Enhance the edge with beamforming: Performance analysis of beamforming-enabled WLAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ultra-dense edge networks with mmWave and beamforming are envisioned as a potential solution to satisfy the high rate and capacity requirements in 5G networks. In IEEE 802.11 ad, which is the first beamforming-enabled WLAN standard, all stations (STs) contend for beamforming (BF) training opportunities in associated beamforming training (A-BFT) slots. However, due to limited number of A-BFT slots, BF training suffers from a severe collision issue, especially in dense networks, which results in a low channel utilization in the A-BFT stage. To achieve the maximum channel utilization, it is of significance to allocate A-BFT slots efficiently. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an analytical model to analyze IEEE 802.11 ad medium access control (MAC) protocol in BF training stage. In particular, we analyze the successful transmission probability and channel utilization of IEEE 802.11 ad MAC protocol in the dense network. Based on theoretical analysis, we provide the optimal number of A-BFT slots. In addition, theoretical analysis indicates that the maximum channel utilization in the A-BFT stage is barely e−1which is the same as that of slotted ALOHA protocol. Simulation results are provided to validate the accuracy of the analytical model and theoretical analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".