Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

High-Accuracy and Efficient DV-Hop Localization for IoT Using Hop Loss

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a first-hop connectivity check can replace predicted hop-count computation in DV-Hop loss, and shows this speeds up localization by 30–40% while improving accuracy.

desk verdict The proof is correct but only detects connectivity errors; the accuracy gains need stronger evidence and better isolation from the distance-loss baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19827 v1 pith:XKA43DF7 submitted 2024-12-18 cs.NI

Zhengdi Shen , Qiran Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords IoTlocalizationDV-Hophoplossmulti-objectiveoptimizationconnectivityconsistencyrange-freewirelesssensornetworks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a new hop-loss objective for DV-Hop localization in IoT networks, where unknown nodes estimate positions from hop counts to anchors. The existing hop-loss approach penalizes differences between real and predicted hop counts, but recomputing predicted hop counts requires a shortest-path search in every optimization iteration and its discrete form ignores hop errors when the real hop count is three or more. The new distance-based connectivity consistency (DCC) loss activates a penalty exactly when real and predicted first-hop connectivity disagree, with an individual loss of $|d^{\mathrm{pred}}_{i,j} - R|$, the distance between predicted positions minus the communication radius. The authors prove that any hop-count error somewhere in the network forces at least one such first-hop inconsistency, so DCC has full coverage of hop errors, and because only distances are compared the loss is continuous and cheap to compute. In simulations on random, C-shaped, O-shaped, and X-shaped networks, DCC achieves lower mean localization error than the compared DV-Hop variants in most settings and reduces total computation time by roughly 30–40% relative to the hop-loss baseline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the activation condition $\mathrm{AC}^{\mathrm{CC}}_{i,j}$, which equals 1 exactly when one network has hop count 1 between a pair and the other does not, together with the individual loss $\mathrm{IL}^{\mathrm{DST}}_{i,j} = |d^{\mathrm{pred}}_{i,j} - R|$. The proof of Proposition 1 runs along a shortest path: if the predicted hop count is $h$ and the real hop count is larger, the real hops along the $h$ predicted edges must sum to at least the real hop count, so at least one predicted edge must be a non-edge in the real network; the argument is symmetric when the real hop count is smaller. This reduces global hop-error detection to local first-hop checks and lets the loss be evaluated as a continuous function of distances, which removes the shortest-path computation and creates a smoother optimization surface.

What would settle it

Run the DCC objective alone, without the DEMN distance loss, on a predicted layout that preserves all connectivities but is translated or rotated from the true positions; if $\mathrm{HL}^{\mathrm{DCC}}=0$ and the optimizer cannot move the layout back, then the full-coverage-of-hop-errors guarantee is only a detection guarantee and the reported accuracy improvements come from the distance-loss objective. A second check is to search small random networks for a case with any hop error but no first-hop connectivity mismatch, which would disprove Proposition 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the discrete, shortest-path-dependent hop-loss term in DV-Hop can be replaced by a first-order connectivity-consistency term without losing any hop-error information. The activation condition $\mathrm{AC}^{\mathrm{CC}}_{i,j}$ flags node pairs whose real connectivity (hop count 1) differs from their predicted connectivity, and the individual loss is $\mathrm{IL}^{\mathrm{DST}}_{i,j} = |d^{\mathrm{pred}}_{i,j} - R|$, so the total loss is $\mathrm{HL}^{\mathrm{DCC}} = \sum_{i,j} \mathrm{IL}^{\mathrm{DST}}_{i,j}\, \mathrm{AC}^{\mathrm{CC}}_{i,j}$. Proposition 1 shows that whenever $\mathrm{Hop}^{\mathrm{real}}_{i,j} \neq \mathrm{Hop}^{\mathrm{pred}}_{i,j}$ for any pair, some pair along the predicted or real shortest path has $\mathrm{AC}^{\mathrm{CC}}=1$, giving full coverage of hop errors. The loss is continuous in the node coordinates, making small position changes visible during optimization, and evaluating it requires only pairwise distance comparisons, not shortest-path searches. In the reported experiments, DCC matches or beats the compared algorithms in mean localization error in most settings, with the largest gains when the number of anchors is small and the communication radius is large, and it cuts total computation time by about 30–40% relative to the DEMN-DV-Hop baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy gain rests on the separate DEMN distance loss pulling predicted positions toward the true ones, because DCC's hop loss is zero whenever predicted and real connectivity match, no matter how far the predicted positions are from the truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hop-loss objectives become affordable for large networks and real-time IoT localization, because each optimization update requires only $O(N^2)$ distance comparisons instead of an all-pairs shortest-path computation on the predicted graph.
  • The optimization surface is continuous in node coordinates, so small position adjustments change the loss instead of being masked by discrete hop-count bins.
  • Hop errors with real hop counts of three or more, which the baseline hop loss deliberately ignores, are now penalized indirectly whenever they produce a first-hop connectivity mismatch.
  • The accuracy advantage is largest when anchors are few and the communication radius is large, exactly the regime where first-hop connectivity carries most of the geometric information.
  • Used together with the DEMN distance loss in the same multi-objective genetic optimizer, DCC gives the best mean localization error in most simulated topologies and anchor/radius settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because $\mathrm{HL}^{\mathrm{DCC}}$ is zero whenever predicted and real connectivity agree, a prediction that preserves all connections but is rotated, translated, or otherwise displaced from the true layout contributes no hop-loss signal; the paper's accuracy result therefore depends on the DEMN distance-loss objective for geometric refinement, and the ablation study does not isolate that depend
  • The activation condition only distinguishes within $R$ from beyond $R$, so many distinct layouts share the same loss value; the hop loss alone cannot identify a unique solution, and DCC's practical success relies on the multi-objective setting breaking the remaining symmetries.
  • The same reduction — replacing discrete graph-distance discrepancies by first-hop consistency checks plus a continuous distance penalty — could apply to other graph-embedding and network-calibration problems where predicted topology is cheap to evaluate.
  • A natural testable extension is to smooth $\mathrm{AC}^{\mathrm{CC}}$ into continuous weights, as the paper's future-work section suggests, and to measure whether the accuracy gains persist when connectivity mismatch is partial rather than binary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new hop-loss objective, DCC, for DV-Hop-based IoT localization. Instead of computing predicted hop-counts by shortest-path routines, DCC defines an activation condition AC_CC that flags first-order connectivity mismatches and an individual loss IL_DST equal to |Dist_pred - R| for those mismatches. The paper proves Proposition 1, which states that any hop-count discrepancy between real and predicted networks implies at least one pair with AC_CC=1, and it claims that this gives full coverage of hop errors. The loss is combined with the DEMN distance loss in a multi-objective genetic algorithm. Simulations over four topologies, with anchor counts 5-30 and communication radii 25-40, are used to claim accuracy improvements over several DV-Hop variants and a 30%-40% reduction in total computation time relative to the baseline DEMN-DV-Hop.

Significance. If the accuracy claim held, the contribution would be practically valuable: DCC removes the need to recompute predicted hop-counts each optimization step, replaces a discontinuous loss with a continuous one, and Proposition 1 is a clean, correct graph-theoretic observation. The proof is self-contained and the design does not fit parameters to the test data, so there is no circularity concern. The efficiency direction is plausible and the empirical time savings, if confirmed, would be useful. However, the accuracy advantage is not established by the evidence as presented: the tables report only means, the single confidence-interval plot covers only one scenario, and the ablation study does not separate topology correction from distance refinement. The central claim of the paper therefore needs additional support.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (15)] Proposition 1 guarantees that any hop-count discrepancy yields some pair with AC_CC=1, but it does not guarantee a positive loss. In the case Hop_real_{i,j} > 1 and Hop_pred_{i,j} = 1, the condition Dist_pred_{i,j} <= R can hold with equality; Eq. (15) then gives IL_DST = 0. Thus a genuine hop error can produce zero contribution to HL_DCC. The statement in §3.3 that "all hop errors effectively penalized" is therefore stronger than what is proved. The proof should be extended to strict positivity, or the coverage claim should be restricted to AC_CC detection rather than nonzero loss.
  2. [§4.2, Tables 4-7] All accuracy comparisons are reported as means, but no variance or confidence interval is given for any of the 95 scenarios; Fig. 5 shows a 95% CI only for Na=20, R=25. The claim of "notable improvements" is not statistically established, particularly where the reported differences are small (e.g., Table 7, Na=15, R=30: 22.22 vs 23.07 for DEMN-DV-Hop). The authors should report per-scenario distributions, error bars, or a paired-significance analysis across the full set of experiments.
  3. [§4.3, Table 8] The ablation study does not isolate the contribution of HL_DCC to localization accuracy. Every variant uses the DEMN distance loss as its first objective, and HL_DCC vanishes on connectivity-preserving deformations, so the reported improvements over DEMN-DV-Hop could be driven by the distance baseline. Moreover, the ablation shows DCC worse than ACCC for Na=5, R=25 (67.02 vs 61.85), and no confidence intervals are given for Table 8. An experiment that starts from a connectivity-correct but position-wrong solution would clarify whether HL_DCC refines coordinates or only fixes topology.
  4. [§4.2, Fig. 7] The 30%-40% time reduction is a central claim, but it is supported only by a plot for randomly distributed networks, with no error bars, no hardware/implementation details, and no per-phase breakdown. Since DCC still computes O(N^2) pairwise distances while the baseline uses a BFS-based hop-count computation, the asymptotic and empirical complexity comparison should be stated more carefully and measured across all four topologies, not only the random one.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Affiliations] "Courant Institue of Mathematical Sciences" should be "Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences."
  2. [§2, Eq. (1)-(3)] The notation for hop counts is inconsistent: Eq. (1) uses hop_i,j and Eq. (2) uses hop_i,k, while Eq. (3) uses Hop_real_{i,j}. Please use a single consistent symbol.
  3. [Fig. 5] The x-axis label "DEMDEMN" appears to be a typo for "DEMN."
  4. [References] Reference [11] and reference [16] are the same work (Niculescu and Nath, DV based positioning in ad hoc networks) and should not be listed twice.
  5. [§4.1] The sentence "The first Na nodes, which are randomly distributed, are selected as anchor nodes" is ambiguous; Fig. 4 suggests the anchors are chosen by position, so the selection mechanism should be described precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DCC is a newly defined objective, Proposition 1 is a self-contained graph lemma, and the accuracy benchmarks are external comparisons rather than reconstructions of fitted values.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is the definition HL_DCC = sum of IL_DST_{i,j} * AC_CC_{i,j} (Eq. 16), where AC_CC_{i,j} (Eq. 8) and IL_DST_{i,j} (Eq. 15) are defined directly from predicted and real connectivity and distances. No parameter is fitted to the MLE benchmark data; the communication radius, optimizer settings, and the DEMN distance-loss baseline are taken from prior work [14] and held fixed when comparing DCC with DEMN-DV-Hop. Proposition 1 is a graph-theoretic statement proved by taking a shortest path and applying the triangle inequality for hop counts; it does not assume the conclusion it proves. The only self-citation by the present authors ([31], UBETI) appears in a list of related irregular-area algorithms and is not used to justify DCC's design, uniqueness, or correctness. The skeptic's observation that HL_DCC vanishes on connectivity-preserving deformations is a valid limitation of the accuracy guarantee, but it is a weakness of the heuristic, not a circularity: the loss is not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and the reported improvements are empirical comparisons against external algorithms. No circular step can be exhibited, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted by DCC; the communication radius R and the optimizer hyperparameters are treated as inputs. The axioms are the graph-metric facts used in the coverage proof plus two domain simplifications about connectivity and the loss's proxy behavior.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Hop-counts satisfy the triangle inequality, and edges on a shortest path have hop count 1.
    Used in the proof of Proposition 1 (Section 3.1, eq. 9-12) to show a hop error forces a first-order inconsistency on some path edge.
  • domain assumption The network uses a unit-disk connectivity model: two nodes are connected iff their Euclidean distance <= R.
    Assumed throughout the proposed AC and IL definitions (Sections 3.1-3.2) and in the simulation setup; in real IoT with obstacles and irregular radio propagation this model rarely holds exactly.
  • domain assumption The predicted node set is connected, so shortest paths exist for all pairs and Hop_pred is finite.
    The proof of Proposition 1 constructs paths of finite length between i and j; if the predicted graph has disconnected components the argument would need a separate case, which the paper does not discuss.
  • ad hoc to paper Moving predicted distances toward R is a useful proxy for moving them toward the true distances.
    Section 3.2 and Fig. 3 claim the direction toward Dist_real matches the direction toward smaller IL_DST; the actual loss only targets the boundary value R, not the unknown real distance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Accuracy and Efficient DV-Hop Localization for IoT Using Hop Loss." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XKA43DF7

@misc{pith2026241219827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Accuracy and Efficient DV-Hop Localization for IoT Using Hop Loss},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XKA43DF7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19827}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate localization is critical for Internet of Things (IoT) applications. Using hop loss in DV-Hop-based algorithms is a promising approach. Nevertheless, challenges lie in overcoming the computational complexity caused by re-calculating the predicted hop-counts, and how to further optimize the modeling for better accuracy. In this paper, a novel hop loss modeling, distance-based connectivity consistency (DCC), is proposed. By focusing on the first order connectivity, DCC avoids computing predicted hop-counts, and significantly reduces the time complexity. We also provide a proof to theoretically guarantee that this design achieves a full coverage of all hop errors. In addition, by computing a continuous loss function instead of the discrete hop-count errors, DCC further improves the localization accuracy. In the evaluations, DCC demonstrates notable improvements in accuracy over other highly regarded algorithms, and reduces 30% to 40% total computation time compared with the baseline algorithm using hop loss.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 199, 105903 (2021)

    Aghdam, Z.N., Rahmani, A.M., Hosseinzadeh, M.: The role of the internet of things in healthcare: Future trends and challenges. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 199, 105903 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Transportation Research Procedia 63, 2392–2400 (2022)

    Ushakov, D., Dudukalov, E., Kozlova, E., Shatila, K.: The internet of things impact on smart public transportation. Transportation Research Procedia 63, 2392–2400 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Computer Communications 166, 125–139 (2021)

    Malik, P.K., Sharma, R., Singh, R., Gehlot, A., Satapathy, S.C., Alnumay, W.S., Pelusi, D., Ghosh, U., Nayak, J.: Industrial internet of things and its applications in industry 4.0: State of the art. Computer Communications 166, 125–139 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Scalable Distance-based Multi-Agent Relative State Estimation via Block Multiconvex Optimization

    Wu, T., Zaitian, G., Wang, Q., Gao, F.: Scalable distance-based multi-agent relative state estimation via block multiconvex optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20883 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Future Internet 13(8), 210 (2021)

    Ghorpade, S., Zennaro, M., Chaudhari, B.: Survey of localization for internet of things nodes: Approaches, challenges and open issues. Future Internet 13(8), 210 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing 40(12), 6325–6339 (2021)

    Xiong, W., Schindelhauer, C., So, H.C., Wang, Z.: Maximum correntropy criterion for robust toa-based localization in nlos environments. Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing 40(12), 6325–6339 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    IEEE Sensors Journal23(4), 3878–3888 (2023) 17

    Friedrichs, G.R., Elmansouri, M.A., Filipovic, D.S.: Angle-of-arrival sensing using a machine learning enhanced amplitude-only system. IEEE Sensors Journal23(4), 3878–3888 (2023) 17

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Technologies 9(2), 42 (2021)

    Alanezi, M.A., Bouchekara, H.R., Javaid, M.S.: Range-based localization of a wireless sensor network for internet of things using received signal strength indicator and the most valuable player algorithm. Technologies 9(2), 42 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE transactions on microwave theory and techniques 52(9), 2105–2122 (2004)

    Gresham, I., Jenkins, A., Egri, R., Eswarappa, C., Kinayman, N., Jain, N., Ander- son, R., Kolak, F., Wohlert, R., Bawell, S.P., et al.: Ultra-wideband radar sensors for short-range vehicular applications. IEEE transactions on microwave theory and techniques 52(9), 2105–2122 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    ISBS Proceedings Archive 42(1), 60 (2024)

    Baˇ ci´ c, B., Feng, C., Li, W.: Jy61 imu sensor external validity: A framework for advanced pedometer algorithm personalisation. ISBS Proceedings Archive 42(1), 60 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Telecommuni- cation Systems 22(1), 267–280 (2003)

    Niculescu, D., Nath, B.: Dv based positioning in ad hoc networks. Telecommuni- cation Systems 22(1), 267–280 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    International Journal of Information Technology 12(3), 975–981 (2020)

    Gupta, V., Singh, B.: Study of range free centroid based localization algo- rithm and its improvement using particle swarm optimization for wireless sensor networks under log normal shadowing. International Journal of Information Technology 12(3), 975–981 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2024)

    Liu, X., Yuan, T., Wang, J., Li, X., Xie, W.: Range-free localization approach based on triple-anchor centroid and qagwo for anisotropic wsns. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2024)

    Wang, P., Wang, X., Li, W., Fan, X., Zhao, D.: Dv-hop localization based on distance estimation using multi-node and hop loss in iot. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02044 (2017)

    Madkour, A., Aref, W.G., Rehman, F.U., Rahman, M.A., Basalamah, S.: A survey of shortest-path algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02044 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Telecommuni- cation Systems 22, 267–280 (2003)

    Niculescu, D., Nath, B.: Dv based positioning in ad hoc networks. Telecommuni- cation Systems 22, 267–280 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 72(4), 5290– 5299 (2022)

    Wang, P., Zhou, R., Fan, X., Zhao, D.: A distance estimation model for dv-hop localization in wsns. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 72(4), 5290– 5299 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05709 (2024)

    Wang, P., Wang, H., Li, W., Fan, X., Zhao, D.: Probability-based distance esti- mation model for 3d dv-hop localization in wsns. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05709 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Applied Soft Computing 68, 39–52 (2018) 18

    Cui, L., Xu, C., Li, G., Ming, Z., Feng, Y., Lu, N.: A high accurate localiza- tion algorithm with dv-hop and differential evolution for wireless sensor network. Applied Soft Computing 68, 39–52 (2018) 18

    2018

  12. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 9(1), 60–72 (2009)

    Xiao, B., Chen, L., Xiao, Q., Li, M.: Reliable anchor-based sensor localization in irregular areas. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 9(1), 60–72 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    IEEE Sensors Journal 22(7), 7267–7276 (2022)

    Wang, J., Cheng, L., Tu, Y., Gu, S.: A novel localization approach for irregular wireless sensor networks based on anchor segmentation. IEEE Sensors Journal 22(7), 7267–7276 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Wireless Personal Communications 130(3), 2149–2173 (2023)

    Sun, H., Li, H., Meng, Z., Wang, D.: An improvement of dv-hop localization algo- rithm based on improved adaptive genetic algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Wireless Personal Communications 130(3), 2149–2173 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences 34(10), 8102–8111 (2022)

    Jia, W., Qi, G., Liu, M., Zhou, J.: A high accuracy localization algorithm with dv- hop and fruit fly optimization in anisotropic wireless networks. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences 34(10), 8102–8111 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Neurocomputing 458, 500–510 (2021)

    Ouyang, A., Lu, Y., Liu, Y., Wu, M., Peng, X.: An improved adaptive genetic algorithm based on dv-hop for locating nodes in wireless sensor networks. Neurocomputing 458, 500–510 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 103, 42–52 (2017)

    Cui, Z., Sun, B., Wang, G., Xue, Y., Chen, J.: A novel oriented cuckoo search algorithm to improve dv-hop performance for cyber–physical systems. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 103, 42–52 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Ad Hoc Networks 139, 103035 (2023)

    Cao, Y., Xu, J.: Dv-hop-based localization algorithm using optimum anchor nodes subsets for wireless sensor network. Ad Hoc Networks 139, 103035 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Wireless Networks, 1–16 (2024)

    Zhang, L., Deng, Y., Fu, J., Li, L., Hu, J., Di, K.: A dv-hop localization algorithm corrected based on multi-strategy sparrow algorithm in sea-surface wireless sensor networks. Wireless Networks, 1–16 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    The Journal of Supercomputing, 1–26 (2024)

    Mani, V., Kaushik, A.: Three-dimensional dv-hop based on improved adaptive differential evolution algorithm. The Journal of Supercomputing, 1–26 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    The Journal of Super- computing 77, 3044–3061 (2021)

    Kanwar, V., Kumar, A.: Dv-hop-based range-free localization algorithm for wireless sensor network using runner-root optimization. The Journal of Super- computing 77, 3044–3061 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Electronics Letters54(21), 1243– 1245 (2018)

    Yan, X., Sun, L., Zhou, J., Song, A.: Dv-hop localisation algorithm based on optimal weighted least square in irregular areas. Electronics Letters54(21), 1243– 1245 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2024)

    Wang, Q., Shen, Z.: Ubeti: A dv-hop localization algorithm for iot with distance upper bound estimation by triangle inequality. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    International Journal of Sensor Networks 38(1), 1–11 19 (2022)

    Tang, F., Pedrycz, W.: An improved dv-hop algorithm based on differential sim- ulated annealing evolution. International Journal of Sensor Networks 38(1), 1–11 19 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Wireless Personal Communications 129(3), 2181–2198 (2023)

    Hu, X., Wang, M., Yan, J., Deng, J., Dong, H.: Nrap: Nearest reliable anchors- based wireless positioning for irregular multi-hop networks. Wireless Personal Communications 129(3), 2181–2198 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Telecommunication Systems 61, 93–106 (2016)

    Tomic, S., Mezei, I.: Improvements of dv-hop localization algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Telecommunication Systems 61, 93–106 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Ad Hoc Networks 152, 103323 (2024)

    Rayavarapu, V.C.S.R., Mahapatro, A.: Moans dv-hop: An anchor node subset based localization algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Ad Hoc Networks 152, 103323 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Soft Computing 28(7), 6171–6183 (2024)

    Wang, P., Li, H., Cai, X.: 3d many-objective dv-hop localization model with nsga3. Soft Computing 28(7), 6171–6183 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 69(8), 8949–8958 (2020)

    Gui, L., Xiao, F., Zhou, Y., Shu, F., Val, T.: Connectivity based dv-hop local- ization for internet of things. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 69(8), 8949–8958 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Mobile Information Systems 2020(1), 8195309 (2020)

    Messous, S., Liouane, H.: Online sequential dv-hop localization algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Mobile Information Systems 2020(1), 8195309 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Tsinghua Science and Technology 28(5), 940–951 (2023)

    Liouane, O., Femmam, S., Bakir, T., Abdelali, A.B.: New online dv-hop algorithm via mobile anchor for wireless sensor network localization. Tsinghua Science and Technology 28(5), 940–951 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Computer Networks 235, 110013 (2023)

    Wang, X., Liu, Y., Ma, J., Dong, Y., Chen, J., Liu, Z.: A dv-hop opti- mization localization algorithm based on topological structure similarity in three-dimensional wireless sensor networks. Computer Networks 235, 110013 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 2020, 1–10 (2020)

    Li, T., Wang, C., Na, Q.: Research on dv-hop improved algorithm based on dual communication radius. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 2020, 1–10 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Neurocomputing 491, 172–185 (2022)

    Liu, J., Liu, M., Du, X., Stanimirovi, P.S., Jin, L.: An improved dv-hop algorithm for wireless sensor networks based on neural dynamics. Neurocomputing 491, 172–185 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 20(3), 965–982 (2021)

    Sun, G., Liu, Y., Chen, Z., Wang, A., Zhang, Y., Tian, D., Leung, V.C.M.: Energy efficient collaborative beamforming for reducing sidelobe in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 20(3), 965–982 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    IEEE Sensors Journal 19(21), 10003–10015 (2019) 20

    Cai, X., Wang, P., Du, L., Cui, Z., Zhang, W., Chen, J.: Multi-objective three- dimensional dv-hop localization algorithm with nsga-ii. IEEE Sensors Journal 19(21), 10003–10015 (2019) 20

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.