Shortest path versus multi-hub routing in networks with uncertain demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a class of robust network design problems motivated by the need to scale core networks to meet increasingly dynamic capacity demands. Past work has focused on designing the network to support all hose matrices (all matrices not exceeding marginal bounds at the nodes). This model may be too conservative if additional information on traffic patterns is available. Another extreme is the fixed demand model, where one designs the network to support peak point-to-point demands. We introduce a capped hose model to explore a broader range of traffic matrices which includes the above two as special cases. It is known that optimal designs for the hose model are always determined by single-hub routing, and for the fixed-demand model are based on shortest-path routing. We shed light on the wider space of capped hose matrices in order to see which traffic models are more shortest path-like as opposed to hub-like. To address the space in between, we use hierarchical multi-hub routing templates, a generalization of hub and tree routing. In particular, we show that by adding peak capacities into the hose model, the single-hub tree-routing template is no longer cost-effective. This initiates the study of a class of robust network design (RND) problems restricted to these templates. Our empirical analysis is based on a heuristic for this new hierarchical RND problem. We also propose that it is possible to define a routing indicator that accounts for the strengths of the marginals and peak demands and use this information to choose the appropriate routing template. We benchmark our approach against other well-known routing templates, using representative carrier networks and a variety of different capped hose traffic demands, parameterized by the relative importance of their marginals as opposed to their point-to-point peak demands. This study also reveals conditions under which multi-hub routing gives improvements over single-hub and shortest-path routings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".