On Quality of Monitoring for Multichannel Wireless Infrastructure Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passive monitoring utilizing distributed wireless sniffers is an effective technique to monitor activities in wireless infrastructure networks for fault diagnosis, resource management, and critical path analysis. In this paper, we introduce a quality of monitoring (QoM) metric defined by the expected number of active users monitored, and investigate the problem of maximizing QoM by judiciously assigning sniffers to channels based on the knowledge of user activities in a multichannel wireless network. Two types of capture models are considered. The user-centric model assumes the frame-level capturing capability of sniffers such that the activities of different users can be distinguished while the sniffer-centric model only utilizes the binary channel information (active or not) at a sniffer. For the user-centric model, we show that the implied optimization problem is NP-hard, but a constant approximation ratio can be attained via polynomial complexity algorithms. For the sniffer-centric model, we devise stochastic inference schemes to transform the problem into the user-centric domain, where we are able to apply our polynomial approximation algorithms. The effectiveness of our proposed schemes and algorithms is further evaluated using both synthetic data as well as real-world traces from an operational WLAN.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".