MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963868451 · doi:10.1145/2591971.2592006

On the relevance of adversarial queueing theory in practice

2014· article· en· W1963868451 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel S. Berger, Martin Karsten, Jens Schmitt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQueueing theoryRobustness (evolution)Adversarial systemScheduling (production processes)Synchronization (alternating current)QueueLayered queueing networkNetwork packetMathematical optimizationComputer networkMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adversarial Queueing Theory (AQT) has shown that seemingly innocent traffic injection rates might lead to unbounded queues in packet-switched networks - depending on scheduling strategies as well as topological characteristics. Little attention has been given to quantifying these effects in realistic network configurations. In particular, the existing AQT literature makes two unrealistic assumptions: infinite buffers and perfect synchrony. Because finite buffers inherently limit queue sizes, adversarial effects ultimately lead to packet loss which we address in this work. In addition, we study the effect of imperfect network synchronization under the packet loss metric. Our results, using analysis and simulation, indicate that classical AQT examples appear harmless under realistic assumptions but for a novel class of adversaries considerably higher loss can be observed. We introduce this class by giving examples of two new AQT concepts to construct loss-efficient network adversaries. Our analysis proves the robustness of these new adversaries against randomized de-synchronization effects in terms of variable link delays and nodal processing.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207