Enhancing Barrier Coverage in Surveillance Applications Through Hybrid Directional Sensor Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directional sensor networks (DSNs) have possibility to provide more precise surveillance than conventional omni-directional sensor networks since the captured data can be of a visual nature.Therefore, the coverage problem in DSNs is completely different from that of traditional scalar sensors.Barrier coverage is a specific type of coverage that is emerged in DSNs to ensure a high-level monitoring application.In this paper, we focus on solving the barrier coverage problem in hybrid DSNs using stationary and mobile directional sensors.Our aim is to ensure a high barrier coverage specially developed for surveillance applications by proposing two approaches.In the first one, we implement a distributed algorithm based on a geometric mathematical model to calculate the new orientation of directional sensors to maximize barrier coverage.The purpose of using a geometric mathematical model is to compute, after a random deployment, the most appropriate angle of rotation for each directional sensor so that the novel DSN configuration ensures a high level of intrusion detection across the barrier.In the second one, we enhance the first approach by extending its algorithm to further improve barrier coverage using mobile directional sensors deployed far from the barrier.This solution allows us to achieve a strong barrier coverage with a minimum number of active directional sensors.Extensive simulation experiments with different scenarios are conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms in hybrid DSNs, such as those varying the number of stationary and mobile directional sensors with different angles of view.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".