Using Heuristics to the Controller Placement Problem in Software-Defined Multihop Wireless Networking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solving the controller placement problem (CPP) in an SDN architecture with multiple controllers has a significant impact on control overhead in the network, especially in multihop wireless networks (MWNs). The generated control overhead consists of controller-device and inter-controller communications to discover the network topology, exchange configurations, and set up and modify flow tables in the control plane. However, due to the high complexity of the proposed optimization model to the CPP, heuristic algorithms have been reported to find near-optimal solutions faster for large-scale wired networks. In this paper, the objective is to extend those existing heuristic algorithms to solve a proposed optimization model to the CPP in software-defined multihop wireless networking (SDMWN).Our results demonstrate that using ranking degrees assigned to the possible controller placements, including the average distance to other devices as a degree or the connectivity degree of each placement, the extended heuristic algorithms are able to achieve the optimal solution in small-scale networks in terms of the generated control overhead and the number of controllers selected in the network. As a result, using extended heuristic algorithms, the average number of hops among devices and their assigned controllers as well as among controllers will be reduced. Moreover, these algorithms are able tolower the control overhead in large-scale networks and select fewer controllers compared to an extended algorithm that solves the CPP in SDMWN based on a randomly selected controller placement 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".