Leveraging Prediction to Improve the Coverage of Wireless Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As sensors are energy constrained devices, one challenge in wireless sensor networks (WSNs) is to guarantee coverage and meanwhile maximize network lifetime. In this paper, we leverage prediction to solve this challenging problem, by exploiting temporal-spatial correlations among sensory data. The basic idea lies in that a sensor node can be turned off safely when its sensory information can be inferred through some prediction methods, like Bayesian inference. We adopt the concept of entropy in information theory to evaluate the information uncertainty about the region of interest (RoI). We formulate the problem as a minimum weight submodular set cover problem, which is known to be NP hard. To address this problem, an efficient centralized truncated greedy algorithm (TGA) is proposed. We prove the performance guarantee of TGA in terms of the ratio of aggregate weight obtained by TGA to that by the optimal algorithm. Considering the decentralization nature of WSNs, we further present a distributed version of TGA, denoted as DTGA, which can obtain the same solution as TGA. The implementation issues such as network connectivity and communication cost are extensively discussed. We perform real data experiments as well as simulations to demonstrate the advantage of DTGA over the only existing competing algorithm [1] and the impacts of different parameters associated with data correlations on the network 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".