Randomized Robot-Assisted Relocation of Sensors for Coverage Repair in Wireless Sensor Networks
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 wireless sensor networks (WSN), stochastic node dropping and unpredictable node failure greatly impair coverage, creating sensing holes, while locally redundant sensors exist. If sensors are all equipped with locomotion, they will be able to relocate themselves to improve coverage. But this approach increases the complexity of hardware design for sensors as well as deployment budget. In this paper, we consider a small group of mobile robots to serve WSN. We propose an algorithm, named Randomized Robot-assisted Relocation of Static Sensors (R3S2), for coverage repair and a grid-based variant, called G-R3S2. By these algorithms, mobile robots move within the network to collect redundant sensors and deliver them to reported sensing hole positions. In R3S2, robots move completely at random and relocate encountered redundant sensors. In G-R3S2, the robots random movement is restricted on a virtual grid, and the robots continually move to the next least recently visited grid point so as to increase the chance of discovering redundant sensors and sensing holes. Through extensive simulation, we show their effectiveness and practicality and evaluate their performance. The simulation results indicate in particular that G-R3S2 outperforms R3S2 across all measured metrics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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