MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130905299 · doi:10.1109/twc.2009.081134

Joint routing and link rate allocation under bandwidth and energy constraints in sensor networks

2009· article· en· W2130905299 on OpenAlexaff
Maggie X. Cheng, Xuan Gong, Lin Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMultipath routingStatic routingComputer networkBandwidth (computing)Dynamic Source RoutingHeuristicsDestination-Sequenced Distance Vector routingEqual-cost multi-path routingRouting (electronic design automation)Distributed computingLink-state routing protocolPolicy-based routingMathematical optimizationTopology (electrical circuits)Routing protocolMathematicsEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In sensor networks, both energy and bandwidth are scarce resources. In the past, many energy efficient routing algorithms have been devised in order to maximize network lifetime, in which wireless link bandwidth has been optimistically assumed to be sufficient. This article shows that ignoring the bandwidth constraint can lead to infeasible routing solutions. As energy constraint affects how data should be routed, link bandwidth also affects not only the routing topology but also the allowed data rate on each link. In this paper, we discuss the sufficient condition on link bandwidth that makes a routing solution feasible, then provide mathematical optimization models to tackle both energy and bandwidth constraints.We first present a basic mathematical model to address using uniform transmission power for routing without data aggregation, then extend it to handle nonuniform transmission power, and then routing with data aggregation. We propose two efficient heuristics to compute the routing topology and link data rate. Simulation results show that these heuristics provide more feasible routing solutions than previous work, and provide significant improvement on throughput and lifetime.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Wireless CommunicationsSame topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207