update by ali

[JournalMultiPeriods.git] / article.tex

diff --git a/article.tex b/article.tex
index 0881da1471f8620265034144b73ebbd851319a8a..f8f7ec441051a3e382d5f8347f52eafbce31fe67 100644 (file)
--- a/article.tex
+++ b/article.tex
@@ -1131,10 +1131,35 @@ $W_{U}$ & $|P|^2$ \\
 \end{table}
   
 \textcolor{red}{Our first protocol based GLPK optimization solver is declined into  four versions: MuDiLCO-1,  MuDiLCO-3, MuDiLCO-5,
 \end{table}
   
 \textcolor{red}{Our first protocol based GLPK optimization solver is declined into  four versions: MuDiLCO-1,  MuDiLCO-3, MuDiLCO-5,

-and  MuDiLCO-7, corresponding  respectively to  $T=1,3,5,7$ ($T$  the  number of
-rounds in one sensing period). }
-%The second protocol based GA is declined into  four versions: GA-MuDiLCO-1,  GA-MuDiLCO-3, GA-MuDiLCO-5,
-%and  GA-MuDiLCO-7 for the same reason of the first protocol. After extensive experiments, we chose the dedicated values for the parameters $P_c$, $P_m$, and $S_{pop}$ because they gave the best results}. 
+and  MuDiLCO-7, corresponding  respectively to  $T=1,3,5,7$ ($T$  the  number of rounds in one sensing period).
+The second protocol based  based GLPK optimization solver with time limit is declined into  four versions: TL-MuDiLCO-1,  TL-MuDiLCO-3, TL-MuDiLCO-5, and  TL-MuDiLCO-7. Table \ref{tl} shows time limit values for TL-MuDiLCO protocol versions. After extensive experiments, we chose the values that explained in Table \ref{tl} because they gave the best results. In Table \ref{tl}, "NO" refers to apply the GLPK solver without time limit because we did not find improvement on the results of MuDiLCO protocol with the time limit}. 
+
+\begin{table}[ht]
+\caption{Time limit values for TL-MuDiLCO protocol versions }
+\centering
+\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
+ \hline
+ WSN size & TL-MuDiLCO-1 & TL-MuDiLCO-3 & TL-MuDiLCO-5 & TL-MuDiLCO-7 \\ [0.5ex]
+\hline
+ 50 & NO & NO & NO & NO \\
+ \hline
+100 & NO & NO & NO & NO \\
+\hline
+150 & NO & 0.006 & NO & 0.03 \\
+\hline
+200 & 0.0035 & 0.0094 & 0.020 & 0.06 \\
+ \hline
+ 250 & 0.0055 & 0.013 & 0.03 & 0.08 \\
+ \hline
+\end{tabular}
+
+\label{tl}
+
+\end{table}
+
+
+
+

  In  the following, we will make comparisons with
 two other methods. The first method, called DESK and proposed by \cite{ChinhVu},
 is  a   full  distributed  coverage   algorithm.   The  second   method,  called
  In  the following, we will make comparisons with
 two other methods. The first method, called DESK and proposed by \cite{ChinhVu},
 is  a   full  distributed  coverage   algorithm.   The  second   method,  called