MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015756483 · doi:10.1109/mass.2012.6708521

Cellular automaton based algorithms for depth adjustment in underwater mobile sensor networks

2012· article· en· W2015756483 on OpenAlexaff
Salimur Choudhury, Kai Salomaa, Selim G. Akl

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)AlgorithmWireless sensor networkComputer scienceProbabilistic logicUnderwaterAutomatonCellular automatonArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three dimensional wireless sensor networks have been extensively studied due, in part, to their applications in underwater sensing. Often algorithmic solutions to analogous problems in two and three dimensions, respectively, can be significantly different. Though there have been many algorithms proposed for two dimensional sensor movement problems, there are very few in the case of three dimensional networks. In this paper we propose cellular automaton based probabilistic depth adjustment algorithms for sensors in underwater networks. Sensors are initially deployed close to the surface and our main goal is to disperse them vertically to maximize the coverage of the network while maintaining the connectivity. We compare our proposed algorithms for three different pairs of communication (R <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">c</sub> ) and sensing (R <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">s</sub> ) radii. We find that for R <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">c</sub> = 3 and R <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">s</sub> = 1, our algorithm finds the optimal solution. For the other two pairs the algorithm finds solutions that are reasonably close to the used benchmark solutions.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207