A Centralized Routing for Lifetime and Energy Optimization in WSNs Using Genetic Algorithm and Least-Square Policy Iteration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Q-learning has been primarily used as one of the reinforcement learning (RL) techniques to find the optimal routing path in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). However, for the centralized RL-based routing protocols with a large state space and action space, the baseline Q-learning used to implement these protocols suffers from degradation in the convergence speed, network lifetime, and network energy consumption due to the large number of learning episodes required to learn the optimal routing path. To overcome these limitations, an efficient model-free RL-based technique called Least-Square Policy Iteration (LSPI) is proposed to optimize the network lifetime and energy consumption in WSNs. The resulting designed protocol is a Centralized Routing Protocol for Lifetime and Energy Optimization with a Genetic Algorithm (GA) and LSPI (CRPLEOGALSPI). Simulation results show that the CRPLEOGALSPI has improved performance in network lifetime and energy consumption compared to an existing Centralized Routing Protocol for Lifetime Optimization with GA and Q-learning (CRPLOGARL). This is because the CRPLEOGALSPI chooses a routing path in a given state considering all the possible routing paths, and it is not sensitive to the learning rate. Moreover, while the CRPLOGARL evaluates the optimal policy from the Q-values, the CRPLEOGALSPI updates the Q-values based on the most updated information regarding the network dynamics using weighted functions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".