SBC of MM(A+T)4XY


 Abstract {one sentence per section, after all is done}

 1. Introduction

 Prior to getting into the subject matter, here we define the essential difference between a survey paper and a simulation-based comparison paper, which sheds light on the motivation and goals of this work.

 A survey paper compares systems/approaches/algorrithms/etc, using data from original papers, which means that data for different approaches were generated under coonditions which are not necessarily identical, and usually are different (which is a drawback of survey papers: often times we are forced to compare apples and oranges), but the presented data do reflect the impact of all relevant details, as they were created by autors of the system/approach/algorithms/etc (which is an advantage of survey papers: they compare authentic systems/approaches/algorithms/etc without any questionable assumptions that have to be introduced because all the details of the original work are not known).

 Another dissadvantage of survey papers is that, if a new idea is born, the time delay from its creation to its comparative evaluation is long (takes time to build a good simulator), and sensitivity of the newly introduced system to changes of environment settings are difficult to predict (again, takes time to build a capable simulator, while analytical approaches do not give answers in most of the cases).

 On the other hand,
 in SBC papers, all systems/approachess/algorithms/etc are compared in the same simulator, under identical conditions (which is an important advantage of SBC papers), but when we compare the work done by others, we do not necessarily have an insight into all relevant details, so we have to introduce assumptions (few or many) and consequently, we do not compare realistic systems/approoaches/algorithms/etc, but we compare the "-like" (or assumed) systems/etc (which is a potential drawback of SBC papers).

 Another important advantage os SBC papers is that, once a simulator is built, if one generates new ideas, one can easily dial them up into the simulator, which makes the comparison with existing systems relatively easy. Also, one can easily evaluate the sensitivity of a existing and proposed systems to variations of various design parameters.

 With all aobe in mind, in the introductory section we specify the following three issues of importance: (a) Definition of the general field of interest for this research, which is MM, (b) Definition of a critical issue of interest for this field, which is Z, and (c) Definition of the viewpoint of interest for this survey (definition of the axiomatic requirement of this survey), which is optimization of price/performance in the chosen environment. This is the first paper in our series of survey papers on critical issues in Z (the follow up papers are related to: A, B, C, D and E).

 {MM - 7Ws}

 {Z - 7Ws}

 {the chosen environment and how to measure price/performance - 7Ws}

 2. Problem statement

 In this section we focus on the following issues of importance for the understanding of the basic orientation of this survey: (a) Problem definition, which is to define, classify, and explain, to both, novices eager to learn, and experts in the field eager to get updated, which means that the structure of this SBC paper is "onion-like," (b) Elaboration of problem importance (why is it important to clasify and elaborate in this field; here we draw a parallel with the Mendelyeyev system in chemistry), and (c) An assesment of the problem development trends (discussing why will the importance of this problem grow over time).

 A major issue of importance for our SBC is to create a taxonomy of Z in general, using three different binary criteria, which implies the formation of 8 different classification categories or for short, classes. As it will be seen later, two of the formed classes do not include examples, although something like that would make sense. This scenario opens up two more avenues for furhter research, and that is where, conditionally speaking, we see an analogy with the Mendelyeyev system in chemistry: The empty boxes of the Mendelyeyev classification defined the features of the chemical elements not known at the time of classification formation. The fact that some classification boxes were empty, was a stimulus for researchers to focus into a given set of directions, which resulted in new inventions (discoveries of new chemical elements). Likewise, the empty classes of our classification do open up new research focuses in the area of Z.

 {why is the problem important}

 {why will the importance of this problem grow in the future}

 3. Existing surveys and SBCs, and their criticism

 In this section, we give a short overview of existing survey and SBC papers in MM, in general, and in the domain of Z, in specific. For each one we define the 7Ws (when, where, why, who, whom, whom, and how), the major characteristic, high points, drawbacks, and we define the major differences in comparison with our SBC (six long sentences per survey or SBC effort).

 3.1. Selected Survey Efforts



 3.2. Selected SBC efforts



 4. Classification Criteria and the Classification Tree

 The major two problems in creation of a new taxonomy are: the classification criteria and the classification tree. Here, the classification criteria were chosen to reflect the essence of the basic viewpoint of this research. The classification tree was obtained by successive application of the chosen criteria. The leaves of the classification tree are the examples (research efforts) elaborated briefly later on, in the Existing Solutions section of this paper.

 After the criteria and the classes are defined and explained, this SBC continues with an overview which, for each and every example (selected research effort), gives the following six main points: (a) The 7 Ws of the research (again: who, where, when, whom, why, what, how), (b) Essence of the approach (the main strategic issues, which differ from the research presented before), (c) Details of the approach (the main tactical issues of interest for the research presented here), (d) Performance and compleexity, as derived from the simulation study, and (e) A criticism of the approach (looking from the viewpoint of our research), and finally (f) Possible improvements that could overcome the noticed drawbacks (which is what the future research of others can benefit from).

 For space limitation reasons, each one of the above six points is given a sentence (is given a page in our follow-up book for a major USA publisher). For better understanding reasons, each example is also described with a figure, using the terms and shapes identical to those in all other figures of this survey paper (by including a figure per example, we support the opinion that one figure is worth one thousand words; by insisting on identical terms and shapes, we enable that different examples be compared using a "common denominator").

 The classification criteria of interest for this research, as well as the justification there-off, are given in Table 1. All selected classification criteria are briefly explained in the caption of Table 1, and elaborated in the paragraphs to follow.

 USING A /criterion#1
 USING B /criterion#2
 USING C /criterion#3

 Table 1: Classification criteria.
 Legend: {one definition per in-figure block}.
 Explanation: {one strong sentence}.

 {one paragraph for each criterion, i.e. three paragraphs}

 The classification tree, derived from the above introduced classification criteria, is presented in Figure 1, and has eight leaves. Each leaf of the classification tree is given a name, as described in Table 2.

 Figure !: Classification Tree and the List of Classes
 Legend: {}
 Explanation: {}

 {one paragraph for each class, i.e. eight paragraphs}

 Table 2: Symbolic names of classes

 For each leaf (class), the list of existing solutions (examples) is given in a separate paragraph - just the names of approaches and major references, to enable interested readers to study further details, after the essence becomes clear after reading this SBC. If a leaf contains no known solutions, but does make sense, the paragraph explains why it makes sense to focus future research into this direction. If a leaf contains no known solutions, because such a class does not make sense, it is explained why such a combination of features makes no sense.

 {1: one paragraph list of solutions under each leaf}

 5. Conditions and assumptions of this research

 5.1. Conditions

 5.2. Assumptions

 6. Simulation methodology and workload characterization

 6.1. Simulation methodologgy

 6.2. Workload characterisation

 7. Simulator details and performance measures

 7.1. Simulation details

 7.2. Performance measures

 8. Presentation of existing solutions, using the simulation results

 This section is divided in several subsections, one per leaf of the above defined classification. For each leaf, as already indicated, several 6-sentence paragraphs are given, one per research effort overviewed. In the text to follow, instead of the terms leaf or class, we use the term Solution Group.

 8.1. SolutionGroup#1[...]: {name or Roman god}

 {one 6-sentence-paragraph and one figure per solution}

 8.2. SolutionGrop#2: {}


 8.3. SolutionGroup#3: {}


 8.X. SolutionGroup#X: {}


 8.X+1. Conclusion about existing solutions: local conclusion

 From all above presented, we conclude, among the existing solutions, the one which can be treated as the best one, for the general axiomatic viewpoit of this research is {}. In the analyis part of a follow-up paper, the best existing solution is used as the counterpart against which the advantages of our proposed solution, introduced by [], and presened here in brief as a possible solution for an empty class.

 9. The trend and reminescences about optimal solutions for future

 {the application view-point}

 {the technology view-point}

 Figure 2: The essence of a proposed generalized approach.
 Legend: {}. Explanations: {}.

 {essence, elaborated}

 {advantages, elaborated}

 10. Summary: Global conclusion

 {what was done, recapitulated}
 {to whom is this of importance}
 {what are the newly open research problems}
 {something wise for the end, for readers to remember forever}

 11. Acknowledgements


 12. References (annotated bibliography)

 9.1. MM

 9.2. Survey articles

 9.3. SBC articles

 9.4. The systems taken into consideration (Z)

 9.5. Miscelaneous issues

 9.6. Etc