Joint Optimal Placement, Routing, and Flow Assignment in Wireless Sensor Networks for Structural Health Monitoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensor node placement optimization has a significant role in wireless sensor networks, especially in structural health monitoring. Since sensor node placement affects the routing, optimization should be Jointly done for the node placement and routing. The existing work separately optimizes the node placement and routing (by performing routing after carrying out the node placement). However, this approach does not guarantee the optimality of the overall solution. In this paper, joint optimization of sensor placement, routing, and flow assignment is introduced and solved using mixed integer programming modeling. Finding an optimal solution for this joint problem is too complex. Hence, a near-optimal solution is obtained using genetic algorithms with reduced complexity. In addition, a heuristic algorithm for joint routing and flow assignment with placement is proposed using the effective independence model, which optimizes the information quality and energy consumption for efficient communication. Lastly, results are presented in a nine-floor building to compare the three proposed algorithms with the heuristic algorithm by Li et al. The numerical results show the efficiency of the proposed algorithms and the tradeoff between the efficiency and the complexity.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it