MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147250914 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2009.5425617

Effect of Jamming Signals on Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks

2009· article· en· W2147250914 on OpenAlexaff
Jahangir H. Sarker, Hussein T. Mouftah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWireless Networks and Protocols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetransmissionJammingAlohaComputer scienceComputer networkThroughputNode (physics)Wireless ad hoc networkNetwork packetTransmission (telecommunications)Base stationWirelessTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ad Hoc or sensor networks, communication may be achieved between mobile nodes without a central entity (base station), in a half-duplex manner. The impact of jamming signals on those kinds of networks is studied. The contributions of this paper can be divided into two parts. In the first part, the probability of success, throughput and the maximum throughput are derived for the half-duplex Slotted ALOHA in terms of the node transmitting probability, the node receiving probability and average jamming signals rate. Results show that the probability of success, throughput and maximum throughput decrease with the increase of average jamming signals rate. In the second part, the effect of jamming signals on the maximum throughput of retransmission cut-off half-duplex Slotted ALOHA is studied. A close form equation is obtained for the transmission probability from each mobile node that maximizes the channel throughput in the presence of jamming signals. This equation provides the relationship between the new packet transmission probability from each mobile node, jamming signals rate and the number of retransmission attempts. The number of retransmission attempts plays an important role for a lower value of jamming signals rate. The results of this study may be used for system design of half-duplex contention-based multiple access schemes with and without jamming signals and retransmission cut-off.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Networks and ProtocolsFrench-language works237,207