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 OpenAlexaff
Arunita Jaekel, S. Bandyopadhyay, Y.P. Aneja

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.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 IEEE International Conference on CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207