Capacity Analysis and Call Admission Control in Distributed Cognitive Radio Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, homogeneous voice traffic in a single-channel cognitive radio network (CRN) is considered. We analyze the constant-rate voice capacity of a fully-connected network with slot-ALOHA and round-robin channel access, and propose two call admission control (CAC) algorithms for a non-fully-connected network with slot-ALOHA channel access. Different from the existing work in literature, transmission of multiple packets in a single time-slot is considered. Two discrete-time Markov chain based approaches are used for the capacity analysis of the two channel access schemes, respectively. It is shown that the number of voice packets that can be transmitted in a time-slot has a significant impact on the system capacity. The capacity analysis results of the slot-ALOHA scheme is used to develop a CAC procedure when all the voice flows have an identical statistical delay requirement. Further, two CAC algorithms (A1 and A2) are developed for a network with voice traffic flows having different delay requirements in which one (A1) is based on the theory of effective capacity and is considered as a benchmark to compare with the other. Simulation results demonstrate that algorithm A2 performs better than algorithm A1, and that a relaxed delay requirement leads to an increase in the network capacity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".