Multi-Connectivity for Enhanced Throughput: a Critical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-connectivity is anticipated to provide more reliable, higher data rate connections for cellular network users by leveraging all available radio resources across base stations within one or multiple radio access technology(ies) (RAT). It aims to improve user mobility through multi-RAT connections or mitigate quality of service (QoS) degradation when users connect to congested cells through load-balancing traffic among base stations and distributing the user's flow across multiple links. Although many studies have investigated the benefits of multi-connectivity across various network deployments using analytical models or simulated environments, we critically assess these reported gains, particularly regarding system throughput. We argue that multi-connectivity's advantages are primarily restricted to scenarios with a low user-to-base station ratio and that dense networks are less likely to benefit. We formulate the user-to-base station association and resource allocation within a proportional fair (PF) setting across varying user densities to examine this. Our findings demonstrate that multi-connectivity offers no superiority over the PF single-connectivity baseline in dense networks. Furthermore, in sparse networks, we show that while multi-connectivity can potentially enhance system throughput, it does not significantly improve individual users' QoS, as the PF single-connectivity scheme can offer sufficient resources to every user.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".