Optimal Solutions for Single Fault Localization in Two Dimensional Lattice Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achieving fast, precise, and scalable fault localization has long been a highly desired feature in all-optical mesh networks. Monitoring tree (m-tree) is an interesting method that has been introduced as the most general monitoring structure for achieving unambiguous failure localization (UFL). Ideally, with J m-trees one can monitor up to 2J-1 links when a single failure has to be located. Such a logarithmic behavior has also been observed in numerous case studies of real life network topologies. It is expected that the m-tree framework will lead to a highly scalable link failure monitoring mechanism for not only all-optical mesh networks, but any possible future information system with mesh topologies, such as all-optical mesh networks, touch panels, quantum computing, and VLSI. It is an important task to investigate the extent such an optimal logarithmic behavior may hold, in particular in practically relevant network topologies. As an endeavor toward this goal, the paper investigates the problem by identifying essentially tight logarithmic bounds for two dimensional lattice networks. Experiments are conducted to show the feasibility and performance of the proposed constructions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".