Cluster-Based Correlated Data Gathering in Wireless Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of optimal cluster-based data gathering in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) when nearby readings are spatially correlated. Due to the dense nature of WSNs, data samples taken from nearby locations are statistically similar. We show how this data correlation can be exploited to reduce the amount of data to be transmitted in the network and thus conserve energy. While much attention in recent years has been paid to analyzing and optimizing cluster-based WSNs from various perspectives, the problem of energy-efficient clustering of WSNs in presence of data correlation is not yet fully explored. In this paper, we model a single-cluster network and analytically characterize the optimal cluster size subject to its distance from the sink as well as the degree of correlation. Contrary to existing approaches, our findings show that heterogeneous-sized clusters, where the clusters further from the sink are larger, are more energy-efficient. We also propose a heuristic greedy clustering algorithm to find a near-optimal solution to the problem of energy-efficient clustering. Simulation results confirm the effectiveness of having heterogeneous-sized clusters in WSNs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".