Grouping and Sponsoring Centric Green Coverage Model for Internet of Things
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, green computing has received significant attention for Internet of Things (IoT) environments due to the growing computing demands under tiny sensor enabled smart services. The related literature on green computing majorly focuses on a cover set approach that works efficiently for target coverage, but it is not applicable in case of area coverage. In this paper, we present a new variant of a cover set approach called a grouping and sponsoring aware IoT framework (GS-IoT) that is suitable for area coverage. We achieve non-overlapping coverage for an entire sensing region employing sectorial sensing. Non-overlapping coverage not only guarantees a sufficiently good coverage in case of large number of sensors deployed randomly, but also maximizes the life span of the whole network with appropriate scheduling of sensors. A deployment model for distribution of sensors is developed to ensure a minimum threshold density of sensors in the sensing region. In particular, a fast converging grouping (FCG) algorithm is developed to group sensors in order to ensure minimal overlapping. A sponsoring aware sectorial coverage (SSC) algorithm is developed to set off redundant sensors and to balance the overall network energy consumption. GS-IoT framework effectively combines both the algorithms for smart services. The simulation experimental results attest to the benefit of the proposed framework as compared to the state-of-the-art techniques in terms of various metrics for smart IoT environments including rate of overlapping, response time, coverage, active sensors, and life span of the overall network.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".