MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1923115033 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2003.1226067

Computation of the residual packet loss probability in a binary multicast tree

2004· article· en· W1923115033 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdullah AlWehaibi, Michel Kadoch, A.K. Elhakeem

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalÉcole de Technologie SupérieureConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMulticastComputer sciencePacket lossComputer networkRouterAutomatic repeat requestNetwork packetQuality of serviceHybrid automatic repeat request

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to achieve a better quality of service (QoS), the use of reliable multicasting has become increasingly important especially with the emergence of Internet-based applications such IP telephony, audio/video conferencing. In this paper, the residual packet loss probability in a complete binary multicast tree which consists of N routers with a given probability of successful delivery to the next router is evaluated, when automatic repeat request (ARQ) multicast repairs is employed. In this paper, we also derive and compare two other mathematical expressions, which can be used to calculate the final packet loss probability in a binary tree where reliable ARQ multicasting is used. These expressions can be used in the case of IP or MPLS multicasting. The first expression, which is called the average packet loss probability for ARQ deals only with the number of routers that should have correct transmissions (no loss and no errors) during the repair trial of one previous loss depending on the location of this previous loss. The second one, which is called the accurate expression, takes into account the number of trials, the number of errors and the position of each error (at which level the error occurred).

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207