Lifetime-resource tradeoff for multicast traffic in wireless sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study the problem of supporting multicast traffic in wireless sensor networks with network coding. On one hand, coding operations can reduce power consumption and consequently improve the network lifetime. On the other hand, performing network coding requires the use of the limited resources of the sensor nodes such as memory and energy. We study the tradeoff between maximizing the network lifetime and minimizing the number of network coding operations. We introduce the coding flow variables which enable us to determine the rate at which different operations (e.g., forwarding, replication, and coding) are performed in each sensor node. Using the coding flow variables, we formulate the maximum-lifetime minimum-resource (MLMR) coding subgraph problem as a linear programming problem. The objective in MLMR problem is to jointly maximize the network lifetime and minimize the rate of performing network coding. We propose an MLMR algorithm in order to obtain the optimal coding subgraph. We investigate the lifetime-resource tradeoff assuming that the cost of performing network coding varies for intermediate nodes. Simulation results show that the network lifetime can considerably be improved when the cost of performing network coding is relatively low compared to the case that this cost is high for intermediate nodes in the network. Moreover, results show that the network lifetime can substantially be increased using MLMR algorithm compared with the classical multicast with Steiner tree and another algorithm which uses network coding without considering the broadcast nature of wireless links.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".