Throughput and Energy Optimization in Wireless Networks: Joint MAC Scheduling and Network Coding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies joint scheduling and network coding in wireless multicast networks with independent sources. Designing a network coding solution for wireless networks involves scheduling interference-free transmissions and optimizing a performance measure for the predetermined scheduling sets, followed by constructing network codes for the specific solution. In such a design process, the results of prior steps need to provide enough information to the subsequent steps. In this paper, we formulate a linear optimization problem whose results can be used to design a coding solution. We build our work on previous works and present statistics that show the importance of incorporating unequal timeshares in designing network codes. In particular, our statistics show a throughput improvement of about 35% in maximum flow problems and energy savings between 13% and 30%, depending on the network size, in minimum energy problems. We also present the requirements of code construction algorithms for wireless networks that capture the broadcast property of these networks and can design proper codes when timeshares are unequal. In particular, the adaptation of a centralized network coding scheme for wireless networks is discussed. Overall, the work reported here provides a three-step solution to derive network codes that optimize a performance criterion of interest while also solving the scheduling problem in multihop 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".