## 5 Performance Evaluation
### Simulation Results
#### 5.2.2 Results for USA Network  
We then examined the performance of our proposed RCSA method in the USA network shown in Figure (b)b. Here, we defined the weight parameter \(W_{f}(R_{p})\) in the proposed method, as shown in Table 7.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \(R_{p}\) (Group) & **Assigned Width** & \(R_{p}\) (Group) & **Assigned Width** \\ \hline \(1\) (\(g_{3}\)) & \(f_{1}\leq f\leq f_{128}\) & \(6\) (\(g_{1}\)) & \(f_{225}\leq f\leq f_{272}\) \\ \(2\) (\(g_{2}\)) & \(f_{1}\leq f\leq f_{160}\) & \(7\) (\(g_{3}\)) & \(f_{257}\leq f\leq f_{320}\) \\ \(3\) (\(g_{1}\)) & \(f_{1}\leq f\leq f_{224}\) & \(8\) (\(g_{2}\)) & \(f_{257}\leq f\leq f_{288}\) \\ \(4\) (\(g_{2}\)) & \(f_{161}\leq f\leq f_{256}\) & \(9\) (\(g_{1}\)) & \(f_{273}\leq f\leq f_{320}\) \\ \(5\) (\(g_{3}\)) & \(f_{129}\leq f\leq f_{256}\) & \(10\) (\(g_{2}\)) & \(f_{289}\leq f\leq f_{320}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Assigned widths for \(W_{f}(R_{p})\) (USA network).  
Figure 10: Impact of parameter \(\gamma\) in the proposed method.  
Figure 9: Results in NSFNET (\(|\mathcal{C}|=13\)).  
Figure 11a,b show the blocking probability of lightpath establishment and the average number of inter-core crosstalk occurrences, respectively, as a function of the offered load \(\rho\) in the USA network with \(|\mathcal{C}|=3\) cores. In these figures, we can observe characteristics similar to the results for NSFNET with \(|\mathcal{C}|=3\) cores, as shown in Figure 7. Specifically, the proposed method with \(\gamma=0\) achieved the lowest blocking probability, and the proposed method with \(\gamma=1.0\) reduced the number of inter-core crosstalk occurrences more efficiently than the proposed method with \(\gamma=0\) when the number of cores \(|\mathcal{C}|\) was small.  
Figure 12a,b show the blocking probability of lightpath establishment and the average number of inter-core crosstalk occurrences, respectively, as a function of the offered load \(\rho\) in the USA network with \(|\mathcal{C}|=7\) cores. As we can see in these figures, when the offered load \(\rho\) was larger than \(2.5\), the number of inter-core crosstalk occurrences in the LB method was the lowest, but the blocking probability was too high, which is not acceptable. On the other hand, the blocking probabilities of the proposed method with \(\gamma=0\) and \(\gamma=1.0\) were too low. Furthermore, our proposed method efficiently reduced the number of inter-core crosstalk occurrences when the offered load \(\rho\) was small.  
Figure 13a,b show the blocking probability of lightpath establishment and the average number of inter-core crosstalk occurrences, respectively, as a function of the offered load \(\rho\) in the USA network with \(|\mathcal{C}|=13\) cores. As shown in these figures, the proposed method with \(\gamma=0\) and \(\gamma=1.0\) efficiently reduced the blocking probability of lightpath establishment, similar to the result shown in Figure 12a. Moreover, we can also observe that it maintained a low level of inter-core crosstalk. Since the OSNR can be ensured by keeping the inter-core crosstalk below a certain threshold, the proposed method, which minimizes the blocking probability of lightpath establishment while keeping the number of inter-core crosstalk occurrences low, can be considered the most effective approach.  
Figure 11: Results in the USA network (\(|\mathcal{C}|=3\)).  
Figure 12: Results in the USA network (\(|\mathcal{C}|=7\)).