MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1871770614 · doi:10.1109/icsmc.1992.271804

SEATER: a simulation environment using learning automata for telephone traffic routing

2003· article· en· W1871770614 on OpenAlexaff
J.R. Zgierski, B. John Oommen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLearning automataStatic routingRouting (electronic design automation)Computer networkEqual-cost multi-path routingPolicy-based routingMultipath routingDistributed computingDestination-Sequenced Distance Vector routingLink-state routing protocolAutomatonDynamic Source RoutingRouting tableCellular automatonTelephone networkRouting protocolTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors present SEATER, an environment in which any general telephone traffic routing problem can be set up and simulated by using a variety of routing methods. The routing methods available are the fixed rule, random routing, and routing utilizing a complete assortment of different learning automata. The general telephone traffic routing problem is described, and various existing fixed rule routing schemes supported by the system are explained. Additionally, most learning automata routing techniques are briefly described, and are supported by the system implemented. These schemes have been implemented and compared to the existing fixed rule algorithms in terms of minimizing the blocking probability of the network. The simulations showed that learning automata solutions were far superior to any fixed solutions. The advantage of the former lies in their adaptability to changes in telephone traffic. The system was written in SMALLTALK V and runs on a Mac II.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207