In this work we, are interested in the energy benefit of network coding, which is the ratio of the minimum energy solution in a routing solution compared to the minimum energy network coding solution, maximized over all configurations.
Besides constructing minimum-cost coding solutions, it is also of interest to know what the benefits of network coding are compared to routing.
In fact, it has been shown by Lun et al. that a minimum-cost network coding solution can be found in a distributed fashion in polynomial time [15].
It is clear that maximum coding is not a reasonable choice and results in worse delays compared with minimum coding.
The ratio of the minimum energy consumption of routing solutions and the minimum energy consumption of network coding solutions, maximized over all node locations, multiple unicast sessions, and transmission ranges, with the transmission range equal for the routing and network coding solutions, is at least, that is, (4).
A lower bound to the ratio of the minimum energy consumption of routing and coding solutions for a given multiple unicast configuration was provided by Keshavarz-Haddad and Riedi in [24].
We establish lower bounds on the benefit of network coding, defined as the maximum of the ratio of the minimum energy required by routing and network coding solutions, where the maximum is over all configurations.
Our goal is to establish lower bounds on the maximum of the ratio of the minimum energy required by routing and network coding solutions, where the maximum is over all configurations.
Corporate risk management often specifies design standards, which exceed the minimum code requirements.
Building envelopes designed and installed in accordance with model building code provisions are the minimum acceptable solution permitted by law.
