MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992299932 · doi:10.1109/iscc.2012.6249289

Greening the multi-granular optical transport network design under the optical reach constraint

2012· article· en· W1992299932 on OpenAlexaff
Nabil Naas, Burak Kantarcı, Hussein T. Mouftah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBottleneckTraffic groomingOptical Transport NetworkNetwork planning and designEnergy consumptionHeuristicsRouting and wavelength assignmentComputer networkBackbone networkBandwidth (computing)Wavelength-division multiplexingDistributed computingElectronic engineeringOptical performance monitoringEngineeringWavelengthEmbedded systemElectrical engineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant portion of the energy consumption of the optical networks is expected to be in the transport segment. Besides its improved bandwidth utilization advantage, multi-granular switching concept further helps rectifying the energy bottleneck problem in the backbone. One of the important challenges faced by the multi-granular optical networks is the optical reach enforcement. In this paper, we compare the multi-granular optical network design to the conventional Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM)-based network design by enforcing the optical reach limitation as a design constraint. We introduce the heuristics to solve the Routing and Multi-Granular Path Assignment (RMGPA) problem. Our simulation results show that multi-granular optical network design outperforms the WDM-based network design in terms of Operational Expenditure (Opex) as it significantly reduces the power consumption in the backbone. Furthermore, through simulations, we show that the green multi-granular design is efficient in terms of the Capital Expenditure (Capex) as the network cost is also degraded.

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)0.001
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 score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207