Survey on cooperative medium access control protocols
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past decade, there has been ever‐increasing research attention to user cooperation in the wireless communication networks. The unique challenges of wireless networks such as channel fading and variation can be addressed well by taking advantage of relaying among cooperating mobile terminals. There are many studies on cooperative communications at the physical layer to exploit spatial diversity for improving channel capacity. In recent years, user cooperation from the perspective of the medium access control (MAC) layer becomes a promising new research area. In this study, the authors present a comprehensive survey on the mainstream cooperative MAC protocols in the literature. Focusing on the contention‐based solutions, the authors classify the well‐known proposals according to how they address two fundamental questions for user cooperation, that is, when to cooperation and whom to cooperate with. In addition to analysing the essential features of classic cooperative MAC protocols, the authors also discuss the major research challenges and project future research directions for MAC‐layer cooperation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it