MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144244924 · doi:10.1109/lcn.2010.5735767

Localization scheduling in wireless ad hoc networks

2010· article· en· W2144244924 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Gribben, Azzedine Boukerche

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWireless ad hoc networkScheduling (production processes)ComputationLatency (audio)Location awarenessReal-time computingWireless sensor networkMobile ad hoc networkWirelessNode (physics)Overhead (engineering)Computer networkWireless networkDistributed computingAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Localization systems typically make use of redundant range or angle measurements from as many neighbours as possible to reduce location error. In dense networks this comes at the cost of excessive messages with limited improvement in location accuracy. This paper presents a scheduling scheme to limit node density to a set of active reference devices, which reduces message overhead and increases network lifetimes while maintaining sufficiently accurate location estimates. We use a method to estimate the amount of location error within a given probability to determine the minimum number of reference devices required for accurate localization. Simulation results show that with the proposed scheme localization messages remain constant with increasing node density, while location error is only marginally affected. Furthermore, network lifetimes are increased by over ten times allowing localization for longer periods of time. Computation times for localization are also reduced, which decreases accumulation of location error due to computation latency for mobile devices with speeds under 20 m/s.

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 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 categoriesnone
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 score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207