Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sepehr Abdous
dblp:308/2787
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0003-4443-3863ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Computer networks · 3 · 2 first-author · 3 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Computer networks
3 papers |
Network measurement and analytics · 31% Datacenter networks · 25% Transport protocols and congestion control · 24% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Cloud and datacenter computing · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Datacenter networks
load balancing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Uno: A One-Stop Solution for Inter- and Intra-Data Center Congestion Control and Reliable Connectivity · SC 2025 |
Network optimization and economics › resource allocation › fair resource allocation
rate fairness |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Uno: A One-Stop Solution for Inter- and Intra-Data Center Congestion Control and Reliable Connectivity · SC 2025 |
Network measurement and analytics › traffic characterization
bursty traffic |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Understanding the impact of host networking elements on traffic bursts · NSDI 2023 |
Network measurement and analytics
traffic analysis |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Understanding the impact of host networking elements on traffic bursts · NSDI 2023 |
Transport protocols and congestion control
congestion management |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Burst-tolerant datacenter networks with Vertigo · CoNEXT 2021 |
Transport protocols and congestion control
packet reordering |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Burst-tolerant datacenter networks with Vertigo · CoNEXT 2021 |
Cloud and datacenter computing › datacenter network
datacenter communication |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Uno: A One-Stop Solution for Inter- and Intra-Data Center Congestion Control and Reliable Connectivity · SC 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
erasure coding · 1.7adaptive routing · 1.7selective deflection · 0.5flow size tracking · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | One to Many: Closing the Bandwidth Gap in AI Datacenters with Scalable MulticastabstractAI training now floods datacenter fabrics with thousands of simultaneous collectives, yet most frameworks still move data the hard way: O(N) unicasts for a group of N processors. Classic multicast could slash those bytes but has long been deemed unscalable: computing an optimal tree in an asymmetric Clos is NP-hard and group-specific rules quickly exhaust switch TCAM. Sepehr Abdous, Jinqi Lu, Jiacheng Wan, Erfan Sharafzadeh, Ying Zhang 0022, Soudeh Ghorbani |
HotNets | 1 |
| 2025 | Uno: A One-Stop Solution for Inter- and Intra-Data Center Congestion Control and Reliable ConnectivityabstractCloud computing and AI workloads are driving unprecedented demand for efficient communication within and across datacenters. However, the coexistence of intra- and inter-datacenter traffic within datacenters plus the disparity between the RTTs of intra- and inter-datacenter networks complicates congestion management and traffic routing. Particularly, faster congestion responses of intra-datacenter traffic causes rate unfairness when competing with slower inter-datacenter flows. Additionally, inter-datacenter messages suffer from slow loss recovery and, thus, require reliability. Existing solutions overlook these challenges and handle inter- and intra-datacenter congestion with separate control loops or at different granularities. We propose Uno, a unified system for both inter- and intra-DC environments that integrates a transport protocol for rapid congestion reaction and fair rate control with a load balancing scheme that combines erasure coding and adaptive routing. Our findings show that Uno significantly improves the completion times of both inter- and intra-DC flows compared to state-of-the-art methods such as Gemini. Tommaso Bonato, Sepehr Abdous, Abdul Kabbani, Ahmad Ghalayini, Nadeen Gebara, Terry Lam, Anup Agarwal, Tiancheng Chen, Zhuolong Yu, Konstantin Taranov, Mahmoud Elhaddad, Daniele De Sensi, Soudeh Ghorbani, Torsten Hoefler |
SC | 2 |
| 2023 | Understanding the impact of host networking elements on traffic bursts
Erfan Sharafzadeh, Sepehr Abdous, Soudeh Ghorbani |
NSDI | 2 |
| 2021 | Burst-tolerant datacenter networks with VertigoabstractMicrosecond-scale congestion events, known as microbursts, are a main cause of packet loss and poor application performance in today's datacenters. Given the low network utilization in datacenters, one would expect packet deflection, in-situ re-routing of packets that arrive at a full buffer to a different port, to effectively prevent packet loss. However, if deployed naively, deflection leads to excessive packet re-ordering, exacerbated congestion, and head-of-the-line blocking in switch buffers. In this study, we resolve the above challenges by selectively deflecting the packets that cause persistent congestion in the network. To enable this, we augment the end-host network stacks with a transport-independent extension that tracks and marks flows with their remaining bytes. Our in-network deflection component uses the flow size information to re-route packets from flows with more data to send. Finally, an extension to the receive-side of end-host stacks retrieves the correct ordering of packets before passing them to transport and higherlevel protocols. We evaluate our design, Vertigo, under diverse datacenter workloads and show that it is effective in managing microbursts under light and heavy loads and when combined with various congestion control algorithms. For example, in a leaf-spine network under 85% load, Vertigo reduces the mean incast query completion times by 3.5x, 3.3x, 5x compared to ECMP, DRILL, and DIBS when using TCP, 3x, 3.5x, 4.5x alongside DCTCP, and 43x, 33x, 16x when using Swift, respectively. Sepehr Abdous, Erfan Sharafzadeh, Soudeh Ghorbani |
CoNEXT | 1 |