MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295845736 · doi:10.3390/fi14090263

Trade-offs between Risk and Operational Cost in SDN Failure Recovery Plan

2022· article· en· W4295845736 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Akhavan Astaneh, Shahram Shah Heydari, Sara Taghavi Motlagh, Alireza Izaddoost

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Internet · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSurvivabilityPath (computing)Probabilistic logicShortest path problemLagrangian relaxationMathematical optimizationMetric (unit)Flow (mathematics)Flow networkReliability engineeringComputer networkOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of SDN flow optimization in the presence of a dynamic probabilistic link failures model. We introduce a metric for path risk, which can change dynamically as network conditions and failure probabilities change. As these probabilities change, the end-to-end path survivability probability may drop, i.e., its risk may rise. The main objective is to reroute at-risk end-to-end flows with the minimum number of flow operation so that a fast flow recovery is guaranteed. We provide various formulations for optimizing network risk versus operational costs and examine the trade-offs in flow recovery and the connections between operational cost, path risk, and path survival probability. We present our suboptimal dynamic flow restoration methods and evaluate their effectiveness against the Lagrangian relaxation approach. Our results show a significant improvement in operational cost against a shortest-path approach.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture InternetSame topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207