MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982480115 · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2019.8886159

Bounds on Path Exposure in Energy Harvesting Wireless Sensor Networks

2019· article· en· W2982480115 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulsalam Basabaa, Ehab S. Elmallah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkComputer scienceProbabilistic logicNode (physics)Path (computing)WirelessComputer networkEnergy (signal processing)Energy harvestingIntrusion detection systemTransmission (telecommunications)Wireless networkIntrusionRange (aeronautics)State (computer science)Key distribution in wireless sensor networksPower (physics)Real-time computingAlgorithmTelecommunicationsEngineeringMathematicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider terrestrial wireless sensor networks (WSNs) that utilize energy replenishment methods such as environmental energy harvesting or wireless charging to achieve perpetual operation. In such networks, a node's operating energy fluctuates over time, thus affecting its transmission range. Accordingly, we adopt a simple model that associates a probability distribution representing the likelihood that a node falls in either a failed state, a state where it can transmit in full power, or reduced power. Using the probabilistic model, we formalize a problem, called EXPO-RU, to analyze the exposure of a given path that we want to monitor for unauthorized intrusion. The problem calls for computing the likelihood that the network succeeds in detecting intrusion along the given path. We present algorithms for computing lower bounds on the exact solutions, and draw remarks on the obtained performance results.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207