PIS: A Practical Incentive System for Multihop Wireless 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
In multihop wireless networks (MWNs), the mobile nodes usually act as routers to relay other nodes' packets to enable new applications and enhance network performance and deployment. However, selfish nodes may not cooperate and make use of the cooperative nodes to relay their packets, which has a negative effect on network fairness, security, and performance. Incentive systems implement micropayment in the network to stimulate the selfish nodes to cooperate. However, micropayment schemes have originally been proposed for Web-based applications; therefore, a practical incentive system should consider the differences between Web-based applications and cooperation stimulation. In this paper, first, these differences are investigated, and a payment model is developed for the efficient implementation of micropayment in MWNs. Second, based on the developed payment model, an incentive system is proposed to stimulate the nodes' cooperation in MWNs. Third, a reactive receipt submission mechanism is proposed to reduce the number of submitted receipts and protect against collusion attacks. Extensive analysis and simulations demonstrate that our incentive system can secure the payment and reduce the overhead of storing, submitting, and processing payment receipts significantly, which can improve the system's practicality due to the high frequency of low-value payment transactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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