MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1799182606 · doi:10.1145/3095786.3095789

On the Delay Scaling Laws of Cache Networks

2017· preprint· en· W1799182606 on OpenAlexaff
Boram Jin, Daewoo Kim, Se-Young Yun, Jinwoo Shin, Seongik Hong, Byoung-Joon B.J. Lee, Yung Yi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersMinistry of Science ICT and Future Planning
KeywordsCacheComputer scienceCache algorithmsThe InternetComputer networkInformation-centric networkingSmart CacheScaling lawCache invalidationDistributed computingCPU cacheComputer securityScalingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet is becoming more and more content-oriented. CDN (Content Distribution Networks) has been a popular architecture compatible with the current Internet, and a new revolutionary paradigm such as ICN (Information Centric Networking) has studied. One of the main components in both CDN and ICN is considering cache on network. Despite a surge of extensive use of cache in the current and future Internet architectures, analysis on the performance of general cache networks are still quite limited due to complex inter-plays among various components and thus analytical intractability. Due to mathematical tractability, we consider 'static' cache policies and study asymptotic delay performance of those policies in cache networks, in particular, focusing on the impact of heterogeneous content popularities and nodes' geographical 'importances' in caching policies. Furthermore, our simulation results suggest that they perform quite similarly as popular 'dynamic' policies such as LFU (Least-Frequently-Used) and LRU (Least-Recently-Used). We believe that our theoretical findings provide useful engineering implications such as when and how various factors have impact on caching performance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207