MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131824061 · doi:10.1109/icccn.2009.5235219

Efficient Clustering of Cognitive Radio Networks Using Affinity Propagation

2009· article· en· W2131824061 on OpenAlexafffund
Kareem E. Baddour, O. Üreten, T.J. Willink

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
FundersDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkCognitive radioWireless ad hoc networkCluster analysisOverhead (engineering)Distributed computingWireless networkAffinity propagationCognitive networkKey (lock)WirelessArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive radios must be able to form collaborative wireless network clusters in dynamically changing environments to achieve such desired objectives as interference resilience and low communications overhead. In this work, we explore the affinity propagation (AP) message-passing technique to efficiently group nodes in an ad hoc cognitive radio network (CRN). With the proposed approach, nodes exchange local messages with their immediate neighbours until a high quality set of clusterheads and a corresponding cluster structure emerges. The messages are calculated based on measures of similarity between the network nodes, which are selected based on application requirements and the objective of the grouping process. As an initial application, we focus on finding a small dominating set of a CRN with the aim of reducing the number of nodes that participate in key network functions such as resource management and routing table maintenance. To demonstrate the merits of the proposed clustering approach, the AP technique is evaluated on randomly generated open spectrum access network scenarios. The simulation results demonstrate that the proposed technique provides a smaller number of clusters than methods based on approximating a minimum size dominating set of the corresponding ad hoc network graphs.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207