MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058453813 · doi:10.1117/12.482451

<title>Traffic classification and service in all-optical networks</title>

2002· article· en· W2058453813 on OpenAlexaff
Yunhao Li, M.J. Francisco, Ioannis Lambadaris, Changcheng Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlocking (statistics)Computer scienceComputer networkTraverseReservation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All-optical networks require end-to-end lightpaths to be established for traffic to flow. Given that there are no wavelength converters present in the network, each lightpath only accommodate a single wavelength. It is shown that as the lightpaths traverse more hops, the blocking probability increases.This is causes the Fairness Problem. We introduce the Traffic Classification and Service Method (ClaServ), which optimizes the Fairness Problem, as well as reduce the traffic blocking probability when the networks require lower blocking probability. The combination of the Waveband Access Range (WAR) and the Waveband Reservation (WRsv) methods changes the traffic's distribution among the wavebands on each link of the path to control the degree of the interference among the classified traffic. Under certain traffic load, by setting the range of accessible wavebands and reserved wavebands for classified traffic, the network can achieve both the fairness and low blocking probability for all type of traffic. The simulation results show that for a 4x4 Mesh-Torus network the ClaServ method can greatly reduce the blocking probability for longer lightpaths by a factor of 100. It is also described how the ClaServ method can easily be implemented into a distributed signaling protocol.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207