CS-340: Software Engineering

Reading Research Papers

Spring 2023

Reading a computer science research paper can seem like a daunting task at first. However, it's important to understand that most papers follower a particular pattern for their structure (to allow other computer scientists to find information quickly). Here are some tips for reading a CS paper:

  1. Papers are like ogres in that they have layers. Don't try to read and understand every word the first time.
  2. Don't necessarily read the paper from start to finish. It's okay to skip around a bit. Take breaks between iterations of reading.
  3. Papers generally follow a structure of:
    • Introduction
    • Background/related work (i.e., current state of the art)
    • Proposed approach
    • Evaluation
    • Discussion and Related work (if it wasn't second)
    • Conclusion
    Each section will likely start with a brief summary of what will be discussed next.
  4. First, focus on finding answers to the following high-level questions. CS papers are often written to answer these questions (a version of the Heilmeier Catechism)
    • What problem is the paper trying to solve?
    • How is the problem currently solved? What are the limitations of the current solution?
    • What is the key insight that will make the proposed approach work.
    • What is one- or two-sentence summary of the new approach?
    • Who cares? What impact will success have?
    • How is the work evaluated? What are the metrics for success?
    • Was the new approach successful?
    Note that these answers are often found in the introduction section of the paper. If you can't find the answers there, they are likely near the beginning/end of each of the subsequent sections.
  5. Next, dive a bit more into the technical details. Can you figure out what the authors are actually doing? Try to understand what the evaluation is doing. Can you follow the analysis?
  6. Be critical when reading. Look for logic that doesn't follow and unanswered questions. Research doesn't necessarily provide perfect answers, so there will likely be weaknesses in papers. These weaknesses can actually become the motivation for a future project/publication (see question 2 of the Heilmeier Chatechism).