MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distributed Scheduling in Multihop Wireless Networks with Maxmin Fairness Provisioning

2012· article· en· W2089609964 on OpenAlexaff
Keivan Ronasi, Vincent W. S. Wong, Sathish Gopalakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkMaximum throughput schedulingFairness measureMultipath routingProvisioningScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingMax-min fairnessProportionally fairNetwork packetFair queuingWireless networkWirelessDynamic Source RoutingRouting protocolDynamic priority schedulingThroughputRound-robin schedulingResource allocationQuality of serviceMathematical optimizationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fair allocation of resources is an important consideration in the design of wireless networks. In this paper, we consider the setting of multihop wireless networks with multiple routing paths and develop an online flow control and scheduling algorithm for packet admission and link activation that achieves high aggregate throughput while providing different data flows with a fair share of network capacity. For fairness provisioning, we seek to maximize the minimum throughput provided to flows in the network. To cope with different degrees of data reliability among the different links in the network, we use different channel code rates as appropriate. While we expect performance improvement using channel coding and multipath routing, the main contribution of our work is a joint treatment of network stability, multipath routing and link-level reliability in meeting the overarching goal of maxmin fairness. We develop a decentralized, and hence practical, scheduling policy that addresses various concerns and demonstrate, via simulations, that it is competitive with respect to an optimal centralized rate allocator. We also evaluate the fairness provisioning under the proposed algorithm and show that channel coding improves the performance of the network significantly. Finally, we show through simulations that the proposed algorithm outperforms a class of existing approaches on fairness provisioning, which are developed based on utility maximization.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Wireless CommunicationsSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207