MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140272149 · doi:10.1109/infcom.2009.5062012

On Monitoring and Failure Localization in Mesh All-Optical Networks

2009· article· en· W2140272149 on OpenAlexaff
János Tapolcai, Bin Wu, Pin‐Han Ho

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNetwork topologyBandwidth (computing)Overhead (engineering)ALARMCode (set theory)Distributed computingInteger programmingAlgorithmTopology (electrical circuits)Computer networkEngineeringSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achieving fast and precise failure localization has long been a highly desired feature in all-optical mesh networks. M-trail (monitoring trail) has been proposed as the most general monitoring structure for achieving unambiguous failure localization (UFL) of any single link failure while effectively reducing the amount of alarm signals flooded in the networks. However, it is critical to come up with a fast and intelligent m-trail design approach for minimizing the number of m-trails and the totally consumed bandwidth, which ubiquitously determines the length of alarm code and bandwidth overhead for the M-trail deployment, respectively. In this paper, the m-trail design problem is investigated. To gain deeper understanding of the problem, we firstly conduct a bound analysis on the minimum length of alarm code required for UFL. Then, a novel algorithm based on random code assignment (RCA) and random code swapping (RCS) is developed for solving the m-trail design problem. The algorithm prototype can be found in. The algorithm is verified by comparing with an integer linear program (ILP), and the results demonstrate its superiority in minimizing the fault management cost and bandwidth consumption while achieving significant reduction in computation time. To investigate the impact of topology diversity, extensive simulation is conducted on thousands of random network topologies with systematically increased network connectivity. Lastly, we provide abundant discussions and interesting conclusive remarks that position our discoveries.

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)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations89
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207