Scaling Laws for Throughput Capacity and Delay in Wireless Networks — A Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—The capacity scaling law of wireless networks has been considered as one of the most fundamental issues. In this survey, we aim at providing a comprehensive overview of the development in the area of scaling laws for throughput capacity and delay in wireless networks. We begin with back-ground information on the notion of throughput capacity of random networks. Based on the benchmark random network model, we then elaborate the advanced strategies adopted to improve the throughput capacity, and other factors that affect the scaling laws. We also present the fundamental tradeoffs between throughput capacity and delay under a variety of mobility models. In addition, the capacity and delay for hybrid wireless networks are surveyed, in which there are at least two types of nodes functioning differently, e.g., normal nodes and infrastructure nodes. Finally, recent studies on scaling law for throughput capacity and delay in emerging vehicular networks are introduced. Index Terms—Fundamental limits, scaling laws, throughput capacity, delay, wireless networks. I.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 it