Localized power‐aware alternate routing for wireless ad hoc networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we design a localized power‐aware alternate routing (LPAR) protocol for dynamic wireless ad hoc networks. The design objective is to prolong the lifetime of wireless ad hoc networks wherein nodes can adaptively adjust their transmission power based on communication ranges. LPAR achieves this goal via two phases. In the first phase, energy draining balancing is achieved by identifying end‐to‐end paths with high residual energy. The second phase is designed to effectively reduce the power consumed for packet forwarding. This is achieved by iteratively performing adaptive localized power‐aware alternate rerouting to bypass each (potentially) high‐power link along the end‐to‐end path identified in the first phase. Further, the design of LPAR enables nodes to collect their neighborhood information ‘on‐demand’, which can effectively reduce the overhead for gathering such information. LPAR is suitable for both homogeneous and non‐homogeneous networks. Simulation results demonstrate that LPAR achieves improved performance in reducing protocol overhead and also in prolonging network lifetime as compared with existing work. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".