Cooperative Routing in Wireless Networks: A Comprehensive Survey
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
Cooperative diversity has gained much interest due to its ability to mitigate multipath fading without using multiple antennas. There has been considerable research on how cooperative transmission can improve the performance of the physical layer. During the past few years, the researchers have started to take into consideration cooperative transmission in routing, and there has been a growing interest in designing and evaluating cooperative routing protocols. Routing algorithms that take into consideration the availability of cooperative transmission at the physical layer are known as cooperative routing algorithms. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the existing cooperative routing techniques, together with the highlights of the performance of each strategy. This survey also provides a taxonomy of different cooperative routing protocols and outlines the fundamental components and challenges associated with cooperative routing objectives. Existing cooperative routing algorithms are compared and lay the groundwork for further research.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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