Autoregression Models for Trust Management in Wireless Ad Hoc 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 this paper, we propose a novel trust management scheme for improving routing reliability in wireless ad hoc networks. It is grounded on two classic autoregression models, namely Autoregressive (AR) model and Autoregressive with exogenous inputs (ARX) model. According to this scheme, a node periodically measures the packet forwarding ratio of its every neighbor as the trust observation about that neighbor. These measurements constitute a time series of data. The node has such a time series for each neighbor. By applying an autoregression model to these time series, it predicts the neighbors future packet forwarding ratios as their trust estimates, which in turn facilitate it to make intelligent routing decisions. With an AR model being applied, the node only uses its own observations for prediction; with an ARX model, it will also take into account recommendations from other neighbors. We evaluate the performance of the scheme when AR, ARX or a previously proposed Bayesian model is used. Simulation results indicate that the ARX model is the best choice in terms of accuracy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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