MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534434161 · doi:10.1109/icics.2005.1689244

A Comparison between Tnime-slot Scheduling Approaches for All-Photonic Networks

2006· article· en· W2534434161 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTime-division multiplexingBottleneckScheduling (production processes)PhotonicsMultiplexingDistributed computingQueueing theoryNetwork topologyComputer networkTelecommunicationsEmbedded systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The internal switches in all-photonic networks do not perform data conversion into the electronic domain. Although this removal of O-E-O conversion eliminates a potential capacity bottleneck, it also introduces scheduling challenges; photonic switches cannot perform queuing operations, so traffic arrivals at these switches must be carefully scheduled. The (overlaid) star topology is an excellent match for an all-photonic network because it simplifies the scheduling problem. In such a network architecture, optical time division multiplexing (OTDM) approaches for scheduling the state of the central switch in the star are attractive. In this paper, we describe two OTDM algorithms that we have recently developed, one that performs scheduling on a slot-by-slot basis and another that schedules frames of multiple slots. We report and analyze the results of OPNET simulations that compare the performance of these scheduling algorithms

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 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 score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207