MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141202063 · doi:10.1109/jsac.2004.826929

Saturation Throughput Analysis of IEEE 802.11e Enhanced Distributed Coordination Function

2004· article· en· W2141202063 on OpenAlexaff
J.W. Robinson, T.S. Randhawa

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed coordination functionThroughputQuality of serviceComputer networkAccess controlIEEE 802Bandwidth (computing)Wireless Multimedia ExtensionsIEEE 802.11e-2005Distributed computingWirelessIEEE 802.11Wireless networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The IEEE 802.11 Task Group E will soon approve the 802.11e standard for medium access control (MAC) layer quality-of-service (QoS) enhancements to the 802.11 protocol, and it is widely believed that these enhancements will allow 802.11 technology to form the foundation of high-bandwidth vertically integrated networks. At the heart of 802.11e is a modified contention-based access mechanism, named the enhanced distributed coordination function (EDCF). In this paper, we propose and validate an analytical model for the saturation throughput of EDCF. Key to the accuracy of our model is a treatment of the postcollision period, which has been ignored by all previous 802.11 models. With results from the ns-2 simulator, we show that our model can accurately predict throughput over a wide range of scenarios, and thereby demonstrate its usefulness as a predictive tool for use in QoS provision. With context provided by our analytical model, we discuss the primary throughput differentiation mechanisms of EDCF.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations358
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in CommunicationsSame topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207