MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110722897 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2006.1660926

Transmission Scheduling for Sensor Network Lifetime Maximization: A Shortest Path Bandit Formulation

2006· article· en· W2110722897 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkScheduling (production processes)MaximizationMathematical optimizationShortest path problemComputer scienceIndependent and identically distributed random variablesJob shop schedulingDynamic priority schedulingFadingFair-share schedulingChannel (broadcasting)Computer networkMathematicsRandom variableTheoretical computer scienceQuality of serviceRouting (electronic design automation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses optimal sensor scheduling for maximizing network lifetime. We formulate this problem as a stochastic shortest-path multi-armed bandit problem. The optimal transmission scheduling policy is thus to choose the sensor with the largest Gittins index. Exploiting the underlying structure of the sensor scheduling problem, we derive a closed-form expression for the Gittins index. We show that choosing the sensor with the most residual energy is an optimal strategy when the channel fading is independently and identically distributed across sensors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207