MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333570085 · doi:10.1109/glocomw.2013.6855699

Subset-sum based relay selection for multipath TCP in cooperative LTE networks

2013· article· en· W2333570085 on OpenAlexaff
Dizhi Zhou, Wei Song, Peijian Ju

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkMultipath propagationRelayThroughputBandwidth (computing)FadingWirelessTransmission (telecommunications)Channel (broadcasting)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pooling mobile devices in vicinity as a cooperative community offers an opportunity to enable multipath transmission for multi-homed mobile devices, even when there is no multiple access coverage. Nonetheless, the available bandwidth provided by relays can be highly varying due to a range of factors such as wireless channel fading and dynamic local traffic load at relays. As a result, it is challenging to maintain a stable multipath aggregate throughput over relays. In this paper, we propose an enhancement module within the application layer for a cooperative community in the Long Term Evolution (LTE) network. Our extension is based on the standardized multipath transport control protocol (MPTCP) [1]. Based on relay bandwidth monitoring, a dynamic relay selection algorithm is developed for adding and deleting paths so as to ensure a stable aggregate throughput in a highly varying environment. The proposed relay selection algorithm is based on a fully polynomial-time subset-sum approximation [2]. Extensive simulations are conducted to evaluate the proposed solution in different background traffic patterns. The simulation results well demonstrate the strengths in minimizing throughput outage, the number of active subflows, and performance variation.

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 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 score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207