MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223601936 · doi:10.1145/2829953

Network Coding-Aware Compressive Data Gathering for Energy-Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks

2015· article· en· W2223601936 on OpenAlexaff
Dariush Ebrahimi, Chadi Assi

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Sensor Networks · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCompressed sensingWireless sensor networkScalabilityEfficient energy useData aggregatorLinear network codingData compressionComputer networkDistributed computingAlgorithmNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates the joint application of compressive sensing (CS) and network coding (NC) to the problem of energy-efficient data gathering in wireless sensor networks. We consider the problem of optimally constructing forwarding trees to carry compressed data to projection nodes. Each compressed dataset refers to a weighted aggregation (or sum) of sensed measurements from network sensors collected at one projection node. Projection nodes then forward their received compressed data to the sink, which subsequently recovers the original measurements. This aggregation technique, based on CS, is shown to reduce significantly the number of transmissions in the network. We observe that the presence of multiple forwarding trees gives rise to many-to-many communication patterns in sensor networks that, in turn, can be exploited to perform NC on the compressed data being forwarded on these trees. Such a technique will further reduce the number of transmissions required to gather the measurements, resulting in a better network-wide energy efficiency. This article addresses the problem of NC--aware construction of forwarding/aggregation trees. We present a mathematical model to optimally construct such forwarding trees, which encourage NC operations on the compressed data. Owing to its complexity, we further develop algorithmic methods (both centralized and distributed) for solving the problem and analyze their complexities. We show that our algorithmic methods are scalable and accurate, with worst-case optimality gap not exceeding 3.96% in the studied scenarios. We also show that, when bothNC and compressive data gathering are considered jointly, performance gains (reduction in number of transmissions) of up to 30% may be attained. Finally, we show that the proposed methods distribute the workload of data gathering throughout the network nodes uniformly, resulting in extended network life times.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Sensor NetworksSame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207