MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251677367 · doi:10.1109/p2p.2007.4343472

An End-to-End Solution to Scalable Unstructured P2P Networking

2007· article· en· W4251677367 on OpenAlexaff
Nima Sarshar, Vwani Roychowdhury

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnd-to-end principleComputer scienceScalabilityComputer networkDistributed computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite many improvements on original unstructured P2P networks, these systems still suffer from many problems, the most important of which are, (a) lack of guarantees on the integrity of the network topology in the face of churns, (b) excessive traffic cost, and (c) poor quality of search results. This paper introduces an end-to-end scalable unstructured P2P networking solution called SUPNET to address many of these issues. The solution consists of two sub-protocols, SUPNET-T and SUPNET-S, which are, respectively, responsible for network management and search. We investigate the end-to-end performance of our solution, both analytically and empirically. SUPNET-T is a scalable, highly robust protocol, capable of utilizing the heterogenous distribution of network resources. The high stability of SUPNET-T is the result of implementation of a novel distributed feedback mechanism. SUPNET-S, on the other hand, is capable of locating every item, even if a single copy of that item exists in the network. SUPNET-S does this while producing a traffic that scales provably sub-linear with the network size. The protocol also contains mechanisms for efficient search of popular items as well as distributed tuning algorithms. All this, along with a relative ease of implementation and a solid analytical foundation, make SUPNET a compelling solution for unstructured P2P networking.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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