In project 3, you will prepare a review article that summarise what you have learned about your topic.
It should motivate the topic (why should I bother learning about this), then pull together the existing research a way that shows how it links together. Tables and visualisations that show how major advances fit together are highly recommended. From reading the paper, you should get a good overview of the field and the key references if you want to find out more.
Your article should be around 5-10 pages in length and should be prepared in latex. You should continue to read more references, at least 4, and note which are new when you submit your final article.
The following comments by Robert Kass do a good job of summarising the purpose of a review article:
First, and most obviously, good review articles efficiently summarize information. In any field that is rapidly evolving, there is a tendency for knowledge creators and disseminators to become specialized and lose touch with important developments outside their own areas of expertise. In probability and statistics, largely due to enhanced computational ability, we are currently enjoying and suffering this fate: there is much activity in many areas, and it is increasingly difficult to stay on top of the way the work is proceeding. Yet, the need to do so remains. In research, ideas often transfer from one domain to another, at least by analogy, with new ways of thinking not only being pleasant to experience, but also being potentially productive in unanticipated situations. Furthermore, we must be aware of the various methodologies available for solving statistical problems so that we can discuss them with our students and consider using them in our scientific collaborations. Review articles help us fill the gaps that have been created in our comprehension of our discipline.
But many review articles not only summarize, they synthesize. Themes may be noticed and perspectives introduced. Through selective emphasis, and occasional criticism, ideas may be sifted so that some emerge as central while others are portrayed as flawed. Ambitious reviews characterize alternative approaches and establish a framework for cognition, thereby serving to define an area. They may, importantly, help future research effort avoid diversions by illuminating paths that seem likely to lead toward the solution to key problems. And, since the usual limitations of space and urgency no longer push to excessive extremes the appropriate restrictions of concise exposition, review articles may exhibit more leisurely and thorough scholarship. In addition, invited commentary can sharpen the discussion, balance its viewpoint or broaden its scope.
To give you some idea of what I'm looking for, here are some articles written by students in previous semesters:
Due Apr 22: