Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Naveen Rawat

dblp:140/9584 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1Computer networks · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer networks
1 paper
Routing and switching · 61% Network performance modeling · 30% Wireless networking · 9%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Routing and switching › wireless routing
cognitive radio network routing
0.212015
Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Cognitive Radio Networks · IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2015
Routing and switching
routing protocol
0.212015
Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Cognitive Radio Networks · IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2015
Network performance modeling › protocol performance analysis
routing protocol comparison
0.212015
Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Cognitive Radio Networks · IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2015
Wireless networking
cognitive radio
0.112015
Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Cognitive Radio Networks · IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

testbed experimentation · 0.2simulation · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Cognitive Radio Networks
abstract
Cognitive radio networks (CRNs) have emerged as a promising solution to the ever-growing demand for additional spectrum resources and more efficient spectrum utilization. A large number of routing protocols for CRNs have been proposed recently, each based on different design goals, and evaluated in different scenarios, under different assumptions. However, little is known about the relative performance of all these protocols, let alone the tradeoffs among their different design goals. In this paper, we conduct the first detailed, empirical performance comparison of three representative routing protocols for CRNs, under the same realistic set of assumptions. Our extensive simulation study shows that the performance of routing protocols in CRNs is affected by a number of factors, in addition to PU activity, some of which have been largely ignored by the majority of previous works. We find that different protocols perform well under different scenarios, and investigate the causes of the observed performance. Furthermore, we present a generic software architecture for the experimental evaluation of CRN routing protocols on a testbed based on the USRP2 platform, and compare the performance of two protocols on a 6 node testbed. The testbed results confirm the findings of our simulation study.
Li Sun 0003, Wei Zheng 0010, Naveen Rawat, Vikramsinh Sawant, Dimitrios Koutsonikolas
IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput.3
2013 Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols for Cognitive Radio Networks
abstract
Cognitive radio networks (CRNs) have emerged as a promising solution to the ever-growing demand for additional spectrum resources and more efficient spectrum utilization. A large number of routing protocols for CRNs have been proposed recently, each based on different design goals, and evaluated in different scenarios, under different assumptions. However, little is known about the relative performance of all these protocols, let alone the tradeoffs among their different design goals. In this paper, we conduct the first detailed, empirical performance comparison of three representative routing protocols for CRNs, under the same realistic set of assumptions. Our extensive simulation study shows that the performance of routing protocols in CRNs is affected by a number of factors, in addition to PU activity, some of which have been largely ignored by the majority of previous works. We find that different protocols perform well under different scenarios, and investigate the causes of the observed performance. Furthermore, we present a generic software architecture for the experimental evaluation of CRN routing protocols on a test bed based on the USRP2 platform, and compare the performance of two protocols on a 6 node test bed. The test bed results confirm the findings of our simulation study.
Li Sun 0003, Wei Zheng 0010, Naveen Rawat, Vikramsinh Sawant, Dimitrios Koutsonikolas
MASCOTS3