MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060609566 · doi:10.1364/jon.3.000303

Enhanced pool sharing: a constraint-based routing algorithm for shared mesh restoration networks [Invited]

2004· article· en· W2060609566 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Naser, Hussein T. Mouftah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Optical Networking · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackupComputer networkDowntimeComputer scienceDistributed computingOptical mesh networkSurvivabilitySpare partMesh networkingEngineeringWireless mesh networkTelecommunicationsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feature Issue on Next-Generation WDM Network Design and Routing (WDMN). We investigate the availability performance of networks with shared mesh restoration and demonstrate that these networks cannot provide highly available protection services. A major factor in the poor performance of shared mesh restoration is that the resources at backup links are shared among demands. If multiple service-affecting failures occur in the network a multitude of these demands will rush to utilize the spare resources on backup links. These resources are not adequate to serve all of these demands simultaneously. We propose a heuristic routing algorithm that attempts to improve the availability performance of shared mesh restoration. We measure the likelihood that a backup link will not be available to restore a newly arrived demand if or when more than one failure occurs in the network. We adjust the backup bandwidth on that link if the measured likelihood exceeds a preset threshold. As a typical representative, we show that the downtime improves by 7%, 11%, and 18% when the total backup bandwidth in the network is increased by 5%, 10%, and 20%, respectively. These values are obtained through a series of fitting experiments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.252
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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