MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096199330 · doi:10.1109/iwqos.2007.376546

On the Resilience-Complexity Tradeoff of Network Coding in Dynamic P2P Networks

2007· article· en· W2096199330 on OpenAlexaff
Di Niu, Baochun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Workshop on Quality of Service · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear network codingComputer scienceCoding (social sciences)Resilience (materials science)Theoretical computer scienceComputational complexity theoryDistributed computingComputer networkAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most current-generation P2P content distribution protocols use line-granularity blocks to distribute content to all the peers in a decentralized fashion. Such protocols often suffer from a significant degree of imbalance in block distributions, such that certain blocks become rare or even unavailable, adversely affecting content availability. It has been pointed out that randomized network coding may improve block availability in P2P networks, as coded blocks are equally innovative and useful to peers. However, the computational complexity of network coding mandates that, in reality, network coding needs to be performed within segments, each containing a subset of blocks. In this paper, using both theoretical analysis and simulations, we quantitatively evaluate how segment-based network coding may improve resilience to peer dynamics and content availability. The objective of this paper is to explore the fundamental tradeoff between the resilience gain of network coding and its inherent coding complexity. We introduce a differential equations approach to quantify the resilience gain of network coding as a function of the number of blocks in a segment, as well as various other tunable parameters. We conclude that a small number of blocks in each segment is sufficient to realize the major benefits of network coding, with acceptable coding complexity.

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)0.004
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Workshop on Quality of ServiceSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207