Optimization of Wireless Sensor Networks Deployment Based on Probabilistic Sensing Models in a Complex Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, wireless sensor networks have been studied in numerous cases. One of the important problems studied in these networks is the optimal deployment of sensors to obtain the maximum of coverage. Hence, in most studies, optimization algorithms have been used to achieve the maximum coverage. Optimization algorithms are divided into two groups of local and global optimization algorithms. Global algorithms generally use a random method based on an evolutionary process. In most of the conducted research, the environment model and, sometimes, the layout of sensors in the network have been considered in a very simplified form. In this research, by raster and vector modeling of the environment in two- and three-dimensional spaces, the function of global optimization algorithms was compared and assessed for optimal deployment of sensors and a vector environment model was used as a more accurate model. Since the purpose of this paper is to compare the performance and results of global algorithms, the studied region and the implementation conditions considered are the same for all applied algorithms. In this article, some optimization methods are considered for sensor deployment including genetic algorithms, L-BFGS, VFCPSO and CMA-ES, and the implementation and assessment criteria of algorithms for deployment of wireless sensor network are considered some factors such as the optimal coverage amount, their coverage accuracy towards the environment model and convergence speed of the algorithms. On the other hand, in this paper, the probability coverage model is implemented for each of the global optimization algorithms. The results of these implementations show that the presence of more complex parameters in environment model and coverage produce accurate results that are more consistent with reality. Nonetheless, it may reduce the time efficiency of algorithms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".