MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135851458 · doi:10.1109/aina.2012.93

Assessing the Expected Performance of the OLSR Routing Protocol for Denser Urban Core Ad Hoc Network Deployments

2012· article· en· W2135851458 on OpenAlexaff
Deepali Arora, Eamon Millman, Stephen W. Neville

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Ad Hoc Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimized Link State Routing ProtocolComputer scienceComputer networkRouting protocolAd hoc wireless distribution serviceWireless ad hoc networkNode (physics)Mobile ad hoc networkDistributed computingRouting (electronic design automation)TelecommunicationsEngineeringWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wide-scale adoption of smart phones has begun to provide a pragmatic real-world deployment environments for mobile ad hoc networks, (i.e., as peer-to-peer game platforms, for emergency services, etc.). Such deployments are likely to occur with urban cores where device densities would easily exceed those that have traditionally been studied. Moreover, the quality of the resulting solutions will innately rest on the capabilities of the underlying routing protocols. Of current protocols, the OLSR proactive routing protocol makes the strongest arguments regarding its suitability to such larger, denser network environments. This work tests OLSR's true suitability by analyzing its performance within a 360-node network existing within a standard 1 km ×1.5 km communications area, (i.e., innately for a network with approximately 3 × the node densities typically studied). It is shown that OLSR largely fails for such denser networks, with these failure arising due to OLSR's underlying presumption that routing tables updates should occur relatively infrequently. This limitation within OLSR has not been previously reported and this work highlights the reasons why these issues were likely not observed within prior OLSR studies.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Ad Hoc NetworksFrench-language works237,207