MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407830023 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2025.3543745

Resource Allocation in Quantum-Key-Distribution Optical Data Center Networks

2025· article· en· W4407830023 on OpenAlexaff
Bowen Chen, Weike Ma, Bin He, Hong Chen, Weidong Shao, Mingyi Gao, Limei Peng, Pin‐Han Ho, Jason P. Jue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Research Foundation of KoreaNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsQuantum key distributionComputer scienceKey (lock)Data centerResource allocationComputer networkResource management (computing)TelecommunicationsQuantumElectronic engineeringPhysicsEngineeringQuantum mechanicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper investigates quantum key resource allocation in quantum-key-distribution optical data center networks (QKD-ODCNs). A novel framework of priority queue with multiple security levels is first proposed to achieve a multi-class networking environment with adaptive security level classification. Accordingly, a novel integer linear programming (ILP) model is developed for the quantum key resource allocation (QKRA) process. To overcome the high computation complexity in solving the ILP, two heuristic approaches are developed, namely QKRA with adaptive strong security level (QKRA-ASSL) and QKRA with adaptive weak security level (QKRA-AWSL), respectively, aiming to achieve as close performance to that by the ILP model as possible in terms of success rate of connection request and network security level. The simulation results verify that the proposed QKRA-ASSL and QKRA-AWSL approaches not only maximize the network security score, but also improve the timeslot resource utilization without compromising the establishment success rate of connection request.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lightwave TechnologySame topicOptical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207