For the past couple of years, I have always loved working with Msc. and Bsc. students. Usually, I have been involved in the role of supervisor for the thesis. In doing so, I have learnt a lot about what makes a good AI research project and what I can do to improve these projects.
The following is a distillation of some of that knowledge. Some of it applies only to theses, but most of it applies more broadly.
Types of AI thesis contributions
In my experience, there are roughly three types of contributions in AI theses. I will briefly discuss them and highlight where contributions are relatively easy or challenging.
The first type of contribution is mostly technology-driven. In it, an existing technology is applied on a novel problem. The problem itself can be novel, or the combination problem-technology is novel. While the goal is to evaluate existing technology on a new problem, often the technology has to be adjusted for it to work on the problem at hand. Within the scope of a thesis, these adjustments are usually small and can even be limited to a hyperparameter optimisation. Alternatively, the technology enables a wider class of problems to be solved than was previously possible. You can think of scaling up to bigger problems, removing an assumption of the SOTA approaches, etc. Challenges for this direction include: ensuring problem-tech fit, avoiding tailoring the problem to the solution, ensuring that the problem is relevant, ensuring that the problem is tractable in the first place. When the problem is entirely new, it may be difficult to benchmark the proposed solution. In this case, a comparison between an out-of-the-box and adjusted solution may serve as a benchmark.
The second type of AI thesis research takes a well-known benchmark problem (digit recognition, inverted pendulum) or even problem instance (MNIST, CartPole-V0) and proposes a technological innovation to solve it. The innovation can either target the primary metric associated with the problem (cross entropy, total return) or some secondary metric (interpretability, compute, transferability, etc.). Usually, the benchmark problem is well studied and benchmarking is easy. However, actually outperforming the SOTA can be very challenging. When a novel metric is targeted, it needs to be a proper metric, and its relevance needs to be properly argued (measures the right thing, measures something important, has the right statistical properties, can be obtained relatively easily, etc.).
While a combination of both novel problem and novel solution is possible, the downsides of both directions add up: you now have a setting in which you are unsure whether the problem is solvable, you need to argue that it is relevant, and if you solve it with your proposed approach, you need to show (or at least argue) that more simple solutions do not solve it. As a result, this direction involves the study of the problem and various solution directions: its very laborious and risky – and therefore not very popular.
A third key contribution is what I call an ‘insight’. The insight can be theoretical or empirical. For example, some convergence proof on a particular learning algorithm or the finding that some activation function is not a critical part of a neural network architecture in practice. Sometimes, theoretical insights are used to derive new algorithms or to simplify existing ones, but this is not necessary. On the one hand, both theoretical and empirical insights can have a large impact and may result in a paper. On the other hand, there is a high risk of failure. I therefore generally do not advise to go search for such a contribution for a thesis. But if there is a hunch for an insight or an insatiable curiosity for a particular detail of an algorithm then diving in might lead to a great research adventure.
Developing the insight typically requires deep understanding of the field, intuition on what makes a good insight, patience, and excellence in performing either theoretical/mathematical analysis or doing a big empirical study. However, the most important ingredient is probably luck. Challenges abound for this type of contribution, and I will only list the most salient issues her: the insight may be hard to prove or show, and it may be well known by senior researchers or even already published about.
However, due to their high potential for impact, it may be worthwhile to keep an eye open for such insights while working on theses of the first two types as well. Then, after some development, the insight needs to be thoroughly vetted by discussing it extensively with multiple senior researchers, a thorough literature review, and an extensive and critical analysis of the insight.
There are other types of key contributions as well. These include tooling, datasets, simulators, and quantitative research in general. Within AI research, they are not that common, and I have found them too be rare for a thesis. However, when the context is right (e.g. there is access to a data source to build a data set from) this might prove very fruitful.
Writing a good thesis
Unfortunately, obtaining a good contribution is only the start. A major part of the thesis project is to put it out in written form. However, the act of writing a thesis largely does not consist of putting words down on Overleaf. I don’t think there is a formula for writing a good thesis. But there are some general pitfalls to avoid and things that may help some people.
Before listing these, the first observation I want to make is that writing is the inverse of reading. Whereas in reading you go from words → sentences → sections → chapters → understanding, in writing you go from understanding → chapters → sections → sentences → words. Starting out by writing full sentences with nicely chosen words is a major mistake for students and I try to actively challenge students to ask feedback on bullet points, draft outlines, word clouds etc. Feedback is usually much more useful than feedback on a full piece of writing.
I think of writing as a process of organising thoughts. Putting down words on Overleaf is only the very last step in that process of organisation. The words themselves must be chosen to organise the thoughts of the reader. This can only be done if there is some target structure for which the author is aiming.
Therefore, the very first step in the writing process is identifying the target structure. Organising thoughts is, in itself, a major challenge, and it is not a familiar one to many. There has typically been little room for it in between reading work, exercises, and exams.
For many people, the first step of the writing process does not involve any actual writing. It may involve sketching, diagramming, walking around, doing sports, taking a shower, or playing an instrument. I find that for many people, talking about the research helps a lot. Somehow, structuring thoughts in a conversation with parents, peers or random strangers feels more natural than structuring them in a \(\LaTeX\) document somehow.
Formally presenting the research can also be very helpful. However, creating a good presentation also requires a first step of organising thoughts. So, try to keep your slide editor closed for now ;) While organising thoughts like that, you can already start writing. Random notes work. Outlining the structure of chapters works. Bullet points, and keywords, concept clouds all work. Fully formed sentences do not work at all.
After having come up with some chapter structure, draft some figures. These could be tables comparing related work, graphs outlining trends, images with example input/output, diagrams of architectures or experimental setup etc. They can be sketches at first, that is, if you are still waiting for results or are unsure of what literature to include. Choosing the right figure is a bit of an art, and you will see it if you have it. So try different things and see what works best. Some guiding principles: the figure should adhere to standards first, and be visually pleasing second. The figure should tell the story as much as possible by itself. Labels should be readable, and the figure should fit the style of the document. After putting the figures and sketches in roughly the right place, you can continue writing.
A trope of academic writing is that you first write chapters, then write sections, then write paragraphs (key words or key sentences), then sentences, and finally words. It’s a trope for a reason! You only start caring about using the right words at the very end. Here, applying structure is also important. Be precise and consistent: pick a word and use the same word across the text. Use signaling words to guide the reader. Do not be afraid of repetition across chapters. Avoid informal language and use hedging. Apply creativity with caution and make sure that creative writing serves the content: it should add to clarity and not distract.
Process & Structure
The process of a thesis is a bit wobbly and I find it very hard to write anything useful about it in general. The one thing that I will briefly touch on is the scope of the research. The scope of the investigation should follow a flat diamond shape. I assume that some kind of research project description made by some project owner is already in place. The project owner may be a Ph.D. student, university staff, or external organisation. The project owner is involved in the project in some way, mostly as a supervisor.
The project description usually contains a set of research goals or questions. These are not your research questions but aim to demarcate a research area of interest to the project owner. It is your job to take these and incorporate them into your research questions. You do this based on project owner needs, needs of other stakeholders, related work, and identified risks and limitations. You obtain these by talking to the project owner, talking to other stakeholders, by doing literature review, and by a feasibility analysis. You should follow the ‘fan-out’ structure of the diamond shape here. The scope of what your research could include should increase. You should come up with backup plans, alternative questions, investigate adjacent research fields, etc. For all I care, you even consider other supervisors or other partners in the project.
You now have a set of possible directions to go to. You select one based on feasibility, personal interests, personal skills & abilities, time constraints, etc. Here the ‘fan-in’ of the project scope starts. However, beware that the selected direction might not turn out. If it doesn’t, you’ll have to backtrack and take another route. You have reached the ‘flattened’ part of the diamond. A key mistake is to stick to a selected direction stubbornly. Another key mistake is to go for the hardest route first. The goal is to achieve some contribution, not to revolutionise the field. If the simple thing works out, then there is always an opportunity to add to the project scope. This is a great way to avoid the risk of not having anything to show when the deadline approaches.
Managing Expectations
In my experience, students come in all forms, shapes, and sizes. Many are interested in the research for its own sake. Some lose that interest when doing research work. And I am totally fine with that. In general, I find that it helps to manage expectations the following way.
There are some minimal requirements that must be in place to pass the thesis. There has to be some reasonable novelty, depth, and quality of the thesis itself. Note that making the internship host company very happy (or making them a lot of money) is not on the list. Note that impressive results are not on the list either. You only aim for these things when the other stuff is (almost) already in the bag.
Many students want to write a conference/journal paper. Here, impressive results are part of the list. Getting to impressive results typically requires multiple attempts. Most students only have one test to go. Thinking about a paper only makes sense if you have something to write about. That should be a focus before thinking about a paper.
Responsibilities & Coaching
I have heard many stories of student frustrations, anger, and despair about their thesis. I think there are three orthogonal explanations for these bad thesis experiences. We will discuss them in somewhat random order.
The first source of frustration is misaligned student expectations. Most students have been trained in an environment of reading, exercises, and exams. Behaviours that work well in this highly structured and relatively clear environment fail miserably in the thesis environment. The challenges in the old environment where set up to be met. Applying oneself, putting time in, working hard, following a strict schedule, and focus work well on hard but crisply formulated challenges in the old environment. But the challenges in the new environment are usually as much internal to the student as they are external. In the old environment, students should avoid failure. In the new environment, there should be room for failure. In the old environment, the next challenge is usually one page flip away. In the new environment, challenges have to be fought over for weeks or even months.
The second source of frustration is a miscommunication about responsibilities. The supervisor is not an employer or teacher, but rather a guide or coach. The student is in the final stages of his education and is given the last opportunity to show his ability to perform research independently. Independence is a key component of the thesis, and students should be challenged to do things themselves. Independence involves all stages of the research: coming up with proper research questions, a research design, keeping stakeholders in the loop, managing the writing process, asking for feedback, etc.
A final source of frustration is poor coaching. This has to do with the internal challenges that many students face during their thesis work. A supervisor should, IMHO, supervise the content and process of the project just as much as they should coach the person doing the work. The thesis process is transformative and often challenges the student in all their faculties. Therefore, feedback should not only touch on the content of the project,, but also on on the behaviours of the person performing the work. Critical questions should be accompanied by encouragement. Discussions should come with listening. Feedback should include criticism and praise.