Mission-aware placement of RF-based power transmitters in wireless sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) provide wide reach and coverage at low-cost which enable them to be utilized in various fields such as health, smart grid, industrial facilities and defense. One of the fundamental limitations of WSNs in long-lasting applications is the network lifetime. To overcome the battery constraint of sensor nodes, duty cycling, energy-efficient protocols and energy harvesting have been considered widely in the literature. A recently emerging energy harvesting technique, namely Radio Frequency (RF)-based wireless energy transfer promises to extend the lifetime of Wireless Rechargeable Sensor Networks (WRSN) with no dependency on intermittent ambient energy resources. In RF-based wireless energy transfer, deploying power transmitters to fixed locations is costly due to range limitations of wireless power. For this reason, mobile power transmitters that visit a few selected locations; i.e. landmarks are employed. Furthermore, in WSNs sensors are expected to perform certain tasks or missions during their lifetime. The achievement of each mission provides certain profits. In this paper, we aim to optimally select the landmarks for sensor nodes that participate in profit maximizing missions. We propose an Integer Linear Programming (ILP) model, namely Mission-Aware Placement of Wireless Power Transmitters (MAPIT) that optimizes the placement of RF-based chargers in the WRSN by maximizing the number of nodes receiving power from a landmark and those that contribute the maximum profit by achieving a mission. We show that the profit increases for low landmark limit since the number of nodes receiving power from a landmark increases under less landmarks. On the other hand, profit reduces by increased number of missions since the nodes participating to missions become spatially diverse.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".