MLEFlow: Learning from History to Improve Load Balancing in Tor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tor has millions of daily users seeking privacy while browsing the Internet. It has thousands of relays to route users’ packets while anonymizing their sources and destinations. Users choose relays to forward their traffic according to probability distributions published by the Tor authorities. The authorities generate these probability distributions based on estimates of the capacities of the relays. They compute these estimates based on the bandwidths of probes sent to the relays. These estimates are necessary for better load balancing. Unfortunately, current methods fall short of providing accurate estimates leaving the network underutilized and its capacities unfairly distributed between the users’ paths. We present MLEFlow, a maximum likelihood approach for estimating relay capacities for optimal load balancing in Tor. We show that MLEFlow generalizes a version of Tor capacity estimation, TorFlow-P, by making better use of measurement history. We prove that the mean of our estimate converges to a small interval around the actual capacities, while the variance converges to zero. We present two versions of MLEFlow: MLEFlow-CF, a closed-form approximation of the MLE and MLEFlow-Q, a discretization and iterative approximation of the MLE which can account for noisy observations. We demonstrate the practical benefits of MLEFlow by simulating it using a flow-based Python simulator of a full Tor network and packet-based Shadow simulation of a scaled down version. In our simulations MLEFlow provides significantly more accurate estimates, which result in improved user performance, with median download speeds increasing by 30%.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".