MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133539572 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3062655

A Fast Heuristic for Gateway Location in Wireless Backhaul of 5G Ultra-Dense Networks

2021· article· en· W3133539572 on OpenAlexaff
Mital Raithatha, Aizaz U. Chaudhry, Roshdy H. M. Hafez, John W. Chinneck

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackhaul (telecommunications)Computer scienceComputer networkWireless networkGaussianCluster analysisWirelessHeuristicBase stationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 5G ultra-dense networks, a distributed wireless backhaul is an attractive solution for forwarding traffic to the core. The macro-cell coverage area is divided into many small cells. A few of these cells are designated as gateways and are linked to the core by high-capacity fiber optic links. Each small cell is associated with one gateway and all small cells forward their traffic to their respective gateway through multi-hop mesh networks. We investigate the gateway location problem and show that finding near-optimal gateway locations improves the backhaul network capacity. An exact p-median integer linear program is formulated for comparison with our novel K-GA heuristic that combines a Genetic Algorithm (GA) with K-means clustering to find near-optimal gateway locations. We compare the performance of K-GA with six other approaches in terms of average number of hops and backhaul network capacity at different node densities through extensive Monte Carlo simulations. All approaches are tested in various user distribution scenarios, including uniform distribution, bivariate Gaussian distribution, and cluster distribution. In all cases, K-GA provides near-optimal results, achieving average number of hops and backhaul network capacity within 2% of optimal while saving an average of 95% of the execution time.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207