MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095228834 · doi:10.1145/2831347.2831352

ReWiFlow

2015· article· en· W2095228834 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenFlowComputer scienceFlexibility (engineering)Software-defined networkingDistributed computingRouting (electronic design automation)Control flowGeneralizationClass (philosophy)Network packetComputer networkFlow control (data)Packet lossControl (management)Artificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to manage individual flows is a major benefit of Software-Defined Networking. The overheads of this fine-grained control, e.g. initial flow setup delay, can overcome the benefits, for example when we have many time-sensitive short flows. Coarse-grained control of groups of flows, on the other hand, can be very complex: each packet may match multiple rules, which requires conflict resolution. In this paper, we present ReWiFlow, a restricted class of OpenFlow wildcard rules (the fundamental way to control groups of flows in OpenFlow), which allows managing groups of flows with flexibility and without loss of performance. We demonstrate how ReWiFlow can be used to implement applications such as dynamic proactive routing. We also present a generalization of ReWiFlow, called Multi-ReWiFlow, and show how it can be used to efficiently represent access control rules collected from Stanford's backbone network.

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.

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 categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.226 · 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