From: ali Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 12:15:07 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Ali Update 4/7/2014 X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/JournalMultiPeriods.git/commitdiff_plain/98f57661a2f404a6137381bb9d6d2cf849d90afc?ds=inline;hp=-c Ali Update 4/7/2014 --- 98f57661a2f404a6137381bb9d6d2cf849d90afc diff --git a/article.tex b/article.tex index f81734e..85045d3 100644 --- a/article.tex +++ b/article.tex @@ -747,7 +747,7 @@ $w_{U}$ & $|P^2|$ Our protocol 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). In the following, the general case will be -denoted by MuDiLCO-T. We are studied the impact of dividing the sensing feild on the performance of our MuDiLCO-T protocol with different network sizes using Divide and Conquer method, and we are found that as the number of subregions increase, the network lifetime increase and the MuDiLCO-T protocol become more powerful against the network disconnection. +denoted by MuDiLCO-T. We are studied the impact of dividing the sensing feild (using Divide and Conquer method) on the performance of our MuDiLCO-T protocol with different network sizes, and we are found that as the number of subregions increase, the network lifetime increase and the MuDiLCO-T protocol become more powerful against the network disconnection. This subdivision should be stopped when there is no benefit from the optimization, therefore Our MuDiLCO-T protocol is distributed over 16 rather than 32 subregions because there is a balance between the benefit from the optimization and the execution time is needed to sove it. We compare MuDiLCO-T 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},