Distributed sensing of spectrum occupancy and interference in outdoor 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A spectrum monitoring campaign was launched in an outdoor urban radio environment to investigate the potential deployment of Cognitive Radio (CR) Wi-Fi networks in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. The campaign used a CR learning platform with 4, 8, and 16 sensors. This paper presents Wi-Fi spectrum occupancy and interference behaviour based on the outcome of one of the measurements using 16 GPS-synchronized sensors. At detection thresholds T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">d</sub> ≥ -62dBm, long-term spectrum holes were dominant on all Wi-Fi channels. However, at T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">d</sub> <; -62dBm channel availability decreased making CR operation more challenging. Wi-Fi traffic was dominated by management packets which correlated strongly with channel occupancy and far exceeded data and control packets. We noted management and data packet redundancies in the current IEEE 802.11 standard causing inefficient spectrum utilization. About 2/3 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">rd</sup> of management packets were beacons, and more than 1/2 of data packets were data-reserved and null (no data). We also noted, at T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">d</sub> ≤ -82dBm, a large number of Wi-Fi users more than can be attributed to the immediate surroundings of sensors, but a small set of them was dominant producing the bulk of spectrum occupancy and interference. In addition, at least 25% of these users were detected only once over the 5.5 hours measurement time span. The measurements showed spatial variations of the Wi-Fi environment over a small sensing area (21m-by-45m). We noted considerable non-homogeneity in the distribution of Wi-Fi interference at T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">d</sub> ≥ -62dBm, but some non-homogeneity at T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">d</sub> ≤ -82dBm. We also noted significant correlated fluctuations of received signal strength and non-reciprocal links over short distances between sensors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".