Delay performance of opportunistic network coding for a bidirectional relaying link
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using network coding (NC) in wireless networks can potentially improve the throughput and energy efficiency. On the other hand, it may result in longer delay because packets arriving early at the relay node have to wait to be network coded with other packets. In contrast, using traditional relaying allows the data packets to be forwarded as soon as possible, while its overall lower throughput (compared to that using NC) may result in longer average delay of the transmitted data packages. Opportunistic scheduling that takes advantages of both the high efficiency of NC and promptness of the traditional relay may help reduce the packet transmission delay. In this paper we propose an opportunistic packet scheduling scheme that allows the relay node to adaptively decide using one-way (traditional) or two-way (network coded) relaying, and analyze the average two-hop transmission delay performance. By considering both the buffer occupancy at the relay node and the link conditions to the end nodes, the proposed opportunistic scheduling achieves much lower average packet transmission delay, compared to pure one-way and pure two-way relaying. In addition, the simulation results verify the accuracy of the analytical model.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".