Selecting the best locations for data centers in resilient optical grid/cloud dimensioning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For optical grid/cloud scenarios, the dimensioning problem comprises not only deciding on the network dimensions (i.e., link bandwidths), but also choosing appropriate locations to install server infrastructure (i.e., data centers), as well as determining the amount of required server resources (for storage and/or processing). Given that users of such grid/cloud systems in general do not care about the exact physical locations of the server resources, a degree of freedom arises in choosing for each of their requests the most appropriate server location. We will exploit this anycast routing principle (i.e., source of traffic is given, but destination can be chosen rather freely) also to provide resilience: traffic may be relocated to alternate destinations in case of network/server failures. In this study, we propose to jointly optimize the link dimensioning and the location of the servers in an optical grid/cloud, where the anycast principle is applied for resiliency against either link or server node failures. While the data center location problem has some resemblance with either the classical p-center or k-means location problems, the anycast principle makes it much more difficult due to the requirement of link disjoint paths for ensuring grid resiliency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it