MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096299490 · doi:10.1109/tnet.2009.2030326

On Burst Transmission Scheduling in Mobile TV Broadcast Networks

2009· article· en· W2096299490 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

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Network Optimization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Computer networkBase stationTestbedReal-time computingSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In mobile TV broadcast networks, the base station broadcasts TV channels in bursts such that mobile devices can receive a burst of traffic and then turn off their radio frequency circuits till the next burst in order to save energy. To achieve this energy saving without scarifying streaming quality, the base station must carefully construct the burst schedule for all TV channels. This is called the burst scheduling problem. In this paper, we prove that the burst scheduling problem for TV channels with arbitrary bit rates is NP-complete. We then propose a practical simplification of the general problem, which allows TV channels to be classified into multiple classes, and the bit rates of the classes have power of two increments, e.g., 100, 200, and 400 kbps. Using this practical simplification, we propose an optimal and efficient burst scheduling algorithm. We present theoretical analysis, simulation, and actual implementation in a mobile TV testbed to demonstrate the optimality, practicality, and efficiency of the proposed algorithm.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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