A game-theoretic approach to bandwidth allocation and admission control for polling services in IEEE 802.16 broadband wireless networks
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
In this paper, we propose an adaptive bandwidth allocation (BA) and connection admission control (CAC) mechanism based on game theory for polling services in IEEE 802.16 broadband wireless networks. A noncooperative two-person general-sum game is formulated where the base station and a new connection are the players of this game. The game formulation provides not only the decision on accepting or rejecting a connection, but also the amount of bandwidth allocated to a new connection (if admitted). A queueing model considering adaptive modulation and coding (AMC) in the physical layer is used to analyze quality of service (QoS) performances, namely, delay and throughput performances, respectively, for real-time and non-real-time polling services. This queueing model is used by the proposed bandwidth allocation and admission control game to ensure that the payoffs for both the base station and the new connection are maximized. The performance of the proposed scheme is evaluated by simulation and compared with that of traditional admission control with static and adaptive bandwidth allocation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it