Preparing and writing a

State of the Art review

Perfecto Herrera
Doing the state-of-the art is always the
same think: read, read, write, read, write...
I think it is not necessary 1h30m talk
Opinion written in the quality survey for the session, 2012-2013
 Outline
Purposes of the review
Getting the information
Organizing the information
Writing the document
Rationale of the review

nanos gigantum humeris

insidentes
Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants
 Purposes of the review
The state of the art is a means to an end
It is an ongoing/organic document:
Do not wait until some deadline to start
working on it (work-write-write-work-write)
Do not consider it is closed once you have
started to write another chapter
Do not wait until it is finished to start other
activities/chapters
 Purposes of the review
To convey to the reader what
knowledge and ideas have been
established on a topic and what are
the strengths and weaknesses.
To collect and examine the state of
current knowledge in a field by
examining the work of scholars and
researchers whose work has been
recognized as valuable.
To organize knowledge (for you, and
for other people / from you, and from
other people)
 Purposes of the review
A well researched and written literature
review accomplishes four goals:
1.Establishes context for your work by
showing what has been done in the area
2.Exposes the gap in current knowledge
3.Provides you a map of important,
secondary and unimportant issues
4.Paves the way for justifying your
hypotheses and approach (they come up
as a consequence of the review)
Do the review BEFORE other tasks
Good reasons:
To see what has and has not been investigated
To develop general explanation for observed phenomena
To identify potential relationships between concepts and
to identify researchable hypotheses
To learn how others have defined and measured key
concepts
To identify data sources, algorithms, or methods that
other researches have used
To develop alternative research projects
To avoid reinventing the wheel
To avoid working on uninteresting, trivial or too complex,
untractable problems
 The s.o.t.a. and your dissertation
Take the dissertation as a literary plot
(exposition, climax, resolution)
Case:
Results/Evaluation
Problem Proposal/Solution /Appraisal
Relevance of problem

The state of the art sets the

scenario, rules, characters, The state of the
motivations, constraints art makes
that justify your work possible the
(what and how) appraisal of your
solution
 The s.o.t.a. and your
dissertation

De Waard, A. From Proteins to Fairytales: Directions in Semantic Publishing,

IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 83-88, March/April, 2010.
 The s.o.t.a. and your
dissertation
In the introduction, the scene is set, creating a research
space,.The main research question is introduced, and fulfills
the role of the protagonist in a story.
In the methods and results, various approaches for pursuing
the answer to this research question are presented, and these
correspond to the episodes of a narrative.
In the conclusion or discussion, resolution is obtained, the
research question is readdressed in light of the experimental
results, and a core claim (the moral of the story) is given.

Nice parallel between the number of episodes that a fairytale

generally has and the number of experiments described in the
average paper: three to five (It seems that, for the average
person, two is just too few, and six is simply too much.)
 The s.o.t.a. and your
dissertation
People write things for a reason. The primary goal of a
scientific paper is to persuade (the thesis committee,
the reviewers of a journal/conference), and a secondary
goal is perhaps to inform and educate.

The format is therefore honed to please referees, who in

turn have become trained to only accept papers that are
persuasive in a very specific way (provide new
information, based on trustworthy measurements, and
so on). In different scientific fields this has led to different
criteria for success.
 Getting the information:
defining and refining the topic
Defining the topic
What is the purpose of your work?
What do you already know about the topic? What is
the scope and approach?
Do you need everything ever written in English on this
topic, or just the last ten years?
Which are the key words?
Are there other words which could be used, such as
synonyms, variations in spelling?
Compiling a list of keywords
 Getting the information: Keywords
To search for additional documents, to find synonyms and
equivalent expressions
To build a conceptual map and rank the importance of subtopics
To help your work to be indexed by search engines
To conform to the vocabulary of the target community
Use a Thesaurus
IEEE keywords:
https://www.ieee.org/documents/taxonomy_v101.pdf
ACM keywords:
http://www.acm.org/about/class/class/2012
 Getting the information:
Bibliographic databases
Through the UPF library: http://www.upf.edu/bibtic/recursos/bd/

ACM Digital Library

Annual Reviews
IEEE Explore
JSTOR (social sciences, arts & humanities)
Science Direct
Springer Link
Wiley InterScience
SCOPUS
Encyclopedia Britannica (cite this one instead of Wikipedia whenever
possible)
The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians
Dissertations Abstracts International
 Getting the information:
Journals to be watched
Most of them accessible through the UPF library:
http://www.upf.edu/bibtic/recursos/eserial.html
Computer Music Journal http://www.mitpressjournals.org/cmj
Journal of New Music Research
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09298215.asp
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
http://asa.aip.org/jasa.html
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society http://www.aes.org/journal/
IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing
http://www.signalprocessingsociety.org/publications/periodicals/taslp/
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia
http://www.signalprocessingsociety.org/tmm/
EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech and Music Processing
http://www.hindawi.com/GetJournal.aspx?journal=ASMP
Organised Sound
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=OSO
 Getting the information:
Journals to be watched
Sometimes you will find interesting papers here too:

Machine Learning
http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0885-6125
Music Perception
http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/mp/
Psychology of Music
http://pom.sagepub.com/
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine
Intelligence

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber
=34
 Getting the information:
Conferences
Int. Computer Music Conference (ICMC)
Int. Conf. On Digital Audio Effects (DaFX)
Int. Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR)
IEEE Int. Conf. On Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing (ICASSP)
Computer-Human Interaction (CHI)
New Interfaces for Musical Expression Conference
(NIME)
ACM-Multimedia
Sound and Music Computing (SMC)
Be careful with papers from obscure or
very local conferences:
quality standards can be too low
 Getting the information:
Patent databases

US Patent Office (granted):

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
US Patent Applications (pre-granted):
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.htm
l

European Patent Office Search:

http://ep.espacenet.com/quickSearch?locale=en_ep
Google's Patent Search:
http://www.google.com/patents
 Getting the information:
Books
Roads, C. (1996). The Computer Music Tutorial. MIT Press.
Klapuri,A., Davy,M. (2006). Signal processing methods for music transcription. Springer.
Zlzer, U. (2002). DaFX: Digital Audio Effects. John Wiley & Sons.
Wang, D. & Brown, G. (2006). Computational Auditory Scene Analysis: Principles, Algorithms
and Applications. New York: Wiley.
Beauchamp, J.W. (2007) Analysis, Synthesis, and Perception of Musical Sounds: Sound of
Music. Springer, N. Y
Baeza-Yates,R., Ribeiro-Neto,B. (1999). Modern information retrieval. ACM Press
Witten, I., Frank, E. (2005). Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques
(Second Edition). Morgan Kaufmann.
Ras, Z., Wieczorkowska, A. (2010). Advances in Music Information Retrieval. New York: Springer
Mller, M. (2007). Information Retrieval for music and motion. New York: Springer
Mller, M. (2014). Fundamentas of Music Processing. New York: Springer

Not up-to-date information. Good to start-up and step-by-step learning, and for side-
issues not dealt in more technical and concise sources
 Getting the information:
Centres to be watched
IRCAM
Queen Mary University of London
Tampere Technical University & Helsinki Univ. Of Technology
Johannes Kepler University
MIT
Columbia University (Lab Rosa)
CCRMA Stanford University
CCRMIT - McGill University
Fraunhofer
AIST (Japan)
Companies with strong research teams:
Microsoft
Mitshubishi
Philips
Sun
Yahoo
Sony
Google
Is there any Thesis
or Review Paper
on the same
or very similar topic?
 YES!
Did you like it? Why? (Imitate) Why not? (Do it
differently)
Is it very recent? -> If not, one of your
contributions will be updating it
Is it clear? -> If not, one of your goals is to make
the topic more clear
Is it comprehensive? -> If not, you can criticize it
in your own review, and one of your contributions
will be that one
Is it challenging, amazing, pushing you to follow a
similar path? -> If not, maybe you should rethink
on the chosen topic (maybe it is too difficult, too
easy, too typical, etc)
 YES!
Take the existing review as a map for your work:
Get the papers
Read them
Digest them
Organize your references library and keep it up-to-date
Is there any Thesis
or Review Paper
on the same
or very similar topic?
 NO!
Then you have to work harder:

Before thinking about how original and innovative is your proposal

consider:
a) Your topic is not well defined (i.e., it is not a proper research problem)
b) You are not using the proper words, keywords or technical expressions
to define it and to search for that
c) It is an old problem that was abandoned before the digital age you can
only find printed references but not online references-
d) Searching for equivalent or related topics in other disciplines (e.g., video
processing, text processing, genetics, biomechanics, cognition)

Otherwise, consider the option of having hit a goldmine (new and original
topic)
BUT if you perseverate on the topic you will not be given the option of
walking on the shoulders of giants
Ask other senior researchers (your supervisor could have turned crazy)
 Getting the information:
Keeping up-to-date
[Music-DSP]
http://www.music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp/
[Auditory]
http://www.auditory.org/
[Music-IR]
http://www.ismir.net/
[Weka]
https://list.scms.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wekalist
[Semantic Web]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/
[SMC]
http://smcnetwork.org/
 Organizing the information
By source
It allows you to develop how one researcher or group
of researchers has contributed to the field (paperwise
structure: Smith (1999), then Smith et al. (2000), then
Smith (2001) one paragraph per researcher-)
By topic
It allows you to cover all of the contributions, by
different researchers to one topic, problem or key area
of knowledge (conceptwise structure: you build a map
of the subtopics included in your topic and flesh the
map mixing dates and authors)
By method/technique/algorithm/approach
Chronologically
Organizing: grouping your sources (I)
Organizing: grouping your sources (II)
 Organizing: Summarizing
Build a concept map
Try to determine which variables or
dimensions make papers similar or
different
Build tables summarizing information
Draw flowcharts
Organizing: Mind mapping
Bogdanov (2013). From music similarity to music recommendation:
Computational approaches based on audio features and metadata. PhD thesis,
UPF.
Organizing: asessing the rigour of
your sources
Organizing: asessing the rigour
of your sources
Asessing the impact of authors, journals,
articles:
You can get or track authorss impact indexes
and more relevant info using
Publish or perish (http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm)
Scimago (http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php)
Arnetminer (http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php)
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/)
Science Citation Index (several entry points
Library, for example)
http://www.upf.edu/bibtic/en/guiesiajudes/eines/avalu
a/fi.html
Organizing: Evaluating the work done
You need to assess the work done in order to establish:
1. What are the significant points of agreement between
articles?
2. Where the research disagrees, is one researcher more
conclusive than another?
3. How previous work has left a gap, because of either
inadequate assumptions, inconclusive findings, poor
methodology, unclear presentation of results,
unavailability of recent technologies, etc;
4. How previous research will be applied in a new context;
5. How general disagreement or different methods, results
or approaches create a need for a solution.
6. How can you fit the articles together to build a logical
argument that furthers your purpose.
 Organizing the information
Breadth / Depth tradeoff
From the review, you should be able to
spot on:
The core papers (to be read and
summarized)
The interesting papers (to be succintly
summarized in one or 2 paragraphs)
The garbage papers (the do exist!): to be
omitted or, better, criticised
 Writing the document
http://tutorialsbibtic.upf.edu/treball/
Be aware about formatting requirements (by the UPF, by the
potential publisher)
Which is the style for your MSc Thesis? (see the section:
template)
http://www.upf.edu/bibtic/guiesiajudes/eines/tesis/presentar.html
Get familiar with IEEE, ACM, and APA citation styles
Use a bibliography manager:
Zotero http://www.zotero.org/
JabRef http://jabref.sourceforge.net/
Mendeley http://www.mendeley.com/
See for comparison tables:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_manag
ement_software
 Writing the document
Start with an outline,
then flesh it up with a summary for each section
then start adding the main content to each section
after some writing your outline should be redone, indeed!
Write, write, write but write for a reader (not for yourself)
Dont waste time looking at an empty page
Dont stare at the ceiling
Dont wait to feel inspired
Dont procrastinate
Get some help from productivity analysis tools (e.g., RescueTime)
Dont be critical with your own writing until a draft is finished
Re-read, correct, delete, rephrase (minimum 8000 words should be
used) in order to make it understandable
Tips for writing scientific papers:
http://blog.webshop.elsevier.com/
 Use the pomodoro
technique
Disconnect distracting devices and apps
Set your pomodoro timer to 25 minutes
Write, and only write, until the timer rings
Take a short rest (5min) and give you some small
reward (coffee, chocolate, chat with colleagues,
listen to your favourite song)
Repeat the whole process at least one time more
Academic version, involving more than 1 writer
(social reward is added then)
Shut up and write!
http://thesiswhisperer.com/shut-up-and-write/
Your march-scheduled writing sessions!
 Writing the document

Be sensitive to writing style issues (yes,

engineers are not poets, but have to communicate
ideas in the most efficient way -> Style is for that:
exposing, connecting, convincing)
Give your first draft to your supervisor or office
mate
Give it at the proper time, not too early
(ununderstandable, unconnected) but not too late
(when you have committed and fallen in love with your
view and text)
Do English and proofreading on your own devices
(you dont want your supervisor waste her precious time
on that! She neither does!)
 Writing the document
Use evidence
Your statements have to refer to several sources when
making your point (this gives them credibility, validity).
Select those sources giving you the most credibility (e.g. a
solid author is preferred over Wikipedia entries, a journal
article is preferred over a MSc Thesis).
Be selective
Select only the most important points in each source to
highlight in the review. Exhaustivity is not needed in a MSc
thesis but it is in a PhD thesis.
Use quotes sparingly
Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you
want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just
cannot be rewritten in your own words. Keep quotation for
certain terms that were coined by the author, not common
knowledge, or taken directly from the study.
 Writing the document
Summarize and synthesize
Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within
each paragraph as well as throughout the review. Connect the
findings to your own goals, use them to backup your position.
Keep your own voice
While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice
(the writer's) should remain front and center. Use the sources
to support what you want to present. If you fail on that, then
you can probably be building Castles in Spain, or selling
vapourware.
Use caution when paraphrasing
When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to
represent the author's information or opinions accurately and
in your own words. Double-check that the ideas you present
as original cannot be traced back to any of your sources.
 A simple example
Even more awful: [36]
and [37] worked on...
 Add value to your state of the art
It can provide a needed update (if the topic has
not been summarized in the last 3 years)
It can provide a tutorial or introductory reading to
other students
It can glue or link different pieces of knowledge,
disciplines, techniques, etc.
It can be valuable as a stand-alone article for a
journal -> Your first publication (side-effect of your
writing!!!)
Convince a big name in your topic area to
participate in the article (it increases the quality
and the chance to get published)
 Some examples
Journal of New Music Research Volume 32,
Issue 1, 2003 contains several state-of-the-art
reviews (by Emilia, Fabien Gouyon, or Perfe)

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~d
b=all~content=g714018053
Learn about your worst
enemy,
and defeat it!!!
 DEFEAT PROCRASTINATION
750 Words http://750words.com
Write or Die http://writeordie.com/ (includes a Kamikaze mode where the words you
have written will start deleting themselves unless you keep writing)

Written? Kitten http://writtenkitten.net/ (just for cat lovers)

Beeminder https://www.beeminder.com/
Pavlov Poke http://www.robertrmorris.org/pavlovpoke
GitFit http://hackmit.challengepost.com/submissions/18037-gitfit
RescueTime http://www.rescuetime.com/
Mail filters
Regular weekly schedule
Overcoming procrastination
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newHTE_96.htm
 Homework
Build a conceptual map (use the tool you want:
mindmapper, personal brain, mindomo, xmind, etc.)
with the most relevant concepts, terms,
authors,references and connections of your state of
the art
Write your first Thesis draft: 2 pages with the topic,
concise state of the art of your topic and, from all that,
and as a consequence, derive the research
question(s) of your Thesis
Deadline: February, 8th (send by email to Emilia and
Perfe)
 Please, send me additional useful
pointers, missing info, suggestions, etc. to
improve the ppt for future editions!!!

Thanks!!