MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158532749 · doi:10.1109/lcn.2003.1243174

Feedback mechanism validation and path query messages in the label distribution protocol

2004· article· en· W2158532749 on OpenAlexaff
A. Gario, J. William Atwood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePath (computing)Path vector protocolConstraint (computer-aided design)Set (abstract data type)Network topologyProtocol (science)Computer networkRouting (electronic design automation)Node (physics)Distributed computingRouting protocolDatabaseData miningTopology (electrical circuits)Static routingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In constraint-based routing a topology database is maintained on all participating nodes to be used in calculating a path through the network. This database contains a list of the links in the network and the set of constraints the links can meet. Since these constraints change rapidly, the topology database will not be consistent with respect to the real network. A feedback mechanism was proposed by Ashwood-Smith, et al, to help correct the errors in the database. It behaves like a depth first search, and is meant to be useable only when the database sees the availability of resources to be more than they really are. In this mechanism, the source node can learn from the successes or failures of its path selections by receiving feedback from the path it is attempting. The received information is used in the subsequent path calculations. We validated the feedback algorithm to see how it behaves in all database situations, and found out that the feedback algorithm was helpful in all cases (not only when it was optimistic). We also propose adding query messages to make the feedback algorithm behave more like breadth first search. The path query messages algorithm reduces the retry attempts in setting up a path, and also utilizes the network more effectively by gathering much more information about the resources.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207