analiza aiqbench
This reproduction study reveals critical limitations in risk-budgeted throughput forecasting for LEO satellite networks, showing that guarantees often fail under realistic temporal data splits and cannot achieve risk budgets below 0.15. The findings highlight that static conformal calibration merely shifts operating points without improving ranking, while online recalibration offers significant gains only when conditioned on dynamic factors rather than static covariates. For practitioners deploying admission control systems, these empirical results underscore the necessity of rigorous validation against contiguous temporal splits before trusting published risk guarantees in production environments.
When Does Risk-Controlled Throughput Forecasting Actually Control Risk? A Reproduction Study on LEO Satellite Link
arXiv:2611.06307v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Risk-budgeted throughput forecasting converts a point forecast of LEO satellite capacity into a conservative bound whose overestimation rate is held at a user-specified budget, so that admission control can act on it safely. We reproduce the state of the art, BG-CFQS, on the three Starlink traces its authors used and on an independent fourth dataset, and report four findings. First, its risk guarantee is reproducible but conditional on the calibration split: under a random split we recover every published quantity, including risk-pass on 3 of 3 datasets, but under a contiguous temporal split, which is what a deployed terminal faces, it holds on 1 of 3. Second, independent of any split, the method cannot serve a risk budget below 0.15, the low end of its candidate quantile set. On all four datasets the achieved rate is identical at budgets of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.15, overshooting by 1.4x to 3.7x at the tightest. Third, static conformal calibration cannot improve a ranking, only shift an operating point; we confirm this exactly on latency spike detection, where online calibration improves AUPRC by up to 51%. Fourth, group-conditional online recalibration splits into two mechanisms. The online part replicates: it tracks the budget within 1% from 0.05 to 0.35, where static calibration is 16 to 21% off. The group-conditional part does not: on three of four datasets, conditioning on any available covariate, including measured serving-satellite geometry, is worse than not conditioning, and our attempt to predict which datasets benefit failed. What is new here is empirical, not algorithmic: we claim the findings, not the methods.
Title:When Does Risk-Controlled Throughput Forecasting Actually Control Risk? A Reproduction Study on LEO Satellite Link
Abstract:Risk-budgeted throughput forecasting converts a point forecast of LEO satellite capacity into a conservative bound whose overestimation rate is held at a user-specified budget, so that admission control can act on it safely. We reproduce the state of the art, BG-CFQS, on the three Starlink traces its authors used and on an independent fourth dataset, and report four findings. First, its risk guarantee is reproducible but conditional on the calibration split: under a random split we recover every published quantity, including risk-pass on 3 of 3 datasets, but under a contiguous temporal split, which is what a deployed terminal faces, it holds on 1 of 3. Second, independent of any split, the method cannot serve a risk budget below 0.15, the low end of its candidate quantile set. On all four datasets the achieved rate is identical at budgets of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.15, overshooting by 1.4x to 3.7x at the tightest. Third, static conformal calibration cannot improve a ranking, only shift an operating point; we confirm this exactly on latency spike detection, where online calibration improves AUPRC by up to 51%. Fourth, group-conditional online recalibration splits into two mechanisms. The online part replicates: it tracks the budget within 1% from 0.05 to 0.35, where static calibration is 16 to 21% off. The group-conditional part does not: on three of four datasets, conditioning on any available covariate, including measured serving-satellite geometry, is worse than not conditioning, and our attempt to predict which datasets benefit failed. What is new here is empirical, not algorithmic: we claim the findings, not the methods.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Networking and Internet Architecture (cs.NI)
arXiv:2611.06307 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2611.06307v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.06307 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 377 cuvinte