MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143584606 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2008.4564501

Analyzing the accuracy of CHOKe hits, CHOKe misses and CHOKe-RED drops

2008· article· en· W2143584606 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings - Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChokeComputer scienceFlow (mathematics)Active queue managementComputer securityEngineeringPhysicsElectrical engineeringMechanicsNetwork congestion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CHOKe, xCHOKe and RECHOKe are preferential dropping schemes that have been proposed for detection, control and punishment of malicious flows at routers in IP networks. They use CHOKe hits, CHOKe misses and/or CHOKe-RED drops to carry out these tasks. In this paper we investigate the accuracy of malicious flow detection by using these hits, misses and drops (using ns-2). We also point out the unreliability of CHOKe hits and misses, when compared to CHOKe-RED drops, as they affect TCP-friendly flows adversely. By doing so, we present two variations of CHOKe called Half1 and Half2 to improve CHOKe and compare them with CHOKe. Half1 and Half2 outperform CHOKe when the combined rates of malicious flows are less or greater than the link capacity respectively.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.175 · 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