Cross-Layer Schemes for Reducing Delay in Multihop Wireless Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
End-to-end delay is an important QoS metric in multihop wireless networks such as sensor networks and mesh networks. End-to-end delay is defined as the total time it takes for a single packet to reach the destination. It is a result of many factors including the length of the route and the interference level along the path. In this paper we address how to minimize end-to-end delay jointly through optimizing routing and link layer scheduling. We present two cross-layer schemes, a loosely coupled cross-layer scheme and a tightly coupled cross-layer scheme. In the loosely coupled cross-layer scheme, routing is computed first and then the information of routing is used for link layer scheduling; in the tightly coupled scheme, routing and link scheduling are solved in one optimization model. The two cross-layer schemes involve interference modeling in multihop wireless networks with omnidirectional antenna. A sufficient condition on conflict-free transmission is established, which can be transformed to polynomial-sized linear constraints, and a linear program based on the sufficient condition is developed. Through simulation, we show that the proposed routing and scheduling schemes can outperform their counterparts in each layer, and the integrated cross-layer schemes are superior to the combination of the existing routing and scheduling schemes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".