MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115880660 · doi:10.1109/tim.2012.2214952

Probabilistic Sensing Model for Sensor Placement Optimization Based on Line-of-Sight Coverage

2012· article· en· W2115880660 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCentre de Recherches MathématiquesDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsProbabilistic logicComputer scienceSimulated annealingOptimization problemTerrainWireless sensor networkCovariance matrixStatistical modelReal-time computingAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a probabilistic sensor model for the optimization of sensor placement. Traditional schemes rely on simple sensor behaviour and environmental factors. The consequences of these oversimplifications are unrealistic simulation of sensor performance and, thus, suboptimal sensor placement. In this paper, we develop a novel probabilistic sensing model for sensors with line-of-sight-based coverage (e.g., cameras) to tackle the sensor placement problem for these sensors. The probabilistic sensing model consists of membership functions for sensing range and sensing angle, which takes into consideration sensing capacity probability as well as critical environmental factors such as terrain topography. We then implement several optimization schemes for sensor placement optimization, including simulated annealing, limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno method, and covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.200 · 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