Traffic-aware Elastic Optical Networks to leverage Energy Savings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the static nature of the deployed optical networks, large energy wastage is experienced today in production networks such as Telecom networks. With power-adaptive optical interfaces and suitable grooming procedures, we propose the design of more energy efficient transport networks. Optical network re-configurations are performed by GMPLS node controllers according to monitored traffic information. The investigated energy reduction strategies are simulated on two large scale transport networks (DT17 and COST37). The results show that the energy savings obtained by these strategies depend on the variability of the carried traffic and the characteristics of the network topology. For medium-size DT17 network significant (more than 37%) power savings are achieved only with symbol-rate adaptation while less savings are achieved for modulation format adaptation. In case of pan-European COST37 network, for both symbol-rate and modulation format adaptations significant savings are obtained. Mixed adaptation (jointly performing symbol-rate and modulation format adaptations) used together with optical grooming allows up to 44% and 47% power savings in DT17 and COST37 networks respectively, close to the optimum power savings case 48,2% computed when the power follows exactly the traffic demand pattern.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".