L-SYNC: Larger Degree Clustering Based Time-Synchronisation for Wireless Sensor Network
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
In many existing synchronization protocols within wireless sensor networks, the effect of routing algorithm in synchronization precision of two remote nodes is not being considered. In several protocols such as SLTP, this issue is considered for local time estimation of a remote node. Cluster creation is according to ID technique. This technique incurs an increase in cluster overlapping and eventually the routing algorithm will be affected and requires more hops to move from one cluster to another remote cluster. In this article, we present L-SYNC method, which creates large degree clusters for wireless sensor networks synchronization. Using large degree clustering, L-SYNC can reduce path hops. Also, LSYNC uses linear regression method to calculate clock offset and skew in each cluster. Therefore, it is capable to compute skew and offset intervals between each node and its head cluster and, in other words, it can estimate the local time of remote nodes in future and past. To estimate the local time for remote nodes, routing algorithm is used and conversion technique is performed in each time changing hop. The fewer L-SYNC hops could increase the precision. Simulation results illustrate that monotonous clustering formation can increase the precision in synchronization. However, more overhead and time period are needed for clustering formation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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