MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388011447 · doi:10.1145/3616391.3622767

GNB-RPL: Gaussian Naïve Bayes for RPL Routing Protocol in Smart Grid Communications

2023· article· en· W4388011447 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmad Mohamad Mezher, Carlos Lester Dueñas Santos, David Rebollo‐Monedero, Julián Cárdenas-Barrera, Mónica Aguilar Igartua, Julian Meng, Eduardo Castillo-Guerra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsNaive Bayes classifierComputer scienceRouting protocolNetwork packetBayes' theoremLossy compressionComputer networkSmart gridGaussianMultiprotocol Label SwitchingNode (physics)WirelessMachine learningArtificial intelligenceQuality of serviceSupport vector machineEngineeringBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the potential of utilizing the Gaussian Naive Bayes algorithm for enhancing the performance of the Wireless Smart Grid Networks (WSGNs). We have incorporated the Gaussian Naive Bayes algorithm into the widely used Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL), resulting in an advanced variant named as GNB-RPL. This innovative protocol leverages the Naive Bayes algorithm to optimize routing decisions. Training a Naive Bayes classifier model on a data set of routing metrics enables us to make predictions about the probability of successfully reaching a destination node. Each network node utilizes this classifier to select the route with the highest probability of delivering packets effectively. Our findings demonstrate that GNB-RPL significantly enhances the packet delivery ratio while minimizing end-to-end delay through a comprehensive performance evaluation conducted in a realistic scenario and across different traffic loads. These results show the potential of GNB-RPL as a promising solution for achieving greater efficiency in WSGNs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207