Optimal Placement of Relay Nodes in Two-Tiered, Fault Tolerant Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nodes in sensor networks are often prone to failure, particularly when deployed in hostile territories, where chances of damage/destruction are significantly higher. There is also the possibility for the loss of connectivity between nodes due to the inherent limitations of the wireless communication medium. Therefore, a sensor network should be designed in such a way that the network is able to continue to operate, even if some of the nodes/links in the network fail. The scalability and the lifetime of sensor networks are affected by the limited transmission range and the battery power of sensor nodes. Recently, relay nodes have been proposed for balanced data gathering, reduction of transmission range, connectivity and fault tolerance. In hierarchical sensor networks using relay nodes, sensor nodes are arranged in clusters and higher-powered relay nodes can be used as cluster heads. Finding the minimum number of such relay nodes, along with their locations, so that each sensor node can communicate with at least ks(ks= 1,2...) relay nodes and the relay node network is kr-connected (kr= 1,2...), is known to be a difficult problem. Some recent works in this area have proposed heuristic solutions for the the special cases of ks= 1 or 2 and kr= 1 or 2. In this paper, we have presented a generalized integer linear program (ILP) formulation capable of generating exact solutions for arbitrary values of ksand kr.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".