Hide menu

TDDD66 Mobile Networks

Scenarios and Project


Scenarios

The scenarios to be used in your work in PBL groups can be found here.

These scenarios will provide you an opportunity to dive deeper into selected aspects of the course. They will also be used for the project part of the course.

Project Overview

Last updated 31/8/2014: Note that this is a preliminary project overview and information may be changed in the next week or two.


The project will be done in pairs, and will include semi-weekly reports and peer reviewing. In total, there will be four milestones (0, 1, 2, 3) and a final report deadline that you must meet. You will also be expected to give an oral presentation at the semimar (between milestone 3 and the final report). For each milestone, for the seminar, and for the final project report you are expected to provide peer reviewing and constructive feedback.

Peer reviewing: As a reviewer you are expected to (as a group) give feedback on the other groups' project. Such feedback reports are expected to be brief (a few bullets/paragraphs), and focused on things that can help the other group improve their report. The most important thing with this step is to help the group you review identify things that are unclear to the reader. After the seminar, you are also expected to help the group that you review identify the parts to focus their final report on.

Deliverables (important): There will be both electronic and hard copy reports.

  • For all milestones and the final report(s), you should print a hardcopy of your report (in its current shape) and place in the mailbox outside café java, addressed to Niklas. These reports are used to keep track of your progress.
  • For both reports and feedback reports you should create a single email with the report (or feedback report) attached as a pdf file that is addressed to (i) all members of your two reviewer pairs (or that you are reviewing), (ii) the instructor, and (iii) all members of you own group. Also, only LiU email addresses should be used for this communication, and all communication should have "TDDD66 project: (insert something here)" in the subject heading. The formatting is important to keep track of the projects.
  • For the report you should use the default ACM SIG-proceedings templates, which can be found here.
  • You are expected to use appropriate referencing (see ACM referencing standard) in which you use appropriate and well described references. Please avoid web references (e.g., wikipedia), and instead try to identify books and research papers (published in proceedings or journals) for your references.
Expectations: You will be given a grade based on your performance on (i) the seminar, (ii) the final report, and (iii) your feedback reports given to other groups. To pass the project you are expected to meet all deadlines and your reports should follow the specifications. When the expected standards are not satisfied, especially with regards to the final report, you may be asked to complement the report with additional work. All deadlines, including a single hard deadline for such additional improvements, are specified below.

For a passing grade, a literature-driven investigation is okay. However, for grades 4 and 5, I typically would expect at least some attempt to experiments and/or validation of some hypothesis/result.

Milestone 0: Select a problem (based on a scenario) and register in Webreg

  • The project will be done in pairs, so please find a partner and register with that person for the particular scenario that you select. We recommend that you do the project with the same person as you will do the assignments.
  • When you register in Webreg you will be able to pick a scenario, based on which you will define your project. You are expected to pick a scenario from the PBL part of the course (see slides above) around which you (for the next milestone) will identify a problem that you can motivate the importance of and come up with a plan to analyze. There will only be a limited number of groups per scenario, so please have a backup scenario or two in mind before registering.
  • In the case you want to define your own project based on some other topic from the course, outside the scenarios provided in the PBL-part of the course, you are expected to talk to the instructor. Before approving such proposal, he will likely ask you to provide a clear problem definition and motivation (see milestone 1 below), as well as carefully explain how the project will fit within the course curriculum.
  • Register here
  • Deadline: Sept. 5


Reviewer assignment for feedback
  • After milestone 0, your group will be assigned reviewer pairs for each milestone (as you for each milestone will be asked to give feedback on each others reports). Note that each milestone may or may not have a different feedback pair. These assignments can can be found at the bottom of this page.
  • Date: Sept. 6-7 (to be posted on website).

Milestone 1: Introduction
  • You are expected to have written a clear introduction section to your report that clearly define the particular problem that you intend to investigate, clearly motivate the importance of the selected problem, and describe your expected contributions/results. You should also create a time plan for how you plan to investigate the problem and reach this final target.
  • At this point your report should have a title, abstract, and introduction, but should be no longer than 1 page (+ a brief gameplan).
  • Note 1: You will have a fair bit of freedom in exactly what you do. In this version of the report, I want you to write as if you are done your project and already have your results. (In other words: Please envsion your final report and write the introduction accordingly.) You can find a nice explenation of how a typical CS introduction may ready here.
  • Note 2: I would like to see that you (either now, or in the next few weeks, if you start broadly) try to find a sub-problem that you think that you in some way can analyze, test, or otherwise investigate deeper (e.g., through simple experiments, simulations, or measurements). For example, in the case of the caching context, you could imagine doing a performance comparison of two caching policies, look at the value of prefetching, investigate how much of all the content actually can be cached, how much of it results in cache hits, etc.). Many of these are things you can investigate using small-scale experiments (e.g., looking into HTTP headers and caching rules of regular proxies), running simulations, perform some basic calculations, etc., just to give some examples.
  • Note 3: Please check if you can find some research litterature that have looked at similar or related problems. Such papers may help you identify some aspect that you may want to investigate closer. For this course, you can either investigate something that have been done before (e.g., an experiment or hypotesis that you want to understand or try for yourself, but that already have been answered/addressed by others) or something new (e.g., an experiment or hypotesis that some research paper inspire you to test, or that you find intersting in general).
  • Deadline: Sept. 12
  • Feedback deadline: Sept. 16
Advice on references and citations (typically used by my thesis students): Please be consistent in the formatting of your references. As there is no page limit (as with reserach papers), I would suggest being fairly complete. For journals/and magazines I would suggest giving author names, title of the article, the name of the journal, the volume, the number/issue, the year, and the page numbers. For example,
  • G. Dan and N. Carlsson, "Centralized and Distributed Protocols for Tracker-based Dynamic Swarm Management", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (ToN), Vol. 21, No. 1 (Feb. 2013), 297--310.
For conferences I would suggest giving author names, title of the article, the name of the conference proceedings, the place of the conference, the dates of the conference, and the page numbers. For example,
  • Y. Borghol, S. Ardon, N. Carlsson, D. Eager, and A. Mahanti, "The Untold Story of the Clones: Content-agnostic Factors that Impact YouTube Video Popularity", Proc. ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), Beijing, China, Aug. 2012, pp. 1186--1194.
When citing papers, I would suggest that you try to cite the papers such that the sentences makes sense without the citation. For example, "Borghol et al. [2] present an intersting analysis of ..." or "... have presented an interesting analysis of YouTube what makes some videos more popular than others [2]." Please avoid using sentences such as "[2] presents an interesting ..." or "In [2] the authors present an interesting ..."

For example, the .bib entries for the above paper may look as follows:


@article{DaCa13,
author = {G. Dan and N. Carlsson}, 
title = {Centralized and Distributed Protocols for Tracker-based Dynamic Swarm Management}, 
journal = {IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (IEEE/ACM ToN)}, 
volume = {21}, 
number = {1},
month = {Feb.},
year = {2013}, 
pages = {297--310}
}

@inproceedings{BAC+12,
author = {Y. Borghol and S. Ardon and N. Carlsson and D. Eager and A. Mahanti},
title = {The Untold Story of the Clones: Content-agnostic Factors that Impact YouTube Video Popularity},
booktitle = {Proc. ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD)},
address = {Beijing, China}, 
month = {Aug.},
year = {2012}, 
pages = {1186--1194}
} 

Request: For paper writing, in your .bib file, please use the following format for references: (i) always use four letter plus two digits, (ii) the numbers should correspond to the year of the published article, (iii) the letters should correspond to the first letters of the author names, such that (iv) a single author paper is referred to as "Firs14", (v) a two author paper is referred to as "FiSe14", (vi) a three author paper is referred to as "FiST14", (vii) a four author paper is referred to as "FSTF14", and (viii) a paper with five or more authors is referred to as "FST+14". For example, the two cases above would be DaCa13 and BAC+12, respectively.


Milestone 2: Methodology and expected results
  • You are expected to have written a methodology section that clearly describes the tools and methods that you will use to investigate the selected problem. Your methodology section should describe details of how you plan to evaluate and analyze the performance or system/protocol design of the aspect that you will take a closer look at in your project.
  • You are also expected to write a short summary of your expected results. What are you expecting to find from your analysis? If possible, use this to define a hypothesis (even if it is a known result), which you later can try to validate, show, or debunk. (Based on this, you may also want to revise your preliminary introduction, from last milestone.)
  • Note that you may want to leverage and integrate this milestone with scenario 4 from the PBL meetings.
  • Also, please revise the sections from the previous milestone as you see best fit, and based on the feedback from your review groups.
  • At this point your report is expected to be 3-4 pages, have a clear outline, well-written sections, and figures which clearly capture the problem and/or methodology.
  • Deadline: Sept. 26
  • Feedback deadline: Sept. 30

Milestone 3: Preliminary results and conclusions
  • You are expected to have performed a preliminary analysis, simulations, experiments, or whatever methodology that you selected, such as to address the question/problem that you set out to answer. Based on these results and your investigation of the problem (reading literature, for example), you are expected to write a results section in which you present your results, as well as a concise conclusion (that can have some statement about potential future investigation).
  • Also, please revise the section from the previous milestone as you see best fit, and based on the feedback from your review groups.
  • At this point your report is expected to be 5-8 pages, have a clear outline, be well-written sections (e.g., introduction, methodology, results, and conclusions), and have figures which clearly capture the problem, results, and/or methodology.
  • Deadline: Oct. 10
  • Feedback deadline: Oct. 13 (remember to bring forward what you think the final report should focus on).

Seminar: Present the problem and lessons learned
  • You are expected to give a clear presentation in which you present the problem, motivate the importance of the problem, your methodology, and the lessons learned from your investigation.
  • Note that the presentation is short, so it will be important to be well prepared. It is also important to be ready when it is your turn.
  • Date: Oct. 13 and Oct. 15
  • Feedback deadline: Oct. 16 (remember to bring forward what you think the final report should focus on).
  • Note: Similar to for the milestones, you are expected to give feedback to the group for which your group's number appears in the "seminar" column.

Final report: Based on feedback from latest report and seminar
  • You are expected to rewrite the report such as to focus the report on the most important messages and lessons that you have learned about the problem of consideration. The report is still expected to have the similar sections and content as before. However, you will have to improve the writing and presentation (to say the same thing using less/better text) and focus results towards what you and others found more important/interesting.
  • When you write the final report, please try to use the feedback from both milestone 3 and the seminar to improve your report. It may also be worth thinking about if there are things you described better during the seminar (e.g., using a better figure, different story, different example) than in milestone 3. Is this a better way (e.g., "story", order, or examples) to present things also in the report? If so, perhaps, some parts of the report can be improved ...
  • At this point your condensed report is expected to be 4 pages, have a clear outline, be well-written sections, and have figures which clearly capture the problem and/or methodology.
  • Deadline: Oct. 23
  • Feedback deadline: Oct. 24 (this review should clearly state your general assessment of the report, and if you find the report acceptable or not)

Feedback group assignment (2013)

To find the group(s) that you should send your report to for feedback, please use the table below as follows:
  1. Find your group and group number in the first two columns. This gives you the row that defines to which groups you should send your report for feedback.
  2. For this week's milestone, identify the group number indicated in the column for that milestones. This is the group (or groups) that you should send you report to for feedback. (Use column one and two to find the names of the group members of that group.)
Number Group Milestone 1 Milestone 2 Milestone 3 Seminar Final project
1.1.1 Erik Jonsson and Oscar Ljung 6.1.1 3.1.1 4.1.1 6.1.2 4.1.1 + 6.1.2
2.2.1 Emmie Nilsek and Sofia Nyberg 6.1.2 4.1.1 4.1.2 6.1.3 4.1.2 + 6.1.3
2.2.2 Tomas Melin and Sebastian Karlsson 6.1.3 4.1.2 4.1.3 6.2.1 4.1.3 + 6.2.1
2.2.3 Jakob Bäcklund and Anton Niklasson 6.2.1 4.1.3 5.1.1 6.2.2 5.1.1 + 6.2.2
3.1.1 Milad Barsomo and Samuel Nilsson 6.2.2 5.1.1 5.1.2 6.2.3 5.1.2 + 6.2.3
4.1.1 Sebastian Waldmann and Tomas Vidhall 6.2.3 5.1.2 5.1.3 1.1.1 5.1.3 + 1.1.1
4.1.2 Matteus Hemström and Petter Arding 1.1.1 5.1.3 6.1.1 2.2.1 6.1.1 + 2.2.1
4.1.3 Johanna Thorheim and Ludvig Fischerström --- 6.1.1 6.1.2 2.2.2 6.1.2 + 2.2.2
5.1.1 Ammar Alderhally and Robert Krogh 2.2.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 2.2.3 6.1.3 + 2.2.3
5.1.2 Martin Sjödin Jonsson and Anna Boyer de la Giroday 2.2.2 6.1.3 6.2.1 3.1.1 6.2.1 + 3.1.1
5.1.3 Christoffer Olsson and Joakim Eriksson 2.2.3 6.2.1 6.2.2 4.1.1 6.2.2 + 4.1.1
6.1.1 William Danielsson and Niclas Hansson 3.1.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 4.1.2 6.2.3 + 4.1.2
6.1.2 Jonas Skog Andersen and Christian Luckey 4.1.1 6.2.3 1.1.1 4.1.3 1.1.1 + 4.1.3
6.1.3 Elias Kärnsund and Alexander Lantz 4.1.2 1.1.1 2.2.1 5.1.1 2.2.1 + 5.1.1
6.2.1 Oskar Fahlström and Mats Hurtig 5.1.1 2.2.1 2.2.2 5.1.2 2.2.2 + 5.1.2
6.2.2 Jacob Bergvall and Henning Hall 5.1.2 2.2.2 2.2.3 5.1.3 2.2.3 + 5.1.3
6.2.3 Hans Hugo Hedelin and Anton Forsberg 5.1.3 2.2.3 3.1.1 6.1.1 3.1.1 + 6.1.1

Preliminary Seminar Schedule (2013)

Each group will have up to 10 minutes for their presentation. The talks are not allowed to be longer, (and you will likely be interrupted if you go more than a minute over this allocated time), so please prepared your presentations for ten minutes (and make sure you know what to cut/condense if you are running out of time). There will also be a 2.5 minute timeslot for questions, during which the next group is expected to set up for their talk.

Monday, October 14, 2013

10:15-10:55 Energy Usage
  • 2.2.1: Emmie Nilsek and Sofia Nyberg
  • 2.2.2: Tomas Melin and Sebastian Karlsson
  • 2.2.3: Jakob Bäcklund and Anton Niklasson
10:55-11:10 Break

11:10-12:00 Routing and Evaluation Techniques
  • 3.1.1: Milad Barsomo and Samuel Nilsson
  • 4.1.1: Sebastian Waldmann and Tomas Vidhall
  • 4.1.2: Matteus Hemström and Petter Arding
  • 4.1.3: Johanna Thorheim and Ludvig Fischerström

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

13:15-14:05 WiFi and 4G Speed
  • 1.1.1: Erik Jonsson and Oscar Ljung
  • 5.1.1: Ammar Alderhally and Robert Krogh
  • 5.1.2: Martin Sjödin Jonsson and Anna Boyer de la Giroday
  • 5.1.3: Christoffer Olsson and Joakim Eriksson
14:05-14:20 Break

14:20-15:00 Cache Optimization
  • 6.1.1: William Danielsson and Niclas Hansson
  • 6.1.2: Jonas Skog Andersen and Christian Luckey
  • 6.1.3: Elias Kärnsund and Alexander Lantz
15:00-15:10 Break

15:10-15:50 HTTP-adaptive Streaming
  • 6.2.1: Oskar Fahlström and Mats Hurtig
  • 6.2.2: Jacob Bergvall and Henning Hall
  • 6.2.3: Hans Hugo Hedelin and Anton Forsberg
15:50-16:05 Research Overview
  • Niklas Carlsson (and maybe some guest)
16:05-16:20 Break

16:20-17:00 Study Suggestions/overview for the Exam
  • Niklas Carlsson