MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Constraint-Based Risk and Revenue Optimization for Network Disaster Recovery

2025· article· en· W4411688701 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Taghavi Motlagh, Shahram Shah Heydari, Khalil El‐Khatib

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)RevenueComputer scienceOperations researchBusinessEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telecommunication networks are highly vulnerable to disasters, disrupting critical services and causing significant economic losses. This paper presents a constraintbased Integer Linear Programming (ILP) model for disaster recovery that jointly optimizes risk-aware routing and revenue maximization under bandwidth constraints. Unlike traditional heuristic approaches, our model dynamically prioritizes highvalue, low-risk services, ensuring optimal bandwidth allocation while mitigating network failures. The risk function accounts for link failure probabilities and service priority levels, influencing path selection in real time. By enforcing strict bandwidth and survivability constraints, the ILP model strategically schedules fewer but more profitable flows, optimizing economic efficiency without compromising resilience. Simulation results demonstrate that our approach reduces service disruptions, minimizes high-risk routing, and improves revenue efficiency compared to Dijkstra-based routing. These findings offer a scalable framework for network operators to enhance disaster resilience while maintaining economic viability.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207