constructively handling rejected visualization papers. The most prominent strategies include: discussing reviews with collaborators and making a resubmission plan, doing a major revision to improve the work, shortening the work, and seeing rejection as a positive learning experience.
Since compiler optimization is the most common source contributing to binary code differences in syntax, testing the resilience against the changes caused by different compiler optimization settings has become a standard evaluation step for most binary diffing approaches. For example, 47 top-venue papers in the last 12 years compared different progr
Simulation can enable the study of recommender system (RS) evolution while circumventing many of the issues of empirical longitudinal studies; simulations are comparatively easier to implement, are highly controlled, and pose no ethical risk to human participants. How simulation can best contribute to scientific insight about RS alongside qualitative and quantitative empirical approaches is an open question. Philosophers and researchers have long debated the epistemological nature of simulation compared to wholly theoretical or empirical methods. Simulation is often implicitly or explicitly conceptualized as occupying a middle ground between empirical and theoretical approaches, allowing researchers to realize the benefits of both. However, what is often ignored in such arguments is that without firm grounding in any single methodological tradition, simulation studies have no agreed upon scientific norms or standards, resulting in a patchwork of theoretical motivations, approaches, and implementations that are difficult to reconcile. In this position paper, we argue that simulation studies of RS are conceptually similar to empirical experimental approaches and therefore can be evaluated using the standards of empirical research methods. Using this empirical lens, we argue that the combination of high heterogeneity in approaches and low transparency in methods in simulation studies of RS has limited their interpretability, generalizability, and replicability. We contend that by adopting standards and practices common in empirical disciplines, simulation researchers can mitigate many of these weaknesses.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
