MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156682590 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2006.886683

Dynamic Wavelength and Bandwidth Allocation in Hybrid TDM/WDM EPON Networks

2007· article· en· W2156682590 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad R. Dhaini, Chadi Assi, Martin Maier, Abdallah Shami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Photonic Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassive optical networkComputer scienceDynamic bandwidth allocationWavelength-division multiplexingMultiplexingStatistical time division multiplexingTime-division multiplexingBandwidth (computing)Bandwidth allocationChannel allocation schemesElectronic engineeringComputer networkChannel (broadcasting)Upstream (networking)WavelengthTelecommunicationsWirelessEngineeringPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss a wavelength-division-multiplexed-based passive-optical-network (PON) architecture that allows for incremental upgrade from single-channel time-division multiple-access PONs in order to provide higher bandwidth in the access network. Various dynamic-wavelength and bandwidth-allocation algorithms (DWBAs) for wave-division multiplexed PON are presented; they exploit both interchannel and intrachannel statistical multiplexing in order to achieve better performance, especially when the load on various channels is not symmetric. Three variants of the DWBA are presented, and their performance is compared. While the first variant incurs larger idle times (and, hence, poor performance), the other two algorithms achieve better but different performance with critical dissimilarities. Our analysis also focuses on the fair assignment of excessive bandwidth in the upstream direction to highly loaded optical network units. We compare the performance of DWBA to another algorithm that relies on static-channel allocation. Furthermore, a study is presented wherein the number of wavelengths increases, and a comparison with interleaved polling with adaptive cycle time is shown. We use extensive simulations throughout this paper

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations212
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lightwave TechnologySame topicAdvanced Photonic Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207