MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165611534 · doi:10.1109/icdcs.2010.86

Publisher Placement Algorithms in Content-Based Publish/Subscribe

2010· article· en· W2165611534 on OpenAlexaff
Alex King Yeung Cheung, Hans‐Arno Jacobsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePlanetLabTestbedExploitComputer networkScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingBitTorrentPublicationLoad balancing (electrical power)Content delivery networkAlgorithmPeer-to-peerServerScalabilityMathematical optimizationOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many publish/subscribe systems implement a policy for clients to join to their physically closest broker to minimize transmission delays incurred on the clients' messages. However, the amount of delay reduced by this policy is only the tip of the iceberg as messages incur queuing, matching, transmission, and scheduling delays from traveling across potentially long distances in the broker network. Additionally, the clients' impact on system load is totally neglected by such a policy. This paper proposes two new algorithms that intelligently relocate publishers on the broker overlay to minimize both the overall end-to-end delivery delay and system load. Both algorithms exploit live publication distribution patterns but with different optimization metrics and computation methodologies to determine the best relocation point. Evaluations on PlanetLab and a cluster testbed show that our algorithms can reduce the average input load of the system by up to 68%, average broker message rate by up to 85%, and average delivery delay by up to 68%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207