Data aggregation in wireless sensor networks: A comparison of collection tree protocols and gossip algorithms
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
Decentralized data aggregation is a canonical task in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). Nodes are independently gathering measurements and the goal is to fuse this data into a unified aggregate. In this paper we compare the performance of the Collection Tree Protocol (CTP) with that of two different gossip algorithms, pairwise randomized gossip and broadcast gossip. We measure performance in terms of the number of transmissions required to compute and disseminate the average to all nodes in the network (i.e., distributed averaging). CTP aggregates and disseminates information along a spanning tree; it thus is very efficient for aggregation, but establishing and maintaining the spanning tree in a decentralized manner involves non-negligible overhead. Gossip algorithms are fully decentralized and only use peer-to-peer communications (i.e., no routing); consequently, they involve little overhead for setup and maintenance, but the actual aggregate computation is slower to converge. Our simulations show that broadcast gossip requires significantly fewer transmissions than CTP in networks with more than 100 nodes when network connectivity is dynamic or unrealiable, and CTP and broadcast gossip offer comparable performance in smaller networks.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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