MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291722496 · doi:10.1145/3524844.3528053

Learning self-adaptations for IoT networks

2022· article· en· W4291722496 on OpenAlexaff
Jia Li, Shiva Nejati, Mehrdad Sabetzadeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAdaptation (eye)Distributed computingFlexibility (engineering)Context (archaeology)Network packetInteroperabilitySoftware-defined networkingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet of Things (IoT) is a pivotal technology in application domains that require connectivity and interoperability between large numbers of devices. IoT systems predominantly use a software-defined network (SDN) architecture as their core communication backbone. This architecture offers several advantages, including the flexibility to make IoT networks self-adaptive through software programmability. In general, self-adaptation solutions need to periodically monitor, reason about, and adapt a running system. The adaptation step involves generating an adaptation strategy and applying it to the running system whenever an anomaly arises. In this paper, we argue that, rather than generating individual adaptation strategies, the goal should be to adapt the logic / code of the running system in such a way that the system itself would learn how to steer clear of future anomalies, without triggering self-adaptation too frequently. We instantiate and empirically assess this idea in the context of IoT networks. Specifically, using genetic programming (GP), we propose a self-adaptation solution that continuously learns and updates the control constructs in the data-forwarding logic of SDN-based IoT networks. Our evaluation, performed using open-source synthetic and industrial data, indicates that, compared to a baseline adaptation technique that attempts to generate individual adaptations, our GP-based approach is more effective in resolving network congestion, and further, reduces the frequency of adaptation interventions over time. In addition, we compare our approach against a standard data-forwarding algorithm from the network literature, demonstrating that our approach significantly reduces packet loss.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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