MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116776909 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2014.6901082

An adaptive compression technique based on real-time RTT feedback

2014· article· en· W2116776909 on OpenAlexaff
Fuad Shamieh, Ahmed Refaey, Xianbin Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkPacket lossLossless compressionNetwork packetReal-time computingNetwork traffic controlData compressionTransmission delayData compression ratioLatency (audio)Network congestionProcessing delayQuality of serviceEnd-to-end delayImage compressionAlgorithmTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dynamic nature of traffic over Internet protocol (IP) networks often induce high end-to-end latency and packet loss rate. These problems hamper the Quality of Service (QoS) of various conventional and emerging applications over Internet. In order to mitigate these challenges and improve the network efficiency, an adaptive compression technique (ACT) is proposed. ACT exploits lossless data compression algorithms where compression is applied seamlessly to a packet's payload. Our adaptive compression is based on the situational awareness of a given network derived from gathered network statistical data, such as the varying Round Trip Time (RTT) as well as the packet loss rate during a transmission session. The real-time observation of the varying RTT and packet loss rate triggers the ACT compression when a defined threshold, which is compared to the observed values, is crossed. Using Network Simulator 3 (NS3), two different real-time latency reduction schemes using ACT were compared with an uncompressed transmission. The results show ACT improvement in network conditions such as reducing the number of dropped packets by approximately 30%, as well as, reducing delayed packet transmissions by 26.5% which results in fundamentally increasing the TCP efficiency by approximately 3%.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207