Energy Restoration in a Linear Sensor Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coverage provided by a sensor network degrades over time as the batteries powering the sensors become exhausted. A common approach to energy restoration in sensor networks powered by batteries is to use a robot acting as a mobile battery charger/changer. The goal is to constantly minimize the number of coverage holes and their duration. In this paper, we focus on decentralized on-line strategies for energy restoration by a robot in linear sensor networks, i.e. whose topology is modelled as a line. We consider a standard On-Demand strategy, where a sensor in need of charge sends a request in the direction of the robot, and the robot moves to serve the requests as they arrive. We examine also a simpler variant of this strategy, Straight, in which the direction of movement of the robot along the line cannot be changed until it reaches the end of the line. We finally consider the simplest possible on-line strategy, Blind, where no requests are sent and the robot automatically and continuously moves from one end of the line to the other, servicing any sensor found needing recharging. We experimentally study the efficiency of these strategies, and we make the counter-intuitive discovery that the simpler the strategy, the better its efficiency. In particular, Blind which does not require any communication nor memory nor computation, is at least as efficient as the other two. We also provide strong analytical support to these experimental findings. In fact we prove that, starting with initially empty batteries, the Blind strategy has better coverage performance that the other two strategies for almost all network sizes. Indeed for some network sizes no other strategy, even if centralized and offline, can do better.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".