Paper detail

On the Catalyzing Effect of Randomness on the Per-Flow Throughput in Wireless Networks

This paper investigates the throughput capacity of a flow crossing a multi-hop wireless network, whose geometry is characterized by general randomness laws including Uniform, Poisson, Heavy-Tailed distributions for both the nodes' densities and the number of hops. The key contribution is to demonstrate \textit{how} the \textit{per-flow throughput} depends on the distribution of 1) the number of nodes $N_j$ inside hops' interference sets, 2) the number of hops $K$, and 3) the degree of spatial correlations. The randomness in both $N_j$'s and $K$ is advantageous, i.e., it can yield larger scalings (as large as $Θ(n)$) than in non-random settings. An interesting consequence is that the per-flow capacity can exhibit the opposite behavior to the network capacity, which was shown to suffer from a logarithmic decrease in the presence of randomness. In turn, spatial correlations along the end-to-end path are detrimental by a logarithmic term.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.