MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991205601 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2019.2954720

Decision Fusion for IoT-Based Wireless Sensor Networks

2019· article· en· W2991205601 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Al‐Jarrah, Maysa Yaseen, Arafat Al‐Dweik, Octavia A. Dobre, Emad Alsusa

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceFusion centerWireless sensor networkSensor fusionAlgorithmProbability of errorFusion rulesFusionExpression (computer science)Monte Carlo methodChannel (broadcasting)WirelessProbability distributionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsCognitive radioTelecommunicationsComputer networkStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a novel decision fusion algorithm for Internet-of-Things-based wireless sensor networks, where multiple sensors transmit their decisions about a certain phenomenon to a remote fusion center (FC) over a wide area network. The proposed algorithm denoted as the individual likelihood approximation (ILA) can significantly reduce the decision fusion error probability performance while maintaining the low computational complexity of other state-of-the-art fusion algorithms. The performance of the ILA rule is evaluated in terms of the global fusion probability of error, and an efficient analytical expression is derived in terms of a single integral. The analytical results corroborated by Monte Carlo simulation show that the ILA significantly outperforms all other considered rules, such as the Chair-Varshney (CV) and MaxLog rules. Moreover, the impact of the link from the cluster head to the FC, which is modeled as a binary symmetric channel with unknown transition probabilities, has been investigated. It is shown that the probability of error over such links should not exceed 10-3to avoid severe performance degradation. Furthermore, we derive a closed-form expression for the system fusion error probability of the CV rule for the most general system parameters.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations113
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207