Effect of Joint Cooperation and Multi-Hopping on the Capacity of Wireless Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of communication among nodes in an extended network is considered, where radio power decay and interference are limiting factors. It has been shown previously that, with simple multi-hopping, the achievable total communication rate in such a network is at most Theta(radic(N)). In this work, we study the benefit of node cooperation in conjunction with multi-hopping on the network capacity. We propose a multi-phase communication scheme, combining distributed MIMO transmission with multi-hop forwarding among clusters of nodes. We derive the network throughput of this communication scheme and determine the optimal cluster size. This provides a constructive lower bound on the network capacity. We first show that in regular networks a rate of omega(N2/3) can be achieved with transmission power scaling of Theta(Nalpha/6-1/3), where alpha > 2 is the signal path-loss exponent. We further extend this result to random networks, where we show a rate of omega(N2/3(logN)2-alpha/6) can be achieved with transmission power scaling of Theta(Nalpha/6-1/3(logN)(alpha-2)2/6. In particular, as alpha approaches 2, only constant transmission power is required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".