MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302856080 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1507.08923

On the Displacement for Covering a Unit Interval with Randomly Placed\n Sensors

2015· preprint· en· W4302856080 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rafał Kapelko, Evangelos Kranakis

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDisplacement (psychology)RADIUSEnergy (signal processing)Range (aeronautics)Power (physics)Interval (graph theory)Energy consumptionLine (geometry)Focus (optics)Unit intervalFunction (biology)MathematicsElectrical engineeringComputer scienceGeometryMathematical analysisEngineeringPhysicsCombinatoricsStatisticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consider $n$ mobile sensors placed independently at random with the uniform\ndistribution on a barrier represented as the unit line segment $[0,1]$. The\nsensors have identical sensing radius, say $r$. When a sensor is displaced on\nthe line a distance equal to $d$ it consumes energy (in movement) which is\nproportional to some (fixed) power $a > 0$ of the distance $d$ traveled. The\nenergy consumption of a system of $n$ sensors thus displaced is defined as the\nsum of the energy consumptions for the displacement of the individual sensors.\n We focus on the problem of energy efficient displacement of the sensors so\nthat in their final placement the sensor system ensures coverage of the barrier\nand the energy consumed for the displacement of the sensors to these final\npositions is minimized in expectation. In particular, we analyze the problem of\ndisplacing the sensors from their initial positions so as to attain coverage of\nthe unit interval and derive trade-offs for this displacement as a function of\nthe sensor range. We obtain several tight bounds in this setting thus\ngeneralizing several of the results of [10] to any power $a >0$.\n

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207