MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1849761680

Hierarchical optimization procedure for traffic grooming in WDM optical networks

2009· article· en· W1849761680 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptical Network Design and Modelling · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraffic groomingWavelength-division multiplexingHeuristicRouting and wavelength assignmentComputer scienceNetwork topologyRouting (electronic design automation)MultiplexingComputer networkTopology (electrical circuits)Mesh networkingMathematical optimizationWavelengthMathematicsTelecommunicationsOpticsArtificial intelligencePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traffic grooming, routing and wavelength assignment (GRWA) problem in wavelength division multiplexed (WDM) networks has been the focus of many studies over the past years. Under fixed grooming ratio and ring network topology assumptions, researchers have been able to provide exact or near optimal solutions. However, all practical cases in mesh networks have been addressed with heuristic algorithms without providing any hint on the quality of the solutions, i.e., no evaluation of the distance between the heuristic and the exact solutions through the estimation of an optimality gap. Moreover, restrictions on the number of optical hops per lightpath, a critical parameter for the end-to-end delays, have never been taken into account.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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