An Energy-Aware Method for Selecting Cluster Heads in Wireless Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) include several sensor nodes that have limited capabilities. The most critical restriction in WSNs is energy resources. Moreover, since each sensor node’s energy resources cannot be recharged or replaced, it is inevitable to propose various methods for managing the energy resources. Furthermore, this procedure increases the network lifetime. In wireless sensor networks, the cluster head has a significant impact on system global scalability, energy efficiency, and lifetime. Furthermore, the cluster head is most important in combining, aggregating, and transferring data that are received from other cluster nodes. One of the substantial challenges in a cluster-based network is to choose a suitable cluster head. In this paper, to select an appropriate cluster head, we first model this problem by using multi-factor decision-making according to the four factors, including energy, mobility, distance to centre, and the length of data queues. Then, we use the Cluster Splitting Process (CSP) algorithm and the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method in order to provide a new method to solve this problem. These four factors are examined in our proposed approach, and our method is compared with the Base station Controlled Dynamic Clustering Protocol (BCDCP) algorithm. The simulation results show the proposed method in improving the network lifetime has better performance than the base station controlled dynamic clustering protocol algorithm. In our proposed method, the energy reduction is almost 5% more than the BCDCP method, and the packet loss rate in our proposed method is almost 25% lower than in the BCDCP method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".