Q-RPL: Q-Learning-Based Routing Protocol for Advanced Metering Infrastructure in Smart Grids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficient and reliable data routing is critical in Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) within Smart Grids, dictating the overall network performance and resilience. This paper introduces Q-RPL, a novel Q-learning-based Routing Protocol designed to enhance routing decisions in AMI deployments based on wireless mesh technologies. Q-RPL leverages the principles of Reinforcement Learning (RL) to dynamically select optimal next-hop forwarding candidates, adapting to changing network conditions. The protocol operates on top of the standard IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL), integrating it with intelligent decision-making capabilities. Through extensive simulations carried out in real map scenarios, Q-RPL demonstrates a significant improvement in key performance metrics such as packet delivery ratio, end-to-end delay, and compliant factor compared to the standard RPL implementation and other benchmark algorithms found in the literature. The adaptability and robustness of Q-RPL mark a significant advancement in the evolution of routing protocols for Smart Grid AMI, promising enhanced efficiency and reliability for future intelligent energy systems. The findings of this study also underscore the potential of Reinforcement Learning to improve networking protocols.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".