Buddy Routing: A Routing Paradigm for NanoNets Based on Physical Layer Network Coding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NanoNets are networks of nanomachines at extremely small dimensions, on the order of nanometers or micrometers. Recent advances in physics and engineering have made basic computing and communication feasible on nanomachines, and NanoNets are envisioned as an important emerging technology with broad future applications. Traditional networking solutions require significant modifications for application in NanoNets. In this paper, we focus on routing algorithm design in NanoNets. Based on the salient features of a NanoNet, including low node cost and very low available power, we propose a new routing paradigm for multi-hop data transmission in NanoNets. Our design, termed {\em Buddy Routing (BR)}, is enabled by latest advancements in physical layer network coding, and argues for pair-to-pair data forwarding in place of traditional node-to-node data forwarding. Through both analysis and simulations, we compare BR with point-to-point routing, in terms of raw throughput, error rate, energy efficiency, and protocol overhead, and show the advantages of BR in NanoNets.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".