Mobility-Aided Wireless Sensor Network Localization via Semidefinite Programming
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
In this paper, considering a mobile wireless sensor network, we study the problem of exploiting sensor mobility information in the process of sensor localization under two range measurement models, namely the time-of-arrival (TOA) model and the received signal strength (RSS) model. To do so, for each model, we first derive the maximum likelihood (ML) location estimator for the case of error-free velocity measurements. As the corresponding optimization problems are non-convex, we resort to semi-definite relaxation (SDR) techniques to find approximate solutions to each problem using semi-definite programming (SDP). We then extend our results to the cases where the velocity measurements are subject to measurement errors. Our simulation results show that exploiting the mobility information in the localization process can significantly improve the performance of the sensor localization. Moreover, mobility-aided localization has the potential to address some of typical positioning problems, such as sensitivity to the ranging measurement errors and the requirement on the number of the anchors needed to uniquely localize the 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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