MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167234454 · doi:10.1145/974043.974088

Performance of publish/subscribe middleware in mobile wireless networks

2004· article· en· W2167234454 on OpenAlexaff
Umar Farooq, Eric W. Parsons, Shikharesh Majumdar

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMiddleware (distributed applications)ScalabilityMessage oriented middlewarePublicationComputer networkDistributed computingDomain (mathematical analysis)Asynchronous communicationMobile computingWireless networkHandoverWirelessSoftwareTelecommunicationsSoftware architectureOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Publish/subscribe middlewares are becoming popular for distributed applications because of their flexible and scalable nature. Anonymous and loosely-coupled communication between publisher and subscriber, along with the inherently asynchronous nature of these systems, help them adapt quickly to changing environments, making them a good choice for mobile cellular networks. This paper studies publish/subscribe middleware performance in such networks in detail. As a first step, the paper characterizes a popular implementation of publish/subscribe system for the mobile domain, studying and analyzing the effect of different mobility parameters, which to the best of our knowledge is the first experimental research on the performance behavior of publish/subscribe systems in a mobile wireless domain. As a second step the paper presents the design, implementation and evaluation of middleware level handoffs, a well known solution to extend publish/subscribe systems to a mobile domain, and identifies the performance concerns of such extensions. The results show that such handoff protocols involving two brokers are impractical from a performance perspective under highly dynamic and unreliable mobile wireless settings. The paper identifies the basic reason for the limitations of middleware level handoffs.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering NotesSame topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207