Multisensor data fusion for water quality monitoring using wireless sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the application of hierarchical wireless sensor networks in water quality monitoring is investigated. Adopting a hierarchical structure, the set of sensors is divided into multiple clusters where the value of the sensing parameter is almost constant in each cluster. The members of each cluster transmit their sensing information to the local fusion center (LFC) of their corresponding cluster, where using some fusion rule, the received information is combined, and then possibly sent to a higher-level central fusion center (CFC). A two-phase processing scheme is also envisioned, in which the first phase is dedicated to detection in the LFC, and the second phase is dedicated to estimation in both the LFC and the CFC. The focus of the present paper is on the problem of decision fusion at the LFC: we propose hard- and soft-decision maximum a posteriori (MAP) algorithms, which exhibit flexibility in minimizing the total cost imposed by incorrect detections in the first phase. The proposed algorithms are simulated and compared with conventional fusion techniques. It is shown that the proposed techniques result in lower cost. Furthermore, when the number of sensors or the amount of contamination increases, the performance gap between the proposed algorithms and the existing methods also widens.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".