On the Highly Stable Performance of Loss-Free Optical Burst Switching Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increase of bandwidth demand in data networks, driven by the continuous growth of the Internet and the increase of bandwidth greedy applications, raise the issue of how to support all the bandwidth requirements in the near future. Three optical switching paradigms have been defined and are being investigated: Optical Circuit Switching (OCS); Optical Packet Switching (OPS); and Optical Burst Switching (OBS). Among these paradigms, OBS is seen as the most appropriate solution today. However, OBS suffers from high burst loss as a result of contention in the bufferless mode of operation. This issue was investigated by Coutelen et al., 2009 who proposed the loss-free CAROBS framework whereby signal convertors of the optical signal to the electrical domain ensure electrical buffering. Convertors increase the network price which must be minimized to reduce the installation and operating costs of the CAROBS framework. An analysis capturing convertor requirements, with respect to the number of merging flows and CAROBS node offered load, was carried out. We demonstrated the convertor location significance, which led to an additional investigation of the shared wavelength convertors scenario. Shared wavelength convertors significantly decrease the number of required convertors and show great promise for CAROBS. Based on this study we can design a CAROBS network to contain a combination of simple and complex nodes that include none or some convertors respectively, a vital feature of network throughput efficiency and cost.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".