Understanding Performance for Two 802.11 Competing Flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that 802.11 suffers from both inefficiency and unfairness in the face of competition and interference. This paper provides a detailed analysis of the impact of topology and traffic type on network performance when two flows compete with each other for airspace. We consider both TCP and UDP flows and a comprehensive set of node topologies. We vary these topologies to consider all combinations of the following four node-to-node interactions: (1) nodes unable to read or sense each other, (2) nodes able to sense each other but not able to read each other's packets and nodes able to communicate with (3) weak and with (4) strong signal. We evaluate all possible cases through simulation and show that the cases can be reduced to 9 UDP and 10 TCP 802.1 Ig models with similar efficiency/fairness characteristics. We also validate our simulation results with extensive experiments conducted in a laboratory testbed. These more detailed models improve on previous work such as hidden-Zexposed-terminal categorization and are thus better suited as a basis for adaptive techniques to improve performance in 802.11 multi-hop WLAN or Mesh 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 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 | 0.001 | 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".