MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049410002 · doi:10.4236/cn.2020.123006

A P2P Approach to Routing in Hierarchical MANETs

2020· article· en· W3049410002 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Kunz, Silas Echegini, Babak Esfandiari

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications and Network · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersArmy Research LaboratoryResearch, Development and Engineering Command
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed hash tableComputer networkFlooding (psychology)Distributed computingScalabilityOverlay networkPolicy-based routingRouting protocolHierarchical routingRouting (electronic design automation)Static routingRouting tablePeer-to-peerDatabaseThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an effective routing solution for the backbone of hierarchical MANETs. Our solution leverages the storage and retrieval mechanisms of a Distributed Hash Table (DHT) common to many (structured) P2P overlays. The DHT provides routing information in a decentralized fashion, while supporting different forms of node and network mobility. We split a flat network into clusters, each having a gateway who participates in a DHT overlay. These gateways interconnect the clusters in a backbone network. Two routing approaches for the backbone are explored: flooding and a new solution exploiting the storage and retrieval capabilities of a P2P overlay based on a DHT. We implement both approaches in a network simulator and thoroughly evaluate the performance of the proposed scheme using a range of static and mobile scenarios. We also compare our solution against flooding. The simulation results show that our solution, even in the presence of mobility, achieved well above 90% success rates and maintained very low and constant round trip times, unlike the flooding approach. In fact, the performance of the proposed inter-cluster routing solution, in many cases, is comparable to the performance of the intra-cluster routing case. The advantage of our proposed approach compared to flooding increases as the number of clusters increases, demonstrating the superior scalability of our proposed approach.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications and NetworkSame topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207