MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151524846 · doi:10.1109/icc.2006.254792

TCP NewReno: Slow-but-Steady or Impatient?

2006· article· en· W2151524846 on OpenAlex
Nadim Parvez, Anirban Mahanti, Carey Williamson

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE International Conference on Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurstinessComputer scienceThroughputH-TCPCUBIC TCPTCP global synchronizationNetwork packetTCP Friendly Rate ControlTCP accelerationComputer networkReal-time computingTransmission Control ProtocolTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we compare the throughputs of two different TCP NewReno variants, namely Slow-but-Steady and Impatient. We develop analytic throughput models of these variants as a function of round-trip time, loss event rate, and the burstiness of packet drops within a loss event. Our models build upon prior work on TCP Reno throughput modeling, but extend this work to provide an analytical characterization of the NewReno fast recovery algorithms. We validated our models using the ns-2 simulator. Our models accurately predict the steady-state NewReno throughput for a wide range of loss rates. Based on these models, we analytically determine the preferred operating regions for each TCP variant. Our results show that the Slow-but-Steady variant is comparable to or superior to the Impatient variant in all but the most extreme scenarios for network packet loss.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

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 science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.243 · 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