MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114928738 · doi:10.1109/infcom.1998.659639

Cost effective traffic grooming in WDM rings

2002· article· en· W2114928738 on OpenAlexaff
O. Gerstel, R. Ramaswami, Galen H. Sasaki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWavelength-division multiplexingTransceiverTraffic groomingComputer networkComputer scienceRing networkBandwidth (computing)MultiplexingWavelengthNetwork topologyTelecommunicationsOpticsWirelessPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide network designs for optical wavelength division multiplexed (OWDM) rings that minimize overall network cost, rather than just the number of wavelengths needed. The network cost includes the cost of the transceivers required at the nodes as well as the number of wavelengths. The transceiver cost includes the cost of terminating equipment as well as higher-layer electronic processing equipment, and in practice, can dominate over the cost of the number of wavelengths in the network. The networks support dynamic (time varying) traffic streams that are at lower rates (e.g., OC-3, 155 Mb/s) than the lightpath capacities (e.g., OC-48, 2.5 Gb/s). A simple OWDM ring is the point-to-point ring, where traffic is transported on WDM links optically, but switched through nodes electronically. Although the network is efficient in using link bandwidth, it has high electronic and opto-electronic processing costs. Two OWDM ring networks are given that have similar performance but are less expensive. Two other OWDM ring networks are considered that are nonblocking, where one has a wide sense nonblocking property and the other has a rearrangeably nonblocking property. All the networks are compared using the cost criteria of number of wavelengths and number of transceivers.

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)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations143
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207