MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127929681 · doi:10.1109/lcn.2007.89

Rate Splitting MIMO-based MAC Protocol

2007· article· en· W2127929681 on OpenAlexaff
Abduladhim Ashtaiwi, Hossam S. Hassanein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMIMOComputer scienceComputer networkThroughputMulti-user MIMOTransmission (telecommunications)3G MIMOProtocol (science)Channel (broadcasting)WirelessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple input multiple output (MIMO) offers significant advantages in terms of rate and reliability. We consider sharing the MIMO increased rate in wireless mesh networks (WMNs) links. Such sharing allows nodes in a WMN to concurrently meet more demanding communication requirements such as high data rates, increased transmission range, power savings and low dropping rates. In this paper, we propose the rate splitting MIMO-based Mac protocol (RSMP) which is a distributed Mac protocol where pairs of nodes can locally cooperate with other nodes in their vicinities to reserve the required rate through effective selection on transmit antennas. Nodes can then use any preferable MIMO coding technique that best suit their communication requirements. RSMP is evaluated using OPNET interfaced with Matlab. OPNET is used to model the details of the Mac protocol while Matlab is used to compute the MIMO channel capacity and interference. Simulation results are obtained and compared to those of 802.11n MIMO-based DCF MAC protocol. We show that our proposed RSMP scheme outperforms MIMO DCF MAC in medium access delay and throughput. We also show that nodes can always attain their requested rate and that RSMP can be applied to satisfy multiple QoS requirements.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207