The Battle of the Water Sensor Networks (BWSN): A Design Challenge for Engineers and Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the events of September 11, 2001, in the United States, world public awareness for possible terrorist attacks on water supply systems has increased dramatically. Among the different threats for a water distribution system, the most difficult to address is a deliberate chemical or biological contaminant injection, due to both the uncertainty of the type of injected contaminant and its consequences, and the uncertainty of the time and location of the injection. An online contaminant monitoring system is considered as a major opportunity to protect against the impacts of a deliberate contaminant intrusion. However, although optimization models and solution algorithms have been developed for locating sensors, little is known about how these design algorithms compare to the efforts of human designers, and thus, the advantages they propose for practical design of sensor networks. To explore these issues, the Battle of the Water Sensor Networks (BWSN) was undertaken as part of the 8th Annual Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 27–29, 2006. This paper summarizes the outcome of the BWSN effort and suggests future directions for water sensor networks research and implementation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".