International Evaluation of Finnish Computer Science

7.2. Evaluate the role of the funding by Academy of Finland in promoting the scientific and societal impact of research (max. 1 page)

Describe how the funding awarded by the Academy has promoted the scientific and societal impact of the Unit’s activities. Scientific impact refers to the contribution of the research carried out by the Unit to the development of the field. Societal impact refers to the ability of the research activities to promote values that are considered as important in society.
HIIT is heavily dependent on external funding. The basic funding given to HIIT by its parent universities is presently only about 20 percent of total while the rest comes from competitive sources.
The funding from Academy of Finland (presently about 18 percent) has been substantial in maintaining the high quality of the basic research of HIIT, also including multi-disciplinary research. Some of HIIT’s groups, mostly in the Algorithmic Data Analysis programme, are members of the Center-Of-Excellence “From Data to Knowledge”, granted by the Academy for 2002-2007. This long-term funding has substantially fueled our research.
Although the focus of the Acadamy funded work has been on basic research, the funding also has helped us to form a long-term vision in societally important themes such as privacy issues in ubiquitous computing or search as an infrastructure of the future Internet. Academy of Finland funding has also seeded research lines and themes for which we have later received funding from other sources.
HIIT also received research infrastructure funding from the Academy of Finland. It was used to acquire a computational cluster that has been indispensable in computation-intensive research, especially in the Future Search research line.
Finally, the Academy of Finland funding to doctoral programmes (especially HeCSE, COMBI, GEBSI, UCIT) has also benefited HIIT’s work.

7.3. Evaluate the role of funding awarded by different funding organisations in promoting the scientific and societal impacts of research, excluding funding from the Academy of Finland (max. 1 page)

Describe the contribution of the funding awarded by different funding organisations to the scientific and societal impacts.
The quite extensive funding HIIT has been able to obtain from Technology Development Agency TEKES (at present, roughly 38 percent of the total) has been especially instrumental for developing research collaboration with industry. Industrial funding (12 percent) is mostly connected with TEKES funding; in a few cases, HIIT has also acted in a subcontractor position to industry’s own research projects that have been deemed attractive for our research portfolio or industrial impact.
TEKES’ sustained interest in building and maintaining the co-operation with UC Berkeley has been quite significant for HIIT, especially our work on Social Media and Future Internet. To date, 17 HIIT researchers have visited UCB for periods of 6-18 months; at present, four researchers are in place.
Lately, TEKES has diversified its project funding to include also the “strategic basic research” category for long-term research expected to have major impact in 3-5 years. HIIT has been able to receive significant funding under this scheme, especially for its Future Internet research line. It has enabled us to form set quite bold objectives for the research, with the aim of contributing significantly to the so-called “clean slate” approach to Internet architecture. At present, we negotiate with TEKES for funding to the proposed joint Center for Novel Internet Architecture with UCB/ICSI.
The rapidly growing funding from EU (presently 12 percent) has helped us developing and maintaining European research collaborations both with major companies (large industry-led integrated projects) and other research institutes (smaller IP’s, STREP’s). From HIIT’s perspective, the company-led activities have mainly contributed to our industrial and societal impact. In the case of smaller projects, EU funding has enabled us to launch research activities in themes not covered adequately by Finnish funding instruments and to connect our work with European networks. Other EU funding instruments have played minor roles; however, we hope to receive significant funding from the future ERC calls.

Instructions to submission form
General information
G.1. This evaluation covers research only in computer science. The branches of computer science are defined in question G.2. In your Unit there may be many other fields of science represented, but we ask you to give the percentage that computer science stands for. In the following questions, you are asked to concentrate only in this portion of research.
G.2. Unit's research profile

The percentages should add up to 100. If there are more "Other" fields, you may add more lines. A more detailed division of computer science could be:

Theory of computation

Automata theory

Computability theory

Computational complexity theory

Quantum computing theory
Algorithms and data structures

Analysis of algorithms

Algorithms

Data structures

Programming languages and compilers

Compilers

Programming languages
Software engineering

Formal methods

Software engineering

Reverse engineering

Algorithm design

Computer programming

Concurrent, parallel, and distributed systems

Concurrency

Distributed computing

Parallel computing

Databases

Relational databases

Data mining
Communications

Game theory

Networking

Cryptography

Computer Audio
Computer architecture

Computer architecture

Computer organization

Operating systems

Human-Computer Interaction
Artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence

Automated reasoning

Robotics

Computer vision

Machine learning

Natural language processing/Computational linguistics
Computer graphics

Computer graphics

Image processing

G.3. Other relevant fields

The interaction between computer science and other fields are studied. Three levels are given: 1, normal collaboration with joint publications; 2, common scientific projects i.e. consortia; 3, integration through scientists working in the group
1. Staff
1.1. Indicate information on the staff in full time equivalents (FTE) in computer science. Full time equivalent refers to annual full-time work including paid holidays and other statutory days off. Other holidays, leaves of absence etc. shall be deducted from the calculatory working time.
One person-workday is 8 hours 15 minutes and one person workweek 41 hours 15 minutes effective working time (lunch hours included, 1 hour/day). If the person’s working time is less than the norms of normal office hours, the amount of person-work is calculated using the working time norm as divider.
Active research staff includes persons who plan, produce and publish new knowledge, theories and methods as well as products and processes based on them and lead research projects. Technical personnel refer to persons working under the supervision of active research staff to carry out projects but who are not involved in the theoretical planning, publishing or other related activities. Administrative personnel refer to persons who take care of administrative tasks related to the research, such as financial and personnel administration or other office duties but who are not normally involved with the technical implementation of the projects.

Persons under the following titles will always be listed in the active research staff:

● Academy Professor (In Finnish: akatemiaprofessori)

● Academy Research Fellow (akatemiatutkija)

● Assistant (assistentti)

● Chief Research Scientist (johtava tutkija)

● Clinical Teacher (kliininen opettaja, apulaisopettaja)

● Doctoral Assistant (tohtoriassistentti)

● Group Leader (ryhmänjohtaja)

● Head of Research (tutkimuspäällikkö)

● Laboratory Director (laboratorionjohtaja)

● Postdoctoral Research Fellow (tutkijatohtori)

● Professor (professori)

● Research Professor (tutkimusprofessori)

● Research Director (tutkimusjohtaja)

● Research Lecturer (tutkijalehtori)

● Senior Curators (yli-intendentti)

● Senior Researcher (vanhempi tutkija)

● Specialist Researcher (erikoistutkija)

● University Lecturer (yliopistonlehtori)

Moreover, the following persons should always be included in the active research staff:
a) Postdoctoral researchers
b) Postgraduate students belonging to either of the following groups:
● Persons with at least an MA or MSc (or equivalent) degree who have been employed by the university as full-time researchers or assistant researchers to do doctoral studies for a period of no less than six months.
● Persons with at least an MA or MSc (or equivalent) degree who, for a period of no less than six months, have fulfilled the following two criteria: they a) have been affiliated with the Unit as full-time researchers or assistant researchers to do doctoral studies and b) have been receiving research funding from some other source than another university or research institute.
These groups include, e.g. postgraduate students employed by graduate schools.
Postgraduate students who do not fulfil either of the above criteria, i.e. who have not been employed by the university and have not been receiving other funding, can also be included in the active research staff for the period they are not holding a post in another university or research institute. The Unit can decide case by case whether to include these postgraduate students. It is worth observing that it is not necessarily advisable to include postgraduate students who do not have substantial publications from the period 2000-2006.
According to its choice, the Unit can also include other members of the staff in the active research staff, e.g. departmental amanuenses (amanuenssi).
1.2. In case person's duties have changed during the period under review (e.g. from technical personnel to active research staff), indicate the person's both tasks and period according to the format.

2. Research output
2.1. This question surveys how the research carried out in the Unit has impacted research in its own field(s). Describe the orientation of scientific publishing, most important research results and the role of multidisciplinarity or interdisciplinarity etc. Also, describe the role of basic and applied research.

In case the research carried out in the Unit is clearly specialised in the different fields of computer science, describe each field separately (see also question 6.3).

2.2. In the summary table, calculate the number of each type of outcome in the list during the period under review.
2.3. Each senior researcher will list seven of his/her key publications during the period under review, indicated in the order of quality. Unlike other information, the list may also include manuscripts published in 2007 or manuscripts approved for publication but still unpublished.
References to books should give the names of any editors, place of publication, editor, and year.
2.4. For ensuring easy readability do not make the font size smaller when copying publications. The copies of publications shall be two-sided.
3. Doctoral training
3.1 Give the number of Master degrees and of those, new post-graduate students to indicate the ratio enrolled in the doctoral training.
3.2 If at least half of the doctoral dissertation has been supervised and done at a research institute, the research institute can also list the doctoral dissertation as its own outcome. In this case indicate also the university (in year of completion) where the doctoral dissertation has been presented for approval. In present employment, indicate the type of organisation (university, business company, research institute, state, municipality or other).
4. National and international collaboration
4.1. List the national collaboration partners of the Unit. Collaborator refers to a person or a research team with whom the cooperation has either generated or is expected to generate within the next three (3) years one of the outcomes indicated in item 2.2. Types of collaboration include e.g. joint projects, researcher mobility. In "Field of science", give the main field of the collaborator (physics, chemistry, mechanical engineering etc.).
4.2–4.4. List the visits per year. List the visits of each year by country in the alphabetical order. In item "Purpose of the visit" indicate clearly the objective of the visit.
4.5. List the most important foreign collaborators, as defined in item 4.1.
4.6. Describe here e.g. key joint publications, researcher training, adoption and use of new technologies or new approaches.
4.7. List here the Non-academic collaboration, e.g. industry contacts.

5. Other scientific and societal activities
5.1. Invited plenary talks, and other invited talks
5.2.-5.4. Give only the most important memberships and prizes
6. The Unit’s self-assessment
Self-assessment is an important part of the evaluation. Please answer carefully.
6.1. and 6.2. In addition to strengths and weaknesses it is also important to assess what the present strengths or developable strengths enable in the future and what kinds of threats are related to the weaknesses.
6.3. Describe the Unit’s research programme for the next few years, the key research objectives and means to achieve these objectives. What is the role of basic and applied research? Is there need for new knowledge, facilities, is the present level of funding sufficient for attaining the objectives laid down? Do the strategies of the parent organisation and the Unit support each other? How do you take into account the possible ethical questions within research?
6.4. Describe here how the Unit’s research activities and cooperation with other actors in society have promoted the activities of other societal actors, e.g. industry of SMEs.
6.6. Describe the use and availability of research infrastructures, e.g. computer resources, research equipment, both from the parent organisation and outside.
7. Funding
7.1. Core funding applies to the Unit’s budget funding and possible other funding for research awarded by the parent organisation. The funding covers both the salary costs with social charges of the staff and the operational costs which include consumption costs and investment costs for research activities.
Use of research funding received from external sources, indicated per year. Academy of Finland fellowships should also be involved and counted. Salaries should be counted as 1.33 * gross salary.
7.2 Describe how the funding awarded by the Academy has promoted the scientific and societal impact of the Unit’s activities. Scientific impact refers to the contribution of the research carried out by the Unit to the development of the field. Societal impact refers to the ability of the research activities to promote values that are considered as important in society.
7.3 Describe the contribution of the funding awarded by different funding organisations to the scientific and societal impacts.

1 Please see the instructions at the end of this document