MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Routing and Wavelength Assignment for Prioritized Demands Under a Scheduled Traffic Model

2006· article· en· W2154253405 on OpenAlexafffund
Arunita Jaekel, Yuzhe Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBackupComputer scienceInteger programmingRouting (electronic design automation)HeuristicComputer networkIdleLinear programmingPath (computing)Distributed computingMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the scheduled traffic model, the design problem is to allocate resources to a set of demands whose setup and teardown times are known in advance. A number of integer linear program (ILP) solutions for this problem have been presented in the literature. In this paper we present a new ILP formulation for routing and wavelength allocation, under the scheduled traffic model that minimizes the congestion of the network. We propose two levels of service, where idle backup resources can be used to carry low priority traffic, under fault-free conditions. When a fault occurs, and resources for a backup path need to be reclaimed, any low priority traffic on the affected channels is dropped. The results demonstrate that this can lead to significant improvements over single service level models. We are able to generate optimal solutions for moderate sized networks, within a reasonable amount of time. Finally, we present a simple and fast heuristic that can quickly generate good solutions for much larger 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.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207