Capacity and Delay Analysis of Next-Generation Passive Optical Networks (NG-PONs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on the Ethernet Passive Optical Network (EPON) and Gigabit PON (GPON) standards, Next-Generation (NG) PONs (i) provide increased data rates, split ratios, wavelengths counts, and fiber lengths, as well as (ii) allow for all-optical integration of access and metro networks. In this paper we provide a comprehensive probabilistic analysis of the capacity (maximum mean packet throughput) and packet delay of subnetworks that can be used to form NG-PONs. Our analysis can cover a wide range of NG-PONs through taking the minimum capacity of the subnetworks forming the NG-PON and weighing the packet delays of the subnetworks. Our numerical and simulation results indicate that our analysis quite accurately characterizes the throughput-delay performance of EPON/GPON tree networks, including networks upgraded with higher data rates and wavelength counts. Our analysis also characterizes the trade-offs and bottlenecks when integrating EPON/GPON tree networks across a metro area with a ring, a Passive Star Coupler (PSC), or an Arrayed Waveguide Grating (AWG) for uniform and non-uniform traffic. To the best of our knowledge, the presented analysis is the first to consider multiple PONs interconnected via a metro network.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".