Maximizing the lifetime of wireless sensor networks in trains for monitoring long-distance goods transportation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One key issue in designing battery-powered wireless sensor networks is to properly control the energy consumption of the sensor nodes in order to prolong their operation time (i.e. lifetime). In this article, we present a real-life application of wireless sensor networks in trains to monitor the goods conditions in a long-distance transportation. We study the wireless sensor network deployment problem in developing a monitoring system with the goal of maximizing the network lifetime under constraints derived from the real application scenario. The key technical problem to solve is to determine the sensor placement and the transmission level for each sensor node, as well as the appropriate number of sensor nodes. We first formulate the problem with a realistic discrete power model as a mixed integer linear programming problem. Then, a two-step efficient deployment heuristic is proposed to satisfy these constraints step by step. The evaluation results indicate that the proposed heuristic performs almost the same as the optimal mixed integer linear programming solution. Moreover, the wireless sensor network with appropriate number of nodes can improve its lifetime up to 10.6% for a train with 80 boxcars. We also discussed a tested experiment in a laboratory environment, as well as the real implementation of the whole monitoring system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".