MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138511162 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2006.952

WSN11-1: Distributed Cross-Layer Optimization of Wireless Sensor Networks: A Game Theoretic Approach

2006· article· en· W2138511162 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobecom · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Network Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-layer optimizationComputer scienceMathematical optimizationNash equilibriumPhysical layerLayer (electronics)Optimization problemDual (grammatical number)Distributed computingWireless sensor networkProcess (computing)Stability (learning theory)Set (abstract data type)Distributed algorithmWirelessWireless networkComputer networkMathematicsAlgorithmTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a distributed optimization framework for wireless multihop sensor networks base on a game theoretic approach. We show that the cross-layer optimization problem can be decomposed into two subproblems corresponding to two separate layers (the physical and the application layers) of the overall system. By modelling each subproblem as a noncooperative game, we aim to solve the nonconvex application-layer rate- allocation and physical-layer power-allocation subproblems in a distributed manner. Further, we prove the existence, uniqueness, and stability of the Nash equilibria for both games under certain sufficient conditions. Finally, we show that by using a set of dual variables as the market prices to coordinate the physical layer supply and the application layer demand, the overall optimization process strikes a right balance between the two layers in an overall cross-layer design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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