MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098609188 · doi:10.1109/icc.2006.255150

Logical Topology Design for WDM Networks Using Survivable Routing

2006· article· en· W2098609188 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE International Conference on Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogical topologyNetwork topologyComputer scienceComputer networkRouting (electronic design automation)Topology (electrical circuits)HeuristicDistributed computingSurvivabilityRouting tableRouting protocolEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survivable routing of a logical topology ensures that the lightpaths are routed in such a way that a single link failure does not disconnect the network. However, even if the network remains connected after a failure, there is no guarantee that the resulting logical topology will be able to support the required traffic. In this paper, we introduce a new approach that integrates the logical topology design and survivable routing problems. When a topology is generated using our approach, it is guaranteed to have a survivable routing. We further ensure that the topology is able to handle the entire traffic demand, for any single link failure. We have formulated an ILP that optimally designs a survivable logical topology, and also proposed a fast heuristic which can be used for large networks.

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.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.192 · 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