Opportunistic Routing in Wireless Networks: Models, Algorithms, and Classifications
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
Opportunistic Routing (OR) is a new promising paradigm that has been proposed for wireless networks. OR has gained a lot of attention from the research communities for its ability to increase the performance of wireless networks. It benefits from the broadcast characteristic of wireless mediums to improve network performance. The basic function of OR is its ability to overhear the transmitted packet and to coordinate among relaying nodes. In OR, a candidate set is a potential group of nodes that is selected as the next-hop forwarders. Hence, each node in OR can use different potential paths to send packets toward the destination. Any of the candidates of a node that have received the transmitted packet may forward it. The decision of choosing the next forwarder is made by coordination between candidates that have successfully received the transmitted packet. In OR, by using a dynamic relay node to forward the packet, the transmission reliability and network throughput can be increased. In this article, we explain the fundamental idea of OR and its important issues by providing some examples. We then categorize each of the important issues and explain them in detail. Furthermore, we illustrate different protocols from each category and compare their benefits and drawbacks. Finally, some potential directions for future research in OR is explained.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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