MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133045785 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2011.2149549

Accurate and Efficient Network Tomography Through Network Coding

2011· article· en· W2133045785 on OpenAlexaff
Jiaqi Gui, Vahid Shah‐Mansouri, Vincent W. S. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNetwork tomographyLinear network codingComputer scienceTomographyComputed tomographyCoding (social sciences)Network topologyComputer networkMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate and efficient measurement of network-internal characteristics is critical for the management and maintenance of large-scale networks. In this paper, we propose a linear algebraic network tomography (LANT) framework for the active inference of link loss rates on mesh topologies through network coding. Probe packets are transmitted from the sources to the destinations along a set of paths. Intermediate nodes linearly combine the received probes and transmit the coded probes using predetermined coding coefficients. Although a smaller probe size can reduce the bandwidth usage of the network, the inference framework is not valid if the probe size falls below a certain threshold. To this end, we determine the minimum probe packet size, which is necessary and sufficient to establish the mapping between the contents of the received probes and the losses on the different sets of paths. Then, we develop algorithms to find the coding coefficients such that the minimum probe size is achieved. We propose a linear algebraic approach to develop consistent estimators of link loss rates, which converge to the actual loss rates as the number of probes increases. Simulation results show that the LANT framework achieves better estimation accuracy than the belief propagation algorithm for a large number of probe packets.

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 score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207