Optimal placement and routing strategies for resilient two‐tiered 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
Abstract In hierarchical sensor networks using relay nodes, sensor nodes are arranged in clusters and higher powered relay nodes can be used as cluster heads. The lifetime of such a network is determined primarily by the lifetime of the relay nodes. In this paper, we propose two new integer linear programs (ILPs) formulations for optimal data gathering, which maximize the lifetime of the upper tier relay node network. Unlike most previous approaches considered in the literature, our formulations can generate optimal solutions under the non‐flow‐splitting model . Experimental results demonstrate that our approach can significantly extend network lifetime, compared to traditional routing schemes, for the non‐flow‐splitting model. The lifetime can be further enhanced by periodic updates of the routing strategy based on the residual energy at each relay node. The proposed rescheduling scheme can be used to handle single or multiple relay node failures. We have also presented a very simple and straightforward algorithm for the placement of relay nodes. The placement algorithm guarantees that all the sensor nodes can communicate with at least one relay node and that the relay node network is at least 2‐connected. This means that failure of a single relay node will not disconnect the network, and data may be routed around the failed node. The worst case performance of the placement algorithm is bounded by a constant with respect to any optimum placement algorithm. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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