Table 5: Critical comparison of DVHNN and NAOP based concepts for SP determination.

Comparison criteriaDVHNN based SP determinationNAOP based SP determination

External reconfigurability regarding dynamic change of edges’ weightsYesYes

External reconfigurability regarding dynamic change of pairsNoYes

External reconfigurability regarding dynamic change of network topologyNoIn principle yes, although this particular aspect has not been considered in this paper. It will be addressed in a future paper

Ability to cope with negative edges’ weightsNoYes

Ability to cope with nonlinear path’s weightsNoIn principle yes, although this particular aspect has not been considered in this paper. It will be addressed in a future paper

Reliability of the convergence: this stands for valid and successful convergence; otherwise, it is a failureNo
Many failure cases have been observed; this is especially the case when high values of weights are present
Yes

Computational speedBasically good if compared to the other NN based SP determination conceptsVery good
(a difference of 1 to 2 order of magnitude better than DVHNN has been observed here)

Memory consumption needHigh
Because of the retraining need for each pair
Very low

In this paper, the concepts have been all implemented in Matlab on a standard PC.