MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401760951 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2016.2571691

Optimal Polynomial Time Algorithm for Restoring Multicast Cloud Services

2016· article· en· W2401760951 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Ayoubi, Chadi Assi, Lata Narayanan, Khaled Shaban

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersQatar National Research Fund
KeywordsMulticastComputer scienceComputer networkUnicastCloud computingDistributed computingSource-specific multicastData centerPragmatic General MulticastNetwork topologyProtocol Independent MulticastXcastNode (physics)Multicast addressEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The failure-prone nature of data center networks has evoked countless contributions to develop proactive and reactive countermeasures. Yet, most of these techniques were developed with unicast services in mind. When in fact, multiple services hosted in data center networks today rely on multicast communication to disseminate traffic. Hence, the existing survivability schemes fail to cater to the distinctive properties and quality of service requirements that multicast services entail. This letter is devoted to understanding the ramifications of facility node or substrate link failure on multicast services residing in cloud networks. We formally define the multicast virtual network restoration problem and prove its NP-complete nature in arbitrary graphs. Furthermore, we prove that the problem can be solved in polynomial-time in multi-rooted treelike data center network topologies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207