Optimum ConvergeCast Scheduling in Wireless Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Target monitoring is an important ConvergeCast application of wireless sensor networks in which sensors monitor a set of targets, and forward the collected data using multi-hop routing to the same location, called the sink. Nearly all previously proposed models only output a set of link transmission configurations, i.e., sets of links that can simultaneously transmit, without providing an ordering of the transmission configurations, nor guaranteeing that such an ordering exists using only the prescribed number of slots. As such, they do not provide a valid schedule to achieve ConvergeCast, and only give a lower bound on the number of slots required for a schedule. In this paper, we propose a first one phase decomposition model and algorithm that outputs a complete and optimum scheduling, i.e., with the output consisting in an ordered sequence of transmission configurations that achieves ConvergeCast. In addition, we show that the resulting transmission graph is not necessarily a tree. The resulting algorithm provides much better schedules, up to 15% less time slots required, than those of the previous best available mathematical programming or heuristic approaches in the literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".