MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184253632 · doi:10.1109/ssd.2015.7348122

Optimized node classification and channel pairing scheme for RF energy harvesting based cognitive radio sensor networks

2015· article· en· W2184253632 on OpenAlexaff
Saleem Aslam, Mohamed Ibnkahla

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive radioComputer scienceComputer networkEfficient energy useWireless sensor networkNode (physics)Energy harvestingWirelessKey distribution in wireless sensor networksSpectral efficiencyChannel (broadcasting)Energy (signal processing)Wireless networkTelecommunicationsEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spectral-efficiency and energy-efficiency are the key concerns for next-generation wireless networks. RF energy-harvesting is emerged as a prominent technology which self-empowers wireless nodes to achieve energy-efficiency. For spectral-efficiency, the opportunistic spectrum-access technology (by employing cognitive radios) is an optimal solution. Therefore, in this paper, we merge both technologies (cognitive radio & RF energy harvesting) together to achieve network-wide spectral and energy efficiency. A novel two-level residual-energy and channel-quality (capacity and idle-time) aware node-classification scheme is introduced for cluster-based cognitive radio sensor networks to select the best sensor nodes for reporting process. At first level, the nodes are classified as harvesting or transmitting nodes based on their residual energy. Later on, the best node-channel pairs are formed for transmitting nodes using Hungarian algorithm. In the second level of classification, only those nodes are selected for reporting, which can transmit reporting packet in the given duration on the allocated channel. Otherwise, the node is directed to perform energy harvesting task to achieve energy-balancing and avoid unsuccessful reporting. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed scheme shows better performance gain in terms of successful reporting rate compared to existing node-classification schemes. Furthermore, we compare the proposed node-channel pairing scheme with greedy-pairing and random-pairing schemes and illustrate the performance gain in terms of successful reporting.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum SensingFrench-language works237,207