From: Karine Deschinkel Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:53:42 +0000 (+0200) Subject: ok X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/JournalMultiPeriods.git/commitdiff_plain/cdab14ff0216a13274e39a333f62da63e515c30a?ds=inline;hp=6a98c5d7aa6e2cf4c6e169e0f02b67a60fe95356 ok --- diff --git a/article.tex b/article.tex index 6c85d0c..9f77e59 100644 --- 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 -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. \textcolor{red}{The integer program is solved by either GLPK solver or Genetic Algorithm (GA)}. 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 either to optimality through a branch-and-Bound method or to near-optimality using a genetic algorithm-based heuristic. } +%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. @@ -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 - 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. @@ -204,9 +209,11 @@ 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 -information from all the sensor nodes. \textcolor{red} {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 +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 @@ -232,7 +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 -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} @@ -297,7 +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 -a single round optimization in our previous work. \textcolor{red}{In addition, a metaheuristic based GA is proposed to solve our multiround optimization}. +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, as the optimization problem has become more complex, a GA-based heuristic is proposed to solve it}. \iffalse diff --git a/biblio.bib b/biblio.bib index d61f374..bed9b2f 100755 --- a/biblio.bib +++ b/biblio.bib @@ -525,4 +525,15 @@ ISSN={1536-1276}, year={2012} } +@article{gentili2013, +year={2013}, +journal={Optimization Letters}, +volume={7}, +number={1}, +title={α-Coverage to extend network lifetime on wireless sensor networks}, +publisher={Springer-Verlag}, +author={Gentili, Monica and Raiconi, Andrea}, +pages={157-172}, +} +