MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154445991 · doi:10.1109/twc.2010.06.091497

Random access for elastic and inelastic traffic in WLANs

2010· article· en· W2154445991 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 Wireless Communications · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubgradient methodMathematical optimizationComputer scienceRandom accessOptimization problemConvex functionSigmoid functionConvex optimizationWireless networkDual (grammatical number)Regular polygonWirelessMathematicsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider the problem of random access in wireless local area networks (WLANs) with each station generating either elastic or inelastic traffic. Elastic traffic is usually non-real-time, while inelastic traffic is usually coming from real-time applications. We formulate a network utility maximization (NUM) problem, where the optimization variables are the persistent probabilities of the stations and the utilities are either concave or sigmoidal functions. Sigmoidal utility functions can better represent inelastic traffic sources compared to concave utility functions commonly used in the existing random access literature. However, they lead to non-convex NUM problems which are not easy to solve in general. By applying the dual decomposition method, we propose a subgradient algorithm to solve the formulated NUM problem. We also develop closed-form solutions for the dual subproblems involving sigmoidal functions that have to be solved in each iteration of the proposed algorithm. Furthermore, we obtain a sufficient condition on the link capacities which guarantees achieving the global optimal solution when our proposed algorithm is being used. If this condition is not satisfied, then we can still guarantee that the optimal value of the objective function is within some lower and upper bounds. We perform various simulations to validate our analytical models when the available link capacities meet or do not meet the sufficient optimality condition.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.276 · 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