Availability and Cost-Constrained Long-Reach Passive Optical Network Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To avoid huge data loss in the last mile of Internet service, Passive Optical Networks (PONs) need to be designed with a high availability guarantee. Because next generation PON includes extending the coverage of optical broadband access networks under the name long-reach PON, availability-guaranteed planning of PONs for long-reach access is required. In this paper, we propose a Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP)-based approach, and a heuristic algorithm, for the planning of survivable long-reach passive optical networks. The MILP-based planning model mainly consists of cost and availability constraints, while having the objective of largest possible area coverage. The heuristic is called Locate-ONU-with-Lowest-Availability-Requirement-First (LOWLARF), and it performs a faster search for the nearly optimal locations of Optical Network Units (ONUs), Optical Line Terminal (OLT), and the optical splitter having the same objective and constraints with the MILP model. The proposed heuristic and the MILP model are compared in terms of the solution spaces provided for a small sized problem. The heuristic LOWLARF introduces the advantage of significantly degraded running time, and numerical results indicate that it can provide close results to those of the MILP-based planning. On the other hand, three survivability schemes are compared in terms of deployment cost, availability, and coverage by MILP-based planning and LOWLARF. The evaluation is done by two different availability requirement scenarios. The results show that, under both scenarios, the protection scheme offering a lower bound of 99.999% availability leads to the highest deployment cost while it covers the smallest area. The protection schemes that guarantee 99.99% availability by employing less redundancy can cover a larger area under both scenarios.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".