MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1819163

Regular graph-based logical topology design in multi-hop optical networks.

2001· article· en· W1819163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anwar Ariful. Haque

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHop (telecommunications)Topology (electrical circuits)Logical topologyGraphComputer networkNetwork topologyTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsCombinatorics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing approaches for logical topology design and routing for multi-hop optical networks become intractable for large networks. One approach which has been used is to treat the logical topology design problem separately from the routing problem which can be solved as a LP problem. The straightforward formulation of the LP problem has been reported but this is also feasible only for relatively smaller networks since the basis size for the simplex method is O(n3) where n is the number of nodes in the network. In this paper, by exploiting the special structure of the routing problem, we present an efficient column generation scheme embedded into the revised simplex method. This approach makes it feasible to handle networks with relatively large number of nodes. To study the approach experimentally we have used a number of traffic based heuristics for generating the logical topologies. These include a variation of the well known HLDA heuristic and two simple traffic based heuristics to generate logical topologies based on regular graphs. Many researchers feel that regular graphs are not well suited for wide area optical networks. The interesting result is that logical topologies based on regular graphs perform quite well compared to others. This suggests that it is useful to consider regular graphs as possible topologies for wide area networks and should be included as potential candidates for large wide area networks. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2001 .H36. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 40-03, page: 0722. Advisers: Arunita Jaekel; Yash P. Aneja. Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2001.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.252
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207