Eagle: Refining Congestion Control by Learning from the Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional congestion control algorithms were designed with a hardwired heuristic mapping between packet- level events and predefined control actions in response to these events, and may fail to satisfy all the desirable performance goals as a result. In this paper, we seek to reconsider these fundamental goals in congestion control, and propose Eagle, a new congestion control algorithm to refine existing heuristics. Eagle takes advantage of expert knowledge from an existing algorithm, and uses deep reinforcement learning (DRL) to train a generalized model with the hope of learning from an expert. Learning by trial-and-error may not be as efficient as imitating a teacher; by the same token, DRL alone is not enough to guarantee good performance. In Eagle, we seek help from an expert congestion control algorithm, BBR, to help us train a long-short term memory (LSTM) neural network in the DRL agent, with the hope of making decisions that can be as good as or even better than the expert. With an extensive array of experiments, we discovered that Eagle is able to match and even outperform the performance of its teacher, and outperformed a large number of recent congestion control algorithms by a considerable margin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".