MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161076466 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2003.1258690

Performance analysis of optical burst switching networks with and without class isolation

2004· article· en· W2161076466 on OpenAlexaff
N. Barakat, Edward H. Sargent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlocking (statistics)HeaderOptical burst switchingComputer scienceQuality of serviceClass (philosophy)Constant (computer programming)Packet switchingRange (aeronautics)Computer networkNetwork packetEngineeringPhysicsOptical performance monitoringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an analytical model that evaluates the blocking probability of each service class in optical burst-switching networks. The model is applicable to systems with arbitrary burst length distributions and arbitrary-sized QoS header offsets. Thus, unlike previous models, it is applicable to the design and study of networks with a wide range of traffic characteristics, including systems in which higher classes are not necessarily isolated from lower classes and systems in which the conservation law does not necessarily hold. We derive explicit expressions for blocking probability both the cases of constant burst lengths and exponentially distributed burst lengths and verify the model's accuracy through simulation. We show the model to be accurate for a number of different traffic loads and class priorities. For an OBS system with two classes and a 1:10 ratio of high-priority to low-priority traffic, our model is able to predict accurately the blocking probability for each class, whereas the predictions from a model that assumes isolation deviates by as much as an order of magnitude from the simulation results for the higher priority class.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207