Concentric Anchor Beacon Localization Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Networks
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
Many applications in wireless sensor networks require sensor nodes to obtain their absolute or relative geographical positions. Although various localization algorithms have been recently proposed, most of them require nodes to be equipped with range-determining hardware to obtain distance information. In this paper, we propose a concentric anchor beacon (CAB) localization algorithm for wireless sensor networks. CAB is a range-free approach and uses a small number of anchor nodes. Each anchor emits beacons at different power levels. From the information received by each beacon heard, nodes can determine in which annular ring they are located within each anchor. Each node uses the approximated center of intersection of the rings as its position estimate. We also propose two heuristics, namely CAB with equal area and CAB with equal width, to determine the transmitting power levels of the beacons. Simulation results show that the estimation error is reduced by half when anchors transmit beacons at two different power levels instead of at a single power level. CAB also gives a lower estimation error than some other range-free localization schemes (e.g., centroid and approximated point-in-triangulation) when the anchor-to-node range ratio is less than 4.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it