MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148386181 · doi:10.1002/net.21653

SRLG failure localization using nested m‐trails and their application to adaptive probing

2015· article· en· W2148386181 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed L. Ali, Pin‐Han Ho, János Tapolcai

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraverseComputer scienceInteger programmingHeuristicNode (physics)Topology (electrical circuits)Latency (audio)Computer networkDistributed computingAlgorithmMathematicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores a recently introduced novel technique called the nested monitoring trail (m‐trail) method in all‐optical mesh networks for failure localization of any shared risk link group (SRLG) with up to undirected links. The nested m‐trail method decomposes each network topology that is at least ‐connected into virtual cycles and trails, in which sets of m‐trails that traverse through a common monitoring node (MN) can be obtained. The nested m‐trails are used in the monitoring burst (m‐burst) framework, in which the MN can localize any SRLG failure by inspecting the optical bursts traversing through it. An integer linear program (ILP) and a heuristic are proposed for the network decomposition, which are further verified by numerical experiments. We show that the proposed method significantly reduces the required fault localization latency compared with the existing methods. Finally, we demonstrate that nested m‐trails can also be used in adaptive probing to find SRLG faults in all‐optical networks. The nested m‐trail based probing method needs a significantly reduced number of sequential probes. Thus, the method overcomes one of the important hurdles to deploy adaptive probing in all‐optical networks: the large number of sequential probes needed to localize SRLG faults. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 66(4), 347–363 2015

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNetworksSame topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207