MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162375717 · doi:10.1109/glocomw.2008.ecp.35

Uplink Scheduling in Wireless Mesh Networks

2008· article· en· W2162375717 on OpenAlexaff
Mieso K. Denko, Liang Ma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Ad Hoc Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless mesh networkMaximum throughput schedulingFairness measureComputer scienceComputer networkWireless broadbandScheduling (production processes)ThroughputWireless networkSwitched meshRouterService setMesh networkingMax-min fairnessWirelessDistributed computingRound-robin schedulingQuality of serviceDynamic priority schedulingWi-Fi arrayTelecommunicationsResource allocationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless mesh networks (WMNs) have been drawing significant attention due to their support for low cost broadband wireless Internet access. Despite extensive deployments in recent years, the 802.11 based wireless mesh networks suffer from unfairness attributed to the lack of adequate support for multihop communications. Most existing solutions focus on hard fairness by investigating fairness without considering its effect on throughput and efficiency. In this paper, we propose a multi-objective optimization technique to achieve fairness and maximize network throughput through unused bandwidth reallocation. We have defined an inverse fairness index that minimizes the difference between the requested bandwidth and proportionally allocates extra bandwidth to each mesh router to balance fairness and throughput. The proposed method was compared with hard fair scheduling and without fair scheduling.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Ad Hoc NetworksFrench-language works237,207