MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999643196 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v1n2p109

Accounting Information Systems Genetic Algorithms for All-Optical Shared Fiber-Delay-Line Packet Switches

2009· article· en· W1999643196 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soung‐Yue Liew, Edward Sek Khin Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Network packetAlgorithmParallel computingMathematicsComputer networkMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All-optical shared fiber-delay-line (FDL) packet switches have been studied intensively in the literature and with theliterature, many scheduling genetic algorithms have been proposed. However, these genetic algorithms suffer from notbeing able to provide a delay bound, or require complex timing methods to compute scheduling assignments. In thispaper, we propose two fast scheduling algorithms for all-optical shared-FDL packet switches. In the first algorithm,packet scheduling is formulated as a tree-searching problem. This is accomplished by breaking down the search tree intomultiple smaller subsets and assigning each subset to a parallel processor. By using this method, scheduling solutions canbe obtained in a shorter time. Although this approach is superior to other algorithms, its overall complexity and processingoverheads are still too high to warrant its day to day use. In the second algorithm, the search tree is carefully trimmeddown in order to reduce complexity and overheads. The conclusion will consider a 32 × 32 switch with 32 FDLs, andassume a processor clock rate of 200MHz for schedulers. With this new and second algorithm, a scheduling assignmentcan be calculated for a given packet in 30ns if 8 parallel processors are employed and we show by simulation that bothalgorithms can achieve a loss rate of ? 10?7 even at load 0.9, where the average delay is 11.5 timeslots.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207