MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118175771 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2009.5425570

Graphical Probabilistic Routing Model for OBS Networks with Realistic Traffic Scenario

2009· article· en· W2118175771 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Lévesque, Halima Elbiaze

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOptical burst switchingComputer networkProbabilistic logicNetwork topologyDeflection routingDistributed computingBurst switchingNode (physics)Static routingRouting (electronic design automation)Path (computing)Routing protocolTransmission delayNetwork packetWavelength-division multiplexingEngineeringOptical performance monitoring

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burst contention is a well-known challenging problem in optical burst switching (OBS) networks. Contention resolution approaches are always reactive and attempt to minimize the BLR based on local information available at the core node. On the other hand, a proactive approach that avoids burst losses before they occur is desirable. To reduce the probability of burst contention, a more robust routing algorithm than the shortest path is needed. This paper proposes a new routing mechanism for JET-based OBS networks, called graphical probabilistic routing model (GPRM) that selects less utilized links, on a hop-by-hop basis by using a Bayesian network. We assume no wavelength conversion and no buffering to be available at the core nodes of the OBS network. We simulate the proposed approach under dynamic load to demonstrate that it reduces the BLR burst loss ratio compared to static approaches by using Network Simulator 2 (ns-2) on NSFnet network topology and with realistic traffic matrix. Simulation results clearly show that the proposed approach outperforms static approaches in terms of BLR.

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)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207