Cross-Layer Optimization Using Advanced Physical Layer Techniques in Wireless Mesh Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to study the impact of advanced physical layer techniques on the maximum achievable throughput of wireless multihop mesh networks. We formulate a cross-layer optimization framework for the routing and scheduling problem jointly with the following physical layer techniques: successive interference cancellation, superposition coding, dirty-paper coding and their combinations. In the case when each node is enabled with superposition coding, we need to formulate a power allocation subproblem for the optimal power partition of the superimposed signals. We solve these joint problems exactly to compute the maximum achievable throughput in realistic size networks. This allows us to quantify the performance gains obtained by using these techniques (and their combinations). Specifically, we find that the use of dirty-paper coding (only at the gateway) is not justified in networks with mixed uplink and downlink flows. On the other hand, the combination of superposition coding with successive interference outperforms significantly other techniques across all transmission power range for both uplink and downlink flows. We also provide a number of interesting practical insights on throughput improvement by comparing different combinations of these techniques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".