MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034787332 · doi:10.1109/lwc.2015.2400995

Fair Scheduling for Energy Harvesting Nodes

2015· article· en· W2034787332 on OpenAlexaff
Mathew Goonewardena, Animesh Yadav, Wessam Ajib, Halima Elbiaze

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Wireless Communications Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnergy harvestingScheduling (production processes)WirelessMIMOMathematical optimizationPower controlLyapunov optimizationTransmitter power outputQueueComputer networkChannel (broadcasting)Energy (signal processing)Power (physics)TransmitterTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter considers the problem of scheduling in the multiple input multiple output (MIMO) multiple-access wireless channel, where the transmitters are energy harvesting nodes (EHNs) that are powered by renewable energy sources (RESs). In this letter the conventional scheduling objective of maximizing rate is augmented by two other objectives, regulating fairness, and stabilization of the stored energy processes of the EHNs. This problem is formulated as a network of energy queues, which represent the batteries. Considering the stochastic nature of the wireless channel and the energy harvesting processes, this letter employs Lyapunov drift plus penalty technique to develop a cross-layer scheduler that operates in a slotted-time and distributed manner. At each epoch it selects an EHN for transmission and computes the transmit power. As an added advantage, the power control algorithm still retains the optimal water-filling solution. Through simulations, the proposed solution is compared against a conventional max-rate scheduler and is shown to better enforce fairness, stabilize the battery levels, and minimize the required battery capacity.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Wireless Communications LettersSame topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207