MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577013748 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.2001.953527

Routing reliability analysis of partially disjoint paths

2002· article· en· W1577013748 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Pu, Eric G. Manning, Gholamali C. Shoja

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkStatic routingEqual-cost multi-path routingOpen Shortest Path FirstLink-state routing protocolRouting protocolDynamic Source RoutingRouting Information ProtocolZone Routing ProtocolMultipath routingEnhanced Interior Gateway Routing ProtocolReliability (semiconductor)Distributed computingPath vector protocolRouting (electronic design automation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alternative paths may significantly improve routing reliability in an IP network, One application of this technique is to enhance the reliability of the popular open shortest path first (OSPF) routing protocol. In our proposed reliable OSPF (ROSPF) routing protocol, one primary path and two alternate backup paths are deployed for data transmission. As expected, the number of shared links and routers among the three paths dominates the reliability of the routing connection between two routers. The calculation of routing reliability of multiple paths is very important in alternate path-finding algorithms. To solve this problem, we use the Venn diagram model to analyze the overall failure probability of three partially disjoint paths and to understand how the double- and triple-shared links affect the routing reliability. General mathematical formulas to calculate the failure probability are also obtained.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207