MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flow Size Prediction with Short Time Gaps

2024· article· en· W4401538509 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Morteza Hosseini, Sogand Sadrhaghighi, Majid Ghaderi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFlow (mathematics)MechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having a priori knowledge about network flow sizes is invaluable in network traffic control. Previous efforts on estimating flow sizes have focused on long flows, where each flow is identified by a large time gap in the sequence of packets. In this work, using extensive measurements, we investigate the feasibility of predicting the size of short flows, where the flow duration can be in the order of microseconds. Specifically, we deploy several popular workloads in a public cloud testbed, and collect both network and host traces for each workload. The network trace contains standard packet metadata, while the host trace contains high-level host statistics (e.g., memory usage and disk I/O) and low-level function call traces (e.g., malloc(), send()) that are captured during the execution of each workload via host instrumentation using eBPF. These traces are then used to train machine learning models for flow size prediction with varying time gaps ranging from microseconds to milliseconds. Our results indicate that: (1) It is feasible to predict short flow sizes with high accuracy, i.e., percentage error in 0-12% range, (2) the low-level traces lead to 10-20% improvement in prediction accuracy compared to using the network and high-level traces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207