Helpful 5C Review Tips!
Please note the following recommendations:
Be specific about answering each question as a general description will result in losing points.
Make sure to read the “how to read a paper?” as a reference to what is expected in the 5C review.
When identifying the “Category” of the paper:
We are not looking for what it is about but rather its general type (some examples include: a measurement paper, an analysis of an existing system, or a description of a research prototype).
Consider the context when the paper was published; was the described system already known, or was the paper its first introduction? This could help you determine whether it was a description of a research prototype or an analysis of an existing system.
If the paper focused on describing a specific concept with slight mention of measurements, then it is probably not a measurement paper. But if the majority of the paper is about measuring different aspects of the system, whether as a baseline in a different situation or against another system, then it is most probably a measurements paper.
When talking about the “Context” of the paper:
Make sure to clearly state both 1) the related papers and 2) theoretical bases.
You should be able to identify related papers from reading through the introduction and references of the paper itself, as identified by the authors. Usually, future papers could cite an old paper as related, but not the other way around. The objective is to identify which research has impacted or influenced the writing of the paper under review.
For the theoretical bases, what kind of concepts or systems that the authors identify as key to their solution or analysis? These are usually highlighted in the Introduction and conclusion sections. They should be specific enough, not generic terms.
When discussing the “Correctness” of the paper:
Be critical. Just because the paper stated an assumption, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is valid.
Don’t just answer with yes or no; provide reasoning for your answer.
Don’t just list the assumptions but also discuss their validity and provide a conclusion on whether they are valid or invalid.
When discussing the “Contributions” of the paper:
Think about the breakthrough or effect it made in the research field. Why is this significant?
When discussing the “Clarity” of the paper:
Tell us why you think it was well-written or not?
Think about the paper structure, terminologies, graphs, table etc., not the system itself. A paper could provide detailed information about a system but might lack a definition for abbreviation or include badly labeled graphs, and thus the writing wouldn’t be good.
Use of ChatGPT:
As you saw in class (refer to slides 31-33 of the Course Introduction), ChatGPT may often misinterpret the 5Cs and generate ambiguous or incorrect responses, even when provided with the full paper.
Each paper selected for the 5C reviews represents key innovations or research breakthroughs in the development of big data and computing. The goal of the 5Cs is to help you understand these papers and retain that knowledge beyond this course. Completing the 5C independently is an opportunity to engage with foundational research that will benefit your broader understanding of the field.
When in doubt, please check with a course staff. We’d rather you over-communicate any academic integrity issues if you’re unsure!