System-level calibration for data fusion in wireless sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless sensor networks are typically composed of low-cost sensors that are deeply integrated in physical environments. As a result, the sensing performance of a wireless sensor network is inevitably undermined by biases in imperfect sensor hardware and the noises in data measurements. Although a variety of calibration methods have been proposed to address these issues, they often adopt the device-level approach that becomes intractable for moderate-to large-scale networks. In this article, we propose a two-tier system-level calibration approach for a class of sensor networks that employ data fusion to improve the sensing performance. In the first tier of our calibration approach, each sensor learns its local sensing model from noisy measurements using an online algorithm and only transmits a few model parameters. In the second tier, sensors' local sensing models are then calibrated to a common system sensing model. Our approach fairly distributes computation overhead among sensors and significantly reduces the communication overhead of calibration compared with the device-level approach. Based on this approach, we develop an optimal model calibration scheme that maximizes the target detection probability of a sensor network under bounded false alarm rate. Our approach is evaluated by both experiments on a testbed of TelosB motes and extensive simulations based on synthetic datasets as well as data traces collected in a real vehicle detection experiment. The results demonstrate that our system-level calibration approach can significantly boost the detection performance of sensor networks in scenarios with low signal-to-noise ratios.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".