Machine-Learning-Based Optimal Cooperating Node Selection for Internet of Underwater Things
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
Multihop communication has gained prominence within the realm of the Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT) owing to its exceptional reliability amidst the challenges posed by the underwater acoustic environment. Despite this, the persistence of limitations caused by propagation delay, high collision rate, and limited energy in underwater communication remains, representing the most formidable hurdles in ensuring the successful transmission of data gathered by sensor nodes. To address these challenges, we employ a machine learning (ML)-based optimal cooperating node selection for each hop, considering the Shortest propagation delay, minimal residual Energy, and a low Collision rate (referred to as SEC). For this purpose, we initially assemble the sensor nodes to create a list of cooperative nodes, considering the aspect of SEC. Then, using an assembled list of cooperating sensor nodes, we employ ML-based algorithms, such as reinforcement learning (RL-SEC), deep Q-networks (DQN-SEC), and deep deterministic policy gradient (DDPG-SEC), to predict the optimal cooperating node for each hop. The simulation results of the DDPG-SEC demonstrate a significant improvement of approximately 56% when compared with RL-SEC, DQN-SEC, and other state-of-the-art techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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