MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103087495 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2009.2026063

Optimization for Fault Localization in All-Optical Networks

2009· article· en· W2103087495 on OpenAlexaff
Mazen G. Khair, Burak Kantarcı, Jun Zheng, Hussein T. Mouftah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault (geology)Integer programmingOptimization problemComputer scienceHeuristicLinear programmingProtocol (science)Matching (statistics)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fault localization is a critical issue in all-optical networks. The limited-perimeter vector matching (LVM) protocol is a novel fault-localization protocol proposed for localizing single-link failures in all-optical networks. In this paper, we study the optimization problems in applying the LVM protocol in static all- optical networks. We consider two optimization problems: one is to optimize the traffic distribution so that the fault-localization probability in terms of the number of localized links is maximized, and the other is to optimize the traffic distribution so that the time for localizing a failed link is minimized. We formulate the two problems into an integer linear programming problem, respectively, and use the CPLEX optimization tool to solve the formulated problems. We show that by optimizing the traffic distribution the fault-localization probability can be maximized and the fault-localization time can be minimized. Moreover, a heuristic algorithm is proposed to evaluate the optimization results through simulation 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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