Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
When cellular sites lose power and backhaul after a disaster, short text mes- sages must hop between phones, shelters, and regional gateways over inter- mittent, low-rate links. Choosing the next hop is then a prediction problem: which neighbor is most likely to deliver the message before it expires? We present STAR (Stability-aware TAR routing), a fully local next-hop policy for the Taiwan Resilient Communication Network that (a) predicts route stability Ψ, the probability of on-time delivery, from discounted Bayesian posteriors over link frame success and availability combined with loop-free, authenti- cated distance-vector advertisements; (b) decides with a priority-aware rule that is risk-averse and replicates distress messages, yet explores with Thomp- son sampling on non-urgent traffic; and (c) learns from outcomes through fragment acknowledgments, signed end-to-end receipts treated as falsifiable deadlines, and overheard forwarding, which together calibrate trust in each neighbor’s route claims. In a discrete-event simulator with LoRa time-on-air and airtime-accounted control traffic, evaluated on 20 held-out seeds of a syn- thetic two-region disaster network, STAR delivered 97.7% of messages and all distress messages, against 89.6% for a loop-free ETX distance-vector baseline and 90.5% for PRoPHET, with 44% lower median latency than the former. After a simulated aftershock it delivered 92.8% versus 82.5% and 84.9%. Un- der route poisoning it retained several times the delivery of an unprotected distance-vector protocol, although replication-based protocols remained more robust. Gains vanish at saturation. All results are synthetic.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pinyen Cheng (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: