MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129367430 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2008.334

A Maximal Power-Conserving Scheduling Algorithm for Broadband Wireless Networks

2008· article· en· W2129367430 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hsin-Lung Tseng, Yu-Pin Hsu, Chung‐Hsien Hsu, Po‐Hsuan Tseng, Kai‐Ten Feng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Economic AffairsNational Science CouncilMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociaux
KeywordsComputer scienceTelecommunications linkBase stationQuality of serviceWireless broadbandScheduling (production processes)Computer networkWiMAXWirelessBroadband networksBroadbandWireless networkDistributed computingAlgorithmMathematical optimizationTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The limitation on the battery lifetime has been a critical issue for the advancement of mobile computing. Different types of power-saving techniques have been proposed in various fields. In order to provide feasible energy-conserving mechanism for the mobile subscriber stations (MSSs), three power-saving types have been proposed for the IEEE 802.16e broadband wireless networks. However, these power-saving types are primarily targeting for the cases with a single connection between the base station (BS) and the MSS. With the existence of multiple connections, the power efficiency obtained by adopting the conventional scheduling algorithm can be severely degraded. In this paper, a maximal power-conserving (MPC) scheduling algorithm is proposed to consider the aggregated effect from the multiple connections to the power efficiency. Moreover, the quality-of-service (QoS) constraints from both the downlink and the uplink traffic are employed in the design of the MPC algorithm in order to facilitate the corresponding MSS to fulfill its QoS requirements in both directions. Numerical results show that the proposed MPC scheduling algorithm outperforms the conventional 802.16e power-saving mechanism, especially under the multi-connection scenarios.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207