Optimized relay placement for WSNs federation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in sensing and wireless communication technologies have enabled a wide spectrum of Outdoor Environment Monitoring applications. In such applications, several wireless sensor network sectors tend to collaborate to achieve more sophisticated missions that require the existence of a communication backbone connecting (federating) different sectors. Federating these sectors is an intricate task because of the huge distances between them and because of the harsh operational conditions. A natural choice in defeating these challenges is to have multiple relay nodes (RNs) that provide vast coverage and sustain the network connectivity in harsh environments. However, these RNs are expensive; thus, the least possible number of such devices should be deployed. Furthermore, because of the harsh operational conditions in Outdoor Environment Monitoring applications, fault tolerance becomes crucial, which imposes further challenges; RNs should be deployed in such a way that tolerates failures in some links or nodes. In this paper, we propose two optimized relay placement strategies with the objective of federating disjoint wireless sensor network sectors with the maximum connectivity under a cost constraint on the total number of RNs to be deployed. The performance of the proposed approach is validated and assessed through extensive simulations and comparisons assuming practical considerations in outdoor environments. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (Random in size (of SNs) and positions.)
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it