MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121082211 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2008.2005068

Monitoring Cycle Design for Fast Link Failure Localization in All-Optical Networks

2009· article· en· W2121082211 on OpenAlexaff
Bin Wu, Kwan L. Yeung, Pin‐Han Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInteger programmingBandwidth (computing)Integer (computer science)HeuristicReal-time computingAlgorithmComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A monitoring cycle (m-cycle) is a preconfigured optical loop-back connection of supervisory wavelengths with a dedicated monitor. In an all-optical network (AON), if a link fails, the supervisory optical signals in a set of m-cycles covering this link will be disrupted. The link failure can be localized using the alarm code generated by the corresponding monitors. In this paper, we first formulate an optimal integer linear program (ILP) for m-cycle design. The objective is to minimize the monitoring cost which consists of the monitor cost and the bandwidth cost (i.e., supervisory wavelength-links). To reduce the ILP running time, a heuristic ILP is also formulated. To the best of our survey, this is the first effort in m-cycle design using ILP, and it leads to two contributions: 1) nonsimple m-cycles are considered; and 2) an efficient tradeoff is allowed between the monitor cost and the bandwidth cost. Numerical results show that our ILP-based approach outperforms the existing m-cycle design algorithms with a significant performance gain.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations94
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lightwave TechnologySame topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207