MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993059646 · doi:10.1145/1822327.1822329

Lightweight reliable overlay multicasting in large-scale P2P networks

2010· article· en· W1993059646 on OpenAlexaff
Shahram Shah Heydari, Supreet Singh Baweja

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticastComputer networkComputer scienceNode (physics)Distributed computingSource-specific multicastOverlay multicastOverlay networkService layerService (business)Multicast addressPragmatic General MulticastSurvivabilityQuality of serviceEngineeringThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of the complexity, cost and limited deployment of multicast capability at the network layer, application layer multicasting between end hosts has become an attractive option for distributing content among a large number of users based on a peer-to-peer architecture. In contrast to network layer multicasting where the tree nodes are fairly static, multicasting in P2P networks has unique characteristics: the large number of network nodes participating in the multicast operation, and the fact that network nodes may drop out, move or join at a significantly higher frequency than in network layer multicasting. These features pose certain challenges for network service designers, in particular regarding how to guarantee continuous multicast service in face of parent node departure or link/node failures, an issue that is referred as service restorability. In this paper we examine a hybrid architecture that contains both a static overlay backbone (i.e. owned by service provider) and dynamic nodes (mostly end hosts). A design for service survivability is examined, and a flexible lightweight approach is proposed that achieves survivability in large-scale networks using minimal resources at individual node.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207