A primal-dual approximation algorithm for the Minimum Cost Stashing problem in wireless sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problem of computing an energy-efficient data delivery scheme in wireless sensor networks that leverages the knowledge of a set of trajectories of mobile sinks in the network to route data from the sensors to the mobile sinks. Sensors collect data from the environment and instead of directly sending them to the mobile sinks (henceforth simply “sinks”), they route data to a number of selected nodes (we call them relay or stashing nodes) in the network. These stashing nodes lie on the trajectories of the sinks, and relay the received data directly to the sinks on behalf of the sensors. Assuming a set of p different applications being executed on each sensor node, we consider the following problem: Given a set of p trajectories T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sub> , T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> , ..., T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">P</sub> corresponding to p sinks, where sink Ti is dedicated to collect i-th application data, node u selects at least k stashing nodes from T <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">i</sub> such that it can forward at least k copies of its i-application data to them. The goal of u is to minimize the total routing cost to send all its p application data to the corresponding stashing nodes of p trajectories. We use the expected number of transmissions on a link as the routing cost of the link and the routing cost for a path is the sum of all the link costs of that path. We wish to minimize the sum of the total routing costs of all the nodes. We call this the Minimum Cost Stashing problem and formulate this as a primal-dual problem. We present a 1/2(2f -k + 1)-approximation algorithm using the primal-dual method for approximation algorithms, where f is the maximum size of a trajectory.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".