On the Optimality of Opportunistic Routing Protocols for Underwater Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade, underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) have attracted a lot of attention from the research community thanks to their wide range of applications that include seabed mining, military and environmental monitoring. With respect to terrestrial networks, UWSNs pose new research challenges such as the three-dimensional node deployment and the use of acoustic signals. Despite the large number of routing protocols that have been developed for UWSNs, there are very few analytical results that study their optimal configurations given the system's parameters (density of the nodes, frequency of transmission, etc.). In this paper, we make one of the first steps to cover this gap. We study an abstraction of an opportunistic routing protocol and derive its optimal working conditions based on the network characteristics. Specifically, we prove that using a depth threshold, i.e., the minimum length of one transmission hop to the surface, is crucial for the optimality of opportunistic protocols and we give a numerical method to compute it. Moreover, we show that there is a critical depth threshold above which no packet can be transmitted successfully to the surface sinks in large networks, which further highlights the importance of properly configuring the routing protocol. We discuss the implications of our results and validate them by means of stochastic simulations on NS3.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".