MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768488374 · doi:10.1109/lcn.2017.107

Geographically-Distinct Request Patterns for Caching in Information-Centric Networks

2017· article· en· W2768488374 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Montazeri, Dwight Makaroff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZipf's lawComputer scienceThe InternetInformation-centric networkingArchitectureComputer networkDistribution (mathematics)Distributed computingWorld Wide WebGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current Internet architecture follows a hostcentric communication model, intended for machine to machine connection and message passing. Modern Internet users are mainly interested in accessing information by name, irrespective of physical location. Information centric networking (ICN) was developed to rethink Internet foundations. Innetwork caching is one of the main features of ICN. Studying the performance of different caching algorithms in ICN requires a good understanding of users' request distributions in such networks. Most studies use simplifying assumptions for user request patterns since ICNs are not yet deployed. Geographically localized and global request patterns have both been observed to possess Zipf-like properties, although the local distributions are poorly correlated with the global distribution. Several independent Zipf distributions combine to form an emergent Zipf distribution in real client request scenarios. We develop an algorithm that can generate realistic synthetic traffic for geographic regions that possesses Zipf power-law properties as well as a global Zipf distribution. Our simulation results show that the caching performance would have different behaviour based on users' requests distribution.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207