Performance evaluation of IoT protocols under a constrained wireless access network
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
One of the challenges faced by today's Internet of Things (IoT) is to efficiently support machine-to-machine communication, given that the remote sensors and the gateway devices are connected through low bandwidth, unreliable, or intermittent wireless communication links. In this paper, we quantitatively compare the performance of IoT protocols, namely MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport), CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol), DDS (Data Distribution Service) and a custom UDP-based protocol in a medical setting. The performance of the protocols was evaluated using a network emulator, allowing us to emulate a low bandwidth, high system latency, and high packet loss wireless access network. This paper reports the observed performance of the protocols and arrives at the conclusion that although DDS results in higher bandwidth usage than MQTT, its superior performance with regard to data latency and reliability makes it an attractive choice for medical IoT applications and beyond.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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