MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174647461 · doi:10.1145/1185373.1185400

An optimization framework for balancing throughput and fairness in wireless networks with QoS support

2006· article· en· W2174647461 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Network Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThroughputFairness measureMaximum throughput schedulingComputer scienceMax-min fairnessQuality of serviceResource allocationPareto principleWireless networkPareto optimalMathematical optimizationMulti-objective optimizationResource management (computing)Computer networkDistributed computingWirelessMathematicsDynamic priority schedulingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughput and fairness are conflicting performance metrics, leading to a natural tradeoff between these two measures. In this paper, we derive a generic optimization framework to obtain a relationship of system throughput and fairness, by introducing the bargaining floor. From the relationship curve, different degrees of performance tradeoff between throughput and fairness can be obtained by choosing different bargaining floors. The solutions of resource allocation obtained from the optimization framework achieve the Pareto Optimality, demonstrating efficient use of network resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Wireless Network OptimizationFrench-language works237,207