MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119278397 · doi:10.1109/icc.2008.993

Sizing Eligible Route Sets for Restorable Network Design and Optimization

2008· article· en· W2119278397 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 institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSizingSet (abstract data type)Path (computing)Network planning and designVariety (cybernetics)Range (aeronautics)Test setLinear programmingMathematical optimizationDistributed computingComputer networkAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the use of linear programming models for optical transport network design and optimization, appropriately selecting the number of eligible restoration routes is an important factor in the tradeoff between runtime and optimality. This is because too large an eligible route set results in excessive runtime, while too small an eligible route set results in design solutions that could be significantly sub-optimal. We analyse this tradeoff on a wide range and variety of test networks in span- restorable, path-restorable and p-cycle networks and discuss how our findings can be very useful in determining the appropriate number of eligible route set sizes to use for a particular network design and optimization. We also validate these results with a follow-up set of test networks.

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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207