MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976565358 · doi:10.1109/infcomw.2019.8845158

PIQoS: A Programmable and Intelligent QoS Framework

2019· article· en· W2976565358 on OpenAlexaff
Udaya Lekhala, Israat Haque

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQuality of serviceForwarding planeNetwork topologySoftware-defined networkingDistributed computingComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network management and Quality of Service (QoS) support are becoming more challenging with the increase in network traffic, size, and service requirements. To meet these challenges, we need a programmable and intelligent framework for automated QoS support; static or threshold-based approaches are not adequate. We propose a software-defined and machine-learning-based intelligent QoS framework called PIQoS. PIQoS enables software-defined networking (SDN) controllers to effectively, efficiently, and autonomously react, in a vendor agnostic way, to changes in network links by (1) placing link failure detection and recovery in the data plane and (2) applying supervised learning methods to the tasks of dynamically detecting link failures and congestion and appropriately reconfiguring the network so that it can continue to provide the required QoS as link properties change over time. To test the performance of a system based on PIQoS, we performed extensive simulation experiments in Mininet, using real network topologies. We also studied the comparative performance of several supervised learning methods applied to our specific detection and correction problems to determine which methods are most appropriate for this domain. Our simulation results highlight the potential efficacy of the PIQoS framework when applied in real networks.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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