Energy-Efficient Coalition Formation in Sensor Networks: a Game-Theoretic Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most important challenge in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) is the energy constraint. Numerous solutions have been proposed to alleviate the issue, including clustering. Game theory is an effective decision-making tool that has been shown to be effective in solving complex problems. In this paper, we employ cooperative games and propose a new clustering scheme called Coalitional Game-Theoretic Clustering (CGTC) algorithm for WSNs. The idea is to partition the entire network area into two regions, namely far and vicinity, in order to address the hotspot problem in WSNs, wherein nodes close to the base station (BS) tend to deplete their energy faster due to relaying the traffic load received from farther nodes. Then, coalitional games are utilized to group nodes as coalitions. The main factor in choosing coalition heads is the energy level of nodes so that the most powerful nodes play the role of heads. The Shapley value is adopted as the solution concept to our coalitional games. The results of simulations confirm the effectiveness of CGTC in terms of energy efficiency and improved throughput.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".