Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Modeling and Analysis of Coexistence Between MLO NSTR-based Wi-Fi 7 and Legacy Wi-Fi

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Wi-Fi 7's own NSTR rules nearly starve non-AP MLDs under saturation, first standards-compliant Markov-chain analysis shows.

desk verdict A genuine analytical contribution to NSTR MLO modeling, but its standards-compliance claim rests on an unverified interpretation and the validation of the new quantities is weak. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01201 v1 pith:3QU5SENH submitted 2025-09-01 cs.NI

Suhwan Jung , Seokwoo Choi , Youngkeun Yoon , Ho-kyung Son , Hyoil Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords Wi-Fi7IEEE802.11beMulti-LinkOperationNSTRMarkovchaincoexistencethroughputanalysisns-3
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes the first analytical framework, built on Markov chains, that models IEEE 802.11be Multi-Link Operation with the per-STA backoff and the mandatory start- and end-time alignments that earlier models omitted. It derives closed-form per-device throughput for AP MLD, non-AP MLDs, and legacy single-link devices coexisting in one WLAN. The central result is that under saturated traffic, the standard's alignment rules force non-AP MLD uplinks to almost zero throughput while legacy devices take most transmission opportunities; the paper verifies this with an ns-3 simulator it extended with NSTR behavior. A sympathetic reader should care because this quantifies a structural fairness cost of NSTR that was missing from prior aggregated models, and gives a reusable analytic core for future MLO coexistence design.

What carries the argument

The central objects are two new Markov chains: one for the AP MLD's per-link backoff, split into an MLO part (downlink to non-AP MLDs) and an SLO part (downlink to legacy devices), and one for a non-AP MLD's per-link backoff with additional states (i′,0) and (i′′,0) capturing backoff restart and start-time waiting. The AP chain introduces a transition that restarts backoff when the counter hits zero while the other link is busy with a transmission not from the AP; the non-AP chain freezes one link at zero until the other reaches zero, restarting if either channel becomes busy. These chains feed transmit probabilities τ and collision probabilities p, which are solved as a fixed point along wi

What would settle it

Run an IEEE 802.11be testbed or an independently implemented NSTR simulator with two links, one AP MLD, several non-AP MLDs, and several legacy devices, all saturated; measure non-AP MLD uplink throughput. If that throughput is substantially above zero—say more than 5% of legacy per-device throughput—while still using start-time alignment, then either the conservative backoff-restart rule is not what devices do, or the model's fixed-point equations miss a mechanism that lets NSTR MLDs transmit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that standard-compliant NSTR channel access, when modeled with separate per-STA Markov chains and with the rule that a link whose backoff reaches zero while the other link is busy restarts its backoff, yields closed-form transmit and collision probabilities and per-device throughput for AP MLD, non-AP MLDs, and legacy SLDs. It further claims that under saturated conditions, a non-AP MLD's start-time alignment requirement—both links' counters must reach zero simultaneously—makes its uplink throughput effectively zero, and that the AP MLD's downlink to non-AP MLDs is also severely throttled because transmitting on one link while the other is busy is forbidden to avoid in-devic

Load-bearing premise

The model's accuracy hinges on the assumption that real Wi-Fi 7 devices follow the paper's most conservative reading of the standard—that a link whose backoff counter reaches zero while the other link is busy must restart its backoff rather than transmit, defer, or align differently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, saturated Wi-Fi 7 NSTR coexistence is inherently unfair: legacy single-link devices dominate the channel, and non-AP MLD uplink throughput is effectively zero.
  • The closed-form throughput expressions allow fast parameter sweeps over contention windows, numbers of devices, and MCS choices without running simulations.
  • The framework extends to asymmetric link configurations because each link is modeled by its own chain, unlike the earlier combined-chain model.
  • The AP MLD's downlink to non-AP MLDs is shown to be severely constrained by the need to avoid IDC interference, suggesting that NSTR downlink scheduling must be jointly designed with the backoff rules.
  • The proposed chains are positioned as a building block for future MLO channel-access mechanisms aimed at throughput and latency fairness among coexisting device types.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The model's most conservative interpretation—that a link whose counter hits zero while the other link is busy must restart backoff—predicts near-total starvation of NSTR MLDs in saturation; if real 802.11be devices instead defer without restarting or transmit when feasible, the quantitative starvation result could soften while the qualitative tension between alignment and throughput would persist.
  • The same Markov-chain structure could be adapted to unsaturated or finite-buffer traffic by adding queue-state dimensions, which would test whether the starvation effect is an artifact of full saturation or a general coexistence property.
  • A natural testable extension is to measure whether dynamic per-link contention-window adjustment—for instance, smaller windows on the link that waits for alignment—can restore non-AP MLD throughput without violating the standard.
  • The framework implicitly suggests that NSTR MLDs may benefit from selecting one primary link and parking the other, reducing the joint-probability penalty of simultaneous counter arrival; such an extension is not in the paper and would need its own validation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Markov-chain analytical model for a WLAN coexistence scenario with one STR-capable AP MLD, NMLD NSTR non-AP MLDs, and NSLD legacy single-link devices on two links. It introduces per-STA Markov chains with new states for backoff restart when the other link is busy, models start-time and end-time alignment, and derives closed-form per-device per-link throughput expressions. The analysis is evaluated against a custom ns-3 implementation of NSTR. The reported validation shows good agreement for legacy SLD UL throughput (about 5–11% error), but the MLD-specific throughputs are either effectively zero in both analysis and simulation or show large discrepancies (up to a factor of about 6.7 for AP MLD DL to legacy devices).

Significance. If the model and its interpretation of IEEE 802.11be were correct, the paper would be a useful step: it avoids the combined-chain simplification of [14], provides explicit per-link Markov chains for AP MLD and non-AP MLD, and predicts severe starvation of NSTR MLDs under saturation, a non-obvious coexistence insight. The closed-form expressions and the ns-3 NSTR implementation are concrete contributions. The current manuscript, however, does not yet establish the central claim of ‘accurate per-device throughput’: the only quantity validated with meaningful nonzero values is legacy SLD UL throughput, and the standards-compliance of the modeled access rules is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II (system model, p. 3)] The paper’s novelty rests on being a ‘standards-compliant analytical framework,’ but the channel-access rules in Section II are introduced as ‘a most conservative interpretation of the standard’ without clause-level citations to IEEE 802.11be. In particular, the rule that a link whose backoff counter reaches zero while the other link is busy must restart its backoff (Section III, Fig. 4) is load-bearing: it enters X_AP, X_MLD, and Y, and therefore every throughput expression. If the actual standard permits freezing, deferring, or transmitting in that situation, the Markov chains in Figs. 6 and 9 describe a non-standard scheme and the qualitative NSTR-starvation conclusion becomes an artifact of the assumption. Please provide specific 802.11be clauses or validate the rule against a spec-compliant implementation, or narrow the claim from ‘standards-compliant’ to ‘one conservative interpret
  2. [Section V-B (definitions of tau_I_1)] The expression for the probability that the AP MLD alone transmits a packet destined to a legacy STA in Case 1 is given as tau_I_1 = tau_MLD_AP * (1 - p_SLD_AP). This contradicts the definitions in Section III: Case 1 should use tau_SLD_AP, not tau_MLD_AP. As printed, this typo feeds Eq. (70) and accounts for the large underprediction of AP MLD DL throughput to legacy devices in Fig. 10 (analysis 2.2 Mbps vs simulation 14.7 Mbps at N=2). Correct this to tau_SLD_AP and re-run the numerical evaluation.
  3. [Section VI-A and VI-B (validation)] The abstract and Section I claim ‘accurate estimates on the per-device throughput performance.’ However, the validation only supports legacy SLD UL throughput (5–11% error). The non-AP MLD UL throughput is effectively zero in both analysis and simulation (0.000007–0.00247 Mbps vs 0 Mbps), so it provides no discriminating validation. The AP MLD DL throughput to non-AP MLDs shows large relative errors (e.g., N=2: analysis 0 vs simulation 1.1 Mbps; N=3: 0.6 vs 1.7 Mbps). The paper itself notes in Section VI-A that these comparisons are ‘less meaningful,’ yet retains the broad accuracy claim. Either validate the MLD-specific quantities with a meaningful nonzero regime or restrict the accuracy claim to SLD UL throughput.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V-B (p_II_c,2)] The formula for p_II_c,2 contains an undefined symbol ‘b3’: p_II_c,2 = 1 - (p_II_idle + b3) - (tau_II_1a + tau_II_1b + tau_II_2 + tau_II_3) - p_II_c,1. Since this quantity enters the average slot duration in Eq. (59), the Case-2 throughput equations are not computable as printed. Please define or remove the erroneous term.
  2. [Section V-B (tau_II_2 and tau_II_3)] There are typographical inconsistencies in the exponents for tau_II_2 and tau_II_3: ‘tau_II_MD’ and ‘NM LD’ appear where ‘tau_II_MLD’ and ‘NMLD’ are intended. These should be fixed for reproducibility.
  3. [Section V-E (Eq. (71))] The function Nth(·) is borrowed from [14] but is not defined in the manuscript. Since it directly affects the DL throughput to non-AP MLDs, a brief definition or equation reference to [14] is needed.
  4. [General presentation] The closed-form expressions are dense and the superscript/subscript notation (e.g., tau_SLD_AP vs tau_MLD_AP) is easy to confuse. A summary table of all tau/p symbols and their Case-1/Case-2 meanings would improve readability and reduce the risk of the type of typo noted above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MC analysis is a standard fixed-point derivation and the single self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The transmit and collision probabilities (τ's and p's) are solved through a coupled fixed-point system (Eqs. (29)-(30), (54), Section V-B) and numerically resolved with a nonlinear solver; no parameter is fitted to the target throughputs or to the ns-3 outputs. X_AP, X_MLD, and Y are defined in terms of these same τ/p values and stationary probabilities and are also solved self-consistently, which is a fixed-point construction, not a definitional equivalence between input and output. The only self-citation, [16], is an acknowledgment of a preliminary conference version and carries no equation or assumption; Nth(p) is taken from external [14] and the SLD model from Bianchi [17]. The paper's own caveat that the channel-access rules are a 'most conservative interpretation of the standard' is a standards-compliance risk, not circularity. There are internal typos (undefined b3 in pII_c,2; footnote 1 says non-AP MLD MC is future work although Section IV presents it), but they do not make any prediction equivalent to its inputs. The ns-3 validation implements NSTR features according to the same interpretation, so it is a consistency check rather than an independent standards conformance test; this affects external validity, not the circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on saturation, perfect sensing, a conservative reading of IEEE 802.11be alignment rules, and a fixed-point solution for backoff and collision probabilities. It introduces no fitted-to-data parameters, but gamma is a user-specified mix knob, and the 'most conservative interpretation' is an ad hoc-to-paper behavioral assumption.

free parameters (1)
  • gamma (probability AP MLD packet destination is a non-AP MLD)
    Model input controlling the mix of Case 1 and Case 2; no value is stated in the Section VI simulation setup, and all throughput formulas depend on it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Saturated traffic: all devices always have packets to transmit
    Section II; enables Bianchi-style fixed-point analysis but limits generality to saturation.
  • domain assumption All devices are within 5 m of the AP, with no hidden nodes or channel errors
    Section VI simulation setup; the analysis assumes every transmission is heard by all, so collisions are due only to simultaneous transmissions.
  • ad hoc to paper Standard-mandated alignments force backoff restart when the other link is busy: the paper's 'most conservative interpretation of the standard'
    Section II, paragraphs on AP and non-AP access rules; this is the load-bearing behavioral premise for the new MC states and restart transitions.
  • domain assumption Each STA in an MLD runs an independent backoff counter per link, coupled only through the modeled alignment rules
    Sections III and IV; the paper corrects [14] by separating per-link MCs, but independence is assumed.
  • standard math The fixed-point equations for tau and p have a unique solution and the numerical solver converges to it
    Sections III-V; standard practice for Bianchi models, verified only indirectly through simulation match.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling and Analysis of Coexistence Between MLO NSTR-based Wi-Fi 7 and Legacy Wi-Fi." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3QU5SENH

@misc{pith2026250901201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling and Analysis of Coexistence Between MLO NSTR-based Wi-Fi 7 and Legacy Wi-Fi},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3QU5SENH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01201}
}
read the original abstract

Wi-Fi 7 introduces Multi-link operation (MLO) to enhance throughput and latency performance compared to legacy Wi-Fi standards. MLO enables simultaneous transmission and reception through multiple links, departing from conventional single-link operations (SLO). To fully exploit MLO's potential, it is essential to investigate Wi-Fi 7's coexistence performance with legacy Wi-Fi devices. Existing approaches, however, have overlooked some crucial aspects of MLO, necessitating the development of a standards-compliant analytical framework to model the actual channel access mechanism of MLO. Therefore, this paper tries to fill the gap by proposing a set of novel Markov chains (MC) to accurately model the MLO operation aligned with multi-link backoff behaviors specified by the standard. Specifically, we design two separate MCs for AP and non-AP multi-link devices (MLD) respectively, based on which transmit and collision probabilities are derived under the saturated traffic condition. Then, we also derive closed-form expressions for the throughput of various device types in the coexistence scenario between Wi-Fi 7 and legacy Wi-Fi, including AP MLD, non- AP MLD, and legacy devices. To validate the accuracy of our proposed models, we developed an ns-3 based simulator by implementing both STR(simultaneous transmission and reception) and NSTR(non-STR) based MLO operations. Our ns-3 based extensive simulations have demonstrated that the proposed analytic model provides accurate estimates on the per device throughput performance, while also revealing the dynamics of inter-WLAN coexistence scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01201 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Coexistence scenario between MLDs and legacy devices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Resolving IDC interference through end-time alignment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Resolving IDC interference through start-time alignment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Standard-compliant backoff operation during DL transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The proposed MC for the AP MLD (left-hand side: DL to non-AP MLDs, right-hand side: DL to legacy devices) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Standard-compliant backoff operation during UL transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Separation of state (i, 0) into (i, 0), (i ′ , 0) and (i ′′ , 0) By applying Eqs. (10) through (24) to the above, we obtain 1 = λ1 · b MLD 0,0 + λ2 · b SLD 0,0 , (26) λ1 := " 1 1 − p MLD AP + mX−1 i=0  Wi − 1 2 + XAP 1 − XAP Wi 2  (p MLD AP ) i + Wm − 1 2 + XAP 1 − X…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Per-device throughput when NMLD = NSLD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Per-device throughput when NMLD ̸= NSLD and NMLD = 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Per-device throughput when NMLD ̸= NSLD and NMLD = 7 VI. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION This section evaluates the accuracy of the proposed ana￾lytical framework, and also examines the behavior of MLDs and legacy devices in various coexistence scenarios. For this purpose, we …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: More specifically, the SLD UL throughput [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. EvoOMG: An Evolution-Oriented Multi-Agent Guidance Framework for Heterogeneous Legacy-and-MLO Wi-Fi Networks

    cs.NI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Decomposing Wi-Fi MAC control into staged contention-then-aggregation decisions improves throughput in mixed legacy/MLO networks compared to flat one-shot policies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [14]

    Performance Analysis of Synchronous Multi- radio Multi-link MAC Protocols in IEEE 802.11be Extremely High Throughput WLANs,

    T. Song and T. Kim, “Performance Analysis of Synchronous Multi- radio Multi-link MAC Protocols in IEEE 802.11be Extremely High Throughput WLANs,” Applied Sciences , vol. 11, no. 1, p. 317, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    IEEE 802.11be Wi-Fi 7: New Challenges and Opportunities,

    C. Deng, X. Fang, X. Han, X. Wang, L. Yan, R. He, Y . Long, and Y . Guo, “IEEE 802.11be Wi-Fi 7: New Challenges and Opportunities,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2136– 2166, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Towards 5G-Advanced NR-Unlicensed Systems: Physical Layer Design and Performance,

    J. Ssimbwa, S.-H. Yoon, Y . Lee, and Y .-C. Ko, “Towards 5G-Advanced NR-Unlicensed Systems: Physical Layer Design and Performance,” Journal of Communications and Networks , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 207–214, Apr. 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Multi-link Operation in IEEE 802.11be WLANs,

    A. L ´opez-Ravent´os and B. Bellalta, “Multi-link Operation in IEEE 802.11be WLANs,” IEEE Wireless Communications , vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 94–100, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Current Status and Directions of IEEE 802.11be, the Future Wi-Fi 7,

    E. Khorov, I. Levitsky, and I. F. Akyildiz, “Current Status and Directions of IEEE 802.11be, the Future Wi-Fi 7,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 88 664– 88 688, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Multi-link Operation with Enhanced Syn- chronous Channel Access in IEEE 802.11be Wireless LANs: Coexis- tence Issue and Solutions,

    W. Murti and J.-H. Yun, “Multi-link Operation with Enhanced Syn- chronous Channel Access in IEEE 802.11be Wireless LANs: Coexis- tence Issue and Solutions,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 23, p. 7974, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Dynamic Traffic Allocation in IEEE 802.11be Multi-link WLANs,

    A. L ´opez-Ravent´os and B. Bellalta, “Dynamic Traffic Allocation in IEEE 802.11be Multi-link WLANs,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1404–1408, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Overview and Performance Evaluation of Wi-Fi 7,

    C. Chen, X. Chen, D. Das, D. Akhmetov, and C. Cordeiro, “Overview and Performance Evaluation of Wi-Fi 7,” IEEE Communications Stan- dards Magazine, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 12–18, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 22 references
  1. [8]

    Analysis of Multilink in IEEE 802.11be,

    S. Adhikari and S. Verma, “Analysis of Multilink in IEEE 802.11be,” IEEE Communications Standards Magazine , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 52–58, 2022. 13

    2022

  2. [9]

    Mutli-link Channel Access Schemes for IEEE 802.11be Extremely High Throughput,

    K. Huang, L. Huang, Y . Quan, H. Du, C. Luo, L. Lu, and R. Hou, “Mutli-link Channel Access Schemes for IEEE 802.11be Extremely High Throughput,” IEEE Communications Standards Magazine , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 46–51, 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    Analyses of NSTR Multi-link Operation in the Presence of Legacy Devices in an IEEE 802.11be Network,

    N. Korolev, I. Levitsky, and E. Khorov, “Analyses of NSTR Multi-link Operation in the Presence of Legacy Devices in an IEEE 802.11be Network,” in Proc. IEEE CSCN , Dec. 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    Study of Multi-link Channel Access without Simultaneous Transmit and Receive in IEEE 802.11be Networks,

    N. Korolev, I. Levitsky, I. Startsev, B. Bellalta, and E. Khorov, “Study of Multi-link Channel Access without Simultaneous Transmit and Receive in IEEE 802.11be Networks,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 126 339– 126 351, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Simultaneous Multi-channel Downlink Operation in Next Generation WLANs,

    S. Naribole, S. Kandala, W. B. Lee, and A. Ranganath, “Simultaneous Multi-channel Downlink Operation in Next Generation WLANs,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM , Dec. 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Performance and Coexistence Evaluation of IEEE 802.11be Multi-link Operation,

    M. Carrascosa-Zamacois, L. Galati-Giordano, A. Jonsson, G. Geraci, and B. Bellalta, “Performance and Coexistence Evaluation of IEEE 802.11be Multi-link Operation,” in Proc. IEEE WCNC , Mar. 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Analytical Model of Multi- link Operation in Saturated Heterogeneous Wi-Fi 7 Networks,

    N. Korolev, I. Levitsky, and E. Khorov, “Analytical Model of Multi- link Operation in Saturated Heterogeneous Wi-Fi 7 Networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 2546–2549, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Modeling the Coexistence Performance between Wi-Fi 7 and Legacy Wi-Fi,

    S. Jung, S. Choi, H. Kim, Y . Yoon, and H.-k. Son, “Modeling the Coexistence Performance between Wi-Fi 7 and Legacy Wi-Fi,” in Proc. IEEE/IFIP NOMS, Doctoral Symposium , May 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Performance Analysis of the IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function,

    G. Bianchi, “Performance Analysis of the IEEE 802.11 Distributed Coordination Function,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Commu- nications, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 535–547, 2000

    2000

  10. [18]

    Performance Evaluation of 802.11ax OFDMA through Theoretical Analysis and Simulations,

    D. Magrin, S. Avallone, S. Roy, and M. Zorzi, “Performance Evaluation of 802.11ax OFDMA through Theoretical Analysis and Simulations,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Network Simulations with the ns-3 Simulator,

    T. R. Henderson, M. Lacage, and G. F. Riley, “Network Simulations with the ns-3 Simulator,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM , Aug. 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    MATLAB version: 9.12.0 (R2022a),

    T. M. Inc., “MATLAB version: 9.12.0 (R2022a),” Natick, Massachusetts, United States, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mathworks.com

    2022

  13. [21]

    Optimization Toolbox version: 9.3 (R2022a),

    ——, “Optimization Toolbox version: 9.3 (R2022a),” Nat- ick, Massachusetts, United States, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mathworks.com Suhwan Jung is a Ph.D. candidate at the De- partment of Electrical Engineering (EE), the Ul- san National Institute of Science and Tec...

    2022

  14. [2013]

    From March 1999 to March 2000, she was a researcher of LG Information and Communication. Since May 2000, she has been with the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Daejeon, Korea, where she is a principal researcher of radio resource research section o...

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.