Intelligent multi-agent model for energy-efficient communication in wireless sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The research addresses energy consumption, latency, and network reliability challenges in wireless sensor network communication, especially in military security applications. A multi-agent context-aware model employing the belief-desire-intention (BDI) reasoning mechanism is proposed. This model utilizes a semantic knowledge-based intelligent reasoning network to monitor suspicious activities within a prohibited zone, generating alerts. Additionally, a BDI intelligent multi-level data transmission routing algorithm is proposed to optimize energy consumption constraints and enhance energy-awareness among nodes. The energy optimization analysis involves the Energy Percent Dataset, showcasing the efficiency of four wireless sensor network techniques (E-FEERP, GTEB, HHO-UCRA, EEIMWSN) in maintaining high energy levels. E-FEERP consistently exhibits superior energy efficiency (93 to 98%), emphasizing its effectiveness. The Energy Consumption Dataset provides insights into the joule measurements of energy consumption for each technique, highlighting their diverse energy efficiency characteristics. Latency measurements are presented for four techniques within a fixed transmission range of 5000 m. E-FEERP demonstrates latency ranging from 3.0 to 4.0 s, while multi-hop latency values range from 2.7 to 2.9 s. These values provide valuable insights into the performance characteristics of each technique under specified conditions. The Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) dataset reveals the consistent performance of the techniques in maintaining successful packet delivery within the specified transmission range. E-FEERP achieves PDR values between 89.5 and 92.3%, demonstrating its reliability. The Packet Received Data further illustrates the efficiency of each technique in receiving transmitted packets. Moreover the network lifetime results show E-FEERP consistently improving from 2550 s to round 925. GTEB and HHO-UCRA exhibit fluctuations around 3100 and 3600 s, indicating variable performance. In contrast, EEIMWSN consistently improves from round 1250 to 4500 s.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".