Toward a Comprehensive Model for Performance Analysis of Opportunistic Routing in Wireless Mesh Networks
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
Opportunistic routing (OR) is a promising paradigm that has been proposed for wireless mesh networks. This routing paradigm takes advantage of the broadcast nature of the wireless medium to increase the reliability of transmissions in multihop wireless networks. The selection of a set of candidates involves satisfying the basic requirements of the model, in which packets are forwarded toward the destination. In OR, if one of the selected candidates does not receive the packet, another candidate might be able to continue forwarding the packet. The decision of which forwarder to choose is made by coordination between candidates that have successfully received the transmitted packet. In this paper, we propose a discrete-time Markov chain as a general model for OR and demonstrate how it can be used to evaluate the performance of OR protocols. We also review three well-known OR protocols that we have selected as a study case. Our study demonstrates how our model facilitates better understanding of the combination of a number of candidates and retransmissions and their significant contributions to the successful delivery of data packets. Thus, this shows that our model can help in the design of future OR protocols and efficient candidate selection algorithms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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