MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W188178722 · doi:10.5555/2499986.2499998

Simulation of mobile networks using discrete event system specification theory

2013· article· en· W188178722 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Moallemi, Gabriel Wainer, Shafagh Jafer, Gary Boudreau, Ronald Casselman

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly Commons (Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)Carleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDEVSComputer scienceUser equipmentBase stationComputer networkRadio access networkFormalism (music)Path lossSoftware deploymentCellular networkMobile telephonyMobile radioMobile computingDiscrete event simulationDistributed computingMobile stationTelecommunicationsModeling and simulationSimulationWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"The fourth generation (4G) of mobile telecommunication technology provides ultra-band internet access for mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops. One of the challenges in the Long Term Evolution (LTE) 4G networks is the low data rate for cell-edge users as well as coverage gaps. In this paper, we define and evaluate models for analysis of performance of mobile networks architectures defined by 3GPP. We used the Discrete-Event System Specification (DEVS) formalism to model the mobile networks and implement the framework. The proposed model implements the deployment layout of the Base Station (BS) cellular antennas, and it manages the distribution and movement of the User Equipment (UE) devices. The model calculates the Propagation for each BS, as well as the pathloss in the links between BSs and the UEs in the range. It also computes the power received by the BS and the UE in each link. These results will be used in the design of models for Coordinated Multipoint approach in delivering faster data."--From the paper.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly Commons (Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University)Same topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207