MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123031829 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2007.960

Opportunistic Link Scheduling for Multihop Wireless Networks

2007· article· en· W2123031829 on OpenAlexaff
Min Shen, Dongmei Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer networkComputer scienceNetwork packetThroughputTimeoutChannel (broadcasting)Scheduling (production processes)Real-time computingWirelessEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the reasons that cause low transmission throughput in IEEE 802.11-based multihop networks is packet losses. Compared to transmitting a new packet, retransmitting a packet in 802.11-based networks has a lower priority in accessing the channel and requires a longer channel idle time for backoffs. When the number of retransmissions exceeds a certain threshold, a packet is dropped at the link layer. For TCP traffic, this will eventually result in TCP timeout, and the lost packet will be retransmitted at the transport layer, causing end- to-end throughput degradation. Furthermore, the mechanism that TCP adjusts its congestion window size negatively affects the transmission throughput in 802.11-based multihop networks. In this paper we propose an opportunistic link scheduling (OLS) protocol, which schedules transmissions of the links based on their channel conditions, including both channel fading and co-channel interference. Links with good channel conditions are given a higher priority to access the channel and allowed to transmit a limited number of packets consecutively without repeatedly competing the channel. OLS also includes mechanisms to avoid buffer overflow and prevent starving links with poor channel conditions. Our results show that OLS can significantly improve the end-to-end transmission throughput, while keeping reasonably low transmission delay. The protocol is easy to implement, and requires minor changes to the 802.11 protocol.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207