MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106139461 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2004.1378328

ILP formulations and optimal solutions for the RWA problem

2005· article· en· W2106139461 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Integer programmingBlocking (statistics)Routing and wavelength assignmentLinear programmingInteger (computer science)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceRouting (electronic design automation)NotationUpper and lower boundsWavelength-division multiplexingMathematicsAlgorithmWavelengthComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a review of the various integer linear programming (ILP) formulations that have been proposed for the routing and wavelength assignment problem in WDM optical networks with a unified and simplified notation. We consider both symmetrical and asymmetrical traffic matrices. We propose a new formulation for symmetrical traffic. We show that all formulations proposed under asymmetrical traffic assumptions are equivalent (i.e. same optimal value for their continuous relaxations) although their number of variables and constraints differ. We propose an experimental comparison of various lower and upper bounds with the objective of minimizing the blocking rate, and show that several benchmark problems proposed by Krishnaswamy and Sivarajan (2001) can be solved exactly or with a fairly high precision.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207