Concentric Anchor Beacon Localization Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Networks
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".