MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200248959 · doi:10.5121/csit.2021.112201

Anchor Density Minimization for Localization in Wireless Sensor Network (WSN)

2021· article· en· W4200248959 on OpenAlexaff
Nour Zaarour, Nadir Hakem, NahiKandil

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkSoftware deploymentComputer scienceFlexibility (engineering)Computer networkNetwork topologyMinificationKey distribution in wireless sensor networksReduction (mathematics)Position (finance)A priori and a posterioriDistributed computingReal-time computingWirelessTopology (electrical circuits)Wireless networkEngineeringMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In wireless sensor networks (WSN) high-accuracy localization is crucial for both of WNS management and many other numerous location-based applications. Only a subset of nodes in a WSN is deployed as anchor nodes with their locations a priori known to localize unknown sensor nodes. The accuracy of the estimated position depends on the number of anchor nodes. Obviously, increasing the number or ratio of anchors will undoubtedly increase the localization accuracy. However, it severely constrains the flexibility of WSN deployment while impacting costs and energy. This paper aims to drastically reduce anchor number or ratio of anchor in WSN deployment and ensures a good trade-off for localization accuracy. Hence, this work presents an approach to decrease the number of anchor nodes without compromising localization accuracy. Assuming a random string WSN topology, the results in terms of anchor rates and localization accuracy are presented and show significant reduction in anchor deployment rates from 32% to 2%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207