Investigation of Energy Efficient Clustering Algorithms in WSNs: A Review
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
In recent years, Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are attracting more attention in many fields as they are extensively used in a wide range of applications, such as environment monitoring, the Internet of Things, industrial operation control, electric distribution, and the oil industry. One of the major concerns in these networks is the limited energy sources. Clustering and routing algorithms represent one of the critical issues that directly contribute to power consumption in WSNs. Therefore, optimization techniques and routing protocols for such networks have to be studied and developed. This paper focuses on the most recent studies and algorithms that handle energy-efficiency clustering and routing in WSNs. In addition, the prime issues in these networks are discussed and summarized using comparison tables, including the main features, limitations, and the kind of simulation toolbox. Energy efficiency is compared between some techniques and showed that according to clustering mode “Distributed” and CH distribution “Uniform”, HEED and EECS are best, while in the non-uniform clustering, both DDAR and THC are efficient. According to clustering mode “Centralized” and CH distribution “Uniform”, the LEACH-C protocol is more effective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it