Fundamentals and Advancements of Topology Discovery in Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks: A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the extensive application of underwater acoustic sensor networks (UANs) in various fields such as commerce, marine environmental research, and national defense, the need for an autonomous and well-organized underwater acoustic network has been increasing. Topology discovery is a crucial step in constructing an underwater acoustic network, and node discovery and topology establishment are the essential components of the topology discovery process in UANs. This paper introduces the characteristics of underwater acoustic channels and networks and highlights their influences on topology discovery. We discuss the topology discovery protocol development in terrestrial networks (i.e., duty-cycle ad hoc network, Internet of things). The main focus of this paper is to study the topology discovery protocols of UANs. This paper also classifies and introduces the existing topology discovery protocols and compared their advantages and disadvantages to understand the current topology discovery methods. Furthermore, we also discuss the topology discovery protocol’s influence on different layers’ functions in the UAN protocol stack. Analyze the current research challenges in this field, followed by important open issues in UAN protocol development, which provide new opportunities for further research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it