Simulation of Adversarial Scenarios in OMNeT++ – Putting Adversarial Queueing Theory from Its Head to Feet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial models of traffic generation replace probabilis-tic assumptions by considering the deterministic worst-case. The framework of adversarial queueing theory (AQT) has discovered unexpected results on the stability of networks and has seen continuous research efforts over more than 15 years. So far, almost all AQT results have been de-rived analytically under simplifying but arguably harmless assumptions. However, as can be observed from recent work in AQT, the adversarial scenarios, in particular those that demonstrate instability, become more and more contrived and complex, thus lending themselves less and less to analyt-ical tractability. While simulation seems like a good match for this problem, no available simulation model includes ad-versarial traffic generation. In this work, we introduce an OMNeT++ simulation framework for AQT as a tool to fa-cilitate the study and development of instability examples. We validate the usefulness of AQT simulations in several use cases and, en-passant, discover some new insights into adversarial effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".