ProbD: Faulty Path Detection Based on Probability in Software-Defined Networking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing number of switches in Software-Defined Networking (SDN), there are more and more faults rising in the data plane. However, due to the existence of link redundancy and multi-path forwarding mechanisms, these problems cannot be detected in time. The current faulty path detection mechanisms have problems such as the large scale of detection and low efficiency, which is difficult to meet the requirements of efficient faulty path detection in large-scale SDN. Concerning this issue, we propose an efficient network path fault testing model ProbD based on probability detection. This model achieves a high probability of detecting arbitrary path fault in the form of small-scale random sampling. Under a certain path fault rate, ProbD obtains the curve of sample size and probability of detecting arbitrary path fault by randomly sampling network paths several times. After a small number of experiments, the ProbD model can correctly estimate the path fault rate of the network and calculate the total number of paths that need to be detected according to the different probability of detecting arbitrary path fault and the path fault rate of the network. The final experimental results show that, compared with the full path coverage test, the ProbD model based on probability detection can achieve efficient network testing with less overhead. Besides, the larger the network scale is, the more overhead will be saved.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".