On the Energy Efficiency of LT Codes in Proactive Wireless Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an in-depth analysis on the energy efficiency of Luby transform (LT) codes with frequency shift keying (FSK) modulation in a wireless sensor network (WSN) over Rayleigh fading channels with path-loss. We describe a proactive system model according to a flexible duty-cycling mechanism utilized in practical sensor apparatus. The present analysis is based on realistic parameters including the effect of channel bandwidth used in the IEEE 802.15.4 standard, active mode duration, and computation energy. A comprehensive analysis, supported by some simulation studies on the probability mass function of the LT code rate and coding gain, shows that among uncoded FSK and various classical channel coding schemes, the optimized LT coded FSK is the most energy-efficient scheme for distancedgreater than the predetermined threshold leveldT, where the optimization is performed over coding and modulation parameters. In addition, although the optimized uncoded FSK outperforms coded schemes forddT, the energy gap between LT coded and uncoded FSK is negligible forddTcompared to the other coded schemes. These results come from the flexibility of the LT code to adjust its rate to suit instantaneous channel conditions and suggest that LT codes are beneficial in practical low-power WSNs with dynamic position sensor nodes.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".