Probabilistic vs. Sequence-Based Rendezvous in Channel-Hopping Cognitive 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
Rendezvous in cognitive networks refers to the ability of cognitive nodes to find each other and form a network, or to find and join an already operating cognitive network. Two main approached to rendezvous have emerged: sequence-based mechanism that guarantees maximum time-to-rendezvous and blind random hopping resilient to unpredictable primary user activity. In this paper we develop analytical models for time to rendezvous in the presence of primary user activity for the orthogonal sequence-based mechanism and a blind rendezvous mechanism integrated with a transmission tax-based MAC protocol with cooperative sensing. Our analysis shows that the blind mechanism performs better under random primary user activity, the difference being more pronounced when the number of channels is high and/or primary user activity is more intense. In addition, the probabilistic mechanism allows rendezvous with either an emergent or a fully operational CH-CPAN piconet without any interruption, unlike the sequence-based mechanism which precludes any data exchange during the rendezvous process.
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 | 0.000 | 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