MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021669325 · doi:10.1145/1089761.1089769

MAC coding for QoS guarantees in multi-hop mobile wireless networks

2005· article· en· W2021669325 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos H. Rentel, Thomas Kunz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAlohaComputer networkLinear network codingWireless networkRepetition codeCoding (social sciences)Scheduling (production processes)Quality of serviceFountain codeWirelessLinear codeTheoretical computer scienceThroughputBlock codeDistributed computingAlgorithmNetwork packetDecoding methodsMathematicsTelecommunicationsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coding theory goal of finding codes with the largest possible distance among its constituent code-words in an ever smaller dimensional space is analogous to the goal of finding separate yet efficient ways for the nodes of a network to transmit in a multiple access system. A Medium Access Control (MAC) strategy is proposed referred to as MAC coding that leverages the use of codes traditionally used for channel coding purposes. It is shown how these codes can be utilized to device a scheduling strategy that has the potential to guarantee a minimum level of performance for the nodes of a multi-hop mobile wireless ad hoc network in an efficient manner. Additionally, coding theory results are used to derive simple expressions for the minimum throughput and delay of nodes when using Reed-Solomon and Hermitian error correcting codes as MAC scheduling codes.The average performance of a large family of MAC scheduling codes is analytically compared to the one obtained by slotted-ALOHA, and a code-selection algorithm is proposed that can improve the average throughput of MAC coding when the number of nodes in the network is greater than the number of code-words available in a given code.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207