MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111101306 · doi:10.1109/icc.2001.936681

Tools of computational intelligence as applied to bandwidth allocation in ATM networks

2002· article· en· W2111101306 on OpenAlexaff
Salah Al-Sharhan, Fakhri Karray, Wail Gueaieb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic bandwidth allocationComputer scienceBandwidth (computing)Bandwidth allocationAsynchronous Transfer ModeArtificial neural networkDistributed computingComputational intelligenceComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the application of soft computing-based techniques to the bandwidth allocation (BA) problem in ATM networks. Efficient bandwidth allocation technique implies effective resources utilization. The fluid flow model has been known to be among the most accurate conventional methods to estimate the bandwidth of a set of connections. However, and due to the computational complexity, such methods have been proven to be inefficient in coping with varying and conflicting bandwidth requirements in ATM networks. To overcome this difficulty, many approximation-based solutions were introduced. Although such solutions are not simple, they nevertheless suffer from possible inaccuracy in estimating the required bandwidth. Soft computing-based bandwidth controllers, such as neural networks and neurofuzzy based controllers, have the capability to solve indeterminate non-linear input-output relations by learning from examples. Applying these techniques to the bandwidth allocation problem in ATM network yields a flexible control mechanism that offers a fundamental trade-off for the accuracy-simplicity dilemma.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207