MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312980540 · doi:10.1109/comst.2022.3215919

A Survey on Intent-Based Networking

2022· article· en· W4312980540 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsCisco Systems (Canada)Université du Québec à Montréal
FundersSilicon Valley Community Foundation
KeywordsAgile software developmentComputer scienceAutomationProcess (computing)Configuration Management (ITSM)Process managementEngineeringSoftware engineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current and future network services and applications are expected to revolutionize our society and lifestyle. At the same time, the abundant possibilities that new network technologies offer to end users, network operators and administrators have created a cumbersome network configuration process to accommodate all different stakeholders and applications. Thus, lately, there is a need to simplify the management and configuration of the network, through possibly an autonomic and automatic way. Intent Based Networking (IBN) is such a paradigm that envisions flexible, agile, and simplified network configuration with minimal external intervention. This paper provides a detailed survey of how the IBN concept works and what are the main components to guarantee a fully autonomous IBN system (IBNS). Particular emphasis is given on the intent expression, intent translation, intent resolution, intent activation and intent assurance components, which form the closed loop automation system of an IBNS. The survey concludes with identifying open challenges and future directions of the problem at hand.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0060.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.204 · 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