WSN Sampling Optimization for Signal Reconstruction Using Spatiotemporal Autoencoder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of optimizing sensor deployment locations of a wireless sensor network to reconstruct and also predict a spatiotemporal signal. Traditional sensor deployment optimization approaches only selects deployment locations and provide the feature in the sampled area. Hence, if the sampling resources are limited, the deployed sensors may not be able to provide all features in the field of interest (input space). To solve this issue, a deep learning framework is developed to reconstruct and predict the entire spatiotemporal signal from a limited amount of observations. In the beginning, the proposed approach optimizes sampling locations to retrieve sufficient features for reconstruction and prediction from historical data. Then, a spatiotemporal autoencoder is used to capture the nonlinear mappings from the in-situ measurements to the entire spatiotemporal signal. A simulation is conducted using global climate datasets from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to implement and validate the developed methodology. The results demonstrate a significant improvement made by the proposed algorithm. Specifically, compared to traditional approaches, the proposed method provides superior performance in terms of both reconstruction error and spatial prediction robustness.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".