MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157468173 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2009.2014910

Free-Space Optical Gateway Placement in Hybrid Wireless Mesh Networks

2009· article· en· W2157468173 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed N. Smadi, Sasthi C. Ghosh, Ahmed A. Farid, T.D. Todd, Steve Hranilovic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackhaul (telecommunications)Computer networkComputer scienceDefault gatewayWirelessWireless mesh networkNetwork topologyCluster analysisDistributed computingWireless networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capacity of wireless mesh networks (WMN) must usually be upgraded as usage demands evolve over time. This is normally done by adding gateways which serve to increase the backhaul capacity of the network. In this paper we consider adding capacity in this manner using free-space optical (FSO) backhaul links. To accomplish this, we formulate a joint clustering and gateway placement problem which includes the strong rate-distance dependence of practical FSO links. The formulation incorporates the positions of existing wireline gateways and minimizes the number of additional hybrid-FSO/RF gateways which are needed to satisfy the target capacity requirements. After showing the complexity of the problem, a solution that is motivated by genetic algorithms is proposed. The performance of our algorithm is then compared to an optimal solution generated via an integer linear program (ILP) for small WMNs. The proposed algorithm is then modified to allow for balancing the traffic load that is carried by each gateway in the WMN. Many scenarios are considered which demonstrate the value of using FSO backhaul links to obtain post-deployment capacity upgrades in response to changes in user traffic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lightwave TechnologySame topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207