MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414917712 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202533701241

Belle II Network Performance Analysis in the Context of the WLCG Data Challenge 2024

2025· article· en· W4414917712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Silvio Pardi, T. Hara, M. Hernández Villanueva, H. Ito, H. Miyake, Hiroaki Ono, C. Serfon, I. Ueda

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Raw dataLarge Hadron ColliderNetworking hardwareLuminosityTest (biology)Field (mathematics)Test data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Belle II experiment relies on a distributed computing infrastructure spanning 19 countries and over 50 sites. It is expected to generate approximately 40TB/day of raw data in 2027, necessitating distribution from the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) in Japan to six data centers across the USA, Europe, and Canada. Establishing a high-quality network has been a priority since 2012 to address the challenge of transferring data across long distances in high-latency environments. This effort included joining LHCONE and conducting periodic data challenges to assess network performance after significant changes in infrastructure or experiment schedules. In February 2024 Belle II joined the WLCG Data Challenge, performed together with LHC experiments with the goal to test network performance under stress, particularly due to the anticipated increase in traffic from the experiments with the High Luminosity LHC program at CERN. In this work, we will present a comprehensive overview of the tests conducted by Belle II. We will start with the test design, define the goals, and outline the preliminary steps taken. We will then describe the working environment, the tests performed, and the tools employed. Furthermore, we will discuss the results achieved in detail. Finally, we will outline the future steps for subsequent tests.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207