MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132128535 · doi:10.1109/tmc.2007.1051

Optimal and Approximate Mobility-Assisted Opportunistic Scheduling in Cellular Networks

2007· article· en· W2132128535 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Network Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)MacrocellDynamic priority schedulingRound-robin schedulingFair-share schedulingDistributed computingAlgorithmComputer networkMathematical optimizationQuality of serviceBase stationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the problem of scheduling multiple users in the downlink of a time-slotted cellular data network. For such a network, opportunistic scheduling algorithms improve system performance by exploiting time variations of the radio channel. We present novel optimal and approximate opportunistic scheduling algorithms that combine channel fluctuation and user mobility information in their decision rules. The algorithms modify the opportunistic scheduling framework of Liu et al., (1993) with dynamic constraints for fairness. These fairness constraints adapt according to the user mobility. The adaptation of constraints in the proposed algorithms implicitly results in giving priority to the users that are in the most favorable locations. The optimal algorithm is an offline algorithm that precomputes constraint values according to a known mobility model. The approximate algorithm is an online algorithm that relies on the future prediction of the user mobility locations in time. We show that the use of mobility information in opportunistic scheduling increases channel capacity. We also provide analytical bounds on the performance of the approximate algorithm using the fundamental inequality of Dyer et al., (1986) for linear programs. Simulation results on high data rate (HDR) illustrate the usefulness of the proposed schemes for elastic traffic and macrocell structures

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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