Void Avoiding Opportunistic Routing Protocols for Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey
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
One of the most challenging issues in the routing protocols for underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) is the occurrence of void areas (communication void). That is, when void areas are present, the data packets could be trapped in a sensor node and cannot be sent further to reach the sink(s) due to the features of the UWSNs environment and/or the configuration of the network itself. Opportunistic routing (OR) is an innovative prototype in routing for UWSNs. In routing protocols employing the OR technique, the most suitable sensor node according to the criteria adopted by the protocol rules will be elected as a next-hop forwarder node to forward the data packets first. This routing method takes advantage of the broadcast nature of wireless sensor networks. OR has made a noticeable improvement in the sensor networks' performance in terms of efficiency, throughput, and reliability. Several routing protocols that utilize OR in UWSNs have been proposed to extend the lifetime of the network and maintain its connectivity by addressing void areas. In addition, a number of survey papers were presented in routing protocols with different points of approach. Our paper focuses on reviewing void avoiding OR protocols. In this paper, we briefly present the basic concept of OR and its building blocks. We also indicate the concept of the void area and list the reasons that could lead to its occurrence, as well as reviewing the state-of-the-art OR protocols proposed for this challenging area and presenting their strengths and weaknesses.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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