MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952302585 · doi:10.1109/tsmc.2019.2920390

Deep Reinforced Learning Tree for Spatiotemporal Monitoring With Mobile Robotic Wireless Sensor Networks

2019· article· en· W2952302585 on OpenAlexaff
Jiahong Chen, Tongxin Shu, Teng Li, Clarence W. de Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWireless sensor networkSampling (signal processing)Tree (set theory)Reinforcement learningReal-time computingParameterized complexityArtificial intelligenceGreedy algorithmField (mathematics)Mobile robotRandom treeMotion planningMachine learningRobotAlgorithmComputer visionComputer networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper concerns the deployment problem of wireless sensor networks (WSNs) with mobile robotic sensor nodes for spatiotemporal monitoring. The proposed approach, deep reinforced learning tree (DRLT), utilizes deep reinforcement learning (DRL) to improve the efficiency of searching the most informative sampling locations. The parameterized sampling locations in an infinite horizon space are modeled according to their spatiotemporal correlations and subject to various constraints, including field estimation error and information gain. And the model-based information gain can be calculated efficiently over an infinite horizon. In this manner, the effectiveness of the sampling locations is learned through DRLT during the exploration by the robotic sensors. Then DRLT can instruct the robotic sensors to avoid unnecessary sampling locations in future iterations. Also, it is proved in this paper that the proposed algorithm is capable of searching for the near-optimal sampling locations effectively and guaranteeing a minimum field estimation error. Simulation based on national oceanic and atmospheric administration (NOAA) datasets is presented, which demonstrates the significant enhancements made by the proposed algorithm. Compared with the traditional approaches, such as the information theory-based greedy approach or random sampling, the proposed method shows a superior performance with regard to both estimation error and planning efficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics SystemsSame topicEnergy Efficient Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207