MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077664724 · doi:10.1109/infocom.2014.6848161

Scheduling in a secure wireless network

2014· article· en· W2077664724 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Wireless networkBase stationWirelessDistributed computingComputer networkDynamic priority schedulingFair-share schedulingMaximum throughput schedulingRound-robin schedulingMathematical optimizationQuality of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a scheduling problem in a wireless network which consists of one base station, N legitimate users and one (or more) eavesdropper(s). The scheduling problem jointly considers the reliability, security and stability of the system, and is to allocate wireless resources to the legitimate users, stabilize the system and maximize the secure transmission rate. Based on the stochastic network optimization framework, the scheduling problem is decomposed to an online optimization problem. A scheduling algorithm and a low computational complexity algorithm that both do not consider power adaptation are proposed, along with a power adaptive one. Extensive simulations are conducted to show the impact of the information arrival rate and the eavesdropper's channel condition on the system performance. These observations provide important insights and guidelines for the design and resource management of future wireless networks using secure communication technologies.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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