1

First, I am not asking for name suggestions. I am just not sure how to express very well the content of my paper. The paper theoretically compares four algorithms, and nominates and implements one of them. I found many papers in the literature which started with the name Comparative analysis. Does this term apply to my paper? (In all the literature I've found they implement all algorithms, not just one.) If this term does not apply, is there a proper term that can pinpoint the content? More specifically, my paper compares four pattern recognition algorithms and implements one of them that theoretically seems to be the best. Does (Selection and Implementation of an Algorithm for optimizing ... system) properly express the content of my paper ?

  • What's the contribution of the paper? What kind of evaluation do you perform and what kind of conclusions do you extract from it? If the analysis is the important, then it's a comparative analysis, but since it's only theoretical I doubt it has enough relevance as such. If the important part is the implementation then it's a system for pattern recognition, but since it was already designed, the relevance is again doubtful. Please note I don't really know the answer to the questions posed in the first place, which is the key. – Trylks Nov 29 '13 at 9:40
  • @Trylks Thanks for the enlightenment. First, the paper analyze the algorithms from a certain point of view. Based on that analysis the paper chooses one of them and implement it. I know implementing all algorithms will be much better and give a more solid results. But I'd rather leave that for other research. So I implement the winner and prove it perform with heterogeneous system (cpu+gpu) better than it's performance with (cpu only). Of course not all algorithms achieve that – Hawk Nov 29 '13 at 9:47
  • 1
    I understand the analysis of the algorithms is to check which one is (most) suitable for using the GPU, this is an analysis of the state of the art. Then the implementation is an engineering requisite for the real scientific contribution, the evaluation of this algorithm when used with a GPU. Then you conclude how good is using a GPU with this algorithm. AFAIK, using a GPU is the real contribution, so it should be something like: "Testing [Benchmarking?] Pattern Recognition using the GPU power." or "Using GPUs for efficient Pattern Recognition", "Adapting $Algorithm for GPU enabled PR", ... – Trylks Nov 29 '13 at 13:37
5

Difficult to choose a title without more information, but why not choose:

Performing ..., theoretical comparison of four algorithms, and implementation of ...

| improve this answer | |
  • Don't you think it's gonna be long title? isn't there any shorter expression? – Hawk Nov 29 '13 at 7:28
  • 2
    If the focus of your paper is the comparison between algorithms, then I think it should appear in the title, but you may drop the implementation part. If it is the implementation, then you could use a shorter title by dropping the comparison part. I don't know of a shorter way to express both ideas together. – arieli Nov 29 '13 at 7:34
2

I would go for something brave:

Algorithmic Jungle on GPU: QuickSort, HeapSort and ShakeSort Compared.

The fact that you implement one of them should be mentioned in the abstract, however, it seems to be too long for the title, and people don't like too long titles.

On the other hand, if the implementation is more important for you, then maybe:

QuickSort Implemented on GPU for Sorting Ducks.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    I would go even shorter: Sorting Ducks. – JeffE Nov 30 '13 at 4:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.