BBR is a new congestion control algorithm (CCA) deployed for Chromium QUIC and the Linux kernel. As the default CCA for YouTube (which commands 11+% of Internet traffic), BBR has rapidly become a major player in Internet congestion control. BBR’s fairness or friendliness to other connections has recently come under scrutiny as measurements from multiple research groups have shown undesirable outcomes when BBR competes with traditional CCAs. One such outcome is a fixed, 40% proportion of link capacity consumed by a single BBR flow when competing with as many as 16 loss-based algorithms like Cubic or Reno. In this short paper, we provide the first model capturing BBR’s behavior in competition with loss-based CCAs. Our model is coupled with practical experiments to validate its implications. The key lesson is this: under competition, BBR becomes window-limited by its ‘in-flight cap’ which then determines BBR’s bandwidth consumption. By modeling the value of BBR’s in-flight cap under varying network conditions, we can predict BBR’s throughput when competing against Cubic flows with a median error of 5%, and against Reno with a median of 8%.
more »
« less
Beyond Jain's Fairness Index: Setting the Bar For The Deployment of Congestion Control Algorithms
The Internet community faces an explosion in new congestion control algorithms such as Copa, Sprout, PCC, and BBR. In this paper, we discuss considerations for deploying new algorithms on the Internet. While past efforts have focused on achieving 'fairness' or 'friendliness' between new algorithms and deployed algorithms, we instead advocate for an approach centered on quantifying and limiting harm caused by the new algorithm on the status quo. We argue that a harm-based approach is more practical, more future proof, and handles a wider range of quality metrics than traditional notions of fairness and friendliness.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1850384
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10158883
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networking (HotNets)
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 17 to 24
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)Clustering is a foundational problem in machine learning with numerous applications. As machine learning increases in ubiquity as a back-end for automated systems, concerns about fairness arise. Much of the current literature on fairness deals with discrimination against protected classes in supervised learning (group fairness). We define a different notion of fair clustering wherein the probability that two points (or a community of points) become separated is bounded by an increasing function of their pairwise distance (or community diameter). We capture the situation where data points represent people who gain some benefit from being clustered together. Unfairness arises when certain points are deterministically separated, either arbitrarily or by someone who intends to harm them as in the case of gerrymandering election districts. In response, we formally define two new types of fairness in the clustering setting, pairwise fairness and community preservation. To explore the practicality of our fairness goals, we devise an approach for extending existing k-center algorithms to satisfy these fairness constraints. Analysis of this approach proves that reasonable approximations can be achieved while maintaining fairness. In experiments, we compare the effectiveness of our approach to classical k-center algorithms/heuristics and explore the tradeoff between optimal clustering and fairness.more » « less
-
Ranking items by their probability of relevance has long been the goal of conventional ranking systems. While this maximizes traditional criteria of ranking performance, there is a growing understanding that it is an oversimplification in online platforms that serve not only a diverse user population, but also the producers of the items. In particular, ranking algorithms are expected to be fair in how they serve all groups of users --- not just the majority group --- and they also need to be fair in how they divide exposure among the items. These fairness considerations can partially be met by adding diversity to the rankings, as done in several recent works. However, we show in this paper that user fairness, item fairness and diversity are fundamentally different concepts. In particular, we find that algorithms that consider only one of the three desiderata can fail to satisfy and even harm the other two. To overcome this shortcoming, we present the first ranking algorithm that explicitly enforces all three desiderata. The algorithm optimizes user and item fairness as a convex optimization problem which can be solved optimally. From its solution, a ranking policy can be derived via a novel Birkhoff-von Neumann decomposition algorithm that optimizes diversity. Beyond the theoretical analysis, we investigate empirically on a new benchmark dataset how effectively the proposed ranking algorithm can control user fairness, item fairness and diversity, as well as the trade-offs between them.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical analysis of talent acquisition software and its potential for fostering equity in the hiring process for underrepresented IT professionals. The under-representation of women, African-American and Latinx professionals in the IT workforce is a longstanding issue that contributes to and is impacted by algorithmic bias. Design/methodology/approach Sources of algorithmic bias in talent acquisition software are presented. Feminist design thinking is presented as a theoretical lens for mitigating algorithmic bias. Findings Data are just one tool for recruiters to use; human expertise is still necessary. Even well-intentioned algorithms are not neutral and should be audited for morally and legally unacceptable decisions. Feminist design thinking provides a theoretical framework for considering equity in the hiring decisions made by talent acquisition systems and their users. Social implications This research implies that algorithms may serve to codify deep-seated biases, making IT work environments just as homogeneous as they are currently. If bias exists in talent acquisition software, the potential for propagating inequity and harm is far more significant and widespread due to the homogeneity of the specialists creating artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Originality/value This work uses equity as a central concept for considering algorithmic bias in talent acquisition. Feminist design thinking provides a framework for fostering a richer understanding of what fairness means and evaluating how AI software might impact marginalized populations.more » « less
-
In this position paper, we introduce a new epistemic lens for analyzing algorithmic harm. We argue that the epistemic lens we propose herein has two key contributions to help reframe and address some of the assumptions underlying inquiries into algorithmic fairness. First, we argue that using the framework of epistemic injustice helps to identify the root causes of harms currently framed as instances of representational harm. We suggest that the epistemic lens offers a theoretical foundation for expanding approaches to algorithmic fairness in order to address a wider range of harms not recognized by existing technical or legal definitions. Second, we argue that the epistemic lens helps to identify the epistemic goals of inquiries into algorithmic fairness. There are two distinct contexts within which we examine algorithmic harm: at times, we seek to understand and describe the world as it is, and, at other times, we seek to build a more just future. The epistemic lens can serve to direct our attention to the epistemic frameworks that shape our interpretations of the world as it is and the ways we envision possible futures. Clarity with respect to which epistemic context is relevant in a given inquiry can further help inform choices among the different ways of measuring and addressing algorithmic harms. We introduce this framework with the goal of initiating new research directions bridging philosophical, legal, and technical approaches to understanding and mitigating algorithmic harms.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3365609.3365855
