Characterizing multi‐hop localization for Internet of things
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deployments over large geographical areas in the Internet of Things (IoT) pose a major challenge for single‐hop localization techniques, giving rise to applications of multi‐hop localizations. And while many proposals have been made on implementations for multi‐hop localization, a close understanding of its characteristics is yet to be established. Such an understanding is necessary, and is inevitable in extending the reliability of location based services in IoT. In this paper, we study the characteristics of multi‐hop localization and propose a new solution to enhance the performance of multi‐hop localization techniques. We first examine popular assumptions made in simulating multi‐hop localization techniques, and offer rectifications facilitating more realistic simulation models. We identify the introduced errors to follow the Gaussian distribution, and the estimated distance follows the Rayleigh distribution. We next use our simulation model to characterize the effect of the number of hops on localization in both dense and sparse deployments. We find that, contrary to common belief, it is better to use long hops in sparse deployments, while short hops are better in dense deployments – despite the traffic overhead. Finally, we propose a new solution that decreases and manages the overhead generated during the localization process. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".