Well, the holidays have certainly made things difficult to keep things updated as regularly as I was hoping. Toss in a family emergency to a tight schedule and all bets are off.
A few quick notes for those that do peruse this:
- The INFOCOM 2008 is now on-line and it is a monster. The inclusion of the mini-conference on the main list kept me busy noting relevant papers for my students to look at. Multicast and classical QoS (that isn't pure theory) outside of wireless are definitely minor niche research areas now. I'll certainly be out at Phoenix for the conference despite not having a paper in the main conference (sigh, yet again). Amusingly enough, we have a very good chance (nearly finalized) of getting Cisco funding for our work that was rejected so I guess I'll take money over a publication.
- NDSI 08 results are also out. By in large the reviews were very thorough (a nice trait of the USENIX arena of conferences) but a near miss for us on our Lockdown work. Unfortunately, a single reviewer whose criticisms and ratings were out of sync with the rest of the reviews pretty much doomed the paper. We certainly made the discussion phase but with only 30 out of 175 papers making it in, a killer review like that is too hard to overcome. Eh, not much one can in those cases but grin and bear it and simply note to the students that it indeed happens to everyone in the field.
Long story short, we targeted ease of use and intuitiveness (i.e. just make it work) and the reviewer wanted novelty and complexity (i.e. simplicity is bad). Certainly fair for a conference like Security and Privacy but I thought a bit too pointed for the systems-oriented nature of NSDI. Interestingly enough, a core argument in the paper is that a huge problem in security is that we are making these wonderful complex systems that are hard to use and they aren't being used because well .... they are hard to use. It makes me wonder if Ethernet were proposed today (work with me here) would ever have a chance at a major conference or grant review panel. I certainly have some strong opinions on how the networking conference track is going the wrong direction (too much gatekeeping, not enough prospecting) but that is a post for a different day (post tenure of course). Let's just say I no longer frown upon abstract only submissions like I used to that other areas of CS heavily use. If I have time, I'll post the reviews on-line with the comment/response notes that we did for the HotNets paper which I think was a good exercise.
Showing posts with label INFOCOM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label INFOCOM. Show all posts
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Weekly papers - back again
Finally, back with the weekly papers segment after a rough beginning of November. Perhaps it was dodging reactions from INFOCOM reviews and how it went with various folks. More on that later when I have time to do a length post.
Diversity and multiplexing: a fundamental tradeoff in multiple-antenna channels This paper comes from our weekly papers meeting two weeks ago from discussions regarding our INFOCOM reviews regarding the relevance of MIMO to our current work. Transactions on Information Theory is a bit out of our normal purview so kudos to Dave for taking the time to digest the paper in its entirety.
The paper looked at the tradeoffs in a multi-antenna environment with regards to reliability versus capacity. The most relevant portion of the paper is the strong dropoff with regards to either dimension, i.e. if you choose to do both, you will not get a solution that is strong in either dimension. Not exactly a shocking result but the work in the paper is quite sound and a nice discussion point to discuss why our current work on wireless reliability is very interesting.
Near as I can tell, industry has gone the route of capacity over reliability meaning that our results regarding channel reliability are especially apt. In short, our most recent work has been looking at if the reliability of the channel for nodes in close proximity. If loss is primarily from the medium, losses should be correlated in nearby spaces but not necessarily correlated across larger spaces. In contrast, if losses are not correlated in a tight area, it means that it is likely an individual device going crazy, not the medium itself. Most of the works in the literature regarding burstiness / etc. seem to trust that the device itself is good and that the packet got corrupted before arriving, not that the device itself may be a significant source of the packet errors.
While previous works such as SRD by Balakrishnan reached what would be a similar conclusion, the works reached their conclusion for quite different reasons. Put simply, the physical sensors were highly scattered (i.e. APs over 30 feet+ apart) allowing for multi-path effects for different loss probabilities. In contrast, we showed that losses tended to also show a lack of correlation in short distances regardless of orientation, small distance between, and heavy background traffic. Moreover, there were also "weird" periodicity aspects to some of the devices that bear further investigation (Intel Centrino chipset).
Diversity and multiplexing: a fundamental tradeoff in multiple-antenna channels This paper comes from our weekly papers meeting two weeks ago from discussions regarding our INFOCOM reviews regarding the relevance of MIMO to our current work. Transactions on Information Theory is a bit out of our normal purview so kudos to Dave for taking the time to digest the paper in its entirety.
The paper looked at the tradeoffs in a multi-antenna environment with regards to reliability versus capacity. The most relevant portion of the paper is the strong dropoff with regards to either dimension, i.e. if you choose to do both, you will not get a solution that is strong in either dimension. Not exactly a shocking result but the work in the paper is quite sound and a nice discussion point to discuss why our current work on wireless reliability is very interesting.
Near as I can tell, industry has gone the route of capacity over reliability meaning that our results regarding channel reliability are especially apt. In short, our most recent work has been looking at if the reliability of the channel for nodes in close proximity. If loss is primarily from the medium, losses should be correlated in nearby spaces but not necessarily correlated across larger spaces. In contrast, if losses are not correlated in a tight area, it means that it is likely an individual device going crazy, not the medium itself. Most of the works in the literature regarding burstiness / etc. seem to trust that the device itself is good and that the packet got corrupted before arriving, not that the device itself may be a significant source of the packet errors.
While previous works such as SRD by Balakrishnan reached what would be a similar conclusion, the works reached their conclusion for quite different reasons. Put simply, the physical sensors were highly scattered (i.e. APs over 30 feet+ apart) allowing for multi-path effects for different loss probabilities. In contrast, we showed that losses tended to also show a lack of correlation in short distances regardless of orientation, small distance between, and heavy background traffic. Moreover, there were also "weird" periodicity aspects to some of the devices that bear further investigation (Intel Centrino chipset).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
