Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Static and Dynamic Routing, Fiber, Modulation Format, and Spectrum Allocation in Hybrid ULL Fiber-SSMF Elastic Optical Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Per-link fiber choice gets near-optimal spectrum use in hybrid ULL-SSMF networks.

desk verdict A workmanlike extension of SWP-based RMSA to hybrid ULL/SSMF links with a new MILP benchmark, but the printed static results hinge on a wrong FS-capacity value in Table I that needs author clarification. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16159 v1 pith:UE5WEISB submitted 2024-11-25 cs.NI

Kangao Ouyang , Fengxian Tang , Zhilin Yuan , Jun Li , Yongcheng Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords elasticopticalnetworkshybridULLfiber-SSMFRFMSAspectrumwindowplanefiberselectionstrategyOSNR-awarelightpathblockingprobabilitymixedintegerlinearprogramming
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

This paper studies what happens when network operators add ultra-low-loss (ULL) fiber beside existing standard single-mode fiber (SSMF) on every link, so each lightpath must choose a fiber type per link as well as a route, modulation format, and spectrum block. It formulates that joint routing, fiber, modulation format, and spectrum allocation (RFMSA) problem as a node-arc MILP for static traffic and builds Spectrum Window Plane heuristics around four fiber-selection strategies. The central claim is that an optical signal-to-noise ratio (OSNR)-aware strategy, which picks the ULL fiber only when its OSNR advantage over SSMF on a link exceeds a threshold, achieves the same maximum frequency-slot usage as the MILP model in static scenarios, while a spectrum-usage strategy that scores fiber-selection schemes by available contiguous capacity markedly reduces lightpath blocking under dynamic traffic. The paper further argues that a hybrid one-ULL-plus-one-SSMF deployment delivers nearly the same blocking performance as two ULL fibers per link at half the fiber cost. The contribution is a near-optimal operating rule for the transition period when ULL fiber is added alongside, rather than replacing, existing fiber.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Spectrum Window Plane (SWP): for each modulation format, a layered auxiliary graph where a layer is a spectrum window of contiguous free frequency slots, and a virtual link exists on a physical link only if the chosen fiber has that window free; Dijkstra on the SWP finds the shortest route. Around this, the paper wraps a node-arc MILP model, whose objective is to minimize the largest FS index used anywhere in the network, and four fiber-selection strategies. The OSNR-aware strategy maps ULL to the SWP when the ratio of ULL to SSMF OSNR exceeds a threshold $\alpha$, otherwise SSMF; the SU strategy computes, for each of the $2^n$ fiber-selection schemes along a route, a cost $c_h = n_h^d \cdot B_h^m \cdot \Omega$ that rewards abundance of contiguous idle slots and penalizes fragmentation, then picks the highest-cost scheme. The thresholds $\alpha$ (1.12 for n6s9, 1.09 for USNET) and the weight $\Omega$ (1, 1.2, or 0.8) are the parameters that carry the claimed near-optimality.

What would settle it

Run the SWP-based RFMSA algorithm with the OA strategy on a third network, or on the same topologies with altered link lengths, using a fixed $\alpha$ such as 1.12 or 1.09, and compare the maximum number of FSs used against the MILP bound or against UFF and Random. If the gap widens to the level seen for UFF or Random rather than remaining MILP-like, the central static-traffic claim fails. Similarly, re-running the dynamic experiments with $\Omega$ fixed at 1 and checking whether SU still outperforms Random and UFF would test the weight's role.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that per-link fiber selection is a main lever for spectrum efficiency in a hybrid ULL-SSMF network, and that a simple local rule can capture most of the benefit. In static traffic, the SWP-based RFMSA algorithm with the OA strategy achieves a maximum number of frequency slots used that is essentially the same as the MILP model's optimum on the n6s9 network, and on USNET it cuts the maximum FS usage by up to 41.7% relative to the ULL-fiber-first strategy and 26.2% relative to the random strategy. In dynamic traffic, the SU strategy, which evaluates the $2^n$ fiber-selection schemes along a candidate route through a cost that rewards more available spectrum blocks, higher adjacency-change counts, and ULL usage that lowers FS demand, yields markedly lower lightpath blocking probability than Random and UFF with both SWP-based and shortest-path routing. The paper further claims that the HUS-EON reaches blocking probabilities close to a two-ULL-fiber network at roughly half the fiber deployment cost.

Load-bearing premise

The near-MILP performance of the OSNR-aware strategy rests on the threshold $\alpha$ being tuned separately for each test network after seeing its results; if a single fixed $\alpha$ or a rule derived without post-hoc tuning is required, the claimed advantage over simpler strategies is not established by the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Static network operators can use the OA strategy with a per-network threshold to provision all demands with near-optimal spectrum usage, measured by the maximum FS index, without solving the MILP.
  • Dynamic operators can use the SU strategy to reduce lightpath blocking probability substantially compared with always preferring ULL or choosing fibers randomly, under both SWP-based and shortest-path-based routing.
  • Deploying one ULL fiber alongside each SSMF gives most of the blocking-probability benefit of two ULL fibers per link, at about half the fiber cost.
  • The OA strategy has lower computational complexity than the earlier adaptive approach, $O(|M|\,|F|\,|N|^2\,|L|)$ versus $O(|M|\,|F|^2\,|N|^2\,|L|\,|T|)$, making online scheduling in larger networks more feasible.
  • Allowing a lightpath to use different fiber types on different links can reduce maximum FS usage compared with using a single fiber type end-to-end, as the paper's four-node example illustrates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims: if the link threshold $\alpha$ is set by a general calibration rule rather than tuned per network after seeing results, the OA strategy might become a deployable automatic control; the paper does not establish such a rule.
  • The SU cost formula is effectively a fragmentation score with a ULL bonus; a parameter-free variant that sets $\Omega$ from the actual reduction in FS demand caused by choosing ULL on that route could be benchmarked against the reported blocking results.
  • A broader design principle suggested by the results: in mixed-media networks, fiber selection and spectrum assignment should be optimized jointly, because choosing the low-loss fiber changes both the modulation format, and therefore the number of FSs, and the fragmentation pattern on the link.
  • The cost comparison assumes normalized fiber prices of 1 and 10 units/km; if ULL fiber prices fall relative to SSMF, the hybrid deployment's cost advantage narrows, and a sensitivity analysis over the price ratio would map the crossover to a dual-ULL network.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the routing, fiber, modulation format, and spectrum allocation (RFMSA) problem in elastic optical networks where each link contains both a standard single-mode fiber (SSMF) and an ultra-low-loss (ULL) fiber. It formulates a node-arc mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model for static traffic and proposes Spectrum Window Plane (SWP)-based heuristic algorithms with four fiber selection strategies: Random, ULL-fiber-first (UFF), OSNR-aware (OA), and spectrum-usage (SU). Static simulations on a 6-node network (n6s9) and a 24-node USNET show that OA achieves the lowest maximum number of frequency slots (FSs) used, close to the MILP on n6s9; dynamic simulations on both networks show that SU reduces lightpath blocking probability compared with Random and UFF. A cost analysis argues that a hybrid ULL+SSMF deployment is more cost-effective than all-ULL or all-SSMF alternatives.

Significance. If the claims hold, the OA heuristic offers a low-complexity approach to static RFMSA that is near-optimal on small networks, and the SU strategy provides an effective online fiber-selection rule for dynamic traffic. The MILP formulation is a useful benchmark for future work on hybrid-fiber elastic optical networks. The paper also contributes a cost comparison that supports the practical motivation for deploying ULL fibers alongside existing SSMFs. However, the evidence is weakened by parameter tuning on the test networks and by a concrete error in the modulation-format capacity table that percolates into the reported FS counts.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI.A, Table I and Eq. (1)] The FS capacity of 16-QAM is listed as 700 Gb/s, which is inconsistent with the 12.5 GHz slot granularity and with the table's own progression (BPSK 25, QPSK 50, 8-QAM 75, 32-QAM 125, 64-QAM 150 Gb/s); the expected value is 100 Gb/s. The example in Fig. 1(b) is also internally inconsistent: a 160 Gb/s demand using 16-QAM is said to require 2 FS, which only holds if E=100 Gb/s, whereas a 180 Gb/s demand using 8-QAM (E=75) is reported as 6 FS, although the formula would give 3. If the simulator actually uses 700 Gb/s, then every demand up to 700 Gb/s occupies exactly 1 FS under 16-QAM, artificially collapsing modulation-dependent differences and invalidating the comparisons in Figs. 4 and 5 and the near-MILP claim. If the corrected value 100 Gb/s was used, the printed table is still a reproducibility defect that must be fixed. Please correct Table I, reconcile the example in Fig. 1, and state explicitly which value was used in the simulations.
  2. [Section VI.C, alpha threshold] The OA strategy's threshold alpha is selected post-hoc on the same test networks: Fig. 7(a) shows an optimum at alpha=1.12 for n6s9 and Fig. 7(b) shows an optimum at alpha=1.09 for USNET, and these values are then used to produce the near-MILP results in Figs. 4 and 5. Because alpha is tuned on the evaluation networks, the reported advantage of OA over UFF and Random may be optimistic and may not generalize to other topologies or traffic patterns. The authors should either fix alpha by a general rule (e.g., derived from fiber loss parameters), evaluate on a third network, or report the performance range over a realistic alpha interval.
  3. [Section V.A, Eq. (34) and Section VI.B.2] The SU strategy uses a cost function with a hand-chosen weight Omega (1.2 for ULL schemes that reduce FS count, 0.8 otherwise, 1 for all-SSMF schemes) and no sensitivity analysis is provided. The paper's central dynamic-traffic claim—that SU remarkably surpasses UFF and Random in blocking probability—rests entirely on this fixed weight. Please show that the blocking-probability advantage is robust to Omega over a plausible range (e.g., 1.0 to 1.5) or justify the chosen value from first principles.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (18)] Equation (18) appears to contain a typo: it should use E_{sd1,ij} and E_{sd2,ij} for the two distinct lightpaths, not the same variable twice.
  2. [Section V.A, Eq. (34) and Fig. 2] The notation B_h^m in Eq. (34) is confusing; from the numerical example, the formula is c_h = n_h^d * B_h / (beta - 1) * Omega, where beta-1 is the maximum number of adjacent FS state changes. Please rewrite the equation to match the example.
  3. [Abstract and Section VI.B.1] The phrase 'exhibits optimal performance' in the abstract is overstated for a heuristic; the simulation only shows that OA is close to the MILP on a small network.
  4. [Section VI.D, cost analysis] The total fiber cost values listed in the text (8584, 85840, 171680 units) do not clearly follow from the stated formula and the four deployment scenarios; please reconcile the numbers and specify which scenario corresponds to each value.
  5. [Section VI.A, OSNR model] The paper refers to Ref. [24] for the OSNR calculation but does not specify key simulation parameters such as amplifier noise figure, span loss, or launch power; please state these values so the results are reproducible.
  6. [Abstract and conclusion] The near-MILP claim should be scoped explicitly to the n6s9 network with the tested demand range, since no MILP results are given for USNET.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MILP benchmark and the imported OSNR model are independent of the paper's tuned strategy parameters, and no claimed result is defined by its own input.

full rationale

The paper's central static claim is that the OA fiber-selection heuristic nearly matches the MILP optimum in maximum FS index. The MILP is formulated independently in Section IV as a node-arc optimization with explicit OSNR, fiber, and spectrum constraints, while the SWP-based heuristics are separate constructive algorithms described in Section V; the comparison is therefore against an exact internal benchmark rather than against a quantity forced by the heuristic's inputs. The OSNR model is imported from Ref. [24], prior work with overlapping authorship, but it is a parameter-free physical model of link OSNR contributions and does not encode the maximum-FS results reported here, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The 'Adaptive' baseline from Ref. [8] is used as a comparison point, not as justification for the OA-versus-MILP closeness. The threshold alpha and the weight Omega are transparent tuning parameters: Section VI.C explicitly sweeps alpha and reports the best values (1.12 for n6s9, 1.09 for USNET), and no equation defines the reported maximum FS usage as equal to those tuned values. The Table I entry of 700 Gb/s for 16-QAM appears to be a physical or reproducibility error (DP-16QAM in a 12.5 GHz slot carries 100 Gb/s) and could change the quantitative conclusions, but an erroneous parameter value is a correctness concern, not circularity. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own input, so no significant circularity is found.

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

The central claims rest on three free parameters (alpha, Omega, and the ULL-to-SSMF cost ratio), two of which are tuned or hand-chosen. The OSNR model is an external dependency from the authors' own ref [24]. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • OSNR-aware threshold alpha = 1.12 (n6s9), 1.09 (USNET)
    Used in the OA fiber selection strategy to decide when to pick ULL over SSMF. The optimal value is found by sweeping over the same test networks (Section VI.C), and the performance curves in Figs. 4-5 likely use the tuned value.
  • SU cost weight Omega = 1.2 when ULL reduces required FSs, 0.8 when ULL does not, 1.0 for all-SSMF schemes
    Hand-chosen in Eq. (34) without sensitivity analysis; the blocking-probability advantage of the SU strategy may depend on these values.
  • Cost ratio of ULL to SSMF per km = 10
    Assumed in the cost-efficiency analysis (Section VI.D); the conclusion that HUS-EON is cost-effective is sensitive to this ratio.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The reciprocal OSNR of a lightpath is the sum of per-link reciprocal OSNR contributions.
    Stated in the MILP constraints (11)-(14) and inherited from the OSNR model in ref [24]; the physical accuracy of this additivity is not established in this paper.
  • domain assumption The formulas in ref [24] correctly compute OSNR for ULL and SSMF links.
    The paper does not reproduce the OSNR formulas; all simulation results depend on this external model, which is not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption The modulation format FS capacities and OSNR thresholds in Table I are correct.
    Taken from ref [27]; the 16-QAM entry (700 Gb/s) appears to be a typo for 100, which would affect FS count calculations if used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Static and Dynamic Routing, Fiber, Modulation Format, and Spectrum Allocation in Hybrid ULL Fiber-SSMF Elastic Optical Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UE5WEISB

@misc{pith2026241116159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Static and Dynamic Routing, Fiber, Modulation Format, and Spectrum Allocation in Hybrid ULL Fiber-SSMF Elastic Optical Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UE5WEISB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16159}
}
read the original abstract

Traditional standard single-mode fibers (SSMF) are unable to satisfy the future long-distance and high-speed optical channel transmission requirement due to their relatively large signal losses. To address this issue, the ultra-low loss and large effective area (ULL) fibers are successfully manufactured and expected to deployed in the existing optical networks. For such ULL fiber deployment, network operators prefer adding ULL fibers to each link rather than replace existing SSMFs, resulting in a scenario where both of SSMF and ULL fiber coexist on the same link. In this paper, we investigated the routing, fiber, modulation format, and spectrum allocation (RFMSA) problem in the context of an elastic optical network (EON) where ULL fiber and SSMF coexisting on each link under both the static and dynamic traffic demands. We formulated this RFMSA problem as a node-arc based Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model and developed Spectrum Window Plane (SWP)-based heuristic algorithms based on different fiber selection strategies, including spectrum usage based (SU), optical signal-to-noise ratio (OSNR) aware, ULL fiber first (UFF), and random strategies. Simulation results show that in the static traffic demand situation, the RFMSA algorithm based on the OSNR-aware (OA) strategy exhibits optimal performance, attaining a performance similar to that of the MILP model regarding the maximum number of frequency slots (FSs) used in the entire network. Moreover, in the dynamic traffic demand scenario, the SU strategy remarkably surpasses the other strategies in terms of the lightpath blocking probability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIGURE 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIGURE 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIGURE 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIGURE 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the results of USNET, in which a similar observation can be made for the four fiber selection strategies. Here, due to the high computational complexity of the MILP model, we do not provide its results. The X is ranging from 100 to 700 Gb/s. Similar, we can note …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIGURE 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIGURE 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIGURE 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Technological prospection and requirements of 800G transmission systems for ultra-long-haul all-optical terrestrial backbone networks,

    D. Zhang et al., “Technological prospection and requirements of 800G transmission systems for ultra-long-haul all-optical terrestrial backbone networks,” IEEE/OSA Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 3774-3782, June. 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Real-time 100.4 GBd PCS-64QAM transmission of a 1.6 Tb/s super-channel over 1600 km of G.654.E fiber,

    R. Maher et al., “Real-time 100.4 GBd PCS-64QAM transmission of a 1.6 Tb/s super-channel over 1600 km of G.654.E fiber,” in Proc. Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC) 2021, pp. 1-3

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Available: https://www.c114.com.cn/news/118/a1243127.html

    Dechao Zhang, China Mobile research institute: Building a new all - optical base for computing power networks,” 2023 [Online]. Available: https://www.c114.com.cn/news/118/a1243127.html

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    China Telecom completed the world's first full G.654E land trunk cable,

    “China Telecom completed the world's first full G.654E land trunk cable,” 2021 [Online]. Available: https://www.c114.com.cn/news/117/a1175751.html

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Real-time demonstration of 12-λ×800-Gb/s single-carrier 90.5-GBd DP -64QAM-PCS coherent transmission over 1122 -km ultra-low-loss G.654.E fiber,

    H. Li et al., “Real-time demonstration of 12-λ×800-Gb/s single-carrier 90.5-GBd DP -64QAM-PCS coherent transmission over 1122 -km ultra-low-loss G.654.E fiber,” in Proc. European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC) 2021, pp. 1-4

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Real-time 10-λ×800-Gb/s sub-carrier-multiplexing 95- GBd DP-64QAM-PCS transmission over 2018-km G.654.E fibre with pure backward distributed Raman amplification,

    D. Ge et al ., “Real-time 10-λ×800-Gb/s sub-carrier-multiplexing 95- GBd DP-64QAM-PCS transmission over 2018-km G.654.E fibre with pure backward distributed Raman amplification,” in Proc. European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC) 2022, pp. 1-4

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Research on the splicing performance of G.654.E optical fiber,

    G. Wu et al., “Research on the splicing performance of G.654.E optical fiber,” in Proc. Asia Communications and Photonics Conference International Photonics and Optoelectronics Meetings (ACP/POEM) 2023, pp. 1-3

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Lightpath provisioning in a hybrid ULL fiber -SSMF elastic optical network,

    K. Ouyang, Y. Fu, N. Guo, S. Mo, L. Zhou, G. Zhang and Y. Li “Lightpath provisioning in a hybrid ULL fiber -SSMF elastic optical network,” in Proc. Advanced Fiber Laser Conference (AFL) 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Efficient multi -stage deployment of ultra -low loss fibers in elastic optical networks,

    Y. Li, W. Chen, S. K. Bose, and G. Shen, “Efficient multi -stage deployment of ultra -low loss fibers in elastic optical networks,” IEEE/OSA Journal of Lightwave Technology , vol. 38, no. 14, pp. 3542-3552, July. 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Deploying ultra- low loss fibers for enhancing lightpath provisioning performance in an elastic optical network,

    H. Yang, Y. Li, N. Guo, G. Shen and B. Mukherjee, “Deploying ultra- low loss fibers for enhancing lightpath provisioning performance in an elastic optical network,” in Proc. Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC) 2021, pp. 1-3

    2021

  3. [11]

    Routing, fiber, band, and spectrum assignment (RFBSA) for multi -granular elastic optical networks,

    J. Wu, M. Xu, S. Subramaniam and H. Hasegawa , “Routing, fiber, band, and spectrum assignment (RFBSA) for multi -granular elastic optical networks,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2017, pp. 1-6

    2017

  4. [12]

    Hierarchical routing and resource assignment in spatial channel networks (SCNs): Oriented toward the massive SDM era,

    M. Yang, Q. Wu, M. Shigeno and Y. Zhang, “Hierarchical routing and resource assignment in spatial channel networks (SCNs): Oriented toward the massive SDM era,” IEEE/OSA Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1255-1270, March. 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Assignment-based heuristic for SDM networks with multi- core fibers,

    M. Mrad, U. S. Suryahatmaja, A. O. Elsayed, A. Gharbi and M. A. Esmail, “Assignment-based heuristic for SDM networks with multi- core fibers,” in Proc. International Conference on Advanced Systems and Emergent Technologies (IC_ASET) 2022, pp. 279-284

    2022

  6. [14]

    Minimizing inter-core crosstalk jointly in spatial, frequency, and time domains for scheduled lightpath demands in multi-more fiber-based elastic optical network,

    F. Tang, Y. Li, G. Shen and G. N. Rouskas, “Minimizing inter-core crosstalk jointly in spatial, frequency, and time domains for scheduled lightpath demands in multi-more fiber-based elastic optical network,” IEEE/OSA Journal of Lightwave Technology , vol. 38, no. 20, pp. 5595-...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Crosstalk-sensitive core and spectrum assignment in MCF - based SDM-EONs,

    B. Chen, Y. Lei, J. Hu, L. Liu, W. Ma, J. Wu, M, Gao, W. Shao and P. Ho, “Crosstalk-sensitive core and spectrum assignment in MCF - based SDM-EONs,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 71, no. 12, pp. 7133-7148, Dec. 2023. 0E+0 2E+5 4E+5 6E+5 8E+5 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Routing, spectrum, and core assignment in SDM-EONs With MCF: Node-arc ILP/MILP methods and an efficient XT-aware heuristic algorithm,

    M. Yang, Y . Zhang, and Q . Wu, “Routing, spectrum, and core assignment in SDM-EONs With MCF: Node-arc ILP/MILP methods and an efficient XT-aware heuristic algorithm,” IEEE/OSA Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 195-208, March. 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Solving the static resource-allocation problem in SDM -EONs via a node-type ILP model,

    Wang. J; Chen. S, Wu. Q; Tan. Y and Shigeno. M, “Solving the static resource-allocation problem in SDM -EONs via a node-type ILP model,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 24, pp. 9710, Dec. 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Efficient dynamic routing and spectrum assignment for multifiber elastic optical networks,

    J. Wu, S. Subramaniam and H. Hasegawa, “Efficient dynamic routing and spectrum assignment for multifiber elastic optical networks,” IEEE/OSA Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 190-201, May. 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Multi-fiber based dynamic spectrum resource allocation for multi -domain elastic optical networks,

    Y. Hirota, H. Tode and K. Murakami, “Multi-fiber based dynamic spectrum resource allocation for multi -domain elastic optical networks,” in Proc. Opto-Electronics and Communications Conference (OECC) 2013, pp. 1-2

    2013

  12. [20]

    Fragmentation- aware routing, core and spectrum assignment in multi-core fiber based SDM-EON,

    A. Sharma, B. S. Heera, V. Lohani and Y. N. Singh, “Fragmentation- aware routing, core and spectrum assignment in multi-core fiber based SDM-EON,” in Proc. Workshop on Recent Advances in Photonics (WRAP) 2022, pp. 1-2

    2022

  13. [21]

    Multi-associated parameters aggregation-based routing and resources allocation in multi-core elastic optical networks,

    H. Yang, Q. Yao, B. Bao, A. Yu, J. Zhang and A. V. Vasilakos, “Multi-associated parameters aggregation-based routing and resources allocation in multi-core elastic optical networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 2145-2157, Oct. 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Crosstalk classification based on synthetically consider crosstalk and fragmentation RMCSA in multi-core fiber-based EONs,

    Y. Chen, N. Feng, Y. Zhou, D. Ren, J. Zhao, “Crosstalk classification based on synthetically consider crosstalk and fragmentation RMCSA in multi-core fiber-based EONs,” Photonics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 340, Oct. 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Proactive fragmentation-aware routing, modulation format, core, and spectrum allocation in EON - SDM,

    S. Trindade and N. L. S. da Fonseca, “Proactive fragmentation-aware routing, modulation format, core, and spectrum allocation in EON - SDM,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Ultra-low loss fiber deployment in elastic optical networks with fixed and variable topologies,

    Y. Li, K. Ouyang, N. Guo, V. Curri and G. Shen, “Ultra-low loss fiber deployment in elastic optical networks with fixed and variable topologies,” Journal of Lightwave Technology , vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 3515-3530, 15 May, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Novel node -arc model and multi -iteration heuristics for static routing and spectrum assignment in elastic optical networks,

    A. Cai, G. Shen, L. Peng, and M. Zukerman, “Novel node -arc model and multi -iteration heuristics for static routing and spectrum assignment in elastic optical networks,” IEEE/OSA Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 31, no. 21, pp. 3402-3413, Nov. 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Corning TXF optical fiber,

    Corning, “Corning TXF optical fiber,” 2022 [Online]. Available: https://www.corning.com/media/worldwide/coc/documents/Fiber/PI- 1433-AEN.pdf

    2022

  19. [27]

    Effect of channel launch power on fill margin in C+L band elastic optical networks,

    A. Mitra, D. Semrau, N. Gahlawat, A. Srivastava, P. Bayvel, and A. Lord, “Effect of channel launch power on fill margin in C+L band elastic optical networks,” IEEE/OSA Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1032-1040, 1 Mar. 2020. Kangao Ouyang received his B.S. ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.