Cooperative Coverage Extension for Relay-Union Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-hop coverage extension can be utilized as a feasible approach to facilitating uncovered users to get Internet service in public area WLANs. In this paper we introduce a relay-union network (RUN), which refers to a public area WLAN in which users often wander in the same area and have the ability to provide data forwarding services for others. We develop a RUN framework to model the cost of providing forwarding services and the utility obtained by gaining services. The objective of the RUN is to maximize the total Quality of Cooperation (QoC) of users in the RUN. Two optimal bandwidth allocation schemes are proposed for both free and dynamic bandwidth demand models. To make our scheme more pragmatic, we then consider a more practical scenario in which the bandwidth capacity of the relays and the minimum demand of the clients are bounded. We prove that the problems under both the single relay and the multi-relay scenario are NP-hard. Three heuristic algorithms are proposed to deal with bandwidth allocation and relay-client association. We also propose a distributed signaling protocol and divide the centralized MRMC algorithm into three distributed ones to better adapt for real network environment. Finally, extensive simulations demonstrate that our RUN framework can significantly improve the efficiency of cooperation in the long term.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".