A node scheduling scheme for energy conservation in large wireless sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In wireless sensor networks that consist of a large number of low‐power, short‐lived, unreliable sensors, one of the main design challenges is to obtain long system lifetime without sacrificing system original performances (sensing coverage and sensing reliability). In this paper, we propose a node‐scheduling scheme, which can reduce system overall energy consumption, therefore increasing system lifetime, by identifying redundant nodes in respect of sensing coverage and then assigning them an off‐duty operation mode that has lower energy consumption than the normal on‐duty one. Our scheme aims to completely preserve original sensing coverage theoretically. Practically, sensing coverage degradation caused by location error, packet loss and node failure is very limited, not more than 1% as shown by our experimental results. In addition, the experimental results illustrate that certain redundancy is still guaranteed after node‐scheduling, which we believe can provide enough sensing reliability in many applications. We implement the proposed scheme in NS‐2 as an extension of the LEACH protocol and compare its energy consumption with the original LEACH. Simulation results exhibit noticeably longer system lifetime after introducing our scheme than before. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".