MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012040679 · doi:10.1109/icgcs.2010.5543006

Raptor-network coding strategies for energy efficient cooperative DVB-H multimedia communications

2010· article· en· W2012040679 on OpenAlexaff
Lucien Benacem, Steven D. Blostein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkLinear network codingNetwork packetRaptor codeEfficient energy useDigital Video BroadcastingEnergy consumptionFountain codePhysical layerWirelessTelecommunicationsDecoding methodsBlock code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reliable and energy-efficient delivery of mobile multimedia across different platforms and application scenarios is very challenging. Both open and proprietary standards exist worldwide; we focus on enhancements to the digital video broadcasting - handheld (DVB-H) standard for transmission over cooperative cellular networks, which enables the use of relaying to supplement existing fixed infrastructure. Cooperation creates a distributed form of multi-input-multi-output (MIMO) systems, resulting in breakthroughs in network energy efficiency and reliability. Thus, cooperative networks have an inherently green ad hoc topology that is able to substantially reduce infrastructure cost, system complexity and energy expenditure. In this paper, novel strategies are proposed and evaluated that combine: (1) fountain coding, e.g., Raptor codes at the application layer, and (2) network coding. Originally proposed for broadcasting over the Internet, the application of fountain codes to wireless cooperative communications networks has been limited to date. These codes enable lower (physical) layer compatibility. Network coding is used to reduce energy consumption by opportunistically recombining and rebroadcasting required combinations of packets. The energy cost of our peer-to-peer file repair sessions, which are integrated with the file delivery session itself, are quantified. Signal processing and modeling techniques used for cross-layer system simulations are also overviewed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207