MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Role of Delay Tolerant Networks and Contact Graph Routing in Direct-to-Satellite IoT

2024· article· en· W4405601265 on OpenAlexafffund
Sebastián I. Montoya, Diego Maldonado, Juan A. Fraire, Sandra Céspedes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpportunistic and Delay-Tolerant Networks
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkSatelliteInternet of ThingsRouting (electronic design automation)Routing protocolDistributed computingComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the integration of Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) and Contact Graph Routing (CGR) within Direct-to-Satellite Internet of Things (DtS-IoT) networks, utilizing the FLoRaSat discrete-event simulator based on Omnet++, By incorporating a DTN model and the CGR algorithm, the study evaluates the efficacy of these technologies in optimizing data routing and handling across emerging Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite networks. The research delves into various satellite fleet configurations, including Star and Delta constellations, across different numbers of orbital planes and with the integration of opportunistic Inter-Satellite Links (ISLs). Results using the FLoRaSat simulator demonstrate that the DTN store-carry-and-forward approach over ISLs, enhanced by CGR, significantly reduces end-to-end delivery delays. Specifically, the implementation achieves an average end-to-end delivery delay as low as 10 minutes in 4-plane Star constellations with 24 satellites and immediate forwarding in 8-plane Delta constellations of equivalent size, underscoring the potential of DTN and CGR to improve the efficiency and reliability of emerging DtS-IoT.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOpportunistic and Delay-Tolerant NetworksFrench-language works237,207