Optimal Number of Cluster Head Selection for Efficient Distribution of Sources in WSNs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we compare problems of cluster formation and cluster-head selection between different protocols for data aggregation and transmission. We focus on two aspects of the problem: (i) how to guess number of clusters required to proficiently consume available sources for a sensor network, and (ii) how to select number of cluster-heads to cover up sensor networks more proficiently. A sensor in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) can communicate directly only with other sensors that are within a radio range in a cluster. However, in order to enable communication between sensors not within communication range, they must form new clusters in distributed sensors. Several clustering algorithms such as LEACH, DEEC, and SEP have been proposed with the objectives of energy minimization, route-path selection, increased connectivity and network longevity. LEACH protocol and the similar ones assume an energy homogeneous system where a node is not likely to fail due to failure in connectivity and packet dropping. More recent protocols like SEP and TEEN considered the reverse that is energy heterogeneity which is more applicable to case of WSNs. We developed a bi-dimensional chain model to select average number of for DEEC. Simulation results are used to compare performance of different protocols to found optimal solutions of above mentioned problems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".