INCC: In-Network Congestion Control With Proactive Bottleneck Awareness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delay-sensitive applications like telemedicine and VR/AR intensify competition for network resources and elevate congestion risks, particularly in mobile networks with highly dynamic link conditions. Traditional end-to-end congestion control methods suffer from prolonged response times, rendering them ineffective for Delay-sensitive applications. To this end, this paper proposes a novel In-Network Congestion Control (INCC) mechanism that accelerates congestion control by enabling network nodes to proactively identify bottlenecks and promptly notify end-hosts. Unlike traditional end-host-centric approaches, INCC facilitates collaborative congestion decision-making between end-hosts and in-network unit. INCC classifies congestion into two phases: “yellow” and “red” based on the local queue length bottleneck awareness and global congestion flow bottleneck statistics. For the “yellow” local congestion phrase, we design an in-network local control algorithm that performs proactive packet dropping and rate adjustment to mitigate emerging congestion. For the “red” global congestion phrase, we design an end-host and network cooperative global congestion control algorithm to make precise sending rate adaptation by proactive bottleneck awareness. We implement INCC via Linux kernel modifications and design three experiments to compare with Cubic, NewReno, and BBR. Experimental results demonstrate INCC has good performance on round-trip time and throughput, achieving 99.03% scheduling fairness in flow contention scenarios. Additionally, INCC has low execution overhead on CPU utilization and realize microsecond computational latency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".