Utilising Acknowledge for the Trust in Wireless Sensor Networks
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
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are emerging networks that are being utilized in a variety of applications, such as remote sensing images, military, healthcare, and traffic monitoring. Those critical applications require different levels of security; however, due to the limitation of the sensor networks, security is a challenge where traditional algorithms cannot be used. In addition, sensor networks are considered as the core of the Internet of Things (IoT) and smart cities, where security became one of the most significant problems with IoT and smart cities applications. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel and light trust algorithm to satisfy the security requirements of WSNs. It considers sensor nodes’ limitations and cross-layer information for efficient secure routing in WSNs. It proposes a Tow-ACKs Trust (TAT) Routing protocol for secure routing in WSNs. TAT computes the trust values based on direct and indirect observation of the nodes. TAT uses the first-hand and second-hand information from the Data Link and the Transmission Control Protocol layers to modify the trust’s value. The suggested TATs’ protocols performance is compared to BTRM and Peertrust models in terms of malicious detection ratio, accuracy, average path length, and average energy consumption. The proposed algorithm is compared to BTRM and Peertrust models, the most recent algorithms that proved their efficiency in WSNs. The simulation results indicate that TAT is scalable and provides excellent performance over both BTRM and Peertrust models, even when the number of malicious nodes is high.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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