MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110159784 · doi:10.1080/15501320500259159

Progress and Location Based Localized Power Aware Routing for Ad Hoc and Sensor Wireless Networks

2006· article· en· W2110159784 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Ad Hoc Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNetwork packetRouting (electronic design automation)Shortest path problemPower (physics)Node (physics)Wireless ad hoc networkPath (computing)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationWirelessCompetitive analysisGeographic routingComputer networkRouting protocolLink-state routing protocolTheoretical computer scienceTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we propose several new progress based, localized, power, and cost aware algorithms for routing in ad hoc wireless networks. These algorithms attempt to minimize the total power and/or cost needed to route a message from source to destination. In localized algorithms, each node makes routing decisions solely on the basis of location of itself, its neighbors and destination. The new algorithms are based on the notion of proportional progress. A node currently holding the packet will forward it to a neighbor, closer to destination than itself, which minimizes the ratio of power and/or cost to reach that neighbor, and the progress made, measured as the reduction in distance to destination, or projection along the line to destination. First, we propose Power Progress, Iterative Power Progress, Projection Power Progress, and Iterative Projection Power Progress algorithms, where the proportional progress is defined in terms of power measure. The power metrics are then replaced by cost or power-cost metrics to define the proportional progress in terms of cost or power-cost measure, resulting in the cost and power-cost variants of the above algorithms. All the new proposed methods are implemented and their performances are compared with other competitive localized algorithms, shortest path. NC (Nearest Closer), and greedy schemes. The new power and cost localized schemes are conceptually simpler than existing schemes, and have similar or somewhat better performance in our experiments. Our localized schemes are shown to be competitive with globalized shortest weighted path based schemes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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