MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379470567 · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3282729

PIoT: A Performance IoT Simulation System for a Large-Scale City-Wide Assessment

2023· article· en· W4379470567 on OpenAlexafffund
Abbas Dehghani Firouzabadi, Hakim Mellah, Orestes Manzanilla-Salazar, Reza Khalvandi, Vincent Therrien, Victor Boutin, Brunilde Sansò

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
KeywordsComputer scienceScale (ratio)Internet of ThingsEmbedded systemCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the proliferation of sensors and actuators, evaluating the network performance of current and forthcoming city-wide Internet of Things (IoT) applications is a challenging task. To overcome this challenge, we created a large-scale simulator called PIoT over the years that can assess the performance of multiple millions of mobile/static IoT devices using a 4G/5G cellular infrastructure. In PIoT, different Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are defined and collected to produce data to evaluate applications and network performance. PIoT is an on-going academic simulator project, and its most recent version is accessible to the public through the user interface found onhttps://www.piotsimulation.comwithout any installation requirements. It uses a realistic database that contains the real locations and features of Base Stations (BSs) and the real locations of IoT user equipment devices. The interface can be used by operators and researchers to understand network behavior when deploying new applications or to gather data to feed artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms. The objective of this paper is to present a detailed description of the PIoT modeling architecture, as well as some use cases to help potential users understand the type of capabilities that are available when using the simulator. Limitations and comparisons with other popular engines are also included in the paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207