MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467798540 · doi:10.1109/netsoft.2016.7502454

Iterative traffic engineering in the data plane of multimedia IP communications

2016· article· en· W2467798540 on OpenAlexaff
Lilin Zhang, Ali Tizghadam, Hadi Bannazadeh, Alberto Leon‐Garcia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkNext-generation networkTraffic engineeringResource allocationThroughputDistributed computingHeuristicsGreedy algorithmIterative methodInternet traffic engineeringEmbeddingNetwork traffic controlNetwork packetThe InternetAlgorithmWirelessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality of multimedia communications heavily relies on the end-to-end network condition. Sub-optimal resource allocation in the substrate network may deplete certain links sooner, making the network less resilient to link failures, traffic fluctuation or random traffic spikes. Regulating the traffic can improve the media quality, but is not an easy operation to do in legacy IP networks. SDN technology provides the support for an unprecedented centralized solution in this regard. Thus the biggest challenge is how to allocate resources in the data plane. In this paper, we propose a Two-phase flow embedding approach with an iterative traffic engineering algorithm to address the resource allocation problem lying in the data plane of multimedia IP communication systems. We numerically evaluate it and compare it with (a) Dijkstra algorithm and (b) flow embedding approach with a greedy TE heuristics. We show that the flow embedding approach with the iterative TE excels in all three metrics: session accept rate, throughput, and link utilizations, under a spectrum of scenarios including unexpected network conditions and traffic conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207