MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102806452 · doi:10.1145/1089803.1089967

An efficient group key establishment in location-aided mobile ad hoc networks

2005· article· en· W2102806452 on OpenAlexaff
Depeng Li, Srinivas Sampalli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity in Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup keyComputer scienceKey (lock)Mobile ad hoc networkDistributed computingComputer networkWireless ad hoc networkOverhead (engineering)ScalabilityKey managementCommunication in small groupsKey exchangePublic-key cryptographyWirelessComputer securityNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) create additional challenges for implementing the group key establishment due to resource constraints on nodes and dynamic changes on the topology. To facilitate the deployment of group key agreements in MANETs, a range of distributed algorithms have been proposed. However, for a given level of security, these algorithms incur linearly increasing communication and computational costs. In this paper, we present two scalable maximum matching algorithms (M2) to deploy binary tree-based group key agreements in MANETs. Furthermore, the proposed technique is lightweight since it uses the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman key exchange in place of the regular Diffie-Hellman and also does not require third-party's support. The performance analysis shows that our distributed M2 algorithms reduce key establishment's round number from O(n) to O(log2n) and our novel group key establishment decreases communication cost and computational overhead significantly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity in Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207