On the Structuring of Reliable Multicast Protocols for Distributed Mobile Systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider reliable multicast in distributed systems including mobile hosts (MHs) that communicate with a wired infrastructure by means of wireless links. Nearly all existing proposals are based on hand-off, i.e. whenever a MH switches cell, state information about this host travels across the wired network from the support station of the old cell to that of the new cell. However, we are not aware of any detailed performance analysis for hand-off based reliable multicast protocols: previous research in this area has focused mainly on correctness rather than on performance. We analyze in detail, by simulation, the performance of a proposal by Acharya and Badrinath that is based on hand-off and has been highly influential in the design of later protocols. Then, we compare this proposal with one by us that is based on an entirely different philosophy and is the only existing proposal not based on hand-off. Surprisingly, we found that our proposal outperforms the one by Acharya and Badrinath in all the aspects considered: latency, scalability, bandwidth usage efficiency and quickness in managing cell switches of MHs. Moreover, we found that this performance improvement is not obtained at the expense of increased resource requirements on MHs such as energy or memory. We believe that this performance and cost analysis allows us to gain insights into the design of reliable multicast protocols for distributed mobile systems.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it