ROOTCON's Easter Egg Hunt Event 2020: Power

Since we are in ECQ, I tried some of the problems. I decided to focus on the Power problem which is a crypto problem.

The flag is: rc_easter{p0w3r_1s_n07h1n6_w17h0u7_c0ntr0L}

You can read the full writeup here.

Read More

Count the number of downloads of publications

I make my publications public. I was curious about the download count of the papers so I wrote a bash script. My site is using Nginx as the web server software thus I can process the access logs which contain the HTTP requests. So as of writing this post and from Feb 23, 2020, the following are the download counts.

     21 /publications/pabico-pitj2008-perceived.pdf
     14 /publications/tolentino-iwcfu2012-disaster.pdf
     13 /publications/raquel-iwcfu2012-parallel.pdf
     12 /publications/hermocilla-ncite2016-osv-mpi.pdf
     11 /publications/escamos-acrs2015-comparison.pdf
     10 /publications/aluning-ncite2010-terra.pdf
      9 /publications/silapan-iwcfu2012-using.pdf
      8 /publications/lara-ncite2017-exploring.pdf
      8 /publications/duldulao-ncite2011-an.pdf
      7 /publications/lactuan-pitj2011-a.pdf
      7 /publications/hermocilla-pitj2009-ics-os.pdf
      7 /publications/cabigting-iwcfu2012-eucalyptus.pdf
      7 /publications/borja-iwcfu2012-squigis.pdf
      7 /publications/aguila-ncite2015-sustainable.pdf
      5 /publications/lactuan-ncite2011-a.pdf
      5 /publications/hermocilla-ncite2014-p2c.pdf
      5 /publications/carpio-pcsc2017-skylab.pdf
      4 /publications/hermocilla-model2009-a.pdf
      4 /publications/escamos-acrs2016-bertud.pdf
      3 /publications/manzano-sfrc2013-squidler.pdf
      3 /publications/macasaet-iwcfu2012-a.pdf
      3 /publications/eclarin-ncite2014-dgrav.pdf
      3 /publications/bulalacao-sfrc2015-is.pdf
      3 /publications/aguinaldo-iwcfu2012-automatic.pdf


The one-liner below does the trick.

Loading or something, this is just text to display while the browser pulls the gist....

Read More

DOST Call Conference 2020 Experience

I attended the call conference hosted by the Department of Science and Technology last February 28, 2020. The call conference is intended to provide a unified venue to present some updates and new requirements and procedures  for research proposal processing, and submission. The event was participated by representatives from different HEIs and RDIs in NCR and Region IV.

One interesting requirement needed for research proposals for this round of calls is that there should be a private company partnering with the proponents. The purpose is for the possible commercialization of the research output. Although this is an interesting development, I think this will be difficult, especially for SUCs and UP. Issues regarding Intellectual Property should be addressed early on in the project.

The figure above shows some statistics about the DOST-funded projects sorted according to decreasing research index.

Read More

A review of my CMSC 131 class offering

Last semester I taught, for the first time, the Introduction to Computer Organization and Machine Level Programming course for undergrads. Traditionally this course mainly teaches students x86 (32-bit) assembly language programming in an Ubuntu environment using NASM. I decided to "upgrade" the course by directing the course towards systems programming and introducing x86-64 assembly language. My main reason for the upgrade is to prepare the students for their Operating Systems class which they will take later and which I also teach. In order to achieve this goal, I needed textbooks to guide me which led me to use the following:

• [CS:APP2e]: Randal E. Bryant and David R. O'Hallaron (2011). Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective (2nd ed.).Prentice Hall.(Video Lectures)
• [ALPU]: Ed Jorgensen (2019).x86-64 Assembly Language Programming with Ubuntu.Creative Commons.

CS:APP was created by professors from CMU and is widely used in many top universities. I used the slides provided by the book. But in my lectures, I have several open terminals to demonstrate the actual operation of the codes. ALPU is a good book also with simple exercises at the end of each chapter.

The topics (based on the CS:APP2e contents) I was able to cover in the lecture are the following:

• A tour of computer systems
• Representing and manipulating information
• Machine-level representation of programs
• Memory hierarchy
• Linking

In the lab, I was able to cover most of the chapters in ALPU, excluding DDD, Macros, Stack Buffer Overflow, I/O Buffering, Floating Point, and Parallel Processing.

I introduced GDB in the lab to help students debug their programs. I also used GitHub Classroom for distributing boilerplate code and code submission.

In my lectures,  the emphasis is on how the GCC compiler translates C source code into assembly language and how the processor executes the machine code. I always have terminals open to fire up GCC and GDB during lectures.

For future improvement of the offering of this course, I recommend the following:

• Use same syntax in both the lecture and lab. CS:APP2e uses AT&T syntax while ALPU uses Intel syntax.
• CS:APP2e is still 32-bit with a little introduction to 64-bit. It may be possible to use the 3rd edition which I believe is purely 64-bit.
• Most of the programming exercises do not accept input and produce output interactively. A GDB command/script file can be used to provide input and produce output by explicitly stating the variable names, memory addresses, or registers. Checking of programming exercises can be automated using GDB command scripts.
• Introduce assembly language programming in Windows environments using Microsoft Native Build Tools.
• Introduce ARM assembly language programming using an emulator or RPi.

I would like to thank Prof. Rizza DC. Mercado and Prof. Kendall Jaen for sharing their teaching materials. It was fun teaching this course and I learned some new topics in depth.

Read More

How to determine research potential

(Last update: 19 January 2024)

As professors, we are often on the lookout for graduate/undergraduate students (or junior faculty) with research potential to join our research groups.  We want to encourage these students to pursue graduate studies in order to further advance the field by becoming researchers or professors in the future.

We base our evaluation initially on their grades from the courses they took. Our belief/claim is that the higher the General Weighted Average (GWA) of a student, the higher the research potential.  

Research potential, as described in Costromina et. al. (2014), is a multidimensional and multilayered system of individual psychological traits (motivational, cognitive, and behavioral characteristics) that act together to allow an individual to conduct research activity efficiently and fruitfully.  These traits are described below:

Motivational

• Intolerance for ambiguity - capacity to experience positive feelings in new, unstructured, and varied situations
• Satisfaction in solving problems - capacity to feel gratification from the process of finding ways and means for coping with scientific tasks
• Intellectual curiosity - the conscious desire to receive information about objects and to enjoy learning
  
• Intolerance for novelty - reveals thirst for experimentation, innovations, etc.

Cognitive

• Flexible thinking - can overcome conventional thinking
  
• Critical thinking - capacity to reveal mistakes and inconsistency, to correct errors, justify the validity of hypothesis
  
• Logical thinking - ability to use facts and laws to confirm the accuracy of conclusions promptly
  
• Quick thinking - ability to understand the situation and to make decisions in a timely manner
  
• Original thinking - capacity to propose new, unconventional ideas
  

Behavioral

• Self-organization - structuring of a researcher's personal activity to reach objectives
• Self-control - following research procedures and completing work tasks
• Adaptability - reduces time necessary to accept the changing conditions of a research task
• Assertiveness - maintaining stability while working in unstable conditions

Costromina et. al. (2014) conducted a study to compare undergraduates, master's students, and professors along the above dimensions. In their conclusion, they were able to obtain data on the high predictive validity of theoretical abilities in defining students' level of research potential.

"Theoretical thinking abilities are the aggregate of analytical and synthesizing

skills aimed at identifying common features and qualities of objects, as well as abili-

ties aimed at generalization and abstract thinking. These abilities function at a high

level along with a broad vocabulary range, and they reflect one’s ability to think in

the abstract."


At the undergraduate level, intolerance for novelty, self-control, adaptability, assertiveness and critical thinking are the characteristics that should have been developed, according to the study.

It seems, therefore, that the use of GWA as first screener of a student's research potential is valid. In addition however, a student should also be evaluated based on the traits described above.


Reference

• Kostromina, Svetlana & Bordovskaia, N.V. & Rosum, S.I. & Moskvicheva, Natalia & Iskra, Natalia. (2014). Research potential and cognitive features of students. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art. 7. 122-136. 10.11621/pir.2014.0411.

Read More

SRG Authorship Guiding Principles

This post aims to address authorship in research papers produced within our research group. I think that authorship guidelines should be discussed early in the research project or graduate study in order to avoid complications later. I've witnessed colleagues and other individuals who abuse authorship by giving 'honorary' authorships, excluding names from the list of authors, and changing authorship order. The work by Solomon, Programmers, Professors, and Parasites: Credit and Co-Authorship in Computer Science, provides a good discussion of this topic. It presents the following principles that I will adopt for our group.


1. Authorship credit should be distributed only to those researchers directly involved with the paper or project in question. Researchers with indirect or minimal involvement may be mentioned in an additional "acknowledgements" section if necessary. All contributors should appear on paper; "ghost writing" is an invalid way even for a busy researcher to produce publications.

- Should you include your adviser and your committee members?
- Should you include project leader, project staff, research assistants?
- Should you include your research group leader?
- Should you include ALL members of your research group?
- Should you include your special someone?

2. All authors should be paired with short descriptions of their contributions to the project. These descriptions need not be on the title page but should apparent for anybody seeking further information about the research presented. This principle extends to the acknowledgements list. In general, any individuals or organizations mentioned by the paper should be identified to avoid "honorary" authorship and make explicit the division of work leading to the final results.

3. The list of authors should be divided by level of contribution. Within each division, authors should be ordered by the amount they contributed to the particular paper in question. Truly equal co-authorship relationships should be marked as such, with none of the authors identified as a "corresponding" author. The lack of a single corresponding author can be addressed by creating a simple email that alias that contacts all the principal authors simultaneously. Those researchers who would be considered "inventors" should be marked as such for the purposes of verifying future patent applications.

4. Upon publication, authors should be required to sign that the work in the paper is at least partially their own and that no other authors should be given credit.

5. Any and all decisions involving authorship should involve the mutual consent of all authors, which should be established via individual contact.

6. Any discovered cases of authorship fraud should be dealt with in much the same way as data fabrication. Once they are caught, authors should be required to explain their incorrect practices in a published statement and rectify any disadvantages suffered by parties not receiving appropriate credit.


References:

[1] Solomon, Justin. (2009). Programmers, Professors, and Parasites: Credit and Co-Authorship in Computer Science. Science and engineering ethics. 15. 467-89. 10.1007/s11948-009-9119-4.

[2] Allison Gaffey. (2015). Determining and negotiating authorship. Retrieved October 6, 2019 from https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/06/determining-authorship.    

Read More