MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403636726 · doi:10.1145/3697253.3697271

StarQUIC: Tuning Congestion Control Algorithms for QUIC over LEO Satellite Networks

2024· article· en· W4403636726 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Kamel, Jinwei Zhao, Daoping Li, Jianping Pan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Application Security Vulnerabilities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNetwork congestionSatelliteComputer networkAlgorithmEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the deployment of mega constellations of Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) satellites, low latency and high throughput Internet coverage is extended globally. Latency-sensitive applications can benefit from the inherent lower transmission delay of LEO satellite networks compared to traditional Geostationary-Earth-Orbit (GEO) satellite networks. Starlink employs a globally time-synchronized controller to manage the association of satellite-to-ground communication links with an interval of 15 seconds, at fixed 12-27-42-57 seconds of every minute. Latency spikes and packet losses can occur during the handover period which can degrade the performance of transport layer protocols including TCP and QUIC, which rely on similar congestion control algorithms for fair data transmission. In this paper, we investigate the impact of the frequent Starlink handover events on QUIC performance. By leveraging the predictable handover patterns to avoid unnecessary congestion window reduction, we improved the performance of QUIC by up to 35% in terms of completion time in both network emulation and real-world experiments over Starlink networks. Our approach is independent of specific loss-sensitive congestion control algorithms and can be easily generalized.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWeb Application Security VulnerabilitiesFrench-language works237,207