Centralized and Distributed Machine Learning-Based QoT Estimation for Sliceable Optical Networks

Georgios Ellinas; Giannis Savva; Ioannis Tomkos; Tania Panayiotou

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Centralized and Distributed Machine Learning-Based QoT Estimation for Sliceable Optical Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In sliceable optical networks, per-slice binary QoT classifiers outperform a single centralized multiclass QoT classifier, keeping per-class accuracy above 94% even as the centralized model's per-class accuracy drops to 47% when six…

desk verdict A clear, internally consistent comparison of centralized multiclass vs per-slice binary QoT classifiers, but the headline accuracy claim hinges on comparing different prediction tasks and the training-time numbers need a parallel-execution assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08338 v2 pith:3O3SD6WF submitted 2019-08-22 cs.NI cs.LGeess.SP

Tania Panayiotou , Giannis Savva , Ioannis Tomkos , Georgios Ellinas This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.NIcs.LGeess.SP

keywords QoTestimationnetworkslicingmachinelearningopticalnetworksbit-errorraterequirementsmulticlassclassificationbinarydistributedtraining

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks how to estimate quality of transmission (QoT) in optical networks that are split into slices with different bit-error-rate (BER) requirements. It compares a centralized multiclass classifier, which must label each lightpath into one of K+1 BER-interval classes, with a distributed collection of K binary classifiers, each deciding only whether a lightpath meets its own slice's BER threshold. The paper argues that the distributed binary models outperform the centralized model, keeping per-class accuracy above 94% while the centralized model's per-class accuracy drops to 47% as the number of diverse BER requirements grows. It further argues that each distributed model trains faster because it sees only the lightpaths intended for its slice type.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the BER-threshold class definition. In the centralized formulation, K slice BER requirements create K+1 ordered classes: class 1 has BER below the tightest threshold, the middle classes are intervals between adjacent thresholds, and the last class is above the loosest threshold. In the distributed formulation, each slice type k gets a two-class problem: feasible if the lightpath's BER is below $B_k$, infeasible otherwise. The mechanism that carries the argument is the decomposition: a binary threshold check does not become harder when K grows, whereas a multiclass model must separate classes whose intervals may be arbitrarily close. Both formulations use the same seven lightpath features (path length, longest link, central frequency, slot count, modulation format, amplifier count, and link count), so the comparison isolates the classification formulation rather than the input information.

What would settle it

Train the six binary classifiers from the K=6 case sequentially on the same CPU and sum their wall-clock times; if the sum is not close to 174 seconds, the approximately 50 percent training-time advantage over the centralized model's 348 seconds does not hold in sequential deployment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The claim is that QoT estimation in sliceable optical networks should be formulated as a set of per-slice binary classification problems rather than a single multiclass problem. For K slice types with BER thresholds $B_1 < \dots < B_K$, the centralized model assigns each lightpath to one of K+1 classes defined by the intervals between thresholds, so its job becomes harder as thresholds are added or moved closer together. The distributed model instead trains K independent binary classifiers; classifier k only has to separate "BER below $B_k$" from "BER above $B_k$". On the paper's synthetic dataset of 20,000 connection requests over a 30-node optical backbone, the distributed models achieve per-class accuracy above 94% for K=5 and K=6, while the centralized 7-class model's accuracy on the fourth class falls to 47%. The paper reports that the distributed models also cut training time by roughly 50% because each local dataset is smaller, and that the accuracy advantage grows with the number of diverse QoT requirements.

Load-bearing premise

The training-time portion of the paper's claim assumes the per-slice classifiers run in parallel on separate local controllers with no counted communication or orchestration overhead; if they run sequentially on one machine, the combined training time is not roughly half the centralized model's time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a fixed set of network features, centralized multiclass QoT models remain practical only up to some number of slice types; beyond that, per-class accuracy becomes unacceptable.
Per-slice binary QoT models can be trained and updated independently at local controllers, so adding or changing one slice's BER requirement does not force retraining the models for the other slices.
The distributed framework reduces storage and processing per controller, since each controller keeps only the lightpaths intended for its own slice type.
The accuracy advantage should become more pronounced as BER requirements are spaced more closely, because adjacent classes in the centralized model become harder to separate while the binary threshold problems do not.
The comparison uses identical input features in both frameworks, so the reported differences are attributed to the classification formulation rather than to different input information.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The reported roughly 50 percent training-time advantage holds only if the K local classifiers train in parallel or if the comparison is per model; summing the six per-slice training times in the K=6 case gives 583 seconds, more than the centralized model's 348 seconds.
A natural test of the paper's logic is to construct a centralized dataset with very closely spaced BER thresholds while keeping K fixed; the centralized model's per-class accuracy should degrade on the narrow interval, while each distributed binary classifier's accuracy should stay roughly constant.
The same per-threshold decomposition could be applied to other threshold-based network-management learning tasks, such as latency or availability guarantees, whenever each slice has its own service-level objective.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague —

Short version: worth reading if you work on ML-based QoT estimation. The paper reformulates slice-aware QoT estimation as either a K+1-class centralized classifier or K per-slice binary classifiers, where prior work mostly assumes a single binary feasible/infeasible threshold. That per-slice decomposition is a legitimate extension, the simulation pipeline is described well enough to reproduce the broad setup, and the authors are honest that control/resource overhead and FEC transformation are out of scope. No equation reduces to an old result; the novelty claim is fair.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The headline accuracy claim is apples-to-oranges. The centralized model is evaluated on interval classes; the distributed models on binary feasibility. For provisioning, the relevant decision is whether a lightpath meets a specific BER requirement, and the paper’s own Section IV-A explains how to derive that from the multiclass output. But the authors never compute the derived feasibility accuracy. It is quite possible that the centralized 7-class model, despite 47% per-class accuracy on class 4, makes correct feasibility calls on most slices because adjacent-class errors can still land on the right side of the threshold. Without that derived metric, "the centralized model can no longer be utilized" is not established. This is not a minor omission; it is the metric behind the abstract.

Second, the training-time comparison is underspecified. The 50% claim seems to compare a single distributed model’s training time against the centralized model. Summed over K=6, the distributed models take roughly 583 seconds versus 348 seconds; the claim only holds if local controllers train in parallel. The paper flags overhead as out of scope, so this is an omission, but the abstract’s "outperform... in training time" is too strong.

Third, the per-slice dataset sizes do not sum to N=20,000 (19,637 for K=5; 21,716 for K=6), which suggests an error or an unstated resampling step and affects the training-time tables. Also, there are no confidence intervals, only one topology and one load, and no released code or data.

Overall, the architectural idea is plausible: per-slice binary classifiers avoid the centralized model’s harder interval-classification problem. The data are consistent with that idea, but they do not establish it as a robust design rule. The paper deserves a serious referee; the question is real and the simulation is reproducible in principle. A revision needs the centralized feasibility comparison, corrected dataset sums, error bars or statistical tests, and an explicit parallel-training statement.

For review: not a desk reject. I’d send it out and ask for major revision. I’d cite it if I wrote a slicing/QoT paper soon, but I would not rely on the 47% result as evidence.

Cheers.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies machine-learning-based Quality-of-Transmission (QoT) estimation in sliceable elastic optical networks, where each slice has a different BER requirement. It compares a centralized multiclass classifier (predicting one of K+1 BER-interval classes) with a distributed set of K binary classifiers (each predicting feasible/infeasible against one slice's BER threshold). The authors report that the distributed models achieve higher per-class accuracy and lower training time than the centralized model, with the advantage growing with K. The experiments use a simulated Telefonica topology with 20,000 connection requests and a neural network with one hidden layer, reporting accuracy per class and training time for K=3, 5, and 6.

Significance. If the comparison were made on a common decision metric, the paper would provide a useful empirical study of a sensible architectural idea: per-slice binary QoT classifiers as an alternative to a single multiclass classifier. The simulation pipeline is clearly described, the training hyperparameters are stated, and the tables are internally readable, which supports reproducibility. The main claimed advantage, however, rests on a comparison of non-equivalent accuracy metrics and on an implicit parallel-execution assumption for training time; these issues are load-bearing for the headline conclusion and need to be addressed before the paper's claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section VII-A and IV-A] The central accuracy claim compares the per-class accuracy of a multiclass classifier with the per-class accuracy of binary per-slice classifiers, but these are not equivalent metrics. As defined in Section IV-A, the centralized model's output y_i^v=1 becomes a feasibility decision only through the ordering v<j; an error between adjacent classes (e.g., class 4 versus class 5) can still yield the correct feasibility decision, yet it is counted as a misclassification in Table I. The paper never computes the binary feasibility accuracy of the centralized model from its multiclass predictions, so the statement that the centralized model 'can no longer be utilized' (Section VII-B) and the headline conclusion of distributed superiority are not demonstrated by the reported numbers.
[Section VII-B] The training-time comparison is not well-defined. The text claims that the distributed framework 'outperforms the training time achieved by the centralized framework by approximately 50%', but Tables II and III list per-classifier times (61 to 178 seconds) that sum to 423 seconds for K=5 and 583 seconds for K=6, versus 368 seconds and 348 seconds for the centralized models. The claimed advantage therefore relies on an implicit assumption that the K binary classifiers are trained in parallel on separate controllers; this assumption is not stated in the experimental setup, and no communication, synchronization, or orchestration overhead is reported. The claim should be re-stated as a parallel-training scenario or the comparison should use total wall-clock time.
[Section V and VII-B] The per-slice dataset sizes do not reconcile with the stated total N=20,000. For K=5, the listed sizes sum to 19,637, and for K=6 they sum to 21,716. Since Section V states that 20,000 connection requests were generated and the distributed datasets are partitions of the multiclass dataset D, these sums should both equal N. The discrepancy affects the credibility of the training-time comparison and should be explained or corrected.

minor comments (4)

[Section VII] The paper reports accuracy without confidence intervals or statistical tests; given that the central comparison is based on a single topology, a single load (400 Erlangs), and a single random traffic generation, a statement of variance across seeds or a significance test would strengthen the conclusions.
[Section VII-B] The text contains several typos: 'indented' should be 'intended' (two occurrences) and 'due to to the fact' should be 'due to the fact'.
[Section V] The word 'consisitng' should be 'consisting'.
[Tables II and III] The relationship between the reported model accuracy and the per-class accuracies is not defined (macro versus micro average); stating this relationship would help the reader interpret the per-class results, especially in imbalanced datasets.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the centralized-vs-distributed comparison is an experimental benchmark between differently formulated classifiers, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

Walking the paper's derivation chain, the central claims are empirical comparisons on a generated dataset, not analytic derivations in which an output is defined in terms of itself. Section IV-A defines the centralized QoT model as a multiclass classifier over K+1 BER-interval classes, while Section IV-B defines each distributed model f_k as a binary feasible/infeasible classifier relative to a single threshold B_k. These are genuinely different prediction problems: the centralized output is a BER interval and the distributed output is a thresholded feasibility decision. The paper's accuracy comparison uses per-class accuracy across these different label spaces, and its training-time comparison uses per-classifier training times (61-178 s) against one 348 s centralized run. Those are evaluation-design and reporting issues, not cases where a predicted quantity is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or to the paper's own equations. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then 'predicted' as a closely related quantity; the neural network training uses fixed hyperparameters and cross-validation. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [21], [22], [29]) are used as background and for the BER ground-truth tool, not as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled in from prior work. A bookkeeping inconsistency in the reported per-slice dataset sizes (the K=5 sum is 19,637 and the K=6 sum is 21,716, versus the stated N=20,000) and the unstated parallel-execution premise for the training-time comparison are correctness/technical concerns, but neither exhibits the specific reduction required to establish circularity. Under the required standard, no circular step can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on the Q-tool simulator for ground-truth BER, on the RSA policy used to generate lightpaths, and on the chosen NN architecture and hyperparameters. These are all adopted from prior literature or chosen by hand rather than derived, but none of them is a fitted constant aimed at producing the paper's conclusion.

free parameters (3)

NN hyperparameters (hidden units, learning rate, epochs, batch size) = 6, 0.01, 300, 50
Chosen in advance and applied identically to both frameworks; no ablation is reported, so the comparative conclusion assumes these choices do not interact with the centralized/distributed distinction.
Network traffic load = 400 Erlangs
Simulation input chosen for the study; only one load is tested, so scaling claims are tied to this operating point.
BER requirement sets B = K=3,5,6 with thresholds from 1e-8 to 1e-4
Chosen so Q-tool could produce ground truth; threshold spacing strongly affects centralized class separation, so results depend on these choices.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Q-tool [29] produces ground-truth BER values that match real physical-layer behavior.
All labels come from this simulator; no experimental validation is included in the paper.
domain assumption Dijkstra shortest path plus first-fit RSA is a representative provisioning policy for sliceable EONs.
Section V; the generated lightpaths and their features depend on this policy.
domain assumption A single-hidden-layer NN with 6 hidden units has enough capacity to represent the QoT decision boundary.
Section VI; no capacity analysis or comparison with other architectures is provided.
domain assumption The 20,000 requests on the Telefonica topology at 400 Erlangs are representative of dynamic multi-slice operation.
Section V; only one topology and one traffic load are examined.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Centralized and Distributed Machine Learning-Based QoT Estimation for Sliceable Optical Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3O3SD6WF

@misc{pith2026190808338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Centralized and Distributed Machine Learning-Based QoT Estimation for Sliceable Optical Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3O3SD6WF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08338}
}

read the original abstract

Dynamic network slicing has emerged as a promising and fundamental framework for meeting 5G's diverse use cases. As machine learning (ML) is expected to play a pivotal role in the efficient control and management of these networks, in this work we examine the ML-based Quality-of-Transmission (QoT) estimation problem under the dynamic network slicing context, where each slice has to meet a different QoT requirement. We examine ML-based QoT frameworks with the aim of finding QoT model/s that are fine-tuned according to the diverse QoT requirements. Centralized and distributed frameworks are examined and compared according to their accuracy and training time. We show that the distributed QoT models outperform the centralized QoT model, especially as the number of diverse QoT requirements increases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08338 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** However, for simplicity, we have chosen to illustrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Telefonica network topology In total, N = 20000 connection requests were generated in a dynamic optical network according to a Poisson process with exponentially distributed holding times for a network load of 400 Erlangs. The set of connection requests, C = {C i} N i=1, defining the source node s, the destination node d, and the BER requirement Bk of each connection i were generated as follows: The s-d pairs were g… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

View on 5G Architecture,

5GPPP Architecture Working Group, “View on 5G Architecture,” 2017

work page 2017
[2]

What is Network Slicing?,

S. Kavanagh, “What is Network Slicing?,” 5G.co.uk, online: https://5g.co.uk/guides/what-is-network-slicing/, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Nokia Claims Network Slicing for the Fixed Network,

I. Scales, “Nokia Claims Network Slicing for the Fixed Network,” https://www.telecomtv.com/content/ﬁxed-access/nokia-claims-network- slicing-for-the-ﬁxed-network-32703/, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

Service Function Chaining (SFC) and Network Slicing in Backhaul and Metro Networks in Support of 5G,

A. Farrel, “Service Function Chaining (SFC) and Network Slicing in Backhaul and Metro Networks in Support of 5G,” Proc. IEEE ICTON , 2018

work page 2018
[5]

SON (Self- Organizing Networks) in the 5G Era: 20192030 Opportunities, Chal- lenges, Strategies & Forecasts,

SNS: Market Intelligence and Consultancy Solutions Res., “SON (Self- Organizing Networks) in the 5G Era: 20192030 Opportunities, Chal- lenges, Strategies & Forecasts,” 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Multi-tenant 5G Network Slicing Architecture with Dynamic Deployment of Virtualized Tenant Management and Orchestra- tion (MANO) Instances,

A. Mayoral, et al., “Multi-tenant 5G Network Slicing Architecture with Dynamic Deployment of Virtualized Tenant Management and Orchestra- tion (MANO) Instances,” Proc. ECOC, 2016

work page 2016
[7]

Demonstration of Resource Orchestration Using Big Data Analytics for Dynamic Slicing in 5G Networks,

M. R. Raza, et al., “Demonstration of Resource Orchestration Using Big Data Analytics for Dynamic Slicing in 5G Networks,” Proc. ECOC, 2018

work page 2018
[8]

Network Orchestration for Dynamic Network Slicing for Fixed and Mobile Vertical Services,

R. Alvizu, et al., “Network Orchestration for Dynamic Network Slicing for Fixed and Mobile Vertical Services,” Proc. IEEE/OSA OFC , 2018

work page 2018

Show all 33 references

[9]

Artiﬁcial Intelligence (AI) Methods in Optical Networks: A Comprehensive Survey,

J. Mata, et al., “Artiﬁcial Intelligence (AI) Methods in Optical Networks: A Comprehensive Survey,” Opt. Switc. Net. , 28:43–57, 2018

2018
[10]

An Overview on Application of Machine Learning Techniques in Optical Networks,

F. Musumeci, et al, “An Overview on Application of Machine Learning Techniques in Optical Networks,” IEEE Com. Surveys & Tutorials, 21(2):1383–1408, 2019

2019
[11]

Knowledge-Based Autonomous Service Provisioning in Multi-Domain Elastic Optical Networks,

X. Chen, et al., “Knowledge-Based Autonomous Service Provisioning in Multi-Domain Elastic Optical Networks,” IEEE Comm. Mag. , 56(8): 152–158, 2018

2018
[12]

Matheuristic with Machine-learning-based Prediction for Software-deﬁned Mobile Metro-core Networks,

R. Alvizu, et al., “Matheuristic with Machine-learning-based Prediction for Software-deﬁned Mobile Metro-core Networks,” IEEE/OSA J. Opt. Comm. Net. , 9(9):D19–D30, Sept. 2017

2017
[13]

Virtual Network Topology Adaptability based on Data Analytics for Trafﬁc Prediction,

F. Morales, et al., “Virtual Network Topology Adaptability based on Data Analytics for Trafﬁc Prediction,” IEEE/OSA J. Opt. Comm. Net. , 9(1):A35-A45, 2017

2017
[14]

On Learning Bandwidth Allocation Models for Time-Varying Trafﬁc in Flexible Optical Networks,

T. Panayiotou, et al., “On Learning Bandwidth Allocation Models for Time-Varying Trafﬁc in Flexible Optical Networks,” Proc. IEEE ONDM , 2018

2018
[15]

A Data-driven Bandwidth Allocation Frame- work with QoS Considerations for EONs,

T. Panayiotou, et al., “A Data-driven Bandwidth Allocation Frame- work with QoS Considerations for EONs,” IEEE/OSA J. Light. Techn. , 37(9):1853–1864, 2019

2019
[16]

Leveraging Statistical Machine Learning to Address Failure Localization in Optical Networks,

T. Panayiotou et al., “Leveraging Statistical Machine Learning to Address Failure Localization in Optical Networks,” IEEE/OSA J. Opt. Comm. Net. , 10(3):162–173, 2018

2018
[17]

Learning from the Optical Spectrum: Failure De- tection and Identiﬁcation

B. Shariati, et al., “Learning from the Optical Spectrum: Failure De- tection and Identiﬁcation”, IEEE/OSA J. Light. Techn. , 37(2):433–440, 2019

2019
[18]

Machine-Learning-Based Soft-Failure Detection and Identiﬁcation in Optical Networks,

S. Shahkarami, et al., “Machine-Learning-Based Soft-Failure Detection and Identiﬁcation in Optical Networks,” Proc. IEEE/OSA OFC , 2018

2018
[19]

First Demonstration of Imbalanced Data Learning-Based Failure Prediction in Self-Optimizing Optical Networks with Large Scale Field Topology,

B. Yan, et al., “First Demonstration of Imbalanced Data Learning-Based Failure Prediction in Self-Optimizing Optical Networks with Large Scale Field Topology,” Proc. ACP 2018

2018
[20]

Field Demonstration of Machine-Learning-Aided Detection and Identiﬁcation of Jamming Attacks in Optical Networks,

C. Natalino, et al., “Field Demonstration of Machine-Learning-Aided Detection and Identiﬁcation of Jamming Attacks in Optical Networks,” Proc. ECOC, 2018

2018
[21]

Performance Analysis of a Data-driven Quality-of- transmission Decision Approach on a Dynamic Multicast-capable Metro Optical Network,

T. Panayiotou, et al., “Performance Analysis of a Data-driven Quality-of- transmission Decision Approach on a Dynamic Multicast-capable Metro Optical Network,” IEEE/OSA J. Opt. Comm. Net. , 9(1):98–108, 2017

2017
[22]

Machine Learning for QoT Estimation of Unseen Optical Network States,

T. Panayiotou, et al., “Machine Learning for QoT Estimation of Unseen Optical Network States,” Proc. IEEE/OSA OFC , 2019

2019
[23]

Machine Learning Models for Estimating Quality of Transmission in DWDM Networks,

R. Morais and J. Pedro, “Machine Learning Models for Estimating Quality of Transmission in DWDM Networks,” IEEE/OSA J. Opt. Comm. Net., 10(10):D84–D99, 2018

2018
[24]

Supervised Machine Learning Techniques for Quality of Transmission Assessment in Optical Networks,

J. Mata et al., “Supervised Machine Learning Techniques for Quality of Transmission Assessment in Optical Networks,” Proc. IEEE ICTON , 2018

2018
[25]

Machine-learning Method for Quality of Transmis- sion Prediction of Unestablished Lightpaths,

C. Rottondi, et al., “Machine-learning Method for Quality of Transmis- sion Prediction of Unestablished Lightpaths,”IEEE/OSA J. of Opt. Comm. Net., 10(2):A286–A297, 2018

2018
[26]

Service Level Agreement and Provisioning in Optical Networks,

W. Fawaz, et al., “Service Level Agreement and Provisioning in Optical Networks,” IEEE Comm. Mag. , 42(1):36–43, 2004

2004
[27]

Data-driven Network Analytics and Network Optimisa- tion in SDN-based Programmable Optical Networks,

S. Yan, et al., “Data-driven Network Analytics and Network Optimisa- tion in SDN-based Programmable Optical Networks,”Proc. IEEE ONDM, 2018

2018
[28]

Section 24.3: Dijkstra’s algorithm

T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, “Section 24.3: Dijkstra’s algorithm”, MIT Press, 2009

2009
[29]

Physical-Layer-Aware Performance Evaluation of SDM Networks Based on SMF Bundles, MCFs, and FMFs,

B. Shariati, et al., “Physical-Layer-Aware Performance Evaluation of SDM Networks Based on SMF Bundles, MCFs, and FMFs,” IEEE/OSA J. Opt. Comm. Net. , 10(9):712–722, 2018

2018
[30]

Experimental Demonstration of Cognitive Provi- sioning and Alien Wavelength Monitoring in Multi-domain EON

R. Proietti, et al., “Experimental Demonstration of Cognitive Provi- sioning and Alien Wavelength Monitoring in Multi-domain EON”, Proc. IEEE/OSA OFC , 2018

2018
[31]

ANN-Based Transfer Learning for QoT Prediction in Real-Time Mixed Line-Rate Systems,

W. Mo, et al., “ANN-Based Transfer Learning for QoT Prediction in Real-Time Mixed Line-Rate Systems,” Proc. IEEE/OSA OFC , 2018

2018
[32]

Using Active Learning to Decrease Probes for QoT Estimation in Optical Networks,

D. Azzimonti, et al., “Using Active Learning to Decrease Probes for QoT Estimation in Optical Networks,” Proc. IEEE/OSA OFC , 2019

2019
[33]

Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,

D. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,” Proc. ICLR, 2015

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

View on 5G Architecture,

5GPPP Architecture Working Group, “View on 5G Architecture,” 2017

work page 2017

[2] [2]

What is Network Slicing?,

S. Kavanagh, “What is Network Slicing?,” 5G.co.uk, online: https://5g.co.uk/guides/what-is-network-slicing/, 2018

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Nokia Claims Network Slicing for the Fixed Network,

I. Scales, “Nokia Claims Network Slicing for the Fixed Network,” https://www.telecomtv.com/content/ﬁxed-access/nokia-claims-network- slicing-for-the-ﬁxed-network-32703/, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Service Function Chaining (SFC) and Network Slicing in Backhaul and Metro Networks in Support of 5G,

A. Farrel, “Service Function Chaining (SFC) and Network Slicing in Backhaul and Metro Networks in Support of 5G,” Proc. IEEE ICTON , 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

SON (Self- Organizing Networks) in the 5G Era: 20192030 Opportunities, Chal- lenges, Strategies & Forecasts,

SNS: Market Intelligence and Consultancy Solutions Res., “SON (Self- Organizing Networks) in the 5G Era: 20192030 Opportunities, Chal- lenges, Strategies & Forecasts,” 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Multi-tenant 5G Network Slicing Architecture with Dynamic Deployment of Virtualized Tenant Management and Orchestra- tion (MANO) Instances,

A. Mayoral, et al., “Multi-tenant 5G Network Slicing Architecture with Dynamic Deployment of Virtualized Tenant Management and Orchestra- tion (MANO) Instances,” Proc. ECOC, 2016

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Demonstration of Resource Orchestration Using Big Data Analytics for Dynamic Slicing in 5G Networks,

M. R. Raza, et al., “Demonstration of Resource Orchestration Using Big Data Analytics for Dynamic Slicing in 5G Networks,” Proc. ECOC, 2018

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Network Orchestration for Dynamic Network Slicing for Fixed and Mobile Vertical Services,

R. Alvizu, et al., “Network Orchestration for Dynamic Network Slicing for Fixed and Mobile Vertical Services,” Proc. IEEE/OSA OFC , 2018

work page 2018