MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611768984 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2017.2701351

Performance Analysis of Downlink MU-TXOP Sharing in IEEE 802.11ac

2017· article· en· W2611768984 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Zulfiker Ali, Vojislav B. Mišić

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTelecommunications linkComputer networkThroughputComputer scienceChannel (broadcasting)Bandwidth (computing)Transmission (telecommunications)Queueing theoryElectronic engineeringWirelessEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 802.11ac version of the popular IEEE 802.11 protocol aims to boost performance by increasing the channel bandwidth and allowing downlink multiuser multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) - i.e., simultaneous transmission to multiple clients in the downlink direction. In this paper, we evaluate the performance improvements of multiuser Transmission Opportunity (MU-TXOP) sharing in this scenario under nonsaturated load and non-ideal channel condition, using a novel analytical model based on discrete Markov chain and E-limited M/G/1 queuing model. Our results show that MU-TXOP sharing achieves up to 105% gain in throughput compared to the case without MU-TXOP sharing. Moreover, the low-priority traffic benefits most from MU-TXOP sharing, with up to 150% throughput gain at low traffic intensity due to availability of additional transmission opportunities for secondary ACs.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207