MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficient Routing in Mobile Ad-Hoc Social Networks

2017· article· en· W2785685025 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Kunz, Babak Esfandiari, Frank Ockenfeld

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkMobile ad hoc networkDistributed computingOptimized Link State Routing ProtocolRouting protocolJoinsWireless ad hoc networkRouting (electronic design automation)TelecommunicationsNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient routing in large-scale P2P applications over mobile networks is a challenge. Such networks are formed by clusters of nodes, representing a community of interest, joining with other clusters, establishing a two-tiered hierarchical network. An example application in such a network would be P2PSIP to enable P2P Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) or other media services. Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs) are a logical choice to model such a network as a MANET is also inherently a P2P network where each node moves from one place to another independently, joins and leaves the network as it wishes. In this paper, we present our design to enable efficient routing in such a two-tiered network. Each cluster is represented by a single MANET, connected through a backbone. Nodes can join and leave MANETs, and whole clusters can join and leave the network or split and merge, so our design needs to address both node and network mobility. Unlike previous solutions, our approach is based on the use of a distributed hash table (DHT) to support routing in the network backbone, while individual MANETs may employ any MANET routing protocol of their choice, such as OLSR or ADOV. Efficiently providing the functionality of a DHT in a highly mobile network such as a MANET is challenging. We review some of the issues that arise in this context and identify potential candidate protocols. Through extensive simulations, using OMNeT++, we show that one of the protocols in particular, OneHopOverlay4MANET, is a promising choice to support backbone routing in our architecture. Compared to alternative choices, it maintains good performance at low overhead costs even under highly dynamic network topologies.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0030.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207