A dynamic clustering and scheduling approach to energy saving in data collection from wireless sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract — Energy consumption is one of the major constraints in wireless sensor networks. A highly feasible strategy is to aggressively reduce the spatial sampling rate of sensors (i.e., the density of the measure points in a field). By properly scheduling, we want to retain the high quality of data collection. In this paper, we propose a novel dynamic clustering and scheduling approach. Orthogonal to most existing methods which mainly utilize the overlaps of sensing ranges of sensors to reduce the spatial sampling rate, our method is based on a careful analysis of the surveillance data reported by the sensors. We dynamically partition the sensors into groups so that the sensors in the same group have similar surveillance time series. They can share the workload of data collection in the future since their future readings may likely be similar. A generic framework is developed to address several important technical challenges, including how to partition the sensors into groups, how to dynamically maintain the groups, and how to schedule sampling for the sensors in a group. We conduct an extensive empirical study to test our method using both a real test bed system and a large-scale synthetic dataset. I.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".