An Energy-Aware Method for Selecting Cluster Heads in Wireless Sensor Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it