MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594139946 · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2679606

Relay Selection for Heterogeneous Transmission Powers in VANETs

2017· article· en· W2594139946 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Alotaibi, Hussein T. Mouftah

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelayComputer networkRetransmissionTransmission (telecommunications)Wireless ad hoc networkVehicular ad hoc networkWirelessNode (physics)Network packetDistributed computingPower (physics)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main challenge in the vehicular ad hoc network vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) multi-hop dissemination is to control the number of vehicles, that relay the broadcast message. Proper selection of relay nodes governs high delivery ratio, acceptable overall end-to-end delay, and efficient bandwidth usage. To date, several protocols have been proposed to identify appropriate relay vehicles. However, such approaches neglect the fact that vehicle transmission ranges are typically heterogeneous due to different transmission power values or dynamic adjustment of power to alleviate congestion and/or control energy consumption. In this paper, we introduce area-based dissemination protocols that work in heterogeneous transmission powers. The transmissions between relay vehicles are ordered in way that ensures that the node with high potential new coverage area transmits first. This eliminates useless transmission and retransmission that could be contained by other transmission. The new potential coverage area is computed as a function of the common overlap areas. In addition, we propose more reliable approaches by relaying duplicate received message. Thus, we introduce a geometric taxonomy for all possible overlap patterns in wireless environment, which is an apparently hitherto unsolved geometrical problem. Accordingly, we deduce the criteria used to define each pattern and relevant algebraic expression to compute the potential additional coverage area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicVehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)French-language works237,207