MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106340565 · doi:10.1109/mwc.2012.6189414

Cooperative relaying in Wi-Fi networks with network coding

2012· article· en· W2106340565 on OpenAlexaff
Surachai Chieochan, Ekram Hossain

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Wireless Communications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkLinear network codingRelayNetwork packetPacket forwardingNetwork schedulerDistributed computingScheduling (production processes)Relay channelTransmission delayProcessing delayMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, network coding has emerged as a new cooperative technique for improving network throughputs over traditional routing techniques. Network coding allows intermediate nodes to combine packets using an algebraic function before forwarding. Selfless cooperation by the intermediate nodes is thus implicitly assumed in the network employing network coding. Such cooperation in principle should not happen for free but for mutual benefits shared by source-destination pairs and the cooperating intermediate nodes. Effective resource allocation techniques are thus required to efficiently utilize the limited network resources at the intermediate nodes. In this article, we propose one such effective buffer allocation algorithm, called buffer equalized opportunistic network coding (BE-ONC), to dynamically exploit buffer spaces at a relay node of a relay-based IEEE 802.11 network. The BE-ONC technique combines packets opportunistically based on dynamic buffer allocation at the relay. Through simulations, we illustrate that the proposed scheme improves over the classical packet scheduling schemes in terms of delay and successful packet delivery ratio in a cooperative relay-based Wi-Fi network. Our experimental results further confirm the potential benefits of BE-ONC in terms of packet delivery ratio, when compared with first-in first-out scheduling at the relay node. The guidelines for extending our proposed scheme to a more general scenario, where more than two users are involved, and the relay is allowed to transmit its own packet, are also provided.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
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 science0.0030.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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