Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing field coverage is a key task in many sensor network applications. With unevenly distributed static sensors, quality coverage with acceptable network lifetime is often difficult to achieve. Fortunately, recent advances on embedded and robotic systems make mobile sensors possible, and we suggest that a small set of mobile sensors can be leveraged toward a cost-effective solution for field coverage. There are, however, a series of fundamental questions to be answered in such a hybrid network of static and mobile sensors: (1) Given the expected coverage quality and system lifetime, how many mobile sensors should be deployed? (2) What are the necessary coverage contributions from each type of sensors? (3) What working and moving patterns should the sensors adopt to achieve the desired coverage contributions? In this article, we offer an analytical study on these problems, and the results lead to a practical system design. Specifically, we present an optimal algorithm for calculating the contributions from different types of sensors, which fully exploits the potentials of the mobile sensors and maximizes the network lifetime. We then present a random walk model for the mobile sensors. The model is distributed with very low control overhead. Its parameters can be fine-tuned to match the moving capability of different mobile sensors and the demands from a broad spectrum of applications. A node collaboration scheme is then introduced to further enhance the system performance. We demonstrate through analysis and simulation that, in our mobile assisted design, a small set of mobile sensors can effectively address the uneven distribution of the static sensors and significantly improve the coverage quality.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".