MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116532947 · doi:10.1109/cdc.2004.1429320

Call admission and fairness control in WDM networks with grooming capabilities

2004· article· en· W2116532947 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

Venue2004 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37601) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraffic groomingComputer scienceComputer networkMarkov decision processBandwidth (computing)Fairness measureMarkov processHeuristicWavelength-division multiplexingMarkov chainDistributed computingAdmission controlMax-min fairnessQuality of serviceResource allocationThroughputTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate a call admission control (CAC) mechanism to provide fairness control and service differentiation in a WDM network with grooming capabilities. A WDM grooming network can handle different classes of traffic streams which differ by their bandwidth requirements. We assume that for each class, call interarrival and holding times are exponentially distributed. Using a Markov decision process approach, an optimal CAC policy is derived to provide fairness in the network. The policy iteration algorithm is used to numerically compute the optimal policy. Furthermore, we propose a heuristic decomposition algorithm with lower computational complexity and very good performance. Simulation results compare the performance of our proposed policy, with that of complete sharing and complete partitioning policies.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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