MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171047518 · doi:10.1109/icpp.2006.38

Efficient Algorithms for Traffic Grooming in SONET/WDM Networks

2006· article· en· W2171047518 on OpenAlexafffund
Yong Wang, Qian‐Ping Gu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTraffic groomingSynchronous optical networkingComputer scienceWavelength-division multiplexingComputer networkHeuristicAlgorithmMultiplexerRouting and wavelength assignmentNode (physics)Optical mesh networkMultiplexingWavelengthEngineeringTelecommunicationsWireless networkWirelessOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In SONET/WDM optical networks, a wavelength channel is shared by multiple low-rate traffic demands. The multiplexing is known as traffic grooming and carried out by SONET add-drop multiplexers (SADM). A key optimization problem in traffic grooming is to minimize the number of SADMs. This optimization problem is challenging and NP-hard even for unidirectional SONET/WDM rings (UPSR) with symmetric unitary traffic demands. In this paper, we give a linear time heuristic algorithm for this NP-hard problem. Empirical results show that the algorithm outperforms previous algorithms. The algorithm uses the minimum number of wavelengths, which are also precious resources in optical networks. An important subclass of the symmetric unitary traffic pattern is the regular traffic pattern, where each network node appears in exactly r symmetric demands. The regular traffic pattern is a generalization of the well known all-to-all traffic pattern, in which r = n - 1 for a network of n nodes. We prove that the optimization problem remains NP-hard for the regular traffic pattern on the UPSR. We also propose an algorithm for this problem with a better upper bound on the number of used SADMs than previous algorithms. This algorithm always uses the minimum number of wavelengths as well

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207