IFAA: An Intelligent Framework Aware Algorithm to Determine the Boundary of Area under Attack in Military Surveillance and Reconnaissance WSN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) have proven effective in military applications of surveillance and reconnaissance. Sensors capable of detecting pressure, temperature, movement and presence of specific chemicals are deployed in such applications. Traditionally, sensor data is collected and transferred to a centralized high-capacity node or control station. Analysis of data is carried out at such centralized facilities. Information or intelligence gathered from sensor data after analysis is used to generate control and management commands that are relayed back to sensor nodes. The situation is analogous to an actual wartime scenario where soldiers who are on the field are equivalent to the sensors. Soldiers observe and sense the situation and communicate their observations to the decision maker who is stationed in the control tent. On gathering field information, the decision maker analyses the data and arrives at his decision which is again communicated to the soldiers on the field. Soldiers as well as sensors are not placed illogically or randomly but intentionally and strategically. Observations made on the field ultimately affect how the soldiers or sensors continue to function. Intelligence gained on the field ultimately gets used on the field itself. Our attempt is to observe, analyze and apply intelligence on the field itself. This work proposes an intelligent algorithm that is aware of the sensor network topology, analyses sensor data within the network and uses the network framework to arrive at usable intelligence. Locally generated intelligence avoids communication to and from the command/control and adds value to military surveillance and reconnaissance applications of WSN. Intelligent sensor management allows us to use just the necessary number of sensors while saving resources on otherwise redundant expenditure. In the present work we have designed and applied a dynamic boundary computation algorithm to determine the boundary of the area under attack. We have compared the results of simulation experiments incorporating the proposed algorithm against a control experiment without the algorithm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".