Distributed Quality-Lifetime Maximization in Wireless Video Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Owing to the availability of low-cost and low-power CMOS cameras, wireless video sensor networks (WVSN) has recently become a reality. However video encoding is still a costly process for energy and capacity constrained sensor nodes and its optimal joint control with the communication protocols has a direct impact on the network lifetime. In this paper we propose a distributed quality-lifetime control algorithm where quality is simply measured by the visual signal quality. In order to formulate the quality-lifetime problem, we consider the power-rate-distortion (P-R-D) model of the video encoder together with the rate control, medium access and routing functions of the underlying communication protocol and formulate the problem as a generalized network utility maximization (GNUM) problem. Then we construct a distributed solution based on duality and proximal point methods with necessary convergence analysis. Simulation results support that optimal quality-lifetime control is possible through the proposed distributed algorithm, where the desired point of operation is simply adjusted by the sink via a configuration parameter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".