On the Impact of Link Scheduling on End-to-End Delays in Large Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We seek to provide an analytical answer whether the impact of link scheduling algorithms on end-to-end delays diminishes on long network paths. The answer is provided through a detailed multi-hop delay analysis, which is applicable to a broad class of scheduling algorithms, and which can account for statistical multiplexing. The analysis is enabled by two contributions: (1) We derive a function that can characterize the available bandwidth at a buffered link for various scheduling algorithms. This characterization is sharp enough to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for satisfying worst-case delay bounds at a single link; (2) We obtain end-to-end delay bounds by solving an optimization problem, in which the service received on a multi-hop path is subsumed into a single function. Since our analysis captures the properties of a broad group of schedulers in a single parameter, it can provide insight how the choice of scheduling algorithms impacts end-to-end delay bounds. An important finding of this paper is that schedulers may exhibit noticeable performance differences which persist in a network setting with long paths.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".