Connectivity based k-hop clustering in wireless networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we describe several new clustering algorithms for nodes in a mobile ad hoc network. We propose to combine two known approaches into a single clustering algorithm which considers connectivity as a primary criterion and lower ID as secondary criterion for selecting cluster heads. The goal is to minimize the number of clusters, which results in dominating sets of smaller sizes (this is important for applications in broadcasting and Bluetooth formation). We also describe algorithms for modifying cluster structure in the presence of topological changes. Next, we generalize the cluster definition so that a cluster contains all nodes that are at a distance of at most k hops from the cluster head. The efficiency of four clustering algorithms (k-lowestID and k-CONID, k=1 and k=2) is tested by measuring the average number of created clusters, the number of border nodes, and the cluster size in random unit graphs. The most interesting experimental result is stability of the ratio of the sum of CHs and border nodes in the set. It was constantly 60-70% for 1-lowestID and 46-56% for 1-ConID, for any value of n (number of nodes) and d (average node degree). Similar conclusions and similar number were obtained for k=2. We also proposed a unified framework for most existing and new clustering algorithms where a properly defined weight at each node is the only difference in the algorithm. Finally, we propose a framework for generating random unit graphs with obstacles.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".