MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028267736 · doi:10.1109/lanman.2011.6076925

Connection rerouting in GRWA networks

2011· article· en· W2028267736 on OpenAlexaff
Ammar Metnani, Brigitte Jaumard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsComputer scienceConnection (principal bundle)Context (archaeology)Distributed computingLimit (mathematics)Blocking (statistics)Computer networkInteger programmingComputational complexity theoryThroughputInteger (computer science)Quality of serviceMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic grooming consists of packing low rate streams onto a high speed lightpath in order to effectively use the network resources. Under dynamic traffic, rerouting of ongoing connections has been envisioned as a means, to be used very wisely, to reduce the connection blocking rate and to optimize the network resources. In a context of traffic with QoS constraints, only the delay tolerant ongoing connections are rerouted. In this paper, we design three new heuristics, one relying on a mathematical ILP (Integer Linear Program) model and two low complexity ones to carefully reroute ongoing connection requests in order to accommodate the new incoming connection requests, while minimizing connection disturbance. While the ILP model allows the full exploration of a limit on the overall number of reroutings, both heuristics are designed as low complexity heuristics in order to limit the number of rerouting per establishment of a new incoming connection request. Comparative computational results show that the two low complexity heuristics provide much better results in terms of the best compromise between maximizing the throughput and minimizing the number of disturbances of the already established connection requests.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207