Update by Ali

[JournalMultiPeriods.git] / article.tex

diff --git a/article.tex b/article.tex
index fb4739a85b2288007a6b1b685f058efae9e1b1a3..6f86616cec0759934d9406d1b041de500296b3db 100644 (file)
--- a/article.tex
+++ b/article.tex
@@ -106,9 +106,14 @@ divided  into subregions and  then the  MuDiLCO protocol  is distributed  on the
 sensor nodes in each subregion. The proposed MuDiLCO protocol works in periods
 during which sets of sensor nodes are scheduled to remain active for a number of
 rounds  during the  sensing phase,  to  ensure coverage  so as  to maximize  the
 sensor nodes in each subregion. The proposed MuDiLCO protocol works in periods
 during which sets of sensor nodes are scheduled to remain active for a number of
 rounds  during the  sensing phase,  to  ensure coverage  so as  to maximize  the

-lifetime of  WSN.  The decision process is  carried out by a  leader node, which
-solves an  integer program to  produce the best  representative sets to  be used
-during the rounds  of the sensing phase. Compared  with some existing protocols,
+lifetime of  WSN. \textcolor{green}{The decision process is  carried out by a  leader node, which
+solves an optimization problem to  produce the best  representative sets to  be used
+during the rounds  of the sensing phase. The optimization problem formulated as an integer program is solved to optimality through a branch-and-Bound method for small instances. For larger instances, the best feasible solution found by the solver after a given time limit threshold is considered. }
+%The decision process is  carried out by a  leader node, which
+%solves an  integer program to  produce the best  representative sets to  be used
+%during the rounds  of the sensing phase. 
+%\textcolor{red}{The integer program is solved by either GLPK solver or Genetic Algorithm (GA)}. 
+Compared  with some existing protocols,

 simulation  results based  on  multiple criteria  (energy consumption,  coverage
 ratio, and  so on) show that  the proposed protocol can  prolong efficiently the
 network lifetime and improve the coverage performance.
 simulation  results based  on  multiple criteria  (energy consumption,  coverage
 ratio, and  so on) show that  the proposed protocol can  prolong efficiently the
 network lifetime and improve the coverage performance.


@@ -183,7 +188,7 @@ algorithms in WSNs according to several design choices:
 \item  Sensors   scheduling  algorithm  implementation,   i.e.   centralized  or
   distributed/localized algorithms.
 \item The objective of sensor coverage, i.e. to maximize the network lifetime or
 \item  Sensors   scheduling  algorithm  implementation,   i.e.   centralized  or
   distributed/localized algorithms.
 \item The objective of sensor coverage, i.e. to maximize the network lifetime or

-  to minimize the number of sensors during a sensing round.
+  to minimize the number of active sensors during a sensing round.

 \item The homogeneous or heterogeneous nature  of the nodes, in terms of sensing
   or communication capabilities.
 \item The node deployment method, which may be random or deterministic.
 \item The homogeneous or heterogeneous nature  of the nodes, in terms of sensing
   or communication capabilities.
 \item The node deployment method, which may be random or deterministic.


@@ -204,9 +209,12 @@ network. Note that  centralized algorithms have the advantage  of requiring very
 low  processing  power  from  the  sensor  nodes,  which  usually  have  limited
 processing  capabilities. The  main drawback  of this  kind of  approach  is its
 higher cost in communications, since the  node that will make the decision needs
 low  processing  power  from  the  sensor  nodes,  which  usually  have  limited
 processing  capabilities. The  main drawback  of this  kind of  approach  is its
 higher cost in communications, since the  node that will make the decision needs

-information from all the  sensor nodes. Moreover, centralized approaches usually
-suffer from the scalability problem, making them less competitive as the network
-size increases.
+information from all the  sensor nodes. \textcolor{green} {Exact or heuristics approaches are designed to provide cover sets.
+ %(Moreover, centralized approaches usually
+%suffer from the scalability problem, making them less competitive as the network
+%size increases.) 
+Contrary to exact methods, heuristic methods can handle very large and centralized problems. They are proposed to reduce computational overhead such as energy consumption, delay and generally increase in
+the network lifetime. }

 
 The first algorithms proposed in the literature consider that the cover sets are
 disjoint:  a  sensor  node  appears  in  exactly  one  of  the  generated  cover
 
 The first algorithms proposed in the literature consider that the cover sets are
 disjoint:  a  sensor  node  appears  in  exactly  one  of  the  generated  cover


@@ -231,7 +239,8 @@ node.   After that,  they  proposed a  High  Residual Energy  First (HREF)  node
 selection algorithm to minimize the number  of active nodes so as to prolong the
 network  lifetime.  Various  centralized  methods  based  on  column  generation
 approaches                    have                   also                   been
 selection algorithm to minimize the number  of active nodes so as to prolong the
 network  lifetime.  Various  centralized  methods  based  on  column  generation
 approaches                    have                   also                   been

-proposed~\cite{castano2013column,rossi2012exact,deschinkel2012column}.
+proposed~\cite{gentili2013,castano2013column,rossi2012exact,deschinkel2012column}. 
+\textcolor{green}{In~\cite{gentili2013}, authors highlight the trade-off between the network lifetime and the coverage percentage. They show that network lifetime can be hugely improved by decreasing the coverage ratio. }

 
 \subsection{Distributed approaches}
 %{\bf Distributed approaches}
 
 \subsection{Distributed approaches}
 %{\bf Distributed approaches}


@@ -296,7 +305,8 @@ computation complexity. Compared to our previous paper, in this one we study the
 possibility of dividing  the sensing phase into multiple rounds  and we also add
 an  improved  model  of energy  consumption  to  assess  the efficiency  of  our
 approach. In fact, in this paper we make a multiround optimization, while it was
 possibility of dividing  the sensing phase into multiple rounds  and we also add
 an  improved  model  of energy  consumption  to  assess  the efficiency  of  our
 approach. In fact, in this paper we make a multiround optimization, while it was

-a single round optimization in our previous work.
+a single round optimization in our previous work. \textcolor{green}{The idea is to take advantage of the pre-sensing phase
+ to plan the sensor's activity for several rounds instead of one, thus saving energy. In addition, when the optimization problem becomes more complex, its resolution is stopped after a given time threshold}.

 
 \iffalse
    
 
 \iffalse
    


@@ -528,10 +538,64 @@ Zhou~\cite{Zhang05} proved that if  the transmission range fulfills the previous
 hypothesis, a complete coverage of  a convex area implies connectivity among the
 active nodes.
 
 hypothesis, a complete coverage of  a convex area implies connectivity among the
 active nodes.
 

-Instead  of working  with a  continuous coverage  area, we  make it  discrete by
-considering for each sensor a set of points called primary points. Consequently,
-we assume  that the sensing disk  defined by a sensor  is covered if  all of its
-primary points are covered. The choice of number and locations of primary points is the subject of another study not presented here.
+%Instead  of working  with a  continuous coverage  area, we  make it  discrete by considering for each sensor a set of points called primary points. Consequently, we assume  that the sensing disk  defined by a sensor  is covered if  all of its primary points are covered. The choice of number and locations of primary points is the subject of another study not presented here.
+
+
+\indent Instead of working with the coverage area, we consider for each sensor a set of points called primary points~\cite{idrees2014coverage}. We also assume that the sensing disk defined by a sensor is covered if all the primary points of this sensor are covered. By  knowing the  position (point  center: ($p_x,p_y$))  of  a wireless sensor node  and it's sensing range $R_s$,  we calculate the primary  points directly based on the proposed model. We  use these primary points (that can be increased or decreased if necessary)  as references to ensure that the monitored  region  of interest  is  covered by the selected  set  of sensors, instead of using all the points in the area. 
+We can  calculate  the positions of the selected primary
+points in the circle disk of the sensing range of a wireless sensor
+node (see Figure~\ref{fig1}) as follows:\\
+Assuming that the point center of a wireless sensor node is located at $(p_x,p_y)$, we can define up to 25 primary points $X_1$ to $X_{25}$.\\
+%$(p_x,p_y)$ = point center of wireless sensor node\\  
+$X_1=(p_x,p_y)$ \\ 
+$X_2=( p_x + R_s * (1), p_y + R_s * (0) )$\\           
+$X_3=( p_x + R_s * (-1), p_y + R_s * (0)) $\\
+$X_4=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (1) )$\\
+$X_5=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (-1 )) $\\
+$X_6= ( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (0)) $\\
+$X_7=( p_x + R_s *  (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (0))$\\
+$X_8=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\
+$X_9=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\
+$X_{10}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\
+$X_{11}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\
+$X_{12}=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\
+$X_{13}=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\
+$X_{14}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{1}{2})) $\\
+$X_{15}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{1}{2})) $\\
+$X_{16}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{- 1}{2})) $\\
+$X_{17}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{- 1}{2})) $\\
+$X_{18}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (0) $\\
+$X_{19}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2}), p_y + R_s * (0) $\\
+$X_{20}=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (\frac{1}{2})) $\\
+$X_{21}=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (-\frac{1}{2})) $\\
+$X_{22}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{1}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2})) $\\
+$X_{23}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{- 1}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2})) $\\
+$X_{24}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{- 1}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2})) $\\
+$X_{25}=( p_x + R_s * (\frac{1}{2}), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{3}}{2})) $.
+
+
+ 
+\begin{figure} %[h!]
+\centering
+ \begin{multicols}{2}
+\centering
+\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig21.pdf}\\~ (a)
+\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{principles13.pdf}\\~(c) 
+\hfill \hfill
+\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig25.pdf}\\~(e)
+\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig22.pdf}\\~(b)
+\hfill \hfill
+\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig24.pdf}\\~(d)
+\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{fig26.pdf}\\~(f)
+\end{multicols} 
+\caption{Wireless Sensor Node represented by (a) 5, (b) 9, (c) 13, (d) 17, (e) 21 and (f) 25 primary points respectively}
+\label{fig1}
+\end{figure}
+    
+
+
+
+

 
 %By  knowing the  position (point  center: ($p_x,p_y$))  of  a wireless
 %sensor node  and its $R_s$,  we calculate the primary  points directly
 
 %By  knowing the  position (point  center: ($p_x,p_y$))  of  a wireless
 %sensor node  and its $R_s$,  we calculate the primary  points directly


@@ -555,7 +619,7 @@ implemented in each subregion in a distributed way.
 As  can be seen  in Figure~\ref{fig2},  our protocol  works in  periods fashion,
 where  each is  divided  into 4  phases: Information~Exchange,  Leader~Election,
 Decision, and Sensing.  Each sensing phase may be itself divided into $T$ rounds
 As  can be seen  in Figure~\ref{fig2},  our protocol  works in  periods fashion,
 where  each is  divided  into 4  phases: Information~Exchange,  Leader~Election,
 Decision, and Sensing.  Each sensing phase may be itself divided into $T$ rounds

-and for each round a set of sensors (a cover set) is responsible for the sensing
+\textcolor{green} {of equal duration} and for each round a set of sensors (a cover set) is responsible for the sensing

 task. In  this way  a multiround optimization  process is performed  during each
 period  after  Information~Exchange  and  Leader~Election phases,  in  order  to
 produce $T$ cover sets that will take the mission of sensing for $T$ rounds.
 task. In  this way  a multiround optimization  process is performed  during each
 period  after  Information~Exchange  and  Leader~Election phases,  in  order  to
 produce $T$ cover sets that will take the mission of sensing for $T$ rounds.


@@ -578,7 +642,8 @@ running out of energy), because it works in periods.
 decision, the node will not participate to this phase, and, on the other hand,
 if the node failure occurs after the decision, the sensing  task of the network
 will be temporarily affected:  only during  the period of sensing until a new
 decision, the node will not participate to this phase, and, on the other hand,
 if the node failure occurs after the decision, the sensing  task of the network
 will be temporarily affected:  only during  the period of sensing until a new

-period starts.
+period starts. \textcolor{green}{The duration of the rounds are predefined parameters. Round duration should be long enough to hide the system control overhead and short enough to minimize the negative effects in case of node failure.}
+

 %%RC so if there are at least one failure per period, the coverage is bad...
 %%MS if we want to be reliable against many node failures we need to have an
 %% overcoverage...  
 %%RC so if there are at least one failure per period, the coverage is bad...
 %%MS if we want to be reliable against many node failures we need to have an
 %% overcoverage...  


@@ -647,12 +712,27 @@ consumption due to the communications.
 
 \subsection{Decision phase}
 
 
 \subsection{Decision phase}
 

-Each  WSNL will solve  an integer  program to  select which  cover sets  will be
+Each  WSNL will \textcolor{green}{ solve an integer program to  select which  cover sets  will be

 activated in  the following  sensing phase  to cover the  subregion to  which it
 activated in  the following  sensing phase  to cover the  subregion to  which it

-belongs.  The integer  program will produce $T$ cover sets,  one for each round.
-The WSNL will send an Active-Sleep  packet to each sensor in the subregion based
-on the algorithm's results, indicating if  the sensor should be active or not in
-each round  of the  sensing phase.  The  integer program  is based on  the model
+belongs.  $T$ cover sets will be produced,  one for each round. The WSNL will send an Active-Sleep  packet to each sensor in the subregion based on the algorithm's results, indicating if  the sensor should be active or not in
+each round  of the  sensing phase.  }
+%Each  WSNL will \textcolor{red}{ execute an optimization algorithm (see section \ref{oa})} to  select which  cover sets  will be
+%activated in  the following  sensing phase  to cover the  subregion to  which it
+%belongs.  The \textcolor{red}{optimization algorithm} will produce $T$ cover sets,  one for each round. The WSNL will send an Active-Sleep  packet to each sensor in the subregion based on the algorithm's results, indicating if  the sensor should be active or not in
+%each round  of the  sensing phase.  
+
+
+%solve  an integer  program
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+%\section{\textcolor{red}{ Optimization Algorithm for Multiround Lifetime Coverage Optimization}}
+%\label{oa}
+As shown in Algorithm~\ref{alg:MuDiLCO}, the leader will execute an optimization algorithm based on an integer program. The  integer program  is based on  the model

 proposed by  \cite{pedraza2006} with some modifications, where  the objective is
 to find  a maximum  number of disjoint  cover sets.   To fulfill this  goal, the
 authors proposed an integer  program which forces undercoverage and overcoverage
 proposed by  \cite{pedraza2006} with some modifications, where  the objective is
 to find  a maximum  number of disjoint  cover sets.   To fulfill this  goal, the
 authors proposed an integer  program which forces undercoverage and overcoverage


@@ -771,11 +851,12 @@ In our simulations priority is given  to the coverage by choosing $W_{U}$ very
 large compared to $W_{\theta}$.
 %The Active-Sleep packet includes the schedule vector with the number of rounds that should be applied by the receiving sensor node during the sensing phase.
 
 large compared to $W_{\theta}$.
 %The Active-Sleep packet includes the schedule vector with the number of rounds that should be applied by the receiving sensor node during the sensing phase.
 

+

 \subsection{Sensing phase}
 
 The sensing phase consists of $T$ rounds. Each sensor node in the subregion will
 receive an Active-Sleep packet from WSNL, informing it to stay awake or to go to
 \subsection{Sensing phase}
 
 The sensing phase consists of $T$ rounds. Each sensor node in the subregion will
 receive an Active-Sleep packet from WSNL, informing it to stay awake or to go to

-sleep for  each round of the sensing  phase.  Algorithm~\ref{alg:MuDiLCO}, which
+sleep for each round of the sensing  phase.  Algorithm~\ref{alg:MuDiLCO}, which

 will be  executed by each node  at the beginning  of a period, explains  how the
 Active-Sleep packet is obtained.
 
 will be  executed by each node  at the beginning  of a period, explains  how the
 Active-Sleep packet is obtained.
 


@@ -799,7 +880,7 @@ Active-Sleep packet is obtained.
       \If{$ s_j.ID = LeaderID $}{
         \emph{$s_j.status$ = COMPUTATION}\;
         \emph{$\left\{\left(X_{1,k},\dots,X_{T,k}\right)\right\}_{k \in J}$ =
       \If{$ s_j.ID = LeaderID $}{
         \emph{$s_j.status$ = COMPUTATION}\;
         \emph{$\left\{\left(X_{1,k},\dots,X_{T,k}\right)\right\}_{k \in J}$ =

-          Execute Integer Program Algorithm($T,J$)}\;
+          Execute \textcolor{red}{Optimization Algorithm}($T,J$)}\;

         \emph{$s_j.status$ = COMMUNICATION}\;
         \emph{Send $ActiveSleep()$ to each node $k$ in subregion a packet \\
           with vector of activity scheduling $(X_{1,k},\dots,X_{T,k})$}\;
         \emph{$s_j.status$ = COMMUNICATION}\;
         \emph{Send $ActiveSleep()$ to each node $k$ in subregion a packet \\
           with vector of activity scheduling $(X_{1,k},\dots,X_{T,k})$}\;


@@ -821,63 +902,72 @@ Active-Sleep packet is obtained.
 
 \end{algorithm}
 
 
 \end{algorithm}
 

-%\textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:}   ali   }}
+\iffalse
+\textcolor{red}{This integer program can be solved using two approaches:}

 
 

+\subsection{\textcolor{red}{Optimization solver for Multiround Lifetime Coverage Optimization}}
+\label{glpk}
+\textcolor{red}{The modeling language for Mathematical Programming (AMPL)~\cite{AMPL} is  employed to generate the integer program instance  in a  standard format, which  is then read  and solved  by the optimization solver  GLPK (GNU  linear Programming Kit  available in  the public domain) \cite{glpk} through a Branch-and-Bound method. We named the protocol which is based on GLPK solver in the decision phase as MuDiLCO.}
+\fi
+
+\iffalse

 
 

-\section{Genetic Algorithm (GA) for Multiround Lifetime Coverage Optimization}
+\subsection{\textcolor{red}{Genetic Algorithm for Multiround Lifetime Coverage Optimization}}

 \label{GA}
 \label{GA}

-Metaheuristics  are a generic search strategies for exploring search spaces for solving the complex problems. These strategies have to dynamically balance between the exploitation of the accumulated search experience and the exploration of the search space. On one hand, this balance can find regions in the search space with high-quality solutions. On the other hand, it prevents waste too much time in regions of the search space which are either already explored or don’t provide high-quality solutions. Therefore,  metaheuristic provides an enough good solution to an optimization problem, especially with incomplete  information or limited computation capacity \cite{bianchi2009survey}. Genetic Algorithm (GA) is one of the population-based metaheuristic methods that simulates the process of natural selection \cite{hassanien2015applications}.  GA starts with a population of random candidate solutions (called individuals or phenotypes) . GA uses genetic operators inspired by natural evolution, such as selection, mutation, evaluation, crossover, and replacement so as to improve the initial population of candidate solutions. This process repeated until a stopping criterion is satisfied.
+\textcolor{red}{Metaheuristics  are a generic search strategies for exploring search spaces for solving the complex problems. These strategies have to dynamically balance between the exploitation of the accumulated search experience and the exploration of the search space. On one hand, this balance can find regions in the search space with high-quality solutions. On the other hand, it prevents waste too much time in regions of the search space which are either already explored or don’t provide high-quality solutions. Therefore,  metaheuristic provides an enough good solution to an optimization problem, especially with incomplete  information or limited computation capacity \cite{bianchi2009survey}. Genetic Algorithm (GA) is one of the population-based metaheuristic methods that simulates the process of natural selection \cite{hassanien2015applications}.  GA starts with a population of random candidate solutions (called individuals or phenotypes) . GA uses genetic operators inspired by natural evolution, such as selection, mutation, evaluation, crossover, and replacement so as to improve the initial population of candidate solutions. This process repeated until a stopping criterion is satisfied. In comparison with GLPK optimization solver, GA provides a near optimal solution with acceptable execution time, as well as it requires a less amount of memory especially for large size problems. GLPK provides optimal solution, but it requires higher execution time and amount of memory for large problem.}

 
 

-In this section, we present a metaheuristic based GA to solve our multiround lifetime coverage optimization problem. The proposed GA provides a near optimal sechedule for multiround sensing per period. The proposed GA is based on the mathematical model which is presented in Section \ref{pd}. Algorithm \ref{alg:GA} shows the proposed GA to solve the coverage lifetime optimization problem. We named the new protocol which is based on GA in the decision phase as GA-MuDiLCO. The proposed GA can be explained in more details as follow:
+\textcolor{red}{In this section, we present a metaheuristic based GA to solve our multiround lifetime coverage optimization problem. The proposed GA provides a near optimal sechedule for multiround sensing per period. The proposed GA is based on the mathematical model which is presented in Section \ref{oa}. Algorithm \ref{alg:GA} shows the proposed GA to solve the coverage lifetime optimization problem. We named the new protocol which is based on GA in the decision phase as GA-MuDiLCO. The proposed GA can be explained in more details as follow:}

 
 

-\begin{algorithm}[h!]                
+\begin{algorithm}[h!]    
+       

  \small
  \small

- \SetKwInput{Input}{Input}
- \SetKwInput{Output}{Output}
- \Input{ $ P, J, T, S_{pop}, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind}, Child_{t,j}^{ind}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1}$}
- \Output{$\left\{\left(X_{1,1},\dots, X_{t,j}, \dots, X_{T,J}\right)\right\}_{t \in T, j \in J}$}
+ \SetKwInput{Input}{\textcolor{red}{Input}}
+ \SetKwInput{Output}{\textcolor{red}{Output}}
+ \Input{ \textcolor{red}{$ P, J, T, S_{pop}, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind}, Child_{t,j}^{ind}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1}$}}
+ \Output{\textcolor{red}{$\left\{\left(X_{1,1},\dots, X_{t,j}, \dots, X_{T,J}\right)\right\}_{t \in T, j \in J}$}}

 
   \BlankLine
   %\emph{Initialize the sensor node and determine it's position and subregion} \; 
 
   \BlankLine
   %\emph{Initialize the sensor node and determine it's position and subregion} \; 

-  \ForEach {Individual $ind$ $\in$ $S_{pop}$} {
-     \emph{Generate Randomly Chromosome $\left\{\left(X_{1,1},\dots, X_{t,j}, \dots, X_{T,J}\right)\right\}_{t \in T, j \in J}$}\;
+  \ForEach {\textcolor{red}{Individual $ind$ $\in$ $S_{pop}$}} {
+     \emph{\textcolor{red}{Generate Randomly Chromosome $\left\{\left(X_{1,1},\dots, X_{t,j}, \dots, X_{T,J}\right)\right\}_{t \in T, j \in J}$}}\;

      
      

-     \emph{Update O-U-Coverage $\left\{(P, J, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind})\right\}_{p \in P}$}\;
+     \emph{\textcolor{red}{Update O-U-Coverage $\left\{(P, J, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind})\right\}_{p \in P}$}}\;

      
   
      
   

-     \emph{Evaluate Individual $(P, J, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind})$}\;  
+     \emph{\textcolor{red}{Evaluate Individual $(P, J, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind})$}}\;  

   }
   
   }
   

-  \While{ Stopping criteria is not satisfied }{
+  \While{\textcolor{red}{ Stopping criteria is not satisfied} }{

   
   

-  \emph{Selection $(ind_1, ind_2)$}\;
-    \emph{Crossover $(P_c, X_{t,j}^{ind_1}, X_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2})$}\;
-    \emph{Mutation $(P_m, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2})$}\;
+  \emph{\textcolor{red}{Selection $(ind_1, ind_2)$}}\;
+    \emph{\textcolor{red}{Crossover $(P_c, X_{t,j}^{ind_1}, X_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2})$}}\;
+    \emph{\textcolor{red}{Mutation $(P_m, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2})$}}\;

    
    
    
    

-   \emph{Update O-U-Coverage $(P, J, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_1}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1})$}\;
-  \emph{Update O-U-Coverage $(P, J, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_2}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_2})$}\;  
+   \emph{\textcolor{red}{Update O-U-Coverage $(P, J, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_1}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1})$}}\;
+  \emph{\textcolor{red}{Update O-U-Coverage $(P, J, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_2}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_2})$}}\;  

  
  

-\emph{Evaluate New Individual$(P, J, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_1}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1})$}\;  
- \emph{Replacement $(P, J, T, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_1}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind}  )$ }\;
+\emph{\textcolor{red}{Evaluate New Individual$(P, J, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_1}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1})$}}\;  
+ \emph{\textcolor{red}{Replacement $(P, J, T, Child_{t,j}^{ind_1}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_1}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_1}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind}  )$ }}\;

  
  

- \emph{Evaluate New Individual$(P, J, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_2}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_2})$}\;  
+ \emph{\textcolor{red}{Evaluate New Individual$(P, J, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_2}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_2})$}}\;  

   
   

- \emph{Replacement $(P, J, T, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_2}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_2}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind}  )$ }\;
+ \emph{\textcolor{red}{Replacement $(P, J, T, Child_{t,j}^{ind_2}, Ch.\Theta_{t,p}^{ind_2}, Ch.U_{t,p}^{ind_2}, X_{t,j}^{ind}, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, U_{t,p}^{ind}  )$ }}\;

   
       
   }
   
       
   }

-  \emph{$\left\{\left(X_{1,1},\dots,X_{t,j},\dots,X_{T,J}\right)\right\}$ =
-            Select Best Solution ($S_{pop}$)}\;
- \emph{return X} \;
-\caption{GA-MuDiLCO($s_j$)}
+  \emph{\textcolor{red}{$\left\{\left(X_{1,1},\dots,X_{t,j},\dots,X_{T,J}\right)\right\}$ =
+            Select Best Solution ($S_{pop}$)}}\;
+ \emph{\textcolor{red}{return X}} \;
+\caption{\textcolor{red}{GA($T, J$)}}

 \label{alg:GA}
 
 \end{algorithm}
 
 
 \begin{enumerate} [I)]
 \label{alg:GA}
 
 \end{algorithm}
 
 
 \begin{enumerate} [I)]

-\item \textbf{Representation:} Since the proposed GA's goal is to find the optimal schedule of the sensor nodes which take the responsibility of monitoring the subregion for $T$ rounds in the next phase, the chromosome is defined as a schedule for alive  sensors and each chromosome contains $T$ rounds. Each round in the schedule includes J genes, the total alive sensors in the subregion. Therefore, the gene of such a chromosome is a schedule of a sensor. In other words, The genes corresponding to active nodes have the value of one, the others are zero. Figure \ref{chromo} shows solution representation in the proposed GA.
+
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Representation:} Since the proposed GA's goal is to find the optimal schedule of the sensor nodes which take the responsibility of monitoring the subregion for $T$ rounds in the sensing phase, the chromosome is defined as a schedule for alive  sensors and each chromosome contains $T$ rounds. The proposed GA uses binary representation, where each round in the schedule includes J genes, the total alive sensors in the subregion. Therefore, the gene of such a chromosome is a schedule of a sensor. In other words, The genes corresponding to active nodes have the value of one, the others are zero. Figure \ref{chromo} shows solution representation in the proposed GA.}

 %[scale=0.3]
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
 %[scale=0.3]
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering


@@ -888,43 +978,43 @@ In this section, we present a metaheuristic based GA to solve our multiround lif
 
 
 
 
 
 

-\item \textbf{Initialize Population:} The initial population is randomly generated and each chromosome  in the GA population represents a possible sensors schedule solution to cover the entire subregion for $T$ rounds during current period. Each sensor in the chromosome is given a random value (0 or  1) for all rounds. If the random value is 1, the remaining  energy of this sensor should be adequate to activate this sensor during current round. Otherwise, the value is set to 0. The energy constraint is applied for each sensor during all rounds. 
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Initialize Population:} The initial population is randomly generated and each chromosome  in the GA population represents a possible sensors schedule solution to cover the entire subregion for $T$ rounds during current period. Each sensor in the chromosome is given a random value (0 or  1) for all rounds. If the random value is 1, the remaining  energy of this sensor should be adequate to activate this sensor during the current round. Otherwise, the value is set to 0. The energy constraint is applied for each sensor during all rounds. }

 
 
 
 

-\item \textbf{Update O-U-Coverage:} 
-After creating the initial population, The overcoverage $\Theta_{t,p}$ and undercoverage $U_{t,p}$ for each candidate solution are computed (see Algorithm \ref{OU}) so as to use them in the next step.
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Update O-U-Coverage:} 
+After creating the initial population, The overcoverage $\Theta_{t,p}$ and undercoverage $U_{t,p}$ for each candidate solution are computed (see Algorithm \ref{OU}) so as to use them in the next step.}

 
 \begin{algorithm}[h!]                
   
 
 \begin{algorithm}[h!]                
   

- \SetKwInput{Input}{Input}
- \SetKwInput{Output}{Output}
- \Input{ parameters $P, J, ind, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, X_{t,j}^{ind}$}
- \Output{$U^{ind} = \left\lbrace U_{1,1}^{ind}, \dots, U_{t,p}^{ind}, \dots, U_{T,P}^{ind} \right\rbrace$ and $\Theta^{ind} = \left\lbrace \Theta_{1,1}^{ind}, \dots, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, \dots, \Theta_{T,P}^{ind} \right\rbrace$}
+ \SetKwInput{Input}{\textcolor{red}{Input}}
+ \SetKwInput{Output}{\textcolor{red}{Output}}
+ \Input{ \textcolor{red}{parameters $P, J, ind, \alpha_{j,p}^{ind}, X_{t,j}^{ind}$}}
+ \Output{\textcolor{red}{$U^{ind} = \left\lbrace U_{1,1}^{ind}, \dots, U_{t,p}^{ind}, \dots, U_{T,P}^{ind} \right\rbrace$ and $\Theta^{ind} = \left\lbrace \Theta_{1,1}^{ind}, \dots, \Theta_{t,p}^{ind}, \dots, \Theta_{T,P}^{ind} \right\rbrace$}}

 
   \BlankLine
 
 
   \BlankLine
 

-  \For{$t\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $T$}{
-  \For{$p\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $P$}{
+  \For{\textcolor{red}{$t\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $T$}}{
+  \For{\textcolor{red}{$p\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $P$}}{

      
  %    \For{$i\leftarrow 0$ \KwTo $I_j$}{
      
  %    \For{$i\leftarrow 0$ \KwTo $I_j$}{

-       \emph{$SUM\leftarrow 0$}\;
-         \For{$j\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $J$}{
-              \emph{$SUM \leftarrow SUM + (\alpha_{j,p}^{ind} \times X_{t,j}^{ind})$ }\;
+       \emph{\textcolor{red}{$SUM\leftarrow 0$}}\;
+         \For{\textcolor{red}{$j\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $J$}}{
+              \emph{\textcolor{red}{$SUM \leftarrow SUM + (\alpha_{j,p}^{ind} \times X_{t,j}^{ind})$ }}\;

          }
          
          }
          

-         \If { SUM = 0} {
-         \emph{$U_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow 0$}\;
-         \emph{$\Theta_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow 1$}\;
+         \If { \textcolor{red}{SUM = 0}} {
+         \emph{\textcolor{red}{$U_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow 0$}}\;
+         \emph{\textcolor{red}{$\Theta_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow 1$}}\;

          }
          \Else{
          }
          \Else{

-         \emph{$U_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow SUM -1$}\;
-         \emph{$\Theta_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow 0$}\;
+         \emph{\textcolor{red}{$U_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow SUM -1$}}\;
+         \emph{\textcolor{red}{$\Theta_{t,p}^{ind} \leftarrow 0$}}\;

          }
      
      }
      
   }
          }
      
      }
      
   }

-\emph{return $U^{ind}, \Theta^{ind}$ } \;
+\emph{\textcolor{red}{return $U^{ind}, \Theta^{ind}$ }} \;

 \caption{O-U-Coverage}
 \label{OU}
 
 \caption{O-U-Coverage}
 \label{OU}
 


@@ -932,20 +1022,20 @@ After creating the initial population, The overcoverage $\Theta_{t,p}$ and under
 
 
 
 
 
 

-\item \textbf{Evaluate Population:}
-After creating the initial population, each individual is evaluated and assigned a fitness value according to the fitness function is illustrated in Eq. \eqref{eqf}. In the proposed GA, the optimal (or near optimal) candidate solution, is the one with the minimum value for the fitness function. The lower the fitness values been assigned to an individual, the better opportunity it get survived.  In our works, the function rewards  the decrease in the sensor nodes which cover the same primary point and penalizes the decrease to zero in the sensor nodes which cover the primary point. 
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Evaluate Population:}
+After creating the initial population, each individual is evaluated and assigned a fitness value according to the fitness function is illustrated in Eq. \eqref{eqf}. In the proposed GA, the optimal (or near optimal) candidate solution, is the one with the minimum value for the fitness function. The lower the fitness values been assigned to an individual, the better opportunity it gets survived.  In our works, the function rewards  the decrease in the sensor nodes which cover the same primary point and penalizes the decrease to zero in the sensor nodes which cover the primary point. }

 
 \begin{equation}
  F^{ind} \leftarrow  \sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{p=1}^{P} \left(W_{\theta}* \Theta_{t,p} + W_{U} * U_{t,p}  \right)    \label{eqf} 
 \end{equation}
 
 
 
 \begin{equation}
  F^{ind} \leftarrow  \sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{p=1}^{P} \left(W_{\theta}* \Theta_{t,p} + W_{U} * U_{t,p}  \right)    \label{eqf} 
 \end{equation}
 
 

-\item \textbf{Selection:} In order to generate a new generation, a portion of the existing population is elected based on a fitness function that ranks the fitness of each candidate solution and preferentially select the best solutions. Two parents should be selected to the mating pool.  In the proposed GA-MuDiLCO algorithm, the first parent is selected by using binary tournament selection to select one of the parents \cite{goldberg1991comparative}. In this method,  two individuals are chosen at random from population and the better of the two
-individuals is selected. If they have similar fitness values, one of them will be selected randomly. The best individual in the population is selected as a second parent.
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Selection:} In order to generate a new generation, a portion of the existing population is elected based on a fitness function that ranks the fitness of each candidate solution and preferentially select the best solutions. Two parents should be selected to the mating pool.  In the proposed GA-MuDiLCO algorithm, the first parent is selected by using binary tournament selection to select one of the parents \cite{goldberg1991comparative}. In this method,  two individuals are chosen at random from the population and the better of the two
+individuals is selected. If they have similar fitness values, one of them will be selected randomly. The best individual in the population is selected as a second parent.}

 
 
 
 
 
 

-\item \textbf{Crossover:} Crossover is a genetic operator used to take more than one parent solutions and produce a child solution from them. If crossover probability $P_c$ is 100$\%$, then the crossover operation takes place between two individuals. If it is 0$\%$, the  two selected individuals in the mating pool will be the new chromosomes without crossover. In the proposed GA, a two-point crossover is used. Figure \ref{cross} gives an example for a two-point crossover for 8 sensors in the subregion and the schedule for 3 rounds.
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Crossover:} Crossover is a genetic operator used to take more than one parent solutions and produce a child solution from them. If crossover probability $P_c$ is 100$\%$, then the crossover operation takes place between two individuals. If it is 0$\%$, the  two selected individuals in the mating pool will be the new chromosomes without crossover. In the proposed GA, a two-point crossover is used. Figure \ref{cross} gives an example for a two-point crossover for 8 sensors in the subregion and the schedule for 3 rounds.}

 
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]


@@ -956,29 +1046,29 @@ individuals is selected. If they have similar fitness values, one of them will b
 \end{figure} 
 
 
 \end{figure} 
 
 

-\item \textbf{Mutation:}
-Mutation is a divergence operation which introduces random modifications.  The purpose of the mutation is to maintain diversity within the population and prevent premature convergence. Mutation is used to add new genetic information (divergence) in order to achieve a global search over the solution search space and avoid to fall in local optima. The mutation oprator in the proposed GA-MuDiLCO works as follow: If mutation probability $P_m$ is 100$\%$, then the mutation operation takes place on the the new individual. The round number is selected randomly within (1..T) in the schedule solution. After that one sensor within this round is selected randomly within (1..J). If the sensor is scheduled as active "1", it should be rescheduled to sleep "0". If the sensor is scheduled as sleep, it rescheduled to active only if it has adequate remaining energy.
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Mutation:}
+Mutation is a divergence operation which introduces random modifications.  The purpose of the mutation is to maintain diversity within the population and prevent premature convergence. Mutation is used to add new genetic information (divergence) in order to achieve a global search over the solution search space and avoid to fall in local optima. The mutation operator in the proposed GA-MuDiLCO works as follow: If mutation probability $P_m$ is 100$\%$, then the mutation operation takes place on the new individual. The round number is selected randomly within (1..T) in the schedule solution. After that one sensor within this round is selected randomly within (1..J). If the sensor is scheduled as active "1", it should be rescheduled to sleep "0". If the sensor is scheduled as sleep, it rescheduled to active only if it has adequate remaining energy.}

 
 
 
 

-\item \textbf{Update O-U-Coverage for children:}
-Before evalute each new individual, Algorithm \ref{OU} is called for each new individual to compute the new undercoverage $Ch.U$ and overcoverage $Ch.\Theta$ parameters. 
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Update O-U-Coverage for children:}
+Before evaluating each new individual, Algorithm \ref{OU} is called for each new individual to compute the new undercoverage $Ch.U$ and overcoverage $Ch.\Theta$ parameters. }

  
  

-\item \textbf{Evaluate New Individuals:}
-Each new individual is evaluated using Eq. \ref{eqf} but with using the new undercoverage $Ch.U$ and overcoverage $Ch.\Theta$ parameters of the new children.
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Evaluate New Individuals:}
+Each new individual is evaluated using Eq. \ref{eqf} but with using the new undercoverage $Ch.U$ and overcoverage $Ch.\Theta$ parameters of the new children.}

 
 

-\item \textbf{Replacement:}
-After evaluatation of new children, Triple Tournament Replacement (TTR) will be applied for each new individual. In TTR strategy, three individuals are selected
-randomly from the population. Find the worst from them and then check its fitness with the new individual fitness. If the fitness of the new individual is better than the fitness of  the worst individual, replace the new individual with the worst individual. Otherwise, the replacement is not done. 
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Replacement:}
+After evaluation of new children, Triple Tournament Replacement (TTR) will be applied for each new individual. In TTR strategy, three individuals are selected
+randomly from the population. Find the worst from them and then check its fitness with the new individual fitness. If the fitness of the new individual is better than the fitness of  the worst individual, replace the new individual with the worst individual. Otherwise, the replacement is not done. }

 
  
 
  

-\item \textbf{Stopping criteria:}
-The proposed GA-MuDiLCO stops when the stopping criteria is met. It stops after running for an amount of time in seconds equal to \textbf{Time limit}. The \textbf{Time limit} is the execution time obtained by the optimization solver GLPK for solving the same size of problem divided by two. The best solution will be selected as a schedule of sensors for $T$ rounds during the sensing phase in the current period.
+\item \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Stopping criteria:}
+The proposed GA-MuDiLCO stops when the stopping criteria is met. It stops after running for an amount of time in seconds equal to \textbf{Time limit}. The \textbf{Time limit} is the execution time obtained by the optimization solver GLPK for solving the same size of problem. The best solution will be selected as a schedule of sensors for $T$ rounds during the sensing phase in the current period.}

 
 
 
 \end{enumerate} 
 
 
 
 
 \end{enumerate} 
 

-
+\fi

 
 \section{Experimental study}
 \label{exp}
 
 \section{Experimental study}
 \label{exp}


@@ -1030,16 +1120,22 @@ $R_s$ & 5~m   \\
 $W_{\theta}$ & 1   \\
 % [1ex] adds vertical space
 %\hline
 $W_{\theta}$ & 1   \\
 % [1ex] adds vertical space
 %\hline

-$W_{U}$ & $|P|^2$
+$W_{U}$ & $|P|^2$ \\
+%$P_c$ & 0.95   \\ 
+%$P_m$ & 0.6 \\
+%$S_{pop}$ & 50

 %inserts single line
 \end{tabular}
 \label{table3}
 % is used to refer this table in the text
 \end{table}
   
 %inserts single line
 \end{tabular}
 \label{table3}
 % is used to refer this table in the text
 \end{table}
   

-Our protocol  is declined into  four versions: MuDiLCO-1,  MuDiLCO-3, MuDiLCO-5,
+\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
 and  MuDiLCO-7, corresponding  respectively to  $T=1,3,5,7$ ($T$  the  number of

-rounds in one sensing period).  In  the following, we will make comparisons with
+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}. 
+ 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
 GAF~\cite{xu2001geography}, consists in dividing  the region into fixed squares.
 two other methods. The first method, called DESK and proposed by \cite{ChinhVu},
 is  a   full  distributed  coverage   algorithm.   The  second   method,  called
 GAF~\cite{xu2001geography}, consists in dividing  the region into fixed squares.


@@ -1225,6 +1321,54 @@ indicate the energy consumed by the whole network in round $t$.
 
 \end{enumerate}
 
 
 \end{enumerate}
 

+\subsection{Performance Analysis for Different Number of Primary Points}
+\label{ch4:sec:04:06}
+
+In this section, we study the performance of MuDiLCO-1 approach for different numbers of primary points. The objective of this comparison is to select the suitable primary point model to be used by a MuDiLCO protocol. In this comparison, MuDiLCO-1 protocol is used with five models, which are called Model-5 (it uses 5 primary points), Model-9, Model-13, Model-17, and Model-21. 
+
+
+%\begin{enumerate}[i)]
+
+%\item {{\bf Coverage Ratio}}
+\subsubsection{Coverage Ratio} 
+
+Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/CR} shows the average coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes.  
+\parskip 0pt    
+\begin{figure}[h!]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[scale=0.5] {R2/CR.pdf} 
+\caption{Coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes}
+\label{Figures/ch4/R2/CR}
+\end{figure} 
+As can be seen in Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/CR}, at the beginning the models which use a larger number of primary points provide slightly better coverage ratios, but latter they are the worst. 
+%Moreover, when the number of periods increases, coverage ratio produced by Model-9, Model-13, Model-17, and Model-21 decreases in comparison with Model-5 due to a larger time computation for the decision process for larger number of primary points.
+Moreover, when the number of periods increases, coverage ratio produced by all models decrease, but Model-5 is the one with the slowest decrease due to a smaller time computation of decision process for a smaller number of primary points. 
+As shown in Figure ~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/CR}, coverage ratio decreases when the number of periods increases due to dead nodes. Model-5 is slightly more efficient than other models, because it offers a good coverage ratio for a larger number of periods in comparison with other models.
+
+
+%\item {{\bf Network Lifetime}}
+\subsubsection{Network Lifetime}
+
+Finally, we study the effect of increasing the primary points on the lifetime of the network. 
+%In Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT95} and in Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT50}, network lifetime, $Lifetime95$ and $Lifetime50$ respectively, are illustrated for different network sizes. 
+As highlighted by Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT}(a) and \ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT}(b), the network lifetime obviously increases when the size of the network increases, with  Model-5 that leads to the larger lifetime improvement. 
+
+\begin{figure}[h!]
+\centering
+\centering
+\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R2/LT95.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(a) \\
+
+\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R2/LT50.pdf}\\~ ~ ~ ~ ~(b)
+
+\caption{Network lifetime for (a) $Lifetime_{95}$ and (b) $Lifetime_{50}$}
+  \label{Figures/ch4/R2/LT}
+\end{figure}
+
+Comparison shows that Model-5, which uses less number of primary points, is the best one because it is less energy consuming during the network lifetime. It is also the better one from the point of view of coverage ratio. Our proposed Model-5 efficiently prolongs the network lifetime with a good coverage ratio in comparison with other models. Therefore, we have chosen Model-5 for all the experiments presented thereafter. 
+
+%\end{enumerate}
+
+

 \subsection{Results and analysis}
 
 \subsubsection{Coverage ratio} 
 \subsection{Results and analysis}
 
 \subsubsection{Coverage ratio} 


@@ -1253,19 +1397,24 @@ rounds, and thus should extend the network lifetime.
 \label{fig3}
 \end{figure} 
 
 \label{fig3}
 \end{figure} 
 

+\iffalse
+\textcolor{red}{ We
+can see that for the first thirty nine rounds GA-MuDiLCO provides a little bit better coverage ratio  than MuDiLCO. Both DESK and GAF provide a coverage
+which is a little bit better than the one of MuDiLCO and GA-MuDiLCO for the first thirty rounds because they activate a larger number of nodes during sensing phase. After that GA-MuDiLCO provides a coverage ratio near to the  MuDiLCO and better than DESK and GAF. GA-MuDiLCO gives approximate solution with activation a larger number of nodes than MuDiLCO during sensing phase while it activates a less number of nodes in comparison with both DESK and GAF. MuDiLCO and GA-MuDiLCO clearly outperform DESK and GAF for
+a number of periods between 31 and 103. This is because they optimize the coverage and the lifetime in a wireless sensor network by selecting the best representative sensor nodes to take the responsibility of coverage during the sensing phase.}
+\fi
+
+

 \subsubsection{Active sensors ratio} 
 
 It is crucial to have as few active nodes as possible in each round, in order to
 \subsubsection{Active sensors ratio} 
 
 It is crucial to have as few active nodes as possible in each round, in order to

-minimize    the    communication    overhead    and   maximize    the    network
-lifetime. Figure~\ref{fig4}  presents the active  sensor ratio for  150 deployed
+minimize the communication overhead and maximize    the network lifetime. Figure~\ref{fig4}  presents the active  sensor ratio for  150 deployed

 nodes all along the network lifetime. It appears that up to round thirteen, DESK
 and GAF have  respectively 37.6\% and 44.8\% of nodes  in ACTIVE status, whereas
 nodes all along the network lifetime. It appears that up to round thirteen, DESK
 and GAF have  respectively 37.6\% and 44.8\% of nodes  in ACTIVE status, whereas

-MuDiLCO clearly  outperforms them  with only 24.8\%  of active nodes.  After the
-thirty-fifth round, MuDiLCO exhibits larger numbers of active nodes, which agrees
-with  the  dual  observation  of  higher  level  of  coverage  made  previously.
-Obviously, in  that case DESK  and GAF have  less active nodes, since  they have
-activated many nodes  at the beginning. Anyway, MuDiLCO  activates the available
-nodes in a more efficient manner.
+MuDiLCO clearly outperforms them  with only 24.8\%  of active nodes. 
+%\textcolor{red}{GA-MuDiLCO activates a number of sensor nodes larger than MuDiLCO but lower than both DESK and GAF. GA-MuDiLCO-1, GA-MuDiLCO-3, and GA-MuDiLCO-5 continue in providing a larger number of active sensors until the forty-sixth round after that it provides less number of active nodes due to the died nodes. GA-MuDiLCO-7 provides a larger number of sensor nodes and maintains a better coverage ratio compared to MuDiLCO-7 until the fifty-seventh round.  After the thirty-fifth round, MuDiLCO exhibits larger numbers of active nodes compared with DESK  and GAF, which agrees with  the  dual  observation  of  higher  level  of  coverage  made  previously}.
+Obviously, in that case DESK  and GAF have less active nodes, since  they have activated many nodes  at the beginning. Anyway, MuDiLCO  activates the available nodes in a more efficient manner. 
+%\textcolor{red}{GA-MuDiLCO activates near optimal number of sensor nodes also in efficient manner compared with both DESK  and GAF}.

 
 \begin{figure}[ht!]
 \centering
 
 \begin{figure}[ht!]
 \centering


@@ -1274,6 +1423,9 @@ nodes in a more efficient manner.
 \label{fig4}
 \end{figure} 
 
 \label{fig4}
 \end{figure} 
 

+%\textcolor{red}{GA-MuDiLCO activates a sensor nodes larger than MuDiLCO but lower than both DESK and GAF }
+
+

 \subsubsection{Stopped simulation runs}
 %The results presented in this experiment, is to show the comparison of our MuDiLCO protocol with other two approaches from the point of view the stopped simulation runs per round. Figure~\ref{fig6} illustrates the percentage of stopped simulation
 %runs per round for 150 deployed nodes. 
 \subsubsection{Stopped simulation runs}
 %The results presented in this experiment, is to show the comparison of our MuDiLCO protocol with other two approaches from the point of view the stopped simulation runs per round. Figure~\ref{fig6} illustrates the percentage of stopped simulation
 %runs per round for 150 deployed nodes. 


@@ -1281,11 +1433,10 @@ nodes in a more efficient manner.
 Figure~\ref{fig6} reports the cumulative  percentage of stopped simulations runs
 per round for  150 deployed nodes. This figure gives the  breakpoint for each method.  DESK stops first,  after approximately 45~rounds, because it consumes the
 more energy by  turning on a large number of redundant  nodes during the sensing
 Figure~\ref{fig6} reports the cumulative  percentage of stopped simulations runs
 per round for  150 deployed nodes. This figure gives the  breakpoint for each method.  DESK stops first,  after approximately 45~rounds, because it consumes the
 more energy by  turning on a large number of redundant  nodes during the sensing

-phase. GAF  stops secondly for the  same reason than  DESK.  MuDiLCO overcomes
-DESK and GAF because the  optimization process distributed on several subregions
-leads  to coverage  preservation and  so extends  the network  lifetime.  Let us
-emphasize that the  simulation continues as long as a network  in a subregion is
-still connected.
+phase. GAF  stops secondly for the  same reason than  DESK. 
+%\textcolor{red}{GA-MuDiLCO  stops thirdly for the  same reason than  DESK and GAF.} \textcolor{red}{MuDiLCO and GA-MuDiLCO overcome}
+%DESK and GAF because \textcolor{red}{they activate less number of sensor nodes, as well as }the optimization process distributed on several subregions leads to coverage  preservation and  so extends  the network  lifetime.  
+Let us emphasize that the  simulation continues as long as a network  in a subregion is still connected. 

 
 %%% The optimization effectively continues as long as a network in a subregion is still connected. A VOIR %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
 
 %%% The optimization effectively continues as long as a network in a subregion is still connected. A VOIR %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 


@@ -1318,20 +1469,16 @@ network sizes, for $Lifetime_{95}$ and $Lifetime_{50}$.
 
 The  results  show  that  MuDiLCO  is  the  most  competitive  from  the  energy
 consumption point of view.  The  other approaches have a high energy consumption
 
 The  results  show  that  MuDiLCO  is  the  most  competitive  from  the  energy
 consumption point of view.  The  other approaches have a high energy consumption

-due  to activating a  larger number  of redundant  nodes as  well as  the energy
-consumed during  the different  status of the  sensor node. Among  the different
-versions of our protocol, the MuDiLCO-7  one consumes more energy than the other
-versions. This is  easy to understand since the bigger the  number of rounds and
-the number of  sensors involved in the integer program are,  the larger the time
-computation to solve the optimization problem is. To improve the performances of
-MuDiLCO-7, we  should increase the  number of subregions  in order to  have less
-sensors to consider in the integer program.
-
+due  to activating a  larger number  of redundant  nodes as  well as  the energy consumed during  the different  status of the  sensor node. Among  the different versions of our protocol, the MuDiLCO-7  one consumes more energy than the other
+versions. This is  easy to understand since the bigger the  number of rounds and the number of  sensors involved in the integer program are,  the larger the time computation to solve the optimization problem is. To improve the performances of MuDiLCO-7, we  should increase the  number of subregions  in order to  have less sensors to consider in the integer program.
+%\textcolor{red}{As shown in Figure~\ref{fig7}, GA-MuDiLCO consumes less energy than both DESK and GAF, but a little bit higher than MuDiLCO  because it provides a near optimal solution by activating a larger number of nodes during the sensing phase.  GA-MuDiLCO consumes less energy in comparison with MuDiLCO-7 version, especially for the dense networks. However, MuDiLCO protocol and GA-MuDiLCO protocol are the most competitive from the energy
+%consumption point of view. The other approaches have a high energy consumption
+%due to activating a larger number of redundant nodes.}

 %In fact,  a distributed optimization decision, which produces T rounds, on the subregions is  greatly reduced the cost of communications and the time of listening as well as the energy needed for sensing phase and computation so thanks to the partitioning of the initial network into several independent subnetworks and producing T rounds for each subregion periodically. 
 
 
 \subsubsection{Execution time}
 %In fact,  a distributed optimization decision, which produces T rounds, on the subregions is  greatly reduced the cost of communications and the time of listening as well as the energy needed for sensing phase and computation so thanks to the partitioning of the initial network into several independent subnetworks and producing T rounds for each subregion periodically. 
 
 
 \subsubsection{Execution time}

-
+\label{et}

 We observe  the impact of the  network size and of  the number of  rounds on the
 computation  time.   Figure~\ref{fig77} gives  the  average  execution times  in
 seconds (needed to solve optimization problem) for different values of $T$. The modeling language for Mathematical Programming (AMPL)~\cite{AMPL} is  employed to generate the Mixed Integer Linear Program instance  in a  standard format, which  is then read  and solved  by the optimization solver  GLPK (GNU  linear Programming Kit  available in  the public domain) \cite{glpk} through a Branch-and-Bound method. The
 We observe  the impact of the  network size and of  the number of  rounds on the
 computation  time.   Figure~\ref{fig77} gives  the  average  execution times  in
 seconds (needed to solve optimization problem) for different values of $T$. The modeling language for Mathematical Programming (AMPL)~\cite{AMPL} is  employed to generate the Mixed Integer Linear Program instance  in a  standard format, which  is then read  and solved  by the optimization solver  GLPK (GNU  linear Programming Kit  available in  the public domain) \cite{glpk} through a Branch-and-Bound method. The


@@ -1378,8 +1525,9 @@ of  $Lifetime_{95}$  with  large  wireless  sensor  networks  results  from  the
 difficulty  of the optimization  problem to  be solved  by the  integer program.
 This  point was  already noticed  in subsection  \ref{subsec:EC} devoted  to the
 energy consumption,  since network lifetime and energy  consumption are directly
 difficulty  of the optimization  problem to  be solved  by the  integer program.
 This  point was  already noticed  in subsection  \ref{subsec:EC} devoted  to the
 energy consumption,  since network lifetime and energy  consumption are directly

-linked.
-
+linked. 
+%\textcolor{red}{As can be seen in these figures, the lifetime increases with the size of the network, and it is clearly largest for the MuDiLCO
+%and the GA-MuDiLCO protocols. GA-MuDiLCO prolongs the network lifetime obviously in comparison with both DESK and GAF, as well as the MuDiLCO-7 version for $lifetime_{95}$.  However, comparison shows that MuDiLCO protocol and GA-MuDiLCO protocol, which use distributed optimization over the subregions are the best ones because they are robust to network disconnection during the network lifetime as well as they consume less energy in comparison with other approaches.}

 \begin{figure}[t!]
   \centering
   \begin{tabular}{cl}
 \begin{figure}[t!]
   \centering
   \begin{tabular}{cl}