Duality of the Max-Plus and Min-Plus Network Calculus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The network calculus is a framework for the analysis of communication networks, which exploits that many computer network models become tractable for analysis if they are expressed in a min-plus or max-plus algebra. In a min-plus algebra, the network calculus characterizes amounts of traffic and available service as functions of time. In a max-plus algebra, the network calculus works with functions that express the arrival and departure times or the required service time for a given amount of traffic. While the min-plus network calculus is more convenient for capacity provisioning in a network, the max-plus network calculus is more compatible with traffic control algorithms that involve the computation of timestamps. Many similarities and relationships between the two versions of the network calculus are known, yet they are largely viewed as distinct analytical approaches with different capabilities and limitations. We show that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the min-plus and max-plus network calculus, as long as traffic and service are described by functions with real-valued domains and ranges. Consequently, results from one version of the network calculus can be readily applied for computations in the other version. The ability to switch between min-plus and max-plus analysis without any loss of accuracy provides additional flexibility for characterizing and analyzing traffic control algorithms. This flexibility is exploited for gaining new insights into link scheduling algorithms that offer rate and delay guarantees to traffic flows.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it