How Practical is Network Coding?
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
With network coding, intermediate nodes between the source and the receivers of an end-to-end communication session are not only capable of relaying and replicating data messages, but also of coding incoming messages to produce coded outgoing ones. Recent studies have shown that network coding is beneficial for peer-to-peer content distribution, since if eliminates the need for content reconciliation, and is highly resilient to peer failures. In this paper, we present our recent experiences with a highly optimized and high-performance C++ implementation of randomized network coding at the application layer. We present our observations based on an extensive series of experiments, draw conclusions from a wide range of scenarios, and are more cautious and less optimistic as compared to previous studies
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.
The record
- Venue
- International Workshop on Quality of Service
- Topic
- Cooperative Communication and Network Coding
- Field
- Computer Science
- Canadian institutions
- York UniversityUniversity of Toronto
- Funders
- —
- Keywords
- Computer science
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes