Generic Technical Paper Skeleton



Douglas Niehaus, Steve Goddard, and Other Authors

Computer Science and Engineering

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Lincoln, NE 66588-0115



The abstract should describe the basic message of the paper, including: the problem, why your solution should be of interest, some notion that your solution is effective, and a teaser about how it has been evaluated. Cover all of this using between 75 and 150 words. Thus, the abstract is the hardest part to write. Sometimes I try to write it first, but the final version is usually composed of items drawn from the introduction, and then condensed, as the last step of writing the paper.



1. Introduction

The problem we have solved




Why the problem is not already solved or other solutions are ineffective in one or more important ways




Why our solution is worth considering and why is it effective in some way that others are not


How the rest of the paper is structured


The rest of this paper first discusses related work in Section 2, and then describes our implementation in Section 3. Section 4 describes how we evaluated our system and presents the results. Section 5 presents our conclusions and describes future work.



2. Related Work

Other efforts that exist to solve this problem and why are they less effective than our method




Other efforts that exist to solve related problems that are relevant, how are they relevant, and why are they less effective than our solution for this problem




3. Implementation

What we (will do | did): Our Solution





How our solution (will | does) work





4. Evaluation


How we tested our solution




How our solution performed, how its performance compared to that of other solutions mentioned in related work, and how these results show that our solution is effective




Context and limitations of our solution as required for summation




5. Conclusions and Future Work

The problem we have solved




Our solution to the problem





Why our solution is worthwhile in some significant way





Why the reader should be impressed and/or pleased to have read the paper





What we will (or could) do next






[1] Anderson, J., Ramamurthy, S., Jeffay, K., "Real-Time Computing with Lock-Free Shared Objects," Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, IEEE Computer Society Press, December 1995, pp. 28-37.


[2] Baruah, S., Howell, R., Rosier, L., "Algorithms and Complexity Concerning the Preemptively Scheduling of Periodic, Real-Time Tasks on One Processor," Real-Time Systems Journal, Vol. 2, 1990, pp. 301-324.


[3] Goddard, S., Jeffay, K., "Analyzing the Real-Time Properties of a Dataflow Execution Paradigm using a Synthetic Aperture Radar Application," Proc. IEEE Real-Time Technology and Applications Symposium, June 1997, pp. 60-71.