Utility‐driven construction of balanced data routing trees in wireless sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In wireless sensor networks, achieving load balancing in an energy‐efficient manner to improve the network lifetime as much as possible is still a challenging problem because in such networks, the only energy resource for sensor nodes is their battery supplies. This paper proposes a game theoretical‐based solution in the form of a distributed algorithm for constructing load‐balanced routing trees in wireless sensor networks. In our algorithm, load balancing is realized by adjusting the number of children among parents as much as possible, where child adjustment is considered as a game between the parents and child nodes; parents are considered as cooperative players, and children are considered as selfish players. The gained utility by each node is determined by means of some utility functions defined per role, which themselves determine the behavior of nodes in each role. When the game is over, each node gains the maximum benefit on the basis of its utility function, and the balanced tree is constructed. The proposed method provides additional benefits when in‐network aggregation is applied. Analytical and simulation results are provided, demonstrating that our proposed algorithm outperform two recently proposed benchmarking algorithms [1, 2], in terms of time complexity and communication overhead required for constructing the load‐balanced routing trees. Copyright © 2012 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".