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 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

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.

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 score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
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