MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120178331 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2008.489

Modeling User Churning Behavior in Wireless Networks Using Evolutionary Game Theory

2008· article· en· W2120178331 on OpenAlexaff
Dusit Niyato, Ekram Hossain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChurningComputer scienceWirelessService providerWireless networkEvolutionary game theoryRevenueComputer networkGame theoryService (business)Distributed computingTelecommunicationsMathematicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Churning of mobile users from one service provider to another is expected to become a common feature when the mobile users have freedom to choose the best wireless service. This churning behavior impacts both the technical and the economical aspects of wireless network design. In this paper, we model the churning behavior of wireless service users by using the theory of evolutionary game. We consider a system model consisting of WLAN hotspots where a wireless user can choose among different WLAN access points based on the performances and/or price. A continuous-time Markov chain model is established to capture the connection arrival and departure processes, as well as the rational and irrational churning behaviors of wireless service users. The evolutionary equilibrium, which is used to compute the average number of users choosing each wireless service, is considered as the solution. Based on this evolutionary game framework, we investigate two different possible pricing schemes, namely, non-cooperative and cooperative pricing schemes, for the wireless service providers. These schemes maximize individual revenue and total revenue, respectively, of the service providers. Performance analysis results are presented for the proposed modeling framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207