Modeling and Analysis of Fault Detection and Fault Tolerance 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
Technological advancements in communications and embedded systems have led to the proliferation of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) in a wide variety of application domains. These application domains include but are not limited to mission-critical (e.g., security, defense, space, satellite) or safety-related (e.g., health care, active volcano monitoring) systems. One commonality across all WSN application domains is the need to meet application requirements (e.g., lifetime, reliability). Many application domains require that sensor nodes be deployed in harsh environments, such as on the ocean floor or in an active volcano, making these nodes more prone to failures. Sensor node failures can be catastrophic for critical or safety-related systems. This article models and analyzes fault detection and fault tolerance in WSNs. To determine the effectiveness and accuracy of fault detection algorithms, we simulate these algorithms using ns-2. We investigate the synergy between fault detection and fault tolerance and use the fault detection algorithms’ accuracies in our modeling of Fault-Tolerant (FT) WSNs. We develop Markov models for characterizing WSN reliability and Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) to facilitate WSN application-specific design. Results obtained from our FT modeling reveal that an FT WSN composed of duplex sensor nodes can result in as high as a 100% MTTF increase and approximately a 350% improvement in reliability over a Non-Fault-Tolerant (NFT) WSN. The article also highlights future research directions for the design and deployment of reliable and trustworthy WSNs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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