sadat2307/MSciNLI huggingface dataset:
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: More­over, the traf.c of an individual user may self-interfere if traf.c assignment may change link latency.
Sentence 2: a comprehensive evaluation on the global effects of smart routing should address the following issues: (i) how well the smart routing algorithms perform when traf.c assignment can affect link latency; (ii) how well dif­ferent smart routing users co-exist; and (iii) how well smart routing users co-exist with single-homed users whose routing is controlled by the network.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Then we can show by induction that N t (t)(t) P{TF >t}= q= xx0Q1, (25) 1j j=1 where q1(tj ) is the .rst row and jth column element of the following matrix Q(t): Q(t) = Pk1 Pk2 ···Pkt ,t =1.
Sentence 2: (26) if we can prove that for any given trajectory Bof node B, there exists constant c 0 (inde­pendently of B) such that xx0Q(t)1 =ce -.t for all su.ciently large t, then from (23) and (25), we are done.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Weshouldemphasizethatsubastisnotyetwidelyde­ployedintheInternet'smultiastinfrastruture.However, beauseithaswideappliabilityforreliablemultiast,there issomereasontobelievethatitwillbeimplementedinfu­turemultiast­apableinternets.Furthermore,asweshow later,thissubastbasedshemehelpsusalibratetheper­formanetradeofsofotherimmediatelydeployabledesigns.
Sentence 2: overview Oursubast­basedsessionwatheroordinationleverages thefollowingobservation.Ifthepathfromtwosession watherstothesoureoverlaps,itsuÆesforoneofthem tomonitortheoverlappedsegmentofthepath.one sessionwather,say]aanmonitortheentirepathtothe soure.Theother,]banterminateitsmultiasttraeroute usingthehop­limitfeldinthemtraerequest.attheom­monanestorbetween]aand]b(Figure2(a)).Anearlier versionofthisalgorithmappearsin[22].
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: The paper .lls the gap between the proof that O (equivalent to ¬O1) is the weakestfailuredetectorto solve consensus[6] and theproof that anti-O(equivalentto ¬On-1)is the weakest failure de­tectorto solve(n -1)-set agreement.
Sentence 2: this paper closesthelong-standingquestfor .nding theweakestfailure detector for general k-set agreement[6,22,9,13,24].
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Anothersourceforoverestimationinourmodelisthefuid approximation.Infact,thetransmissionrateofTCPdoes notincreasecontinuouslybutratherjumpswhenthenumber INRIA - Paris b.RTT RTT  1415161718 1920212223 Figure12:Fluidmodelvs.packetmodel Day time (hours) INRIA - Australia Figure10:MANconnection INRIA - Australia  Time (hours) Figure13:WANconnection Day time (hours) areclosetotherealthroughputontheLANandMANcon­ Figure11:WANconnection nectionandnotontheWANone.Ingeneral,themodel in[27]isclosetotherealthroughputintwocases:when ofpacketsinjectedintothenetworkincreasesbyone.How­thelinearrateincreaseassumptioniscorrectandlossesare ever,thewindowatthesourcecanbeassumedtochange quitedeterministic (MANconnection)orwhenthelinear continuouslyasafunctionoftime.Weusethepacketlevel rateincreaseassumptionisnotvalidandinter-losstimes varyconsiderably(LANconnection).Thecorrectnessofthe modelinthelattercaseisduetoerrorcancellationbetween modelin[27]tocorrectthisproblemofdiscreteness.Fig­ ure12showshowthenumberofpacketsinthenetwork changesasafunctionoftimebetweentwocongestionevents.
Sentence 2: thedashedthicklinerepresentsourfuidmodelandthe continuousthicklinerepresentsthediscreteTCPbehavior describedin[27].AssumethatX(t)ismeasuredinpackets perunitoftime.Agoodapproximationistoshiftdown ourprocessX(t)by1/(2RTT)thentosubtractfromthe throughputthedeteriorationcausedbythelastRTTbefore theresumptionofthetransmission(Figure12).Ithasbeen assumedin[27]thatthenumberofpacketstransmitteddur-ingthelastRTTisequaltohalfthewindowsize.half E[Xn* ].RTTmustbesubtractedfromtheaverageintegral ofthetransmissionratebetweentwolosseventsinorder toaccountforthislastRTTbeforetheresumptionofthe transmission.Wegetthefollowingthroughput 1E[Xn* ].RTT Xd =X;;2RTT2E[Sn] () b1 =X;+ RTT 22(1;v) Usingthiscorrection,wecompareinFigures9,10,and11 ourmodelwithdeterministicinter-losstimes(11)withthe packetlevelmodelin[27].Theresultsofthesetwomodels practicallycoincideforallthreeconnections.Theseresults themodelforTCPandthemodelforlosses.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: If acommu­nication node fails at RA, it cannot establish a Radio Re­source Control (RRC) connection for its data transmission and reception.
Sentence 2: failure at RA maycause urgent data to be delayed (in the blocked-customer-delayed (BCD) queue cases) or cause measurement reports to fail (in the blocked­customer-cleared (BCC) queue cases).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: As discussed earlier, the code it ran scanned a very small subset of the IP address space, and did not manage to pro­duce even one infection during scanning.
Sentence 2: there are signi.cant factors that may lead to the continued use by worms of simple PRNGs such as LC, which, along with the availability of disassembled code, will facilitate the development of structural models of worm behavior to use in conjunction with telescope obser­vations for detailed reconstructions.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: The path duration PDF for the RW, FW, MH and RPGM models seems to be exponentially distributed when Vmax = 10 m/sec and h = 2.
Sentence 2: figures 8, 10 and 9 show the path duration PDFs for the RW, FW and RPGM (with 4 groups) from our simulations, we observe that if Probability 0.3 0.2 0.1 Vmax = 10 m/sec and h = 2, then the path duration for the RW, MH, FW and RPGM can be approxi­mated as an exponential distribution.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: on T is ßN(T)= 1 d((latj ,lonj ),prevloc(Tj )) |T|·.N (T) Tj .GN (T) where prevloc(Tj ) is the location of the last task completed by phone AN(Tj ), prior to its starting task Tj.
Sentence 2: the nu­merator is the total distance moved to ful.l each accepted task, and the denominator is the cardinality of the set of all accepted tasks.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: From this we conclude that whenever pb= 1/n, the .ood­ log n-log |I0 | ing time is, w.h.p., at least , that is at least log(1+e pn) O( log n p = c log n pn) ).
Sentence 2: independently from p, if 1 « b log( bnn with c< 1, then, a.s., logn logn « Ts = O+ .
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: When the background tra.c is increased, however, the impact of uncorrelated losses on the two WiFi links (from BS1 to A1 and A1 to BS2) in the InterBTS and InterAST con.guration is more pronounced than the e.ect of self-interference in the IntraBTS case, thus the loss is higher.
Sentence 2: the background tra.c trace from Macha, Zambia or the TCP streaming (which is higher than 1Mbps), is less detrimental in the IntraBTS case, as was shown in table 1.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: These factors include protocol properties (e.g., hierarchy via supernodes ), graph properties (e.g., power-law vs. k-regular graphs), client counter-DoS strategies (e.g., parallel download and randomization strategies), and user-behavior factors (e.g., willing­ness to share .les and persistence in downloading a .le when the system is under a DoS attack).
Sentence 2: our .ndings provide criti­cal guidelines for DoS-resilient design of p2p architectures, proto­cols, and client counter-strategies by characterizing attack scalabil­ity and even collapse points associated with each design decision.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: In this case, inter-BSs cooperation is challenging as user, CSI, and sig­naling data need to go one layer up in the wireline network hierarchy, i.e., via a metro or core network, before reach­ing the destination BS.
Sentence 2: a signi.cantly larger part of the mobile network is involved in exchanging additionaltra.c withstrict latency constraints(Figure2).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Since such interference cancellation is performed by AP1, clients in Cell 2 with the fewest (Q1, Q2, · · · , QK ) antennas can be picked to enjoy such bene.t.
Sentence 2: cell 2 is left with M -K clients with QK+1, · · · , QM antennas, and Cell 1 is left with N-K clients with PK+1, · · · , PN antennas.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Given a squarelet s, the probability that a random 2 multicast .ow will be routed via the squarelet s is at least k · 5ra2 .
Sentence 2: given any squarelet s, the expected number of .ows that v will be routed through the squarelet s is at most c6 · ns k ar , given ns multicast sessions.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: The receiver then declares a collision if within a window of 20 bytes (from the point of preamble detection), SofPHY hints suggest that more than 30% bits have con.dence less than a.
Sentence 2: if a preamble-correlation spike is followed by a train of low con.dence symbols, the receiver stops reception, and transmits the collision noti.cation.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: C3 and C4 are able to obtain theirpack­etsby reversing thenetwork coding and .llinginremoved chunks from their caches.
Sentence 2: rEfactor + COPE reduces the number of transmissions to 3 - d, where d is the relative difference in the size of afull un-encodedpacket(e.g., abd)and the above coded packet along with the shims.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: x.F '' ' and I13(xB )and I14(xB ) are exactly the same as I3(xB )in (19) and I4 ' (xB ) in (20), respectively.
Sentence 2: the overall interference is I1' (xB )= I11 ' (xB )+I13 ' (xB )+ I14 ' (xB ).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Specifi- cally, each concave utility function achieves a corresponding fairness model.
Sentence 2: any fairness objective in shared wire- less channels can be modeled by the following system of equations: Maximize ~ U(ri), where ri = Axi(t)/At, i subject to Vj, ZIi'j(t) < 1, Vt Vt, Vi, x~(t) = x~(t-1) + l, if Ii,j (t) = 1, V(i, j) e E" = xi(t-1), otherwise.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: dp(i,k) T (p(i,k)(n +1)) - T (p(i,j)(n + 1)) = 0.
Sentence 2: the search for the minimal solution of G(pi) has the e.ectiveness which decreases the occurrence of out-of-order packets because of the equalization of the delay of source link and destination link.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: For example, consider a part of an MANET shown in Figure 7(a), the path S-A-B-T is the optimal path for a connection from S to T. The metric for optimality can be hop count for shortest path routing.
Sentence 2: nodes A and B will continuously be used in forwarding the tra.c, leav­ing the other nodes free from the tra.c load.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: If the route is withdrawn by the producer and the elector fails to propagate the withdrawal to the consumer, the consumer has no way to detect this.
Sentence 2: sPIDeR al­lows ASes to trigger an extended veri.cation for a given commit­ment, which works exactly like a normal veri.cation, except that the AS must also re-announce all routes it had announced origi­nally, with timestamps equal to the commitment time.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Thus, a high utility v0 is obtained for each of these services if the minimum rate r0 is allocated, while the allocation of additional units(ontop of r0)results in lower value than v0 .
Sentence 2: the social welfare attained over a slotif anadditional usergetsserved evenwith theminimum rate r0 ishigher thanthe one attainedifthe samequantity of bandwidth was given to a set of users already being served.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: According to Markov s inequality, W n -FiPr(t = u)= Pr(X = u -Fi)= W(u -Fi) 1 n -u 1 n -u = (1+ )< (1+ ).
Sentence 2: wu -Fi Wu -ß · n Suc(t) = Pr(t = u)(1-Suc(u))+Suc(u) n -ß · n < (1-Suc(u))+Suc(u).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Security Issues in Privacy and Key Management Protocols of IEEE 802.16 Sen Xu Manton Matthews Chin-Tser Huang Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208, USA {xu4, matthews, huangct}@cse.sc.edu ABSTRACT Without physical boundaries, a wireless network faces many more security threats than a wired network does.
Sentence 2: in the IEEE 802.16 standard a security sublayer is specified in the MAC layer to address the privacy issues across the fixed Broadband Wireless Access (BWA).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: The reason for this .ltering lies on the straightforward veri.cation heuristic we employed; for each email address coupled with a name, we looked it up us­ing Facebook search and, from any pro.le results returned, considered a match only if the name was exactly the same as the one in the dataset.
Sentence 2: entries with middle names or special characters, having a larger possibility of being written di.erently across disjoined social networks, were excluded.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: As there are at most w.B(v,2) log n colors, this sum over all colors ful.lls pw O(1) = log n = O(1).
Sentence 2: ce log n ce log n w.B(v,2) if c is suf.ciently large, the average number of trans­mitters is smaller than 1/4, and by Markov bound no one transmits with probability 3/4.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: 4.1 RWP Mobility Based on our observations in section 3, we choose to use AODV when the network density is above 40/(500 m * 500 m) and epi­demic routing otherwise.
Sentence 2: in order to obtain the network density, we assume that the communication range of all nodes is 130 m and then, based on the number of nodes that we are communicating with, we can calculate the node density: n/(p * r 2), where n is the number of neighbors and r is 130 m. we learn that n is 8.5 for the borderline density.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: While formulating the communication range requirement, we make use of the required information freshness metric ob­tained in Section 2.1, as we are interested in the separation distance between a node pair when a su.cient information freshness level is achieved.
Sentence 2: reliable range of com­munication is de.ned as the maximum separation distance at which a node is able to receive at least n packets from the neighbor node within an information freshness interval with a certain probability.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Figure1:Belief/disbelief/unertaintytriangle  3.2 Forming Opinions SubjetiveLogigivesaframeworkforexpressingopinions aboutanylogialstatement.Theonlylogialstatementwe onsiderhereisthetrustworthinessofanothernode.Al­thoughsubjetivelogigivesformulasforombiningopin­ions,itleavesopenthequestionofhowopinionsareformed inthefrstplae.Thissuggeststhatamehanismmust bedevisedandevaluatedexperimentally.Weproposethe followingshemeofformulatingopinions.
Sentence 2: anyunknownnodeisautomatiallyassignedanentirely unertainopinion.Wewilluseabaserateof0.5,sothat unknownnodesarebydefaultassignedamedianlevelof trust.thedefaultopinionis(0.0,0.0,1.0,0.5).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: If at the end of slot 1, the CS suppresses A and D, then even though the set of linear equations has 2 variables (A and D) and 2 equations (samples received at AP1 and AP2), still it is not possible to decode both A and D without the exchange of samples.
Sentence 2: we need another mechanism to compute the set of suppressed transmissions.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Most of the existing protocols focus on a single aspect such as ei­ther location or power-awareness and do not generally con­sider the existence of asymmetric links even though a hetero­geneous ad hoc network is mostly composed of asymmetric links.
Sentence 2: the novelty of this work comes from the combined e.ects of not only location and power-awareness but also the usage of asymmetric links throughout.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: To find the minimum value of LN 2 MPn,b , advantage is taken of the arithmetic­ gn n=1 n geometric means inequality: 21 2 21 N NN f( ) g g g [ f( )] 2 gn 1 2 N b +b + + b -N n 12 N 2b -1 ;N N 2 MP =L 2 222 L gn n,b n 2 n=1 n=1 hn h1 h2 hN (9) When each term on the left-hand side of (9) is equal, the sum is the minimum.
Sentence 2: if each term of the left-hand has the same value as 2 21 N f( ) g g 2 g [ f( )] gn 1 2 N 21 b -1 b +b + + b -N 22 =N 2 n 12 N 22 2 hn h1 h2 hN n =12, ,...,N (10) Then the total transmission power interference has the minimum value.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: When the DSD Agent of router 1 replaces the encryption module before an appro­priate decryption module has been installed by the DSD Agent of router 2, packets encrypted by the new algorithm will be discarded.
Sentence 2: figure 1: Simpli.ed network setup consisting of two routers connected with a secure communication channel to preserve the integrity of the network while the adaptation is in progress, a coordination mechanism is required that involves doing the service deployment in a co­ordinated manner.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: For link (i, j), we denote the neighboring CS tra.c as .cs, and the neighboring HT tra.c as .ht.Con­sidering self-tra.c interference, the CS tra.c becomes .cs +CSFi ×., and HT tra.c becomes .ht +HT Fi ×..
Sentence 2: the LPTT of link i to j which has considered self-tra.c interference is LP T T (.cs + CSFi × ., .ht + HT Fi × ., .).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: We view a small sampled frequency gj as a variable that arose from a Poisson distribution whose mean is estimated by gj.
Sentence 2: we can say that gj is distinguishable from 0 at signi.cance level eif the proba­bility that gj would have been zero under the Poisson distribution is -gj less than e. we require e <e, in other words, gj = j(e).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: This in turn, creates more resources and hence more transmissions in the same contention region if the interfer­ence caused by some links is weak.
Sentence 2: while the total num­ber of resources used in any contention region can potentially be greater than K, the total number of resources used up by any link in any contention region cannot exceed K. If the array gain is to be used towards increasing the capacity directly rather than increasing the range, then the resource in each contention region (K) can be viewed to be scaled by a factor (Cj, given in equation 9) with each link s allocation being limited to {0,Cj}.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: qi.Q(e)Let e be the lth edge in path Pi of packet qi.
Sentence 2: then, Yi =1 if and only if Xi = t - l. Pr[Yi = 1] = 1 , and PP C E[Ct(e)] = E[ Yi]= E[Yi] = 1 Since the qi.Q(e)qi.Q(e)random delays are chosen independently, the variables Yi are in­dependent Bernoulli trials and by the Chernoff bound, we have Pr[Ct(e)= ..E[Ct(e)]]= 2-. ,.. = 6.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: The aforementioned attacks aredam­aging to both wireless clients, such as laptops, and wire­less services, such as APs, particularly since the distinction between client and service devices is becoming increasingly blurred; e.g.,aclient gamestationsometimesprovideswire­less service to others as an ad hoc AP.
Sentence 2: we want to limit the linkability of packets transmitted by both clients and services.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Instead, an ACK is sent only if at least NMP packets were received from the stream S since the last sent ACK, or if at least a time duration TS elapsed since the last ACK sent to the stream S. When receiving an ACK containing the counter value C, the stream S will assume that it is the ACK for the Cth sent packet.
Sentence 2: it will compute an RTT estimate RT Tc based on the current time moment and the time moment when the Cth packet sent by S was sent.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: This suggests that for a strictly achievable QoS metric that is prametrized by (.1, ..., .M ), for which these conditions hold with strict inequalities, there exists some E > 0 such that K K max diE[zi] = di.i(1 + E).
Sentence 2: (23) i i the drift in (21) reduces to .V [k] = M/2 - E i di.i.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Evenwhen the approximation error inducedbythe transfor­mation of contact sequences to static graphs is acceptable, individualDTN nodes cannot alwaysbeawareof the full so­cial graph resulting from the encounters of all network nodes.
Sentence 2: realistic protocol implementations such as [5] and [9] rely on egocentric approximations of the original socio­centric metrics, computed across the nodes ego networks [12],[6].
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: When the piggybacked response contains more than one packet, the DNS response in the .rst packet is still suf.cient for obtaining the rest of the content via a normal HTTP Range request to the Web server.
Sentence 2: the LDNS handles a loss of a subsequent DEW response packet from RDNS by sending to the client a DEW response contain­ing just the contiguous portion of HTTP data that was success­fully received.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: On the other hand, if the tra.c from adja­cent satellites to satellite E is too small, satellite-destination link cannot be used adequately and it deteriorates the uti­lization of satellite-destination links.
Sentence 2: it is neces­sary to maximize the use of the link between satellite E and destination, and minimize the amount of data that satel­lite E needs to send to satellite A.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Step2: due to the fact that in the Hamiltonian path all nodes are visited in ascending order (in the high channel subnetwork) or descending order (in the low channel subnetwork), all of the selected neighbors in Step1 do not necessarily satisfy the ordering constraint.
Sentence 2: if the labels of the selected neighbors (in Step1) are between the label of node u and destination d, it/they can be selected as the next hop (pseudo code in Fig.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: If each node maintains r vset­paths to its virtual neighbors and the average path length is p, the total number of routing table entries in an n node network is nrp.
Sentence 2: each node will have on average rp entries for vset-paths in its routing table: r entries for the paths to its virtual neighbors and r(p - 1) additional entries for vset-paths through the node.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: When employing the right hand rule node v2 will send the message along the path v2v3v4v5v6v1 while v1 is the .rst node which is located closer to t than the greedy failure node v2.
Sentence 2: greedy routing can be restarted at node v1 which will in turn send the message to v2 again, i.e.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Second, due to its capabil­ity to estimate not only the circumstances in which perfor­mance is maximized but also actual expected performance, the model allows selecting the (routing, placement) strategy itself.
Sentence 2: overall, it allows for the identi.cation of the complete con.guration of a workload such that that work­load completes in a minimum amount of time.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: It can only calculates its expected payment from Um which is expressed as ( ) EE E Rn C n = .C n mm m P (n, m) (8) where P (n, m) is the probability of Fn selected by Um and Cn E when m .8, P (n, m) .1.
Sentence 2: fn has an incen­tive to report larger average subchannel capacity because it cannotget paymentifitis not selected by anyFUE.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Let a(x)= (F(x) - F(-x))2 - (1 - e - x 22 ), where x = 3.3.
Sentence 2: calculations show that 22 da(x) 4 - x - x = v (F(x) - F(-x)) · e 2 - xe 2 dx 2p 4 - x2 2 <( v- x) · e< 0 2p a(x)is monotone decreasing in [3.3, 8].
Relationship: reasoning