MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153540567 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2007.163

Distributed Filtering with Wireless Sensor Networks

2007· article· en· W2153540567 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceDecoding methodsScalabilityHidden Markov modelInferenceBelief propagationMarkov processFilter (signal processing)Particle filterIterated functionGibbs samplingMarkov random fieldAlgorithmWirelessArtificial intelligenceComputer networkMathematicsTelecommunicationsStatisticsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate an 'inference first' (IF) approach to information retrieval from a wireless sensor network (WSN). In this method, statistical estimation pertinent to the user's application is implemented within the network (in-situ) and only the relevant sufficient statistics are exported. We formulate this procedure as a delay-free filtering problem on a spatio-temporal hidden Markov model (HMM), and propose a scalable approximate distributed filter. The algorithm is a novel application of the idea of iterated decoding, where we iteratively marginalize the joint distribution of the state of the HMM at two consecutive time epochs. We compare and contrast algorithms like the Gibbs sampler (GS), mean field decoding (MFD) and broadcast belief propagation (BBP), and discuss their suitability for in-situ marginalization. A simplified analysis of the energy gain achievable by the IF approach, relative to centralized processing, is provided.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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