On Achieving Fair and Throughput-Optimal Scheduling for TCP Flows in Wireless Networks
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
Throughput-optimal scheduling has been heavily investigated given its ability to fully utilize network resources and maintain network stability. Most of the existing throughput-optimal algorithms, including the classic queue-length based MaxWeight algorithm and flow-delay-based MaxWeight algorithm, however, may bring a severe unfairness problem when scheduling transmission control protocol (TCP) controlled flows. As TCP is the dominant transport layer protocol in the Internet and it controls the majority of Internet traffic, we study how to design the scheduling algorithm that can ensure both throughput optimality and be compatible to TCP flows. In this paper, we analyze the reason behind the incompatibility between the existing scheduling algorithms and TCP, and then investigate the properties of the head-of-line access delay-based scheduling algorithm (HOLD) we proposed. We prove that the proposed HOLD can fairly schedule TCP flows in wireless networks with time-varying channel conditions and achieve throughput optimality with flow-level dynamics. Simulations using OMNeT++ 4 have been conducted to validate our analytical results, and compare the performance of different scheduling algorithms comprehensively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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