Machine Learning-Assisted Performance Prediction for Hollow-Core Fiber Interconnects Under Dynamic Traffic Loads

Authors

  • Chakradev Acharya Department of Computer Science, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA.
  • Berenice Casarin Department of Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.
  • Adya Khurana Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.

Keywords:

hollow-core fiber; machine learning; optical interconnects; dynamic traffic; performance prediction; data center networks; sustainability; robustness; governance

Abstract

Hollow-core fiber interconnects are emerging as a transformative substrate for low-latency, high-capacity data center and high-performance computing fabrics, yet their performance under dynamic traffic loads remains difficult to predict because optical, thermal, mechanical, and scheduling dynamics interact across multiple timescales. This paper examines machine learning-assisted performance prediction for hollow-core fiber interconnects from a system-level perspective. It argues that accurate prediction cannot be reduced to link-level regression or isolated optical performance monitoring; rather, it requires an integrated architecture that couples physical-layer telemetry, switch and routing state, workload traces, energy telemetry, and governance metadata. The paper analyzes structural trade-offs among latency, capacity, energy efficiency, reliability, and fairness when predictive models are embedded in network control loops. It discusses data acquisition and feature engineering challenges, including sparse failure events, distribution drift, adversarial manipulation, and the need for explainable decisions in critical infrastructure. It also considers deployment constraints, sustainability implications, supply-chain dependencies, and policy questions regarding transparency, accountability, and equitable access. Through cross-domain comparisons with cloud networking, transport software-defined networking, cyber-physical systems, and high-performance computing, the paper shows that hollow-core fiber interconnects are not merely faster pipes but socio-technical infrastructures whose benefits depend on institutional coordination and robust model governance. The conclusion outlines a research agenda for validated digital twins, federated and energy-aware learning, uncertainty quantification, and standards that make machine learning-assisted prediction auditable and operationally trustworthy.

References

1. Kachris, C., & Tomkos, I. (2012). A survey on optical interconnects for data centers. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 14(4), 1021–1036. https://doi.org/10.1109/SURV.2011.122111.00069

2. Bogaerts, W., De Heyn, P., Van Vaerenbergh, T., De Vos, K., Kumar Selvaraja, S., Claes, T., Dumon, P., Bienstman, P., Van Thourhout, D., & Baets, R. (2012). Silicon microring resonators. Laser & Photonics Reviews, 6(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/lpor.201100017

3. Richardson, D. J., Fini, J. M., & Nelson, L. E. (2013). Space-division multiplexing in optical fibres. Nature Photonics, 7(5), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2013.94

4. Poletti, F., Wheeler, N. V., Petrovich, M. N., Baddela, N., Numkam Fokoua, E., Hayes, J. R., Gray, D. R., Li, Z., & Richardson, D. J. (2013). Towards high-capacity fibre-optic communications at the speed of light in vacuum. Nature Photonics, 7(4), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2013.45

5. Winzer, P. J., Neilson, D. T., & Chraplyvy, A. R. (2018). Fiber-optic transmission and networking: The previous 20 and the next 20 years. Optics Express, 26(18), 24190–24239. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.26.024190

6. Barroso, L. A., Clidaras, J., & Hölzle, U. (2013). The datacenter as a computer: An introduction to the design of warehouse-scale machines (2nd ed.). Morgan & Claypool. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00516ED2V01Y201306CAC024

7. Masanet, E., Shehabi, A., Lei, N., Smith, S., & Koomey, J. (2020). Recalibrating global data center energy-use estimates. Science, 367(6481), 984–986. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3758

8. Musumeci, F., Rottondi, C., Nag, A., Macaluso, I., Zibar, D., Ruffini, M., & Tornatore, M. (2019). An overview on application of machine learning techniques in optical communication. Journal of Lightwave Technology, 37(14), 3516–3528. https://doi.org/10.1109/JLT.2019.2900035

9. Zibar, D., Piels, M., Jones, R., & Schäffer, C. G. (2016). Machine learning techniques in optical communication. Journal of Lightwave Technology, 34(6), 1442–1452. https://doi.org/10.1109/JLT.2015.2501625

10. Boutaba, R., Salahuddin, M. A., Limam, N., Ayoubi, S., Shahriar, N., Estrada-Solano, F., & Caicedo, O. M. (2018). A comprehensive survey on machine learning for networking: Evolution, applications and research opportunities. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 9(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13174-018-0087-2

11. Fadlullah, Z. M., Tang, F., Mao, B., Kato, N., Akashi, O., Inoue, T., & Mizutani, K. (2017). State-of-the-art deep learning: Evolving machine intelligence toward tomorrow's intelligent network traffic control systems. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 19(4), 2432–2455. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2017.2707140

12. Kreutz, D., Ramos, F. M. V., Veríssimo, P. E., Rothenberg, C. E., Azodolmolky, S., & Uhlig, S. (2015). Software-defined networking: A comprehensive survey. Proceedings of the IEEE, 103(1), 14–76. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2014.2371999

13. Alvizu, R., Maier, G., Kaczmarek, S., & Duran, A. (2017). Comprehensive survey on T-SDN: Software-defined networking for transport networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 19(4), 2232–2283. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2017.2715220

14. Shalf, J. (2020). The future of computing beyond Moore's Law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 378(2166), 20190061. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0061

15. Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., & McCallum, A. (2019). Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3645–3650. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1355

16. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

17. Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4

18. Zhou, Zichuan, et al. "Low-latency wavelength-switched clock-synchronized intra-data center interconnects enabled by hollow core fiber." Optics Express 31.15 (2023): 24739-24748.

19. Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376(2133), 20180080. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0080

20. Rajkumar, R., Lee, I., Sha, L., & Stankovic, J. (2010). Cyber-physical systems: The next computing revolution. Proceedings of the 47th Design Automation Conference, 731–736. https://doi.org/10.1145/1837274.1837461

Downloads

Published

2026-08-24