Packet prioritization in multihop latency aware scheduling for delay constrained communication
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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