On the Complexity of Scheduling in Wireless Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of throughput-optimal scheduling in wireless networks subject to interference constraints. We model the interference using a family of -hop interference models, under which no two links within a -hop distance can successfully transmit at the same time. For a given , we can obtain a throughput-optimal scheduling policy by solving the well-known maximum weighted matching problem. We show that for , the resulting problems are NP-Hard that cannot be approximated within a factor that grows polynomially with the number of nodes. Interestingly, for geometric unit-disk graphs that can be used to describe a wide range of wireless networks, the problems admit polynomial time approximation schemes within a factor arbitrarily close to 1. In these network settings, we also show that a simple greedy algorithm can provide a 49-approximation, and the maximal matching scheduling policy, which can be easily implemented in a distributed fashion, achieves a guaranteed fraction of the capacity region for "all ." The geometric constraints are crucial to obtain these throughput guarantees. These results are encouraging as they suggest that one can develop low-complexity distributed algorithms to achieve near-optimal throughput for a wide range of wireless networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".