From: couturie Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:38:38 +0000 (+0200) Subject: english X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/JournalMultiPeriods.git/commitdiff_plain/272967ae9512989ac7312642136f833c1c60b937 english --- diff --git a/article.tex b/article.tex index 5e7bea7..31de4f0 100644 --- a/article.tex +++ b/article.tex @@ -877,7 +877,7 @@ scheduling based on optimization in MuDiLCO maintains higher coverage ratios of the area of interest for a larger number of rounds. It also means that MuDiLCO saves more energy, with less dead nodes, at most for several rounds, and thus should extend the network lifetime. \textcolor{blue}{MuDiLCO-7 seems to have - most of the time the best coverage ratio up to round~80, after MuDiLCO-5 is + most of the time the best coverage ratio up to round~80, after that MuDiLCO-5 is slightly better.} \begin{figure}[ht!] @@ -950,7 +950,7 @@ consumed during the different status of the sensor node. \textcolor{blue}{Energy consumption increases with the size of the networks and the number of rounds. The curve Unlimited-MuDiLCO-7 shows that energy - consumption due to the time spent to solve the integer program to optimality + consumption due to the time spent to optimally solve the integer program increases drastically with the size of the network. When the resolution time is limited for large network sizes, the energy consumption remains of the same order whatever the MuDiLCO version. As can be seen with MuDiLCO-7.} @@ -1017,8 +1017,8 @@ lifetime for a coverage over 95\%, and a network of 250~nodes, is greater than rather than limiting the execution time, similar results might be obtained by replacing the computation of the exact solution with the finding of a suboptimal one using a heuristic approach. For our simulation setup and - considering the different metrics, MuDiLCO-5 seems to be the most suited - method in comparison with MuDiLCO-7.} + considering the different metrics, MuDiLCO-5 seems to be the best suited + method compared to MuDiLCO-7.} \begin{figure}[t!] \centering