Revisiting and Comparing Failure Dependent Protection and Restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Failure dependent backup schemes are known to achieve better capacity efficiency, although they can be more difficult to manage due to more complex control requirements. Regarding protection in networks, fault dependent protection (FDP) is recognized with the best bandwidth efficiency, but with longer recovery time and more complex signaling. On the other hand, restoration, by definition failure dependent, allows an even more efficient capacity, but has been very little studied compared to failure dependent protection.The explosion of data traffic and bandwidth intensive applications make it important to revisit optical layer failure dependent backup (protection or restoration) as they have been little studied while being bandwidth efficient, in comparison to the vast literature on independent (i.e., link, segment, path) protection. Indeed, there is a lack of proven and scalable failure dependent backup heuristics.Here we study the design of efficient greedy heuristics for failure-dependent protection and recovery, and compare their bandwidth efficiency against the ease of provisioning new incoming requests with backup against multiple link failure scenarios.Computational results are reported using the Nobel network with 30 wavelengths.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".