Real-Time Performance Evaluation for Flooding and Recursive Time Synchronization Protocols over Arduino and XBee
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
Time synchronization is a crucial part of distributed systems. It is often required for data reliability and coordination in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). Wireless sensor networks have three major goals: time synchronization, low bandwidth operation, and energy efficiency. Different time synchronization algorithms are aimed at achieving these objectives using various methods. This paper presents performance evaluation of two state-of-the-art time synchronization protocols, namely, Flooding Time Synchronization Protocol and Recursive Time Synchronization Protocol. To achieve time synchronization in wireless sensor networks, these two protocols make use of broadcast and peer-to-peer mechanisms. Flooding Time Synchronization Protocol uses the former mechanism, while Recursive Time Synchronization Protocol uses the latter mechanism. To perform the performance evaluation, three performance metrics are used including synchronization message count per cycle, bandwidth, and convergence time. Arduino is used as a micro-controller and XBee as transceiver to verify these metrics by utilizing different topologies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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