A Location Routing Protocol based on Smart Antennas for Wireless Sensor Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The task of finding and maintaining routes in a Wireless Sensor Networks is a nontrivial task since energy restrictions and sudden changes in node status (e.g. failure) cause frequent and unpredictable topological changes. This work introduces a novel location routing protocol that uses smart antennas to estimate nodes positions into the network and to deliver information basing routing decisions on neighbor’s status connection and relative position, named LBRA. The main purpose of LBRA is to eliminate network control overhead as much as possible. To achieve this goal, the algorithm employs local position for route decision, implements a novel mechanism to collect the location information and involves only route participants in the synchronization of location information. In addition, the protocol uses node battery information to make power aware routing decisions. In order to asses LBRA a series of simulations were designed with the help of the Network Simulator 2 (ns2). The experiment results showed that LBRA succeed in reducing the control overhead and the routing load, improving the packet delivery rate. Additionally, network power depletion is more balanced, since routing decisions are made depending on nodes’ battery level Keywords: Local Positioning, Routing Protocol, Smart Antennas, Wireless Sensor Networks
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it