Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

CAIP: Detecting Router Misconfigurations with Context-Aware Iterative Prompting of LLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Context-mined LLM prompts catch router misconfigurations that partitioning misses

desk verdict A genuinely new context-mining prompting pipeline, but the headline accuracy claim is confounded by giving CAIP the error category in the synthetic prompts. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14283 v1 pith:EYXD7U7F submitted 2024-11-21 cs.NI

Xi Jiang , Aaron Gember-Jacobson , Nick Feamster This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords routermisconfigurationdetectionlargelanguagemodelscontext-awarepromptingconfigurationtreeiterativenetworkverificationcontextminingparametervaluedisambiguation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Router configurations hide errors that only appear when a line is read together with lines elsewhere in the file; splitting a config into chunks for an LLM loses those dependencies. CAIP claims to fix this by automatically mining three kinds of context -- neighboring, similar, and referenced lines -- from a tree model of the configuration file, and then letting the LLM iteratively request the context it needs. The paper reports perfect detection on a set of 16 synthetically injected syntax, range, and dependency/conflict errors, and at least 30 percent higher accuracy than partition-based LLM prompting, model checkers, and consistency checkers. On real campus-network configurations it uncovered over 20 previously unnoticed misconfigurations, with all non-targeted findings confirmed by domain experts. If true, CAIP offers a way to bring network-specific context into LLM queries without hand-building protocol models or consistency rules.

What carries the argument

The configuration tree T, where each configuration line is a unique path from a root node to a parameter leaf vk(P) and intermediate nodes are increasingly nested configuration sections. From T, CAIP defines three mined context sets -- neighboring configs N_m(P), similar configs S(P), and referenceable configs R(P) -- plus an existence-and-majority-voting test classifying each parameter-value pair (Vk, vk) as user-defined or predefined. This tree representation and the context sets are what let the iterative prompting loop decide which configuration excerpts belong in each follow-up prompt.

What would settle it

Take a real router configuration and introduce a dependency error involving a user-defined policy or ACL that is referenced only once, with no second path containing the value as an intermediate node; if CAIP's referenceable-context mining cannot retrieve the defining lines, the model will lack the context the method says is necessary, and the claimed perfect dependency/conflict detection should fail on that case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CAIP's central claim is that the accuracy gap between partition-based LLM configuration checkers and hand-built verifiers is mostly a context problem, not a reasoning problem. It represents each configuration line as a root-to-leaf path in a configuration tree and mines context along three axes: neighboring statements in the same section, similar configurations sharing the same parameter type elsewhere, and referenceable configurations in which the line's parameter value appears as an intermediate node. To avoid contaminating prompts, it distinguishes predefined values such as True or Allow from user-defined identifiers such as policy names, ACLs, and IP addresses by checking whether the value appears as an intermediate node and applying majority voting per parameter. Instead of injecting all mined context at once, CAIP runs an iterative loop: the initial prompt gives the line under review, and the model can request neighboring, similar, referenceable, or referenceable-on-neighboring context before deciding. The evidence is two case studies: perfect detection of 16 synthetic misconfigurations with no false positives on 16 clean lines, and 19 non-targeted plus 6 targeted findings on 11 real Aruba router files, with experts confirming the non-targeted detections.

Load-bearing premise

CAIP assumes that a user-defined parameter value will show up somewhere else in the same configuration file as an intermediate tree node, so referenceable context exists to be mined; if an operator-defined policy or object name appears only once, or a predefined value happens to appear as an intermediate node, the mined context will mislead the LLM.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For dependency/conflict errors, the category where the paper reports the largest gap, CAIP detects 8 of 8 synthetic cases while a partition-based LLM detector detects 1 of 8.
  • Because context mining is automated and the LLM chooses what it needs, CAIP can be pointed at a configuration snapshot without an engineer first writing forwarding policies or consistency templates.
  • The intra-router consistency context extension shows the framework can accept new context types, such as the prevalence of a parameter-value pair across devices, when operators have a specific misconfiguration in mind.
  • CAIP's claimed more-than-30% accuracy advantage over model checkers and consistency checkers implies that unmodeled dependency errors, which static tools miss, are reachable by LLM inference once network-specific context is supplied.
  • On 11 real configuration files covering about 6% of a campus network, the exhaustive run surfaced 19 previously undetected issues, all judged valid or justifiable by domain experts; targeted VLAN-assignment detection flagged 6 deviations, of which 2 were true positives and the rest intentional per-device modifications.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 30%+ advantage holds across vendors and file sizes, the practical baseline for configuration checking shifts from hand-maintained model checkers toward prompt pipelines, and the scarce resource becomes expert time to verify flagged lines rather than encode protocol semantics.
  • The existence-based user-defined value test is brittle when a value is defined in an included or imported file or generated by templating; a natural extension is to mine referenceable context across a configuration repository, not only within a single file.
  • One testable extension: use CAIP's requested-context trace -- which context types the LLM asks for per error type -- as a signal to build cheap static pre-filters, because lines that repeatedly trigger referenceable or referenceable-on-neighboring requests are likely dependency-heavy and worth full model attention.
  • The method appears model-agnostic; if the iterative loop is what carries the gain, smaller open-weight models with shorter context windows should show a larger relative benefit from CAIP than a long-context commercial model, because their default context budgets are tighter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents CAIP, a framework for router misconfiguration detection that augments LLM prompts with network-specific context mined from configuration files. Configurations are parsed into trees; for a line under review, CAIP extracts neighboring, similar, and referenceable context paths, classifies parameter values as pre-defined or user-defined via existence checks and majority voting, and then runs an iterative prompting loop in which the LLM can request additional context types. The evaluation has two parts: 32 synthetic cases (16 correct lines plus 16 injected errors across three categories) compared against Batfish, Diffy, and Ciri, and a real-world study of 11 campus-network configuration files with targeted and non-targeted analysis, validated by domain experts. The paper claims >30% improvement over baselines and over 20 previously undetected misconfigurations.

Significance. If the evaluation were protocol-fair, CAIP would be a valuable contribution: the tree-based context-mining formulation is clean and systematic, the identification of the pre-defined/user-defined value ambiguity is a genuine problem, and the iterative prompting design is a sensible response to context overload. The synthetic errors are externally introduced and the real-world findings are expert-validated, so the evaluation is not circular. However, the headline quantitative claim is currently under-supported because the synthetic protocol gives CAIP the true error category in every prompt, the sample is small and unbalanced, and the real-world evidence is limited in coverage and severity mix. These issues are fixable within the scope of the paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 2] The central comparison is confounded by prompt framing. The text states that CAIP is instructed to look for the specific misconfiguration type (syntax, range, or dependency/conflict) and that only results for the actual introduced type are reported, while the baselines are not described as receiving the same category hint. This makes the 32/32 vs. 21/32 comparison a joint test of context mining and privileged type disclosure, not of context mining alone. Please rerun with a category-agnostic prompt (e.g., 'GENERAL') for all systems, and/or give the baselines the same per-type instructions, and report both settings.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 2] The synthetic evaluation is too small and unbalanced to support the aggregate >30% claim. There are only 32 line-level cases, derived from 16 base lines with no described sampling procedure; D/C errors are over-sampled (8/16) and drive the margin (8/8 vs 1/8); there are no repeated trials, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Please expand the dataset, balance categories, describe the sampling of base lines, and report variance (e.g., across random subsets or multiple runs with different temperature settings).
  3. [Section 3.1.2] The definition of user-defined values (existence as an intermediate node) is load-bearing for the D/C advantage, but it fails for user-defined values that never appear as intermediate nodes in the same file—e.g., an import policy or ACL referenced only as a leaf value and defined on another device, or a single-use object name. The majority-voting rule also misclassifies a parameter whose values are mixed (e.g., a policy name that is also a numeric timeout value). This should be stated as a limitation and, ideally, tested with an ablation or a fallback that treats single-occurrence values as user-defined when the parameter is known to accept user-defined names.
  4. [Section 4.3, Table 4] The real-world support is weaker than the abstract suggests. The targeted VLAN analysis has TPR 2/6 (33.3%), the study covers 11 of ~190 devices (~6%), and 14 of the 19 non-targeted positives are low-severity consistent naming typos. The claim of 'over 20 previously undetected misconfigurations' should be qualified by severity and by the targeted/non-targeted split, and the paper should report precision (or at least the number of false positives) rather than TPR alone, since the false positives are said to be consistent with expert expectations but are not counted in the denominator.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'Junpiter' in the Figure 2 caption should be 'Juniper', 'STOA' in Section 3.2.1 should be 'SOTA', 'misconfiguared' in Figure 5 should be 'misconfigured', and 'neighoring' in Table 3 should be 'neighboring'. The two 'Incorrect Filter Usage' rows in Table 3 appear to contain identical reasoning text.
  2. [Section 3.1.2] The indicator function is written as '⊮'; use \mathbb{1} and define it explicitly. The formal definition of R(P) also contains a stray equals sign that should be removed.
  3. [Table 1] The column 'Misconfig Requested Context' should clarify whether these are the contexts the LLM actually requested, the contexts CAIP offered, or the minimum context necessary for detection; this is important for interpreting the iterative prompting behavior.
  4. [Section 4] The paper claims efficiency gains from context mining but reports no token counts, number of iterative rounds, or wall-clock time for CAIP versus baselines. Reporting these numbers would strengthen the practicality argument.
  5. [Section 4.3] The real-world 'exhaustive' analysis should state the total number of configuration lines processed and how the 11 files were selected, so that the claim of 6% coverage can be properly interpreted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; CAIP's context-mining and prompting pipeline is self-contained, though the synthetic evaluation's per-type prompting protocol weakens the headline comparison.

full rationale

CAIP's context-mining equations (N(P), S(P), R(P), and the Val_user/Val_pre existence and majority-voting rules) define heuristic extraction operations over a configuration tree; they do not encode the misconfiguration label or the detection output, so no prediction reduces to an input by construction. The evaluation injects externally created synthetic errors and uses domain-expert validation on real snapshots, and no parameter is fitted to the target results. The authors' self-citations (e.g., references [1], [13], and [57]) appear as background model-checking and configuration-analysis literature, not as load-bearing support for CAIP's central claim, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work. The main caveat is in Section 4.2: "we explicitly instruct the model to look for each type of misconfiguration—syntax, range, or dependency/conflict—individually" and "We report only the results corresponding to the actual misconfiguration type introduced." This supplies the error category to CAIP and selectively counts the matching run, which weakens the claimed >30% margin as an apples-to-apples test of context mining versus baselines. That is a validity and benchmark-fairness concern, not circularity: the LLM still must locate, reason about, and justify the specific defect, and no equation or fitted value forces the 32/32 result. The targeted VLAN analysis is also explicitly prevalence-based ("Significantly lower prevalence may indicate an uncommon or potentially erroneous configuration"), which is a consistency heuristic rather than a circular prediction. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no load-bearing circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

CAIP introduces no new physical or semantic entities beyond the three context types and the intra-router consistency context used in the targeted case study. These are software constructs, not postulated objects with independent evidence. The method rests on the tree representation of configurations and the existence-based classification of parameter values.

free parameters (2)
  • m (neighboring context shared-node depth) = m set to k-1 (parent of the parameter node)
    Hand-chosen to balance relevance and computational efficiency; no sensitivity analysis is provided (Section 3.1.1).
  • majority-voting threshold for user-defined value classification = n/2 (strict majority of associated values)
    Chosen to classify a parameter and all its values as user-defined when more than half of its values appear as intermediate nodes; no sensitivity analysis is provided (Section 3.1.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Router configuration files can be parsed into a tree in which every configuration line is a unique root-to-leaf path and every parameter value is a leaf.
    This tree representation underlies all context mining definitions in Section 3.1.1; configurations with cross-file references, list syntax, or flattened hierarchies would break it.
  • domain assumption A parameter value that is user-defined will appear as an intermediate node in at least one other path in the same configuration tree.
    This is the existence-based criterion in Section 3.1.2. It fails for custom values defined outside the file or used only as leaves in the tree.
  • domain assumption Configuration parameters accept values of a uniform type, so majority voting over a parameter's values correctly classifies all of them.
    This is the majority-voting rule in Section 3.1.2, which relies on the claim that parameters exhibit uniformity in the type of values they accept without empirical evidence.
  • domain assumption An LLM can accurately decide whether a configuration line is misconfigured when given the line and mined context, and its requests for additional context improve detection.
    The entire CAIP evaluation assumes GPT-4o's verdicts are reliable; the real-world study relies on expert validation of those verdicts (Section 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CAIP: Detecting Router Misconfigurations with Context-Aware Iterative Prompting of LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYXD7U7F

@misc{pith2026241114283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CAIP: Detecting Router Misconfigurations with Context-Aware Iterative Prompting of LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYXD7U7F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14283}
}
read the original abstract

Model checkers and consistency checkers detect critical errors in router configurations, but these tools require significant manual effort to develop and maintain. LLM-based Q&A models have emerged as a promising alternative, allowing users to query partitions of configurations through prompts and receive answers based on learned patterns, thanks to transformer models pre-trained on vast datasets that provide generic configuration context for interpreting router configurations. Yet, current methods of partition-based prompting often do not provide enough network-specific context from the actual configurations to enable accurate inference. We introduce a Context-Aware Iterative Prompting (CAIP) framework that automates network-specific context extraction and optimizes LLM prompts for more precise router misconfiguration detection. CAIP addresses three challenges: (1) efficiently mining relevant context from complex configuration files, (2) accurately distinguishing between pre-defined and user-defined parameter values to prevent irrelevant context from being introduced, and (3) managing prompt context overload with iterative, guided interactions with the model. Our evaluations on synthetic and real-world configurations show that CAIP improves misconfiguration detection accuracy by more than 30% compared to partition-based LLM approaches, model checkers, and consistency checkers, uncovering over 20 previously undetected misconfigurations in real-world configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14283 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CAIP system overview. amination. Relevance here refers to configurations that, while not necessarily directly related, provide important insights, such as neighboring configurations, similar lines applied in different contexts, or referenceable configurations that define key parameters. 2. Iterative Prompting Component: Once the relevant con￾text has been mined, the online component engages the LLM through an iterat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example snippet of tree-formatted Junpiter router [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example context mined on selected config line. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example: initial prompting and LLM context re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example: Adding requested context and retrieving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tiramisu: Fast multilayer network verification

    Anubhavnidhi Abhashkumar, Aaron Gember-Jacobson, and Aditya Akella. Tiramisu: Fast multilayer network verification. In 17th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 20), pages 201–219, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Con- figchecker: A tool for comprehensive security configura- tion analytics

    Ehab Al-Shaer and Mohammed Noraden Alsaleh. Con- figchecker: A tool for comprehensive security configura- tion analytics. In 2011 4th Symposium on Configuration Analytics and Automation (SAFECONFIG), pages 1–2. IEEE, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    A general approach to network configuration verification

    Ryan Beckett, Aarti Gupta, Ratul Mahajan, and David Walker. A general approach to network configuration verification. In Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, pages 155–168, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Unraveling the complexity of network management

    Theophilus Benson, Aditya Akella, and David Maltz. Unraveling the complexity of network management. In Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Imple- mentation (NSDI), 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Metha: Network verifiers need to be correct too! In 18th USENIX Sympo- sium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), 2021

    Rudiger Birkner, Tobias Brodmann, Petar Tsankov, Lau- rent Vanbever, and Martin Vechev. Metha: Network verifiers need to be correct too! In 18th USENIX Sympo- sium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Leveraging Advanced Large Lan- guage Models To Optimize Network Device Configu- ration

    Mark Bogdanov. Leveraging Advanced Large Lan- guage Models To Optimize Network Device Configu- ration. PhD thesis, Purdue University Graduate School, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom B Brown. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 2020

    arXiv 2005

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    End-to-end object detection with transform- ers

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. End-to-end object detection with transform- ers. In European conference on computer vision, pages 213–229. Springer, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Developing real-time streaming transformer transducer for speech recognition on large-scale dataset

    Xie Chen, Yu Wu, Zhenghao Wang, Shujie Liu, and Jinyu Li. Developing real-time streaming transformer transducer for speech recognition on large-scale dataset. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5904–5908...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Automatic root cause analysis via large language models for cloud incidents

    Yinfang Chen, Huaibing Xie, Minghua Ma, Yu Kang, Xin Gao, Liu Shi, Yunjie Cao, Xuedong Gao, Hao Fan, Ming Wen, et al. Automatic root cause analysis via large language models for cloud incidents. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth European Conference on Computer Systems, pages 67...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways

    Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(240):1–113, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Detecting bgp configuration faults with static analysis

    Nick Feamster and Hari Balakrishnan. Detecting bgp configuration faults with static analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Symposium on Networked Sys- tems Design & Implementation-Volume 2, pages 43–56, 2005

    2005

  6. [14]

    A general approach to network configuration analysis

    Ari Fogel, Stanley Fung, Luis Pedrosa, Meg Walraed- Sullivan, Ramesh Govindan, Ratul Mahajan, and Todd Millstein. A general approach to network configuration analysis. In 12th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 15), pages 469–483, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces

    Albert Gu and Tri Dao. Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recogni- tion

    Anmol Gulati, James Qin, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Niki Parmar, Yu Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Wei Han, Shibo Wang, Zhengdong Zhang, Yonghui Wu, et al. Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recogni- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08100, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Why transformers are obviously good models of language

    Felix Hill. Why transformers are obviously good models of language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03855, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Model checking fire- wall policy configurations

    Alan Jeffrey and Taghrid Samak. Model checking fire- wall policy configurations. In 2009 IEEE international symposium on policies for distributed systems and net- works, pages 60–67. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    Finding network misconfigurations by automatic template inference

    Siva Kesava Reddy Kakarla, Alan Tang, Ryan Beckett, Karthick Jayaraman, Todd Millstein, Yuval Tamir, and George Varghese. Finding network misconfigurations by automatic template inference. In 17th USENIX Sympo- sium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 20), pag...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Diffy: Data-driven bug finding for configura- tions

    Siva Kesava Reddy Kakarla, Francis Y Yan, and Ryan Beckett. Diffy: Data-driven bug finding for configura- tions. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Lan- guages, 8(PLDI):199–222, 2024. 13

    2024

  13. [21]

    Why and when llm-based assistants can go wrong: Investigating the effectiveness of prompt-based interactions for software help-seeking

    Anjali Khurana, Hariharan Subramonyam, and Parmit K Chilana. Why and when llm-based assistants can go wrong: Investigating the effectiveness of prompt-based interactions for software help-seeking. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfac...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Characterization and problem detection of routing policy configurations

    Franck Le, Sihyung Lee, Tina Wong, Hyong S Kim, and Darrell Newcomb. Characterization and problem detection of routing policy configurations. 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Minerals: using data mining to detect router misconfigurations

    Franck Le, Sihyung Lee, Tina Wong, Hyong S Kim, and Darrell Newcomb. Minerals: using data mining to detect router misconfigurations. In Proceedings of the 2006 SIGCOMM workshop on Mining network data, pages 293–298, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Detecting network-wide and router-specific misconfigurations through data mining

    Franck Le, Sihyung Lee, Tina Wong, Hyong S Kim, and Darrell Newcomb. Detecting network-wide and router-specific misconfigurations through data mining. IEEE/ACM transactions on networking , 17(1):66–79, 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    Xie, and Hui Zhang

    Franck Le, Geoffrey G. Xie, and Hui Zhang. Under- standing route redistribution. In 2007 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Can long-context large language models under- stand long contexts?

    Jiaqi Li, Mengmeng Wang, Zilong Zheng, and Muhan Zhang. Can long-context large language models under- stand long contexts?

  19. [27]

    Prompt distil- lation for efficient llm-based recommendation

    Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, and Li Chen. Prompt distil- lation for efficient llm-based recommendation. In Pro- ceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 1348– 1357, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Long-context llms struggle with long in-context learning

    Tianle Li, Ge Zhang, Quy Duc Do, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen. Long-context llms struggle with long in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02060, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Configuration vali- dation with large language models

    Xinyu Lian, Yinfang Chen, Runxiang Cheng, Jie Huang, Parth Thakkar, and Tianyin Xu. Configuration vali- dation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09690, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A survey of transformers

    Tianyang Lin, Yuxin Wang, Xiangyang Liu, and Xipeng Qiu. A survey of transformers. AI open, 3:111–132, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Prompt compression with context-aware sentence encoding for fast and improved llm inference

    Barys Liskavets, Maxim Ushakov, Shuvendu Roy, Mark Klibanov, Ali Etemad, and Shane Luke. Prompt compression with context-aware sentence encoding for fast and improved llm inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01227, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Large language models for networking: Work- flow, advances and challenges

    Chang Liu, Xiaohui Xie, Xinggong Zhang, and Yong Cui. Large language models for networking: Work- flow, advances and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12901, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Houlsby Neil and Weissenborn Dirk. Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. Online: https://ai. googleblog. com/2020/12/transformers-for- image-recognitionat. html, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Hello gpt-4o

    OpenAI. Hello gpt-4o. https://openai.com/index/hello -gpt-4o/, 2024. Accessed: 2024-09-17

    2024

  27. [35]

    Image transformer

    Niki Parmar, Ashish Vaswani, Jakob Uszkoreit, Lukasz Kaiser, Noam Shazeer, Alexander Ku, and Dustin Tran. Image transformer. In International conference on ma- chine learning, pages 4055–4064. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Plankton: Scal- able network configuration verification through model checking

    Santhosh Prabhu, Kuan Yen Chou, Ali Kheradmand, Brighten Godfrey, and Matthew Caesar. Plankton: Scal- able network configuration verification through model checking. In 17th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 20), pages 953–967, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Are long- llms a necessity for long-context tasks? arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15318, 2024

    Hongjin Qian, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, Kelong Mao, Yujia Zhou, Xu Chen, and Zhicheng Dou. Are long- llms a necessity for long-context tasks? arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15318, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Pre-trained models for natural language processing: A survey

    Xipeng Qiu, Tianxiang Sun, Yige Xu, Yunfan Shao, Ning Dai, and Xuanjing Huang. Pre-trained models for natural language processing: A survey. Science China technological sciences, 63(10):1872–1897, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Using model checking to analyze network vulnerabilities

    Ronald W Ritchey and Paul Ammann. Using model checking to analyze network vulnerabilities. In Pro- ceeding 2000 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. S&P 2000, pages 156–165. IEEE, 2000

    2000

  32. [40]

    Talking about large language models

    Murray Shanahan. Talking about large language models. Communications of the ACM, 67(2):68–79, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Nrtr: A no- recurrence sequence-to-sequence model for scene text recognition

    Fenfen Sheng, Zhineng Chen, and Bo Xu. Nrtr: A no- recurrence sequence-to-sequence model for scene text recognition. In 2019 International conference on docu- ment analysis and recognition (ICDAR), pages 781–786. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Llm-ci: Assessing contextual integrity norms in language models

    Yan Shvartzshnaider, Vasisht Duddu, and John La- calamita. Llm-ci: Assessing contextual integrity norms in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03735, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Samuel Steffen, Timon Gehr, Petar Tsankov, Laurent Vanbever, and Martin T. Vechev. Probabilistic verifica- tion of network configurations. In SIGCOMM, 2020. 14

    2020

  36. [44]

    Bridging the gulf of envisioning: Cognitive challenges in prompt based interactions with llms

    Hari Subramonyam, Roy Pea, Christopher Pondoc, Ma- neesh Agrawala, and Colleen Seifert. Bridging the gulf of envisioning: Cognitive challenges in prompt based interactions with llms. In Proceedings of the CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–19, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Millstein, Yu- val Tamir, and George Varghese

    Alan Tang, Siva Kesava Reddy Kakarla, Ryan Beck- ett, Ennan Zhai, Matt Brown, Todd D. Millstein, Yu- val Tamir, and George Varghese. Campion: debugging router configuration differences. In ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Galactica: A large language model for science

    Ross Taylor, Marcin Kardas, Guillem Cucurull, Thomas Scialom, Anthony Hartshorn, Elvis Saravia, Andrew Poulton, Viktor Kerkez, and Robert Stojnic. Galactica: A large language model for science. arxiv 2022. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09085, 10, 2023

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Examining llm prompting strategies for automatic evaluation of learner-created computational artifacts

    Xiaoyi Tian, Amogh Mannekote, Carly E Solomon, Yukyeong Song, Christine Fry Wise, Tom Mcklin, Joanne Barrett, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, and Maya Is- rael. Examining llm prompting strategies for automatic evaluation of learner-created computational artifacts. In Proceedings of th...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Bap- tiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    Netcon- feval: Can llms facilitate network configuration? Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Networking, 2(CoNEXT2):1– 25, 2024

    Changjie Wang, Mariano Scazzariello, Alireza Farshin, Simone Ferlin, Dejan Kosti´c, and Marco Chiesa. Netcon- feval: Can llms facilitate network configuration? Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Networking, 2(CoNEXT2):1– 25, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Iden- tifying performance-sensitive configurations in software systems through code analysis with llm agents

    Zehao Wang, Dong Jae Kim, and Tse-Hsun Chen. Iden- tifying performance-sensitive configurations in software systems through code analysis with llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12806, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Test coverage for network configurations

    Xieyang Xu, Weixin Deng, Ryan Beckett, Ratul Ma- hajan, and David Walker. Test coverage for network configurations. In 20th USENIX Symposium on Net- worked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI) , 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    To repeat or not to repeat: In- sights from scaling llm under token-crisis

    Fuzhao Xue, Yao Fu, Wangchunshu Zhou, Zangwei Zheng, and Yang You. To repeat or not to repeat: In- sights from scaling llm under token-crisis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Accuracy, scalability, coverage: A practical configuration verifier on a global WAN

    Fangdan Ye, Da Yu, Ennan Zhai, Hongqiang Harry Liu, Bingchuan Tian, Qiaobo Ye, Chunsheng Wang, Xin Wu, Tianchen Guo, Cheng Jin, Duncheng She, Qing Ma, Biao Cheng, Hui Xu, Ming Zhang, Zhiliang Wang, and Rodrigo Fonseca. Accuracy, scalability, coverage: A practical configuration...

    2020

  47. [55]

    Breaking the ceiling of the llm community by treating token generation as a classifica- tion for ensembling

    Yao-Ching Yu, Chun-Chih Kuo, Ziqi Ye, Yu-Cheng Chang, and Yueh-Se Li. Breaking the ceiling of the llm community by treating token generation as a classifica- tion for ensembling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12585, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Automatic test packet generation

    Hongyi Zeng, Peyman Kazemian, George Varghese, and Nick McKeown. Automatic test packet generation. In CoNEXT, 2012

    2012

  49. [57]

    Symbolic router execution

    Peng Zhang, Dan Wang, and Aaron Gember-Jacobson. Symbolic router execution. In Fernando Kuipers and Ariel Orda, editors, ACM SIGCOMM Conference, 2022. 15

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.