Learning-based resource optimization in asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper tackles the issue of bandwidth allocation in asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) networks using recently developed tools of computational intelligence. The efficient bandwidth allocation technique implies effective resources utilization of the network. The fluid flow model has been used effectively among other conventional techniques to estimate the bandwidth for a set of connections. However, such methods have been proven to be inefficient at times in coping with varying and conflicting bandwidth requirements of the different services in ATM networks. This inefficiency is due to the computational complexity of the model. To overcome this difficulty, many approximation-based solutions, such as the fluid flow approximation technique, were introduced. Although such solutions are simple, in terms of computational complexity, they nevertheless suffer from potential inaccuracies in estimating the required bandwidth. Soft computing-based bandwidth controllers, such as neural networks- and neurofuzzy-based controllers, have been shown to effectively solve an indeterminate nonlinear input-output (I-O) relations by learning from examples. Applying these techniques to the bandwidth allocation problem in ATM network yields a flexible control mechanism that offers a fundamental tradeoff for the accuracy-simplicity dilemma.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".