MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251246383 · doi:10.1002/wcm.634

Balanced association algorithm for IEEE 802.11 extended service areas

2008· article· en· W4251246383 on OpenAlexaff
Özgür Ekici, Abbas Yongaçoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueWireless Communications and Mobile Computing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkThroughputShared resourceService (business)AlgorithmLoad balancing (electrical power)IEEE 802.11Wi-FiWireless networkNetwork performanceWirelessDistributed computingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Most wireless local area network performance estimations are done with the assumption of uniformly distributed (UD) users. In practice, however, stations (STAs) are distributed unevenly among access points (APs) in an extended service area, causing congested hot‐spots (HS) and under‐utilized APs. Considering a typical network is made up of multiple APs, having some nodes carrying excessive loads degrades the overall network performance. The system performance can be improved by associating STAs efficiently throughout the network, in a sense sharing the network resources fairly among APs and thus relieving congestion. The association algorithm currently employed in IEEE 802.11 systems, that is specifically designed for residential and small office environments, takes into account signal strength as the only parameter and associates STAs to the closest (in signal strength sense) AP, ignoring its load. Novel user association algorithms are required to solve the problems commonly seen in corporate network environments spanning multiple APs, namely congestion relief and resource sharing. In this work, a distributed and online association algorithm is proposed that demonstrates improved average throughput performance, a balanced load distribution as well as fairness across the network compared to the conventional algorithm. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWireless Communications and Mobile ComputingSame topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207