MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099156959 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2006.1683519

Detection and repair of faulty access points

2006· article· en· W2099156959 on OpenAlexaff
Hengchang Pan, Srinivasan Keshav

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDartmouth CollegeMicrosoft Research
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicsWirelessWireless networkExploitInterface (matter)False positive paradoxConstruct (python library)Computer networkAlgorithmDistributed computingComputer securityMachine learningOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In large-scale infrastructure wireless networks several access points (APs) may be unusable at any given moment in time. Unlike completely failed APs, whose failure can be detected by probes to their wired interface, an AP with a faulty wireless interface or whose antenna has been accidentally shielded can only be diagnosed by the actual use of the wireless interface for data communication. We present several algorithms that detect such failed access points by online analysis of AP usage logs. In particular, we demonstrate that we can exploit device mobility to detect faulty APs. We also present efficient heuristics to select a path for a technician to repair failed access points. We evaluate our algorithms using actual log files from an infrastructure network at Dartmouth College. We find that our best algorithm is able to detect nearly 90% of failed access points simply by processing log files. Compared to a naive approach, our algorithm has more than six times fewer false positives. We are also able to construct tours that are up to an order of magnitude more effective that a straightforward greedy approach. Our algorithms require no modifications to either APs or devices. We believe that these properties make our work immediately applicable to real-world scenarios

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingFrench-language works237,207