An empirical evaluation of short-period prediction performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic prediction constitutes a hot research topic of network metrology. Thus, tuning the prediction model parameters is very crucial to achieve accurate prediction. This work focuses on the design, the empirical evaluation and the analysis of the behavior of linear models for predicting the throughput of a single link. In this work, the AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model and the linear minimum mean square error (LMMSE) are used for predicting. Via experimentation on real network traffic, we study the effect of some parameters on the prediction performance in terms of error such as the number of last observations of the throughput (i.e. lag) needed as inputs for the model, the data granularity, variance and packet size distribution. We also investigate multi-step prediction that is the number of steps that could be predicted in the future. Besides, we performed a set of predictions based on packets size. Unexpectedly, we find that using more than two lags as inputs for the prediction model increases the prediction error. We find that using the last observation as the predicted value provides the same 1-step prediction performance as ARIMA or LMMSE model. The ARIMA model provides an acceptable multi-step prediction performance. Experimental results show also that there is a granularity value at which the multi-step prediction is more accurate. We also find that the prediction of classified packets based on their size is possible. Especially, throughput of 1,500-byte packets is the less predictable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".