MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150648752 · doi:10.1109/iscit.2007.4392156

Dynamic sensor activation for maximizing network lifetime under coverage constraint

2007· article· en· W2150648752 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Chamam, Samuel Pierre

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkHeuristicComputer scienceInteger programmingQuality of serviceGreedy algorithmConstraint (computer-aided design)Linear programmingPolynomialMathematical optimizationDistributed computingReal-time computingComputer networkAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wireless sensor networks consist of a large number of sensors equipped with limited energy and processing capabilities. They are deployed in a field to measure physical variables or detect events. In critical surveillance applications, sensors are used to monitor a geographical area and usually a full, or high, area coverage is required as a Quality-of-Service (QoS) parameter. In dense networks, sensors detection ranges usually overlap. Therefore, only a covering subset of sensors can be turned on while other sensors are put in a very low-power Sleep state. In this paper, we address the problem of maximizing the sensor network lifetime under area coverage constraint. For that, we propose a mechanism that dynamically activates an optimal covering subset of sensors, based on residual energies. We first model this problem as an Integer Linear Programming (ILP) problem that we resolve using CPLEX. Then, we propose a greedy heuristic to tackle the exponentially-increasing processing times of the exact solution. We show that the proposed heuristic provides for acceptable solutions while having a polynomial O(N <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ) complexity, suitable for large-scale networks.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207