Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a consensus that trends in emerging wireless technologies, such as explosive data requirements and proliferating services and applications, are creating serious issues for the management of user experience.This is due to the fact that, unlike Quality-of-Service (QoS), for which technical metrics are available such as packet error rate, it is difficult to analytically model and measure "user experience" in wireless networks.Besides, current communication networks use design methodologies that prevent the realization of maximum network efficiency.For all these reasons, more agile, intelligent, and flexible networks are required.Such networks should be capable of micro-managing resources in a way that meets each user's service quality expectations while using a minimum amount of resources.This micro-management of network resources has ushered in the concept of wireless network personalization.Personalized networks optimize two correlated and contradicting objectives in real time: user satisfaction and resource utilization.In this thesis, the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI), big data analytics, and real-time non-intrusive user feedback is proposed in order to enable the personalization of wireless networks.Based on each user's actual QoS requirements and context, a Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) formulation enables the network to micro-manage and optimize the provided QoS and user satisfaction levels simultaneously.In addition, to enable user feedback tracking and measurement, user satisfaction is modeled based on the Zone of Tolerance concept.Furthermore, a big data-driven AI-based personalization framework is proposed to integrate personalization into wireless networks.Moreover, a MOO problem is formulated to model the personalized resource allocation problem in wireless networks.Then, to validate the formulated problem, a proof-of-concept prototype is built using the wireless personalization framework in which Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization (EMOO) is utilized to find the optimum Pareto front solutions.Finally, since user privacy is a crucial concern, a privacy-preserving framework, which is based on the concept of Differential Privacy, is proposed for personalized wireless networks.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".