MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Two-Hop Segment Protecting Paradigm that Unifies Node and Span Failure Recovery under p-Cycles

2010· article· en· W2160196265 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Prisca Onguetou, W.D. Grover

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHop (telecommunications)SurvivabilitySpan (engineering)Computer scienceComputer networkNetwork topologyNode (physics)Topology (electrical circuits)MathematicsEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter explains that protecting segments of exactly two hops within an optical network is alone enough to prevent both single span and node failure events. More specifically, we show how to transform a network (topology and working routes) from the two-hop segment perspective and then perform a p-cycle design for the new network. Experimental results typically suggest that two-hop protecting p-cycles are preferable to span- and path-protecting p-cycles for degree-3 or more network instances. The overall two-hop segment protection framework is applicable to any other span-survivability scheme.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207