MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2876319397 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2018.2855148

BackHauling-as-a-Service (BHaaS) for 5G Optical Sliced Networks: An Optimized TCO Approach

2018· article· en· W2876319397 on OpenAlexafffund
Nassim Haddaji, Abdolkhalegh Bayati, Kim Khoa Nguyen, Mohamed Cheriet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Photonic Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBackhaul (telecommunications)Computer scienceScalabilityComputer networkProvisioningCellular networkNetwork planning and designBase stationDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to their initial overestimation of demand, many network operators are over-provisioning their infrastructure. Overdesigned networks vastly increase operational costs without generating expected revenues. In particular, high-density cell architecture in future 5G networks will face big technical and financial challenges due to avalanche of traffic volume and massive growth in connected devices. Planning scalable 5G mobile backhaul (MBH) transport networks becomes one of the most challenging issues. However, existing planning solutions are no longer appropriate for coming 5G requirements. New 5G MBH architecture emphasizes on multitenancy and network slicing, which requires new methods to optimize MBH planning resource utilization. In this paper, we introduce an algorithm based on a stochastic geometry model (Voronoi Tessellation) to define backhauling zones within a geographical area and optimize their estimated traffic demands and MBH resources. Then, we propose a novel method called backhauling-as-a-service (BHaaS) for network planning and total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis based on “you-pay-only-for-what-you-use” approach. Finally, we enhanced the BHaaS performance by introducing a more service-aware method called trafficprofile-as-a-service (TPaaS) to further drive down the costs based on yearly activated traffic profiles. Results show BHaaS and TPaaS may control and enhance 22% of the project benefit compared to traditional TCO model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lightwave TechnologySame topicAdvanced Photonic Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207