MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2198209924

How P2P streaming systems scale over time under a flash crowd

2009· article· en· W2198209924 on OpenAlexaff
Fangming Liu, Bo Li, Lili Zhong, Baochun Li, Di Niu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGossipComputer sciencePopularitySoftware deploymentScale (ratio)Flash (photography)The InternetPeer-to-peerCrowdsourcingMultimediaComputer securityWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract—Peer-to-Peer (P2P) live video streaming systems have recently received significant attention, with commercial deployment gaining increased popularity in the Internet. It is evident in our empirical experiences with real-world systems that, it is not uncommon to have hundreds of thousands of viewers trying to join a program in the first few minutes of a live broadcast. This phenomenon in live streaming systems, referred as the flash crowd, poses unique challenges in the system design. In this paper, we develop a mathematical model to capture the inherent relationship between time and scale during a flash crowd. We derive an upper bound on the system scale, and then demonstrate that the timing factor plays a critical role for such a system to scale. In addition, our analysis also brings a more indepth understanding with respect to the use of Gossip protocols, i.e., the effects of partial knowledge. I.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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