MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117376236 · doi:10.1109/icc.2006.254876

A Feedback Control Model for Multiple-Link Adaptive Bandwidth Provisioning Systems

2006· article· en· W2117376236 on OpenAlexaff
Hao Wang, Changcheng Huang, James Yan

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE International Conference on Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvisioningComputer scienceBandwidth (computing)Quality of serviceComputer networkDynamic bandwidth allocationBandwidth allocationAdaptive controlDistributed computingControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Future IP networks are required to support services with different and distinct end-to-end Quality of Service (QoS) requirements. Adaptive bandwidth provisioning serves as an attractive solution for providing guaranteed distinctive QoS and maintaining high network efficiency at the same time. However, most previous research on adaptive bandwidth provisioning is limited to the single-link case and assumes dedicated bandwidth. This paper studies multiple-link adaptive bandwidth provisioning for end-to-end statistical QoS guarantee in bandwidth sharing networks with Generalized Processor Sharing (GPS) schedulers. A feedback control model for end-to-end multiple-link adaptive bandwidth provisioning systems is presented. This model is verified by simulations, and it is shown to match the actual dynamics of adaptive bandwidth provisioning systems well. Based on this feedback control model, different controllers are designed and analyzed using control theory, and their performances are compared. The analysis and simulations show that the proposed end-to-end multiple-link bandwidth provisioning scheme is able to provide guaranteed end-to-end statistical QoS, and that both the adaptive P controller and adaptive PI controller can achieve better performance than the simple non-adaptive P controller.

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 score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

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 science0.0030.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 IEEE International Conference on CommunicationsSame topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207