Auction-based node selection of optimal and concurrent responses for a risk-aware robotic sensor network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, an auction-based node selection technique is considered for a risk-aware Robotic Sensor Network (RSN) applied to Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP). The goal of this risk-aware RSN is to maintain a secure perimeter around the CIP, which is best maintained by detecting high-risk network events and mitigate them through a response involving the most suitable robotic nodes. These robotic nodes can operate without the use of a centralized system and select amongst themselves the nodes with the best fitness to risk mitigation plan. The robot node that is first aware of a high-risk event becomes an auctioneer. The risk mitigation task is advertised to the entire network. Each robotic node is responsible for calculating their bid metric (i.e. availability metric) for the risk mitigation task. We employ fuzzy logic in the process of the bid calculation, which incorporates the battery level, distance to the event, and redundant coverage to produce an appropriate bid value. The auctioneer only considers the top bidders. The nature of this system is to permit simultaneous mitigation plans to execute on a single RSN by effectively segmenting the network into discrete autonomous groups. Each autonomous group will utilize an evolutionary multi-objective algorithm - the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) - to optimize the segment's topology to mitigate the risk. A chromosome length is determined by the number of bids received, but the NSGA-II explored to separate solution spaces to achieve optimal Pareto results. The NSGA-II will seek optimal node positions and determine the optimal set of robotic nodes to utilize of the bids received. The NSGA-II will produce a set of optimized responses for each network segment for a security operator to pick the most suitable response.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".