MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237984851 · doi:10.1109/netwks.2008.6231355

Efficient and scalable design of Protected Working Capacity Envelope

2008· article· en· W4237984851 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Sebbah, Brigitte Jaumard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityComputer scienceColumn generationDistributed computingNetwork topologyProcess (computing)Network planning and designA priori and a posterioriKey (lock)Mathematical optimizationWavelength-division multiplexingOptimization problemSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer networkAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Protected Working Capacity Envelope (PWCE) concept was proposed by Grover (2004) in order to simplify network and operation management in survivable WDM networks. In this paper, we focus on PCWE with p-cycles and investigate a new design method, highly efficient and scalable, for designing survivable WDM networks. Traditional design methods proceed in two steps: A first step where a large (sometimes huge) number of cycles is enumerated followed by a second step where the selection of the most promising p-cycles is made with the help of combinatorial optimization tools. We develop a new (single step) method based on large scale optimization tools, i.e., column generation techniques, where the generation of cycles is dynamic and embedded within the optimization process. The key advantage of column generation (CG) techniques is that no a priori cycle enumeration step is required ahead of the optimization process: The generation of the relevant cycles, only one or few at a time, is embedded in the optimization process. We conducted intensive computational experiments. Not only do we considered several network instances with quite different topology characteristics, but we also compared our CG-based model and solution method with several existing models and methods from the literature. Results obtained in the experiments on five different network instances, show that the CG-based model and method outperform by far the results of all previous studies, both with respect to the scalability (much smaller computing times for large network instances) but also with respect to the quality of the solutions.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207