sadat2307/MSciNLI huggingface dataset:
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: If we express s(t) as j2Sf t ` c s(t) Re^~ sb (t)e (2) ~ here Sb (t) is the base-band analytic signal of s(t) and f c is the carrier frequency.
Sentence 2: the channel output can be expressed as following: ­ª j2Sf W (t ) ~ º j2Sf t ½ c c y(t) Re®«¦a n (t)e n sb (t Wn (t))»e ¾ ¯¬ n ¼ " (3) n(t).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: This is also technically dif.cult because, in the absence of any additional redirection services, it would require endusers to know which ISPs offered such lookup services (at any point in time, they would have to know which ISPs were offering IPvN) and which offering ISP is best suited to serving the enduser in terms of network proximity.
Sentence 2: relying on ISPs to provide a lookup ser­vice would likely interfere with universal access.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: In other words, S-NC makes a dynamic forwarding decision by providing the freedom for the MAC layer to decide among a set of nodes (rather than a single next-hop).
Sentence 2: it can achieve a higher coding Table 1: Comparison Between Structure-based and Structure-free Routing with Respect to Decoding Gain Routing Selected Received packets Decoding Scheme Relays at the sink Gain Both E p1, p2, p1+x 1.5 Both D p1, p2, p1+y+w 1.6 Structure-based Both C p1, p2, p1+p+q+r 2 (CTP) C,D D,E p1, p2, p1+p+q+r, p2+y+w p1, p2, p1+y+w, p2+x 2.25 1.75 C,E p1, p2, p1+p+q+r, p2+x 2 Structure-free (S-NC) C,D p1, p2, p1+p+q+r, p2+y+w 2.25 opportunity by exploiting the information about the exis­tence and number of data in neighbor nodes; also it can balance energy consumption in the network.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Our adaptive algorithm has the following salient features: (1) it provides control over the time-scale of monitoring and allocation via two tunable parameters: P(= W) and cr (in general, larger re­computation periods and smaller cxs bias the allocator to long-term variations in the load), (2) it allows control over the allocation via a set of rules to constrain the allocation, (3) it employs techniques to provide stable overload behavior, and (4) it exploits the semantics of each class by using different metrics (median and percentiles of the distribution) to estimate bandwidth needs.
Sentence 2: the bandwidth allocator meets all of the requirements outlined in Section 3.2.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Then, by de.nition it should satisfy D(p ' ,v,0) <D(p,v, 0) = t+1 and hencealreadywouldhavebeentransferredtoorbeyond the arrival queue of node v,by inductionhypothesis.
Sentence 2: thus, the packet p is at the head of its relay queue and there is no packet p ' in its Schedule Priority List that can be moved to v. the stable marriage algorithm schedules this packet p in time slot t+1 and moves it from the relay queue of v '' to the arrival queue/departure queue of node v. Thus, A(p,v, 1) = t +1 = D(p,v, 0).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: 3.2 Rooted Tree Method The partitioning algorithrn of this approach14, lo] is an external-memory extension of the Lip­ton and Tarjan s planar separator algorithm 161.
Sentence 2: it can only partition planar graphs.Also the disk-based data structure selected for storing pre-computation information requires a lot of space, thus it may not be suitable for large graphs.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Since dx i=1,··· ,M M ×( min i ) =D, (18) we can have min i=1,··· ,M Ci M = ( min i=1,··· ,M dx i ) ·( min i=1,··· ,M Ci) D .
Sentence 2: (19) the routing scheme design is relaxed to be a problem of maximizing the minimum value of the right side of (19); in other words, the right side of (19) should be increased by the routing scheme as much as possible to achieve the objective in (17).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Net-Lord reserves an address space forTenant_ID=1, and each NLA must obtain an IP address in this address space.
Sentence 2: when thehypervisor boots,itbroadcastsaDHCP request directlyover the L2fabric, using its hardware MACaddress, and the DHCP server Figure3: Flow ChartforPacket Send responds with suf.cient information for the NLA to continue with further operation in theTenant_ID=1 space.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: That is, an AS path traverses a sequence of customer-provider edges, zero or one peering edges, and then a sequence of provider­customer edges.
Sentence 2: each AS pair in an AS path can be assigned either a customer-provider or a provider­customer relationship: every pair before the AS with the highest degree in the path is assigned a customer-provider re­lationship, and every pair after this AS is assigned a provider­customer relationship.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: (2) where, yn(x1, x2,.., xn) means the instantaneous reward if we stop using the channel after time n; (M) E(V n+1 (x1, x2,.., xn, Xn+1 ) | X1 = x1, X2 = x2,.., Xn = xn)represents the maximum expected reward if we wait to stopping using the channel after time n+1.
Sentence 2: it is better for the modem to stop after time n when the instantaneous reward is larger than the maximum expected reward.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: For example, in IEEE 802.11b/g the number of non-overlapping channels is 3 and in 802.11a it is 12 where 8 are used for normal access and 4 are used for outdoors point-to-point connec­tions.
Sentence 2: even with maximum separation it is possible that many APs would share a channel.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: However, NetLord encapsulates all tenant VM addresses, and also hides most physical NIC MACaddresses from most switches (as we will soon 1http://eucalyptus.cs.ucsb.edu/ describe).
Sentence 2: augmenting SPAIN with NetLord greatly reduces FIB pressure, because the switch FIBs need to hold only one en­try for each .VLAN, switch-MAC.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: When N : C, the above rounding mechanism coupled with the selection of at most N sessions with the largest .ow value out of (at most) C, will provide a guarantee of 2NC .
Sentence 2: lSDP provides a performance guarantee of max{ 12 , 1 - C(C-1) 2N } when N 2 C, which is the case of practical in­terest, where the number of channels will be much more than the number of components and relays.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Our receiver design in §4.2 can reliably detect Wi-Fi packets as small as 50 µs to a distance of more than two meters.
Sentence 2: the Wi-Fi reader can transmit a 64-bit payload message with a 16-bit preamble in 4.0 ms. We can transmit more bits by splitting them across multiple CTS_to_SELF packets.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Considering the any-to-any reachability model of MPLS VPNs, we could accommodate the possibility that any PE can potentially communicate with any other PEs in the VPN, even if they have not in the past.
Sentence 2: we can solve the LCR problem using a full-mesh full full conversation matrix Cfull =(c ), where .i,j (i =.j) c = i,j i,j 1,c full =0.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Note i=1 that each singular value is the square root of the corresponding eigenvalue, which in turn is the energy attributable to the respec­tive principal component: IXv iI=v iTX TXv i =A iv iT v i =A i(5) where the second equality holds from Equation 1, and the last equality follows from the fact that v ihas unit norm.
Sentence 2: the singular values are useful for gauging the potential for reduced di­mensionality in the data, often simply through their visual exam­ination in a scree plot.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: As discussed above, this corresponds to the header space hc = C - A - B.
Sentence 2: we wish to Ps(1011) = {1xxx, x0xx, xxx1, xxx0, 10xx, x01x, x01x, xx11...} The total number of possible .ows that include the packet are: L L L |Ps(p)| = =2L - 1 k k=1 we turn to heuristics in the following section to .nd the most general rule to install.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: For all four traces, we computed NBR using probing packet sizes between 50 and 1500 bytes with 50-byte increasing step and probing train lengths between 2 and 512 pack­ets with 2-packet increasing step.
Sentence 2: in total, we have 256 × 30 = 7, 680 di.erent probing constructions for each of the four traces.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Traditionally, the concept of trust has only been viewed as a belief or feeling regarding the behavior of peers [9]; however, in our research, we define an entity s trust as representing the extent to which a peer node would be trustworthy, secure, or reliable in any interaction with the node.
Sentence 2: trust-based reputation is used to evaluate other nodes ability to fulfill an expected action, and a node can take advantage of this reputation information to make decisions when it must choose a set of trustworthy nodes for its packet forwarding.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: That is, while traceroute returns a list of IP addresses each representing a router on a path, tracenet attempts to return all the IP addresses assigned to the inter­faces on each visited subnetwork on the path.
Sentence 2: the collected information (1) includes more IP addresses be­longing to the traced path; (2) represents being on the same LAN relationship among the collected IP addresses; and (3) annotates the discovered subnets with their observed subnet masks.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Note that, in addition to eliminating the ef­fects of the IP-layer timers, Virtual Multi-Homing eliminates the dependence of outage times on route propagation times.
Sentence 2: we expect Virtual Multi-Homing to yield an outage time of 25 seconds (when used with SONET physical layer links), independent of the number of routes advertised by the customer.2  5.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: In particular, the lower bound is achieved for a distance of about 420 meters.
Sentence 2: finally, we should mention that, in a real scenario, the transmitting terminal is unaware of the distance towards the receivers since all communications are broadcast-based (similarly to, e.g., digital television).we seek a global optimization that is applicable to all pos­sible receivers independently of their position, and based on well-known data such as the distance towards the road ve­hicles go through.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Some operating systems support built-in video decoders; e.g., An­droid 2.3.3 supports 3GPP (.3gp), MPEG-4 (.mp4), MPEG-TS (.ts), and webM (.webm) [1].
Sentence 2: the OS can give us a hint as to what video format can be decoded.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: T T RT Notice that, if T T RT = GCDi(Ti) then T T RT 1.
Sentence 2: by setting T T RT as stated in Corollary 1, substituting T T RT =1 in the schedulability condition U : 1 - a, it results that this last becomes U : 1 - a , that is, the WCAU is equal to 1 - a for BuST and FDDI-  M. In the same way we can see that, by setting T T RT =  0.5 · GCDi(Ti), the WCAU becomes equal to 1 - 2a for 2 FDDI.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: k=1 is also known as the cumulant expansion (the lower limit of the summation is 1 rather than 0 since .V (0) = 0) and the kth derivative, .
Sentence 2: (k)(0) is known as the kth cumulant6 of V. V the log moment generating function is also known as the cumulant generating function.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: The communication complexity during the convergence period is de­termined by the number of random walks each node should start, i.e., the value r(n)calculated above, multiplied by the length of each random walk.
Sentence 2: the total communication complexity dur­ing the convergence period is n· r(n)· Tactual mix =T(n 2 · r(n)).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Since the survivalprobability ß (n,c)introduced in Subsection 2.3 is N the probability that the packet has not been trapped after a random walk of n hops, we obtain in terms of probability notation Pr{D (c)>n}= ß (n,c),n = 0.
Sentence 2: nN if we denote by FN (n,c) the cumulative distri­bution function of the global delay, we can then write F (n,c)= Pr{D (c)= n}=1-Pr{D (c)>n} NN N (18) =1-ß (n,c).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Although MEDD has a slightly smaller success ratio in dynamic routing when the bu.er limit is small (= 2), the delay improvement of MEDD is consistent in all cases (at least 18%-25% shorter than MDP and at least 13%-18% shorter than MED).
Sentence 2: the overall message delivery performance of MEDD can be guaranteed, especially when a su.ciently large bu.er size is provided (= 5 in the simulated network model).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: V (ti) Average change rate of the value of basic events that are associated with s within the sliding window Dl [ti  dl, ti].
Sentence 2: v (ti) is given by V (t )-V (t ) (13) id = ii-1 V '(t ) l Similarly, we obtain the acceleration in the basic event change rate associated with the s, which we denote as V (ti), as follows: V '(ti ) -V '(ti-1) (14) V "(ti )= dl Let us now describe constraints on lazy sampling.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: .y = @y2A = @h2A p + @2A q = htx1p +.htx2q, h ' y3 h33 where .htx2isthechannel vectorforthesecond transmission.How­ever, since tx3is carrier sensinginthe2-dimensional space orthog­onal to tx1 s transmission,it computes: « « « ' w.1 · .yw.1 · htx1p +w.1 · htx2q .w1 · htx2 .y == = q.
Sentence 2: .· .y ... w2 .w2 · htx1p +.w2 · htx2qw.2 · htx2 as opposed to the scenario in which only tx1 was transmit­ting and tx3 saw that the second degree of freedom is unused, tx3 ' .
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: The small­est pre.x that contains them is the level 2 pre.x 11xx.In order to merge 1110 and 110x into 11xx, we need to ex­pand the range by only 1 (from [3, 14] to [3, 15]).
Sentence 2: we prefer to merge the rightmost two pre.xes by expanding the range from [3, 14] to [3, 15].
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Conditioned on h, it is clear that ISI1 de.ned in k=1 (18) is a discrete type random variable with a .nite num­ber of values, i.e, ISI1 = {Ij }NI with some given Ij s. The j=1 occurrence probabilities of Ij s, which are called pj s, can be easily computed via computer simulation.
Sentence 2: we assume that the random variable ISI1 takes Ij s with the given probabilities pj s. Conditioned on ISI1 and bi, the .nal test statistics yi is a Gaussian random variable with variance s2 given in (14).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Thus, in order to model DDOS attacks, we con­sider the attack as propagating in a tree T ,where the root of the tree T is the victim, V ,each internal node in T corresponds to a router X on the Internet, and each leaf in T is a (possibly compromised) attack host.
Sentence 2: t is a subtree of the Internet, where we are modeling only the in.ow of packets to V .
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: We use an FM sketch to store the average of these relative distances as the center of the aggregate s area (C in the .gure).
Sentence 2: when v1 creates an aggregate A1, it will approximate R1 - v1; when v2 receives A1, it computes a new aggregate that will ap­proximate avg(R1 - v1, R2 - v2), and so on.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Due to inaccuracies in RSSI and AOA calculations node m has to compute a new estimate and move to it.
Sentence 2: the process continues until node m reaches node s. even with the inaccuracies in the RSSI and AOA measurements, node m will eventually reach the position of node s. Moreover, we have also introduced a connectivity check (Section 5) that filters out incorrectly identified edge nodes.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Here attacker node period­ically drops in every second for a short duration which is randomly chosen between 50 ms to 250 ms.
Sentence 2: jF nodes generate no tra.c themselves; like non-malicious nodes, JF drop for only a small fraction of time; yet, with this drop­ping pattern during a maliciously chosen period, the follow­ing behavior results.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: On the other hand, the available location privacy gain (upperbounded by the density of nodes and their locations unpredictability) and the user-centric location privacy level might encourage sel.sh mobile nodes to change pseudonym and obtain a satisfactory location privacy level.
Sentence 2: using a game-theoretic analysis, we investigate whether location privacy can emerge in a non-cooperative system and despite the cost incurred by a node in changing its pseudonym, di.erentiated privacy levels, and the need for coordinated pseudonym changes to achieve a confusion point.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: This implies that not only the distance between the two nodes needs to be incorporated, but also their absolute positions in the scenario.
Sentence 2: in this model two factors attenuate the re­ceived signal: A deterministic path loss pl and a stochastic shadowing s. The .rst one is computed using the formula from[16]: pl(pi,pj)[dB]=10.log10 (d(pi,pj)) « c (1) +20 · log10 , fc · 4p where .
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: The proposedimprovement consists of controllingthe amount of monitored tra.c based on the quantityof plots in the pic­ture instead of the time interval.
Sentence 2: the Hough transform is performed only if a certain number of plots p are displayed in the picture (regardless of the time interval corresponding to the tra.c mapped into the picture), and other pictures keep monitoring the tra.c until they display a su.cient number of plots, p. all the pictures stand for dif­ferent time intervals and the Hough transform isperformed at di.erent instants of time for each picture.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Let Ri = {pj |c(pj)= i},1 =i =k.
Sentence 2: by de.nition, Ri is a con.guration; Rd = .ik =1Rkd nRdj dd d ;and Ri = f, i= j.SD(G, d, Rd) is equivalent to the problem of partitioning Rd into k disjoint sets Rd1 , Rd2 , ..., Rdk such that (1) each Rdi is a con.guration, and (2) k is minimum.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: ß Then, the SINR of vr is SINR(vr)= .ph ·l-a pl = N+vl.Sj d(vl,vr)a pl ·dpl ·dd pl pl 1 .< .= .= N+vl.Sj d(vl,vr)a vl.Sj d(vl,vr)a vl.Sj d(vl,vr)a 2ad2(dl)a d = = ß.
Sentence 2: vh cannot send data with­ . '
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: As far as we know, there exists no software to evaluate the exact capacity of a cell where users have very di.erent re­quirements in quality of service (QoS) taking into account the overhead induced by the contention process, and the col­lision.
Sentence 2: it is necessary to calculate the probability of collision, errors over the channel, and also the average time spent in contention period.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: This ratio is de.ned as r = |M|/|N|.
Sentence 2: the expected path length E[l]is de.ned as an in.nite geometric series: 8 X i 238 1 E[l]= r =1+r + r + r +··· +r = (1) 1-r i=0 subject to 0 = r< 1.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: For each of the earlier e edges, if the earlier edge is of the form (c, d), with no nodes in common, then it can contribute at most two new diamonds.
Sentence 2: if the edge is of the form (c, a), with one node in common, then it will only form a new diamond if there are edges (c, d) and (d, b) among the earlier e. we charge this new diamond to edge (c, d), and have already bounded the number of such in the earlier part of our argument.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: As a result, a solution to cross-layer optimization using the physical model is di.cult to develop and its com­putational complexity is likely very high for large-sized net­works.
Sentence 2: most of the current approaches to cross-layeroptimizationemploying thephysicallayer model followasimpli.edlayer-by-layer(or layer-decoupled )ap­proach and thusyield sub-optimal solutions(e.g.,[5,8,10]) or instead, focus on providing asymptotic lower and upper bounds(e.g.,[13, 14, 18]).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: We obtain the average number of chunks sent for time interval T to be NT (1 - pj ), where 1 - pj denotes the probability of one or more customers arriving at a given time slot.
Sentence 2: the average number of chunks per unit  NT (1-pj ) time is less than or equal to limT -o T = N(1 - pj ).
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Since the number of RDVs per cycle is relative to the cycle size, which is often di.erent for each protocol, it becomes an unsuitable metric to compare di.erent protocols.
Sentence 2: we need to nor­malize the RDV per cycle in order to compare the protocols by de.ning the RDV per 100 time units, which is calculated according to Formula 3: RDV Normalized RDV = * 100 (3) cycle time Later in this work, we will refer to the normalized RVD performance, when talking about RDV while comparing the studied protocols.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: However, APOLLO is able to enforce a rate plan of 256Kbps at each node.
Sentence 2: in this scenario, APOLLO allows multi­ 500 500 50 350 350 50 450 450 300 300 Throughput (kbps) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Throughput (kbps) 40 30 20 10 Throughput (kbps) 250 200 150 100 Throughput (kbps) 250 200 150 100 Throughput (kbps) 40 30 20 10 Throughput (kbps)      F1 F2      F1 F2    F1 F2  50 50 50 0 0 0 0 802.11 Apollo 802.11 Apollo 802.11 Apollo Protocol Protocol Protocol (a) A (Overutilized) (b) A (Close to plan) (c) A (Underutilized) (d) B (Overutilized) (e) B (Close to plan) (f) B (Underutilized) Figure 11: Throughput comparison of 802.11 and APOLLO in A: dominant .ow, and B: balanced .ow scenario.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Since (¯aj : j = J ) belongs to the interior of  and .jj(q) = ., there exist an 5 > 0 such that for each vector q .0 there is some j = J 0 = such that j a¯j + 5 < .j (q).
Sentence 2: (57) for the above inequality to hold, there exists some r with j = r such that 5 xjr j a¯r + < .j (q) (58) |r| qj or expressed di.erently, xjrr.jjr (q) 5 xjr .jj(q) r 1.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Previous studies suggest that spammers fre­quently leverage compromised zombie hosts as mail servers for sending spam [8, 23], and that many zombie hosts are home com­puters with serious security vulnerabilities [19].
Sentence 2: a mail server set up at a dial-up or wireless connection is far more sus­picious than one set up with a statically con.gured IP address.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Each ISP seizes the bene.ts of strong economies of scale within its own net­work (and over interconnection agreements to other ISPs whenever possible), but this optimization is done locally at each network.
Sentence 2: traf.c might be shifted differently across paths and might be handed-off between ISPs at sub-optimal interconnection points, which, on aggregate, results in higher provisioning costs.
Relationship: reasoning
Domain: Networks
Sentence 1: Speci.cally, when we send a ping packet (i.e., an ICMP echo request) to a remote host H, H sends a response back with the TTL value of the response packet initialized by H and decremented by one at each router on the return path.
Sentence 2: if we can guess the initial TTL value (TTL0), then based on the TTL value of the received response packet (TTL1), we can estimate the path length from H to D as (TTL0 - TTL1 +1).
Relationship: reasoning