Lexicographically Optimal Routing for Wireless Sensor Networks With Multiple Sinks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In wireless sensor networks (WSNs), the field information (e.g., temperature, humidity, airflow) is acquired via several battery-equipped wireless sensors and is relayed toward a sink node. As the size of the WSNs increases, it becomes inefficient (in terms of power consumption) when gathering all information in a single sink. To tackle this problem, one can increase the number of sinks. The set of sensor nodes that are sending data to sink <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">k</i> is called commodity <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">k</i> . In this paper, we formulate the lexicographically optimal commodity lifetime (LOCL) routing problem. A stepwise centralized algorithm called the LOCL algorithm is proposed, which can obtain the optimal routing solution and lead to lexicographical fairness among commodity lifetimes. We then show that, under certain assumptions, the lexicographical optimality among commodity lifetimes can be achieved by providing lexicographical optimality among node lifetimes. This motivates us to propose our second algorithm, which is called the lexicographically optimal node lifetime (LONL) algorithm, which is suitable for practical implementation. Simulation results show that our proposed LOCL and LONL algorithms increase the normalized commodity and node lifetimes compared with the maximum lifetime with multiple sinks (MLMS) and lexicographical max-min fair (LMM) routing algorithms.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it