MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1823643167 · doi:10.1109/icupc.1995.496850

A multiobjective analytic framework for slotted ALOHA wireless LANs

2002· article· en· W1823643167 on OpenAlexaff
Bo Wu, Qiang Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlohaComputer scienceFairness measureWireless networkThroughputWirelessComputer networkMulti-objective optimizationClass (philosophy)PopulationMathematical optimizationTransmission (telecommunications)Network performanceGame theoryMaximum throughput schedulingDistributed computingTelecommunicationsQuality of serviceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a multiobjective analytic framework for the study of individual performance requirements in a multi-class slotted ALOHA wireless local area network (WLAN). The capture effect has a significant impact on network performance in terms of contributing to the overall throughput. However, unfairness may be created when users of different characteristics are present. The proposed framework, which is based on several game theoretic approaches, attempts to address the issues of optimization and fairness jointly. Various concepts of optimality are introduced, in which the criteria of fairness are embedded. A finite-population network model and a fixed-position capture model are established, and the performance measures of the network are evaluated. Examples are given for the design of strategies regarding transmission probabilities based on the multiobjective approach.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207