MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030486781 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2013.6554569

Routing and link scheduling with QoS in IEEE 802.16 mesh networks

2013· article· en· W2030486781 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Atambire Nsoh, Robert Benkoczi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Network Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkDynamic Source RoutingWireless mesh networkDistributed computingStatic routingLink-state routing protocolSource routingQuality of serviceMetricsPolicy-based routingRouting protocolRouting (electronic design automation)Wireless networkWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality of service (QoS) in wireless mesh networks is an active area of research which is driven by the increasing demand for multimedia content delivered wirelessly. The IEEE 802.16 (WiMAX) standard identifies four classes of service targeting throughput, delay, and jitter. In this paper, we achieve two main objectives. (1) We present a routing metric sensitive to both interference and throughput which proves effective in QoS provisioning, a link scheduling algorithm that can easily accommodate all four classes of service by using the concept of feasible intervals, and an effective channel allocation algorithm inspired by a constraint programming heuristic. (2) We prove that the usual approach of constructing routing trees centred at the base station could lock significant network resources. By simply switching to a session based routing strategy, we illustrate that the acceptance ratio under a congested network can improve by more than 10% when compared to the tree based routing driven by our interference and throughput aware metric and by more than 25% when the routing tree is constructed with the metric sensitive to interference only.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Wireless Network OptimizationFrench-language works237,207