MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119092163 · doi:10.1109/infcom.2009.5062276

Capacity Provisioning a Valiant Load-Balanced Network

2009· article· en· W2119092163 on OpenAlexaff
A. R. Curtis, Alejandro López-Ortíz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNetwork topologyComputer scienceComputer networkProvisioningDistributed computingLoad balancing (electrical power)Network partitionRouting (electronic design automation)Topology (electrical circuits)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Valiant load balancing (VLB), also called two-stage load balancing, is gaining popularity as a routing scheme that can serve arbitrary traffic matrices. To date, VLB network design is well understood on a logical full-mesh topology, where VLB is optimal even when nodes can fail. In this paper, we address the design and capacity provisioning of arbitrary VLB network topologies. First, we introduce an algorithm to determine if VLB can serve all traffic matrices when a fixed number of arbitrary links fail, and we show how to find a min-cost expansion of the network - via link upgrades and installs - so that it is resilient to these failures. Additionally, we propose a method to design a new VLB network under the fixed-charge network design cost model. Finally, we prove that VLB is no longer optimal on unrestricted topologies, and can require more capacity than shortest path routing to serve all traffic matrices on some topologies. These results rely on a novel theorem that characterizes the capacity VLB requires of links crossing each cut, i.e., a partition, of the network's nodes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207