MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787345238 · doi:10.1109/pimrc.2017.8292412

A hybrid network selection scheme for heterogeneous wireless access network

2017· article· en· W2787345238 on OpenAlexaff
Nagina Zarin, Anjali Agarwal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIPv6, Mobility, Handover, Networks, Security
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWeightingRanking (information retrieval)Computer networkNode (physics)Wireless networkAccess networkWirelessHeterogeneous networkScheme (mathematics)Distributed computingMachine learningEngineeringTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heterogeneous wireless access network (HWAN), an integration of different radio access technologies (RATs) in an overlapping zone, supports bandwidth hungry application and fulfills the demands for high data rates. In this paper, we explored a novel hybrid scheme for RAT selection in HWAN, a two step process, where both a central controller node (CCN) and user device (UD) are involved in the process of network selection. During the first step UD screens the available list of scanned networks based on received signal strength and user mobility profile. The results for the first step of RAT screening using multiplicative exponential weighting method (MEW) are compared with multi criteria simple additive weighting (SAW) utility function. In our second step the CCN takes multi criteria related to application, terminal and network, and generates a sorted list of the most appropriate RATs based on evaluating MEW utility function. The CCN, then associates users to one (single connection) or more available RATs (multi-homed). Using Matlab based simulations, the process of RATs ranking and association is elaborated by calculating final utilities of different networks. The impact of different crucial criteria on RATs ranking results have been explored. Furthermore, we compared our proposed hybrid approach with the traditional mechanisms. The simulation results show that the decision of our proposed hybrid mechanism is more precise than the existing traditional approaches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIPv6, Mobility, Handover, Networks, SecurityFrench-language works237,207