MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165357407 · doi:10.1109/jsac.2007.070517

Packet prioritization in multihop latency aware scheduling for delay constrained communication

2007· article· en· W2165357407 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Liang, Min Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNetwork packetComputer networkScheduling (production processes)ScheduleTransmission delayLatency (audio)Wireless networkTransmission (telecommunications)Distributed computingWirelessMathematical optimizationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the problem of optimizing the packet transmission schedule in a multihop wireless network with end-to-end delay constraints. The emphasis is to determine the proper relative weights assigned to the remaining distance and the remaining lifetime in order to rank the urgency of a packet. We consider a general class of cross-layer transmission schemes that represent such relative weights using a single lifetime-distance factor, which includes, as special cases, schedules such as earliest-deadline-first and largest-distance-first. We propose an analytical framework, based on recursive non-homogeneous Markovian analysis, to study the effect of the lifetime-distance factor on packet loss probability in a general multihop environment, with different configurations of peer-node channel contention. Numerical results are presented to illustrate how various network parameters affect the optimal lifetime-distance factor. We demonstrate quantitatively how the proper balance between distance and lifetime in a transmission schedule can significantly improve the network performance, even under imperfect schedule implementation.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in CommunicationsSame topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207