MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044702072 · doi:10.1109/secon.2010.5508243

Scheduling for Scalable Energy-Efficient Localization in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks

2010· article· en· W2044702072 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Gribben, Azzedine Boukerche, Richard W. Pazzi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrectnessScalabilityWireless ad hoc networkMobile ad hoc networkWireless sensor networkScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingUpper and lower boundsEfficient energy useLatency (audio)ComputationReal-time computingAlgorithmComputer networkWirelessMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing localization schemes in wireless ad hoc networks rely on redundant measurements from multiple devices with known positions in order to reduce error. However, when node density is high this can result in excessive localization messages with minimal improvement on position accuracy. In this work we present a scheduling algorithm to select a subset of active reference nodes to be used in localization, which has the effect of reducing message overhead, increasing network lifetime, and improving localization accuracy in dense mobile networks. We investigate the Cramer-Rao Lower Bound (CRLB) and existing single-hop localization techniques to determine the optimal average node density to ensure sufficient estimation accuracy. The correctness and effectiveness of the proposed scheme is evaluated through extensive simulation results, which show that in dense networks localization messages are greatly reduced and network lifetimes are more than doubled, while maintaining high estimation accuracy. Furthermore, computational time of localization algorithms is reduced, which effectively decreases accumulated error due to computation latency when locating a mobile device.

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 score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207