MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168075282 · doi:10.1109/tr.2011.2182400

Availability and Cost-Constrained Long-Reach Passive Optical Network Planning

2012· article· en· W2168075282 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Reliability · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePassive optical networkHeuristicInteger programmingSurvivabilityLinear programmingComputer networkNetwork planning and designAccess networkBroadbandMathematical optimizationTelecommunicationsWavelength-division multiplexingAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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