MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517252525 · doi:10.1109/icccn.2002.1043080

Different implementations of token tree algorithm for DWDM network protection/restoration

2003· article· en· W1517252525 on OpenAlexaff
Yuna Zhang, Ou Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed minimum spanning treeSpanning treeNetwork topologySecurity tokenPollingTree (set theory)Suzuki-Kasami algorithmAlgorithmNode (physics)Shortest-path treeComputer networkDinic's algorithmTree traversalMinimum spanning treeDijkstra's algorithmGraphTheoretical computer scienceShortest path problemMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-speed optical networks need efficient protection/restoration schemes. A heuristic distributed MST algorithm, called the token tree (TT) algorithm, is proposed in this paper. The TT algorithm consists of four subalgorithms, Namely the upward root selection (URS) algorithm, the star token polling (STP) algorithm, the passive state (PS) algorithm and the active state (AS) algorithm cooperate together to form a logical spanning tree for network protection. Tokens are polled between the PS and AS algorithm and thus decide the node sequence in a spanning tree. The restoration strategy lies in two points: using tree links to protect non-tree links, and seeking a shortest path from a node to its parent in order to protect the corresponding tree link. Performance analysis of the algorithms is performed in some topologies based on existing networks.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207