MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976359041 · doi:10.1109/lcn.2012.6423677

Energy efficient data survivability for WSNs via Decentralized Erasure Codes

2012· article· en· W1976359041 on OpenAlexaff
Louai Al-Awami, Hossam S. Hassanein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivabilityComputer scienceErasure codeLinear network codingErasureRedundancy (engineering)Wireless sensor networkDistributed computingCoding (social sciences)Data redundancyReliability (semiconductor)Computer networkDecoding methodsAlgorithmPower (physics)Database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing reliability solutions for WSNs poses intricate challenges due to limitations in processing power and available energy. Such networks are often deployed in harsh and inaccessible environments and are therefore required to be highly reliable. However, reliability normally translates to redundancy in hardware and other resources implying both complexity and higher costs. In this study, we consider data survivability in WSNs. We present a data-centric framework based on Decentralized Erasure Codes (DEC) to increase the likelihood of data survivability in case of sensor nodes failure. The proposed framework enables network engineers to estimate the redundancy in hardware and data to achieve a given data survivability level. We also show two approaches to reduce the energy requirements of the proposed coding scheme using Random Linear Network Coding (RLNC). In addition to being decentralized, the proposed schemes are low in complexity requiring only binary coding over F <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> . We evaluate the performance of the proposed schemes by simulations and compare them to schemes with no network coding.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207