Resource Sharing of High-Speed Optical Circuits for File Transfers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of efforts are underway to use optical networks to create high-speed end-to-end circuits. These circuits can be used for transfers of large files such as those generated by large-scale scientific applications. At the present time, gigabit and 10-gigabit Ethernet signals from end hosts are typically mapped onto metro-/wide-area SONET circuits using Ethernet-over-SONET (EoS) technologies. While SONET circuits are realized by configuring electronic circuit switches, extension of this concept to all-optical circuits will be straightforward when all-optical switches become commonplace. A few hero demonstrations have shown that 1-Gb / s circuits can be configured from hosts in Europe to hosts in Canada/US to transfer files at high speeds over these circuits. Efforts targeted at these demonstrations have focused on the implementation of two pieces of software: (i) control-plane modules to provision end-to-end circuits (referred to as “user-controlled lightpaths ” in [1]), and (ii) transport protocols, such as SABUL [2], Tsunami [3], and RBUDP [4] suitable for these end-to-end circuits. While the provisioning of such circuits is feasible on experimental research networks such as Starlight, Canarie, UKlight, and SURFnet, we need to address the issue of resource sharing if this concept is to be deployed economically on a wide basis. In a paper presented in PFLDN
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".