X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/LiCO.git/blobdiff_plain/1c2762bf6f7508f4f418890d2903ad6f008233f0..a6b75d539ec83b4958277b957744cb0eb7349aea:/LiCO_Journal.tex?ds=inline

diff --git a/LiCO_Journal.tex b/LiCO_Journal.tex
index e9d10ac..051f111 100644
--- a/LiCO_Journal.tex
+++ b/LiCO_Journal.tex
@@ -36,14 +36,16 @@
 \DeclareGraphicsRule{.ps}{pdf}{.pdf}{`ps2pdf -dEPSCrop -dNOSAFER #1 \noexpand\OutputFile}
 \begin{document}
 
-\title{Lifetime Coverage Optimization Protocol \\
-  in Wireless Sensor Networks}  %LiCO Protocol 
+%\title{Lifetime Coverage Optimization Protocol \\
+%  in Wireless Sensor Networks}
+\title{Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization to Improve \\
+  Lifetime in Wireless Sensor Networks}
 
 \author{Ali Kadhum Idrees,~\IEEEmembership{}
         Karine Deschinkel,~\IEEEmembership{}
         Michel Salomon,~\IEEEmembership{}
         and~Rapha\"el Couturier ~\IEEEmembership{} 
-        \thanks{The authors are with FEMTO-ST Institute, UMR 6174 CNRS, University of Franche-Comt\'e,
+        \thanks{The authors are with FEMTO-ST Institute, UMR 6174 CNRS, University of Franche-Comte,
           Belfort, France. Email: ali.idness@edu.univ-fcomte.fr, $\lbrace$karine.deschinkel,
           michel.salomon, raphael.couturier$\rbrace$@univ-fcomte.fr}}
 
@@ -53,29 +55,30 @@
 \maketitle
 
 \begin{abstract}
-The most important problem in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) is to optimize the
-use of its limited energy provision, so  that it can fulfill its monitoring task
-as  long as  possible. Among  known  available approaches  that can  be used  to
+The most important problem in a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is to optimize the
+use of its limited energy provision, so that it can fulfill its monitoring task
+as long as  possible. Among  known  available approaches  that can  be used  to
 improve  power  management,  lifetime coverage  optimization  provides  activity
-scheduling which ensures  sensing coverage while minimizing the  energy cost. In
-this paper,  we propose  a such approach  called Lifetime  Coverage Optimization
-protocol (LiCO).   It is a  hybrid of  centralized and distributed  methods: the
-region of interest is first subdivided  into subregions and our protocol is then
-distributed among sensor nodes in each  subregion. A sensor node which runs LiCO
-protocol  repeats   periodically  four  stages:  information   exchange,  leader
-election, optimization decision, and sensing.  More precisely, the scheduling of
-nodes' activities (sleep/wake up duty cycles) is achieved in each subregion by a
-leader selected after  cooperation between nodes within the  same subregion. The
-novelty of  approach lies essentially in  the formulation of a  new mathematical
-optimization  model  based on  perimeter  coverage  level to  schedule  sensors'
-activities.  Extensive simulation experiments have been performed using OMNeT++,
-the  discrete event  simulator, to  demonstrate that  LiCO is  capable to  offer
-longer lifetime coverage for WSNs in comparison with some other protocols.
+scheduling which ensures sensing coverage while minimizing the energy cost. In
+this paper,  we propose such an approach called Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization
+protocol (PeCO). It is a  hybrid of centralized and distributed methods: the
+region of interest is first subdivided into subregions and our protocol is then
+distributed among sensor nodes in each  subregion.
+% A  sensor node  which runs  LiCO  protocol repeats  periodically four  stages:
+%information  exchange,  leader election,  optimization  decision, and  sensing.
+%More precisely, the scheduling of nodes' activities (sleep/wake up duty cycles)
+%is achieved  in each subregion by  a leader selected  after cooperation between
+%nodes within the same subregion.
+The novelty of our approach lies essentially in the formulation of a new
+mathematical optimization  model based on the  perimeter coverage level  to schedule
+sensors' activities.  Extensive simulation experiments have been performed using
+OMNeT++, the  discrete event simulator, to  demonstrate that PeCO  can
+offer longer lifetime coverage for WSNs in comparison with some other protocols.
 \end{abstract} 
 
 % Note that keywords are not normally used for peerreview papers.
 \begin{IEEEkeywords}
-Wireless Sensor Networks, Area Coverage, Network lifetime, Optimization, Scheduling.
+Wireless Sensor Networks, Area Coverage, Network Lifetime, Optimization, Scheduling.
 \end{IEEEkeywords}
 
 \IEEEpeerreviewmaketitle
@@ -92,7 +95,7 @@ communicating with one another through multi-hop radio communications. Each node
 can send the data  it collects in its environment, thanks to  its sensor, to the
 user by means of  sink nodes. The features of a WSN made  it suitable for a wide
 range of application  in areas such as business,  environment, health, industry,
-military, and  son~\cite{yick2008wireless}.  Typically,  a sensor  node contains
+military, and so on~\cite{yick2008wireless}.   Typically, a sensor node contains
 three main components~\cite{anastasi2009energy}: a  sensing unit able to measure
 physical,  chemical, or  biological  phenomena observed  in  the environment;  a
 processing unit which will process and store the collected measurements; a radio
@@ -102,12 +105,12 @@ The energy needed  by an active sensor node to  perform sensing, processing, and
 communication is supplied by a power supply which is a battery. This battery has
 a limited energy provision and it may  be unsuitable or impossible to replace or
 recharge it in  most applications. Therefore it is necessary  to deploy WSN with
-high density in order to increase the reliability and to exploit node redundancy
+high density in order to increase  reliability and to exploit node redundancy
 thanks to energy-efficient activity  scheduling approaches.  Indeed, the overlap
 of sensing  areas can be exploited  to schedule alternatively some  sensors in a
 low power sleep mode and thus save  energy. Overall, the main question that must
 be answered is: how to extend the lifetime coverage of a WSN as long as possible
-while  ensuring   a  high  level  of   coverage?   So,  this  last   years  many
+while  ensuring   a  high  level  of   coverage?   These past few years  many
 energy-efficient mechanisms have been suggested  to retain energy and extend the
 lifetime of the WSNs~\cite{rault2014energy}.
 
@@ -119,39 +122,39 @@ lifetime of the WSNs~\cite{rault2014energy}.
 
 This paper makes the following contributions.
 \begin{enumerate}
-\item We devise a framework to schedule nodes to be activated alternatively such
+\item We have devised a framework to schedule nodes to be activated alternatively such
   that the network lifetime is prolonged  while ensuring that a certain level of
-  coverage is preserved.  A  key idea in our framework is  to exploit spatial an
-  temporal subdivision.   On the one hand  the area of interest  if divided into
-  several smaller subregions and on the other hand the time line is divided into
+  coverage is preserved.  A key idea in  our framework is to exploit spatial and
+  temporal subdivision.   On the one hand,  the area of interest  is divided into
+  several smaller subregions and, on the other hand, the time line is divided into
   periods of equal length. In each subregion the sensor nodes will cooperatively
   choose a  leader which will schedule  nodes' activities, and this  grouping of
   sensors is similar to typical cluster architecture.
-\item We  propose a new mathematical  optimization model.  Instead of  trying to
+\item We have proposed a new mathematical  optimization model.  Instead of  trying to
   cover a set of specified points/targets as  in most of the methods proposed in
   the literature, we formulate an integer program based on perimeter coverage of
   each sensor.  The  model involves integer variables to  capture the deviations
-  between  the actual  level of  coverage and  the required  level.  So  that an
+  between  the actual  level of  coverage and  the required  level.  Hence, an
   optimal scheduling  will be  obtained by  minimizing a  weighted sum  of these
   deviations.
-\item We  conducted extensive simulation  experiments, using the  discrete event
-  simulator OMNeT++, to demonstrate the  efficiency of our protocol. We compared
-  our   LiCO   protocol   to   two   approaches   found   in   the   literature:
+\item We have conducted extensive simulation  experiments, using the  discrete event
+  simulator OMNeT++, to demonstrate the  efficiency of our protocol. We have compared
+  our   PeCO   protocol   to   two   approaches   found   in   the   literature:
   DESK~\cite{ChinhVu} and  GAF~\cite{xu2001geography}, and also to  our previous
   work published in~\cite{Idrees2} which is  based on another optimization model
   for sensor scheduling.
 \end{enumerate}
 
-%Two combined integrated energy-efficient techniques have been used by LiCO protocol in order to maximize the lifetime coverage in WSN: the first, by dividing the area of interest into several smaller subregions based on divide-and-conquer method and then one leader elected for each subregion in an independent, distributed, and simultaneous way by the cooperation among the sensor nodes within each subregion, and this similar to cluster architecture;
+%Two combined integrated energy-efficient techniques have been used by PeCO protocol in order to maximize the lifetime coverage in WSN: the first, by dividing the area of interest into several smaller subregions based on divide-and-conquer method and then one leader elected for each subregion in an independent, distributed, and simultaneous way by the cooperation among the sensor nodes within each subregion, and this similar to cluster architecture;
 % the second, activity scheduling based new optimization model has been used to provide the optimal cover set that will take the mission of sensing during current period. This optimization algorithm is based on a perimeter-coverage model so as to optimize the shared perimeter among the sensors in each subregion, and this represents as a energu-efficient control topology mechanism in WSN.
 
 The rest  of the paper is  organized as follows.  In the next section  we review
-some related work in the  field. Section~\ref{sec:The LiCO Protocol Description}
-is devoted to the LiCO protocol  description and Section~\ref{cp} focuses on the
+some related work in the  field. Section~\ref{sec:The PeCO Protocol Description}
+is devoted to the PeCO protocol  description and Section~\ref{cp} focuses on the
 coverage model  formulation which is used  to schedule the activation  of sensor
 nodes.  Section~\ref{sec:Simulation  Results and Analysis}  presents simulations
 results and discusses the comparison  with other approaches. Finally, concluding
-remarks   are  drawn   and  some   suggestions   given  for   future  works   in
+remarks   are  drawn   and  some   suggestions are  given  for   future  works   in
 Section~\ref{sec:Conclusion and Future Works}.
 
 % that show that our protocol outperforms others protocols.
@@ -159,25 +162,25 @@ Section~\ref{sec:Conclusion and Future Works}.
 \label{sec:Literature Review}
 
 \noindent  In  this section,  we  summarize  some  related works  regarding  the
-coverage problem and  distinguish our LiCO protocol from the  works presented in
+coverage problem and  distinguish our PeCO protocol from the  works presented in
 the literature.
 
 The most  discussed coverage problems in  literature can be classified  in three
 categories~\cite{li2013survey}   according   to  their   respective   monitoring
 objective.  Hence,  area coverage \cite{Misra}  means that every point  inside a
-fixed area  must be monitored, while  target coverage~\cite{yang2014novel} refer
+fixed area  must be monitored, while  target coverage~\cite{yang2014novel} refers
 to  the objective  of coverage  for a  finite number  of discrete  points called
 targets,  and  barrier coverage~\cite{HeShibo}\cite{kim2013maximum}  focuses  on
 preventing  intruders   from  entering   into  the   region  of   interest.   In
-\cite{Deng2012}  authors  transform the  area  coverage  problem to  the  target
+\cite{Deng2012}  authors  transform the  area  coverage  problem into  the  target
 coverage one taking into account the  intersection points among disks of sensors
 nodes    or   between    disk   of    sensor   nodes    and   boundaries.     In
 \cite{Huang:2003:CPW:941350.941367}  authors prove  that  if  the perimeters  of
 sensors are sufficiently  covered it will be  the case for the  whole area. They
 provide an algorithm in $O(nd~log~d)$  time to compute the perimeter-coverage of
 each  sensor,  where  $d$  denotes  the  maximum  number  of  sensors  that  are
-neighboring  to  a  sensor and  $n$  is  the  total  number of  sensors  in  the
-network. {\it In LiCO protocol, instead  of determining the level of coverage of
+neighbors  to  a  sensor and  $n$  is  the  total  number of  sensors  in  the
+network. {\it In PeCO protocol, instead  of determining the level of coverage of
   a set  of discrete  points, our  optimization model is  based on  checking the
   perimeter-coverage of each sensor to activate a minimal number of sensors.}
 
@@ -196,35 +199,35 @@ algorithm  is applied  once to  solve  this problem  and the  computed sets  are
 activated  in   succession  to  achieve   the  desired  network   lifetime.   Vu
 \cite{chin2007},  Padmatvathy  {\em   et  al.}~\cite{pc10},  propose  algorithms
 working in a periodic fashion where a  cover set is computed at the beginning of
-each period.   {\it Motivated by  these works,  LiCO protocol works  in periods,
+each period.   {\it Motivated by  these works,  PeCO protocol works  in periods,
   where each  period contains a  preliminary phase for information  exchange and
   decisions, followed by a sensing phase where one cover set is in charge of the
   sensing task.}
 
-Various centralized  and distributed approaches, or  even a mixing of  these two
+Various centralized  and distributed approaches, or  even a mixing  of these two
 concepts, have  been proposed  to extend the  network lifetime.   In distributed
-algorithms~\cite{yangnovel,ChinhVu,qu2013distributed}  each  sensors decides  of
-its own  activity scheduling after  an information exchange with  its neighbors.
-The main interest of  a such approach is to avoid  long range communications and
-thus to reduce the energy dedicated to the communications.  Unfortunately, since
-each node has  only information on its immediate neighbors  (usually the one-hop
-ones)  it may  take a  bad  decision leading  to a  global suboptimal  solution.
-Conversely,                                                          centralized
-algorithms~\cite{cardei2005improving,zorbas2010solving,pujari2011high}    always
+algorithms~\cite{yangnovel,ChinhVu,qu2013distributed} each sensor decides of its
+own activity scheduling  after an information exchange with  its neighbors.  The
+main interest of such an approach is to avoid long range communications and thus
+to reduce the energy dedicated to the communications.  Unfortunately, since each
+node has only information on  its immediate neighbors (usually the one-hop ones)
+it may make a bad decision leading to a global suboptimal solution.  Conversely,
+centralized
+algorithms~\cite{cardei2005improving,zorbas2010solving,pujari2011high}     always
 provide nearly  or close to  optimal solution since  the algorithm has  a global
 view of the whole network. The disadvantage of a centralized method is obviously
-its high cost  in communications needed to  transmit to a single  node, the base
-station which will globally schedule nodes'  activities, data from all the other
-sensor nodes in  the area.  The price  in communications can be  very huge since
-long range communications will be needed. In fact the larger the WNS, the higher
-the  communication and  thus energy  cost.   {\it In  order to  be suitable  for
-  large-scale networks,  in the LiCO  protocol the  area of interest  is divided
-  into several smaller subregions, and in each  one, a node called the leader is
-  in charge  for selecting the active  sensors for the current  period. Thus our
-  protocol  is  scalable  and  a  globally distributed  method,  whereas  it  is
-  centralized in each subregion.}
-
-Various  coverage scheduling  algorithms have  been developed  this last  years.
+its high  cost in communications needed to  transmit to a single  node, the base
+station which will globally schedule  nodes' activities, data from all the other
+sensor nodes  in the area.  The price  in communications can be  huge since
+long range  communications will be  needed. In fact  the larger the WNS  is, the
+higher the  communication and  thus the energy  cost are.   {\it In order  to be
+  suitable for large-scale  networks, in the PeCO protocol,  the area of interest
+  is divided into several smaller subregions, and in each one, a node called the
+  leader  is  in  charge  of  selecting  the active  sensors  for  the  current
+  period.  Thus our  protocol is  scalable  and is a  globally distributed  method,
+  whereas it is centralized in each subregion.}
+
+Various  coverage scheduling  algorithms have  been developed  these past few years.
 Many of  them, dealing with  the maximization of the  number of cover  sets, are
 heuristics.   These  heuristics involve  the  construction  of  a cover  set  by
 including in priority the sensor nodes  which cover critical targets, that is to
@@ -237,7 +240,7 @@ optimization  solver).  The  problem is  formulated as  an optimization  problem
 energy  constraints.   Column  generation   techniques,  well-known  and  widely
 practiced techniques for  solving linear programs with too  many variables, have
 also                                                                        been
-used~\cite{castano2013column,rossi2012exact,deschinkel2012column}. {\it  In LiCO
+used~\cite{castano2013column,rossi2012exact,deschinkel2012column}. {\it  In the PeCO
   protocol, each  leader, in charge  of a  subregion, solves an  integer program
   which has a twofold objective: minimize the overcoverage and the undercoverage
   of the perimeter of each sensor.}
@@ -278,12 +281,12 @@ used~\cite{castano2013column,rossi2012exact,deschinkel2012column}. {\it  In LiCO
 
 %\uppercase{\textbf{shortcomings}}. In spite of many energy-efficient protocols for maintaining the coverage and improving the network lifetime in WSNs were proposed, non of them ensure the coverage for the sensing field with optimal minimum number of active sensor nodes, and for a long time as possible. For example, in a full centralized algorithms, an optimal solutions can be given by using optimization approaches, but in the same time, a high energy is consumed for the execution time of the algorithm and the communications among the sensors in the sensing field, so, the  full centralized approaches are not good candidate to use it especially in large WSNs. Whilst, a full distributed algorithms can not give optimal solutions because this algorithms use only local information of the neighboring sensors, but in the same time, the energy consumption during the communications and executing the algorithm is highly lower. Whatever the case, this would result in a shorter lifetime coverage in WSNs.
 
-%\uppercase{\textbf{Our Protocol}}. In this paper, a Lifetime Coverage Optimization Protocol, called (LiCO) in WSNs is suggested. The sensing field is divided into smaller subregions by means of divide-and-conquer method, and a LiCO protocol is distributed in each sensor in the subregion. The network lifetime in each subregion is divided into periods, each period includes 4 stages: Information Exchange, Leader election, decision based activity scheduling optimization, and sensing. The leaders are elected in an independent, asynchronous, and distributed way in all the subregions of the WSN. After that, energy-efficient activity scheduling mechanism based new optimization model is performed by each leader in the subregions. This optimization model is based on the perimeter coverage model in order to producing the optimal cover set of active sensors, which are taken the responsibility of sensing during the current period. LiCO protocol merges between two energy efficient mechanisms, which are used the main advantages of the centralized and distributed approaches and avoids the most of their disadvantages.
+%\uppercase{\textbf{Our Protocol}}. In this paper, a Lifetime Coverage Optimization Protocol, called (PeCO) in WSNs is suggested. The sensing field is divided into smaller subregions by means of divide-and-conquer method, and a PeCO protocol is distributed in each sensor in the subregion. The network lifetime in each subregion is divided into periods, each period includes 4 stages: Information Exchange, Leader election, decision based activity scheduling optimization, and sensing. The leaders are elected in an independent, asynchronous, and distributed way in all the subregions of the WSN. After that, energy-efficient activity scheduling mechanism based new optimization model is performed by each leader in the subregions. This optimization model is based on the perimeter coverage model in order to producing the optimal cover set of active sensors, which are taken the responsibility of sensing during the current period. PeCO protocol merges between two energy efficient mechanisms, which are used the main advantages of the centralized and distributed approaches and avoids the most of their disadvantages.
 
-\section{ The LiCO Protocol Description}
-\label{sec:The LiCO Protocol Description}
+\section{ The PeCO Protocol Description}
+\label{sec:The PeCO Protocol Description}
 
-\noindent  In  this  section,  we  describe in  details  our  Lifetime  Coverage
+\noindent  In  this  section,  we  describe in  details  our Perimeter-based  Coverage
 Optimization protocol.  First we present the  assumptions we made and the models
 we considered (in particular the perimeter coverage one), second we describe the
 background idea of our protocol, and third  we give the outline of the algorithm
@@ -300,7 +303,7 @@ distributed in  a bounded sensor field  is considered. The wireless  sensors are
 deployed in high density  to ensure initially a high coverage  ratio of the area
 of interest.  We  assume that all the  sensor nodes are homogeneous  in terms of
 communication,  sensing,  and  processing capabilities  and  heterogeneous  from
-energy provision  point of  view.  The  location information  is available  to a
+the energy provision  point of  view.  The  location information  is available  to a
 sensor node either  through hardware such as embedded GPS  or location discovery
 algorithms.   We  assume  that  each  sensor  node  can  directly  transmit  its
 measurements to  a mobile  sink node.  For  example, a sink  can be  an unmanned
@@ -312,60 +315,60 @@ sensor nodes  have a constant sensing  range $R_s$.  Thus, all  the space points
 within a disk centered at a sensor with  a radius equal to the sensing range are
 said to be covered  by this sensor. We also assume  that the communication range
 $R_c$ satisfies $R_c  \geq 2 \cdot R_s$. In fact,  Zhang and Zhou~\cite{Zhang05}
-proved  that if  the  transmission  range fulfills  the  previous hypothesis,  a
+proved  that if  the  transmission  range fulfills  the  previous hypothesis,  the
 complete coverage of a convex area implies connectivity among active nodes.
 
-\indent  LiCO protocol  uses the  same perimeter-coverage  model than  Huang and
+The PeCO protocol  uses the  same perimeter-coverage  model as  Huang and
 Tseng in~\cite{huang2005coverage}. It  can be expressed as follows:  a sensor is
 said to be perimeter  covered if all the points on its  perimeter are covered by
 at least  one sensor  other than  itself.  They  proved that  a network  area is
-$k$-covered if and only if each sensor in the network is $k$-perimeter-covered.
+$k$-covered if and only if each sensor in the network is $k$-perimeter-covered (perimeter covered by at least $k$ sensors).
 %According to this model, we named the intersections among the sensor nodes in the sensing field as intersection points. Instead of working with the coverage area, we consider for each sensor a set of intersection points which are determined by using perimeter-coverage model. 
 Figure~\ref{pcm2sensors}(a)  shows  the coverage  of  sensor  node~$0$. On  this
 figure, we can  see that sensor~$0$ has  nine neighbors and we  have reported on
 its  perimeter (the  perimeter  of the  disk  covered by  the  sensor) for  each
-neighbor  the  two  points  resulting  from  intersection  of  the  two  sensing
+neighbor  the  two  points  resulting  from the intersection  of  the  two  sensing
 areas. These points are denoted for  neighbor~$i$ by $iL$ and $iR$, respectively
-for  left and  right from  neighbor  point of  view.  The  resulting couples  of
+for  left and  right from  a neighboing  point of  view.  The  resulting couples  of
 intersection points subdivide  the perimeter of sensor~$0$  into portions called
 arcs.
 
 \begin{figure}[ht!]
   \centering
   \begin{tabular}{@{}cr@{}}
-    \includegraphics[width=75mm]{pcm.jpg}        &        \raisebox{3.25cm}{(a)}
-    \\ \includegraphics[width=75mm]{twosensors.jpg} & \raisebox{2.75cm}{(b)}
+    \includegraphics[width=75mm]{pcm.jpg} & \raisebox{3.25cm}{(a)} \\
+    \includegraphics[width=75mm]{twosensors.jpg} & \raisebox{2.75cm}{(b)}
   \end{tabular}
-  \caption{Perimeter coverage of sensor node 0  (a) and finding the arc of $u$'s
-    perimeter covered by $v$.}
+  \caption{(a) Perimeter  coverage of sensor node  0 and (b) finding  the arc of
+    $u$'s perimeter covered by $v$.}
   \label{pcm2sensors}
 \end{figure} 
 
 Figure~\ref{pcm2sensors}(b) describes the geometric information used to find the
 locations of the  left and right points of  an arc on the perimeter  of a sensor
-node~$u$ covered by a sensor node~$v$. Node~$s$ is supposed to be located on the
+node~$u$ covered by a sensor node~$v$. Node~$v$ is supposed to be located on the
 west  side of  sensor~$u$,  with  the following  respective  coordinates in  the
 sensing area~: $(v_x,v_y)$ and $(u_x,u_y)$. From the previous coordinates we can
 compute the euclidean distance between nodes~$u$ and $v$: $Dist(u,v)=\sqrt{\vert
   u_x  - v_x  \vert^2 +  \vert u_y-v_y  \vert^2}$, while  the angle~$\alpha$  is
-obtained  through the  formula  $\alpha  = arccos  \left(\dfrac{Dist(u,v)}{2R_s}
-\right)$.   So, the  arc on  the perimeter  of node~$u$  defined by  the angular
-interval $[\pi - \alpha,\pi + \alpha]$ is said to be perimeter-covered by sensor
-node $v$.
+obtained through  the formula: $$\alpha =  \arccos \left(\dfrac{Dist(u,v)}{2R_s}
+\right).$$ The arc on the perimeter of~$u$ defined by the angular interval $[\pi
+  - \alpha,\pi + \alpha]$ is said to be perimeter-covered by sensor~$v$.
 
 Every couple of intersection points is placed on the angular interval $[0,2\pi]$
 in  a  counterclockwise manner,  leading  to  a  partitioning of  the  interval.
 Figure~\ref{pcm2sensors}(a)  illustrates  the arcs  for  the  nine neighbors  of
-sensor $0$ and  figure~\ref{expcm} gives the position of  the corresponding arcs
+sensor $0$ and  Figure~\ref{expcm} gives the position of  the corresponding arcs
 in  the interval  $[0,2\pi]$. More  precisely, we  can see  that the  points are
 ordered according  to the  measures of  the angles  defined by  their respective
 positions. The intersection points are  then visited one after another, starting
-from  first  intersection point  after  point~zero,  and  the maximum  level  of
+from the first  intersection point  after  point~zero,  and  the maximum  level  of
 coverage is determined  for each interval defined by two  successive points. The
 maximum  level of  coverage is  equal to  the number  of overlapping  arcs.  For
-example, between~$5L$  and~$6L$ the maximum  level of  coverage is equal  to $3$
-(the value is highlighted in yellow  at the bottom of figure~\ref{expcm}), which
-means that at most 2~neighbors can cover  the perimeter in addition to node $0$.
+example, 
+between~$5L$  and~$6L$ the maximum  level of  coverage is equal  to $3$
+(the value is highlighted in yellow  at the bottom of Figure~\ref{expcm}), which
+means that at most 2~neighbors can cover  the perimeter in addition to node $0$. 
 Table~\ref{my-label} summarizes for each coverage  interval the maximum level of
 coverage and  the sensor  nodes covering the  perimeter.  The  example discussed
 above is thus given by the sixth line of the table.
@@ -373,9 +376,9 @@ above is thus given by the sixth line of the table.
 %The points reported on the line segment $[0,2\pi]$ separates it in intervals as shown in figure~\ref{expcm}. For example, for each neighboring sensor of sensor 0, place the points  $\alpha^ 1_L$, $\alpha^ 1_R$, $\alpha^ 2_L$, $\alpha^ 2_R$, $\alpha^ 3_L$, $\alpha^ 3_R$, $\alpha^ 4_L$, $\alpha^ 4_R$, $\alpha^ 5_L$, $\alpha^ 5_R$, $\alpha^ 6_L$, $\alpha^ 6_R$, $\alpha^ 7_L$, $\alpha^ 7_R$, $\alpha^ 8_L$, $\alpha^ 8_R$, $\alpha^ 9_L$, and $\alpha^ 9_R$; on the line segment $[0,2\pi]$, and then sort all these points in an ascending order into a list.  Traverse the line segment $[0,2\pi]$ by visiting each point in the sorted list from left to right and determine the coverage level of each interval of the sensor 0 (see figure \ref{expcm}). For each interval, we sum up the number of parts of segments, and we deduce a level of coverage for each interval. For instance, the interval delimited by the points $5L$ and $6L$ contains three parts of segments. That means that this part of the perimeter of the sensor $0$ may be covered by three sensors, sensor $0$ itself and sensors $2$ and $5$. The level of coverage of this interval may reach $3$ if all previously mentioned sensors are active. Let say that sensors $0$, $2$ and $5$ are involved in the coverage of this interval. Table~\ref{my-label} summarizes the level of coverage for each interval and the sensors involved in for sensor node 0 in figure~\ref{pcm2sensors}(a). 
 % to determine the level of the perimeter coverage for each left and right point of a segment.
 
-\begin{figure*}[ht!]
+\begin{figure*}[t!]
 \centering
-\includegraphics[width=137.5mm]{expcm.pdf}  
+\includegraphics[width=127.5mm]{expcm2.jpg}  
 \caption{Maximum coverage levels for perimeter of sensor node $0$.}
 \label{expcm}
 \end{figure*} 
@@ -393,11 +396,11 @@ above is thus given by the sixth line of the table.
 
 \fi
 
- \begin{table}[h]
+ \begin{table}[h!]
  \caption{Coverage intervals and contributing sensors for sensor node 0.}
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline
-\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Left \\ point \\ angle~$\alpha$ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Interval \\ left \\ point\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Interval \\ right \\ point\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Maximum \\ coverage\\  level\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Set of sensors\\ involved \\ in interval coverage\end{tabular}} \\ \hline
+\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Left \\ point \\ angle~$\alpha$ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Interval \\ left \\ point\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Interval \\ right \\ point\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Maximum \\ coverage\\  level\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Set of sensors\\ involved \\ in coverage interval\end{tabular}} \\ \hline
 0.0291    & 1L                                                                        & 2L                                                        & 4                                                                     & 0                     & 1                     & 3                    & 4                    &                      \\ \hline
 0.104     & 2L                                                                        & 3R                                                        & 5                                                                     & 0                     & 1                     & 3                    & 4                    & 2                    \\ \hline
 0.3168    & 3R                                                                        & 4R                                                        & 4                                                                     & 0                     & 1                     & 4                    & 2                    &                      \\ \hline
@@ -422,17 +425,17 @@ above is thus given by the sixth line of the table.
 \end{table}
 
 
-%The optimization algorithm that used by LiCO protocol based on the perimeter coverage levels of the left and right points of the segments and worked to minimize the number of sensor nodes for each left or right point of the segments within each sensor node. The algorithm minimize the perimeter coverage level of the left and right points of the segments, while, it assures that every perimeter coverage level of the left and right points of the segments greater than or equal to 1.
+%The optimization algorithm that used by PeCO protocol based on the perimeter coverage levels of the left and right points of the segments and worked to minimize the number of sensor nodes for each left or right point of the segments within each sensor node. The algorithm minimize the perimeter coverage level of the left and right points of the segments, while, it assures that every perimeter coverage level of the left and right points of the segments greater than or equal to 1.
 
-In LiCO  protocol, scheduling of sensor  nodes' activities is formulated  with an
+In the PeCO  protocol, the scheduling of the sensor  nodes' activities is formulated  with an
 integer program  based on  coverage intervals. The  formulation of  the coverage
 optimization problem is  detailed in~section~\ref{cp}.  Note that  when a sensor
 node  has a  part of  its sensing  range outside  the WSN  sensing field,  as in
-figure~\ref{ex4pcm}, the maximum coverage level for  this arc is set to $\infty$
+Figure~\ref{ex4pcm}, the maximum coverage level for  this arc is set to $\infty$
 and  the  corresponding  interval  will  not   be  taken  into  account  by  the
 optimization algorithm.
  
-\begin{figure}[t!]
+\begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=62.5mm]{ex4pcm.jpg}  
 \caption{Sensing range outside the WSN's area of interest.}
@@ -453,14 +456,14 @@ homogeneous subregions  using a divide-and-conquer  algorithm. In a  second step
 our  protocol  will  be  executed  in   a  distributed  way  in  each  subregion
 simultaneously to schedule nodes' activities for one sensing period.
 
-As  shown in  figure~\ref{fig2}, node  activity  scheduling is  produced by  our
+As  shown in  Figure~\ref{fig2}, node  activity  scheduling is  produced by  our
 protocol in a periodic manner. Each period is divided into 4 stages: Information
 (INFO)  Exchange,  Leader Election,  Decision  (the  result of  an  optimization
 problem),  and  Sensing.   For  each  period there  is  exactly  one  set  cover
 responsible for  the sensing task.  Protocols  based on a periodic  scheme, like
-LiCO, are more  robust against an unexpected  node failure. On the  one hand, if
-node failure is discovered before  taking the decision, the corresponding sensor
-node will  not be considered  by the optimization  algorithm, and, on  the other
+PeCO, are more  robust against an unexpected  node failure. On the  one hand, if
+a node failure is discovered before  taking the decision, the corresponding sensor
+node will  not be considered  by the optimization  algorithm. On  the other
 hand, if the sensor failure happens after  the decision, the sensing task of the
 network will be temporarily affected: only  during the period of sensing until a
 new period starts, since a new set cover will take charge of the sensing task in
@@ -474,11 +477,11 @@ the area.
 \begin{figure}[t!]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=80mm]{Model.pdf}  
-\caption{LiCO protocol}
+\caption{PeCO protocol.}
 \label{fig2}
 \end{figure} 
 
-We define two types of packets to be used by LiCO protocol:
+We define two types of packets to be used by PeCO protocol:
 %\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
 \begin{itemize} 
 \item INFO  packet: sent  by each  sensor node to  all the  nodes inside  a same
@@ -497,15 +500,15 @@ Five status are possible for a sensor node in the network:
   determine the activities scheduling;
 \item ACTIVE: node is sensing;
 \item SLEEP: node is turned off;
-\item COMMUNICATION: transmits or recevives packets.
+\item COMMUNICATION: transmits or receives packets.
 \end{itemize}
 %\end{enumerate}
 %Below, we describe each phase in more details.
 
-\subsection{LiCO Protocol Algorithm}
+\subsection{PeCO Protocol Algorithm}
 
 \noindent The  pseudocode implementing the  protocol on  a node is  given below.
-More  precisely,  Algorithm~\ref{alg:LiCO}  gives  a brief  description  of  the
+More  precisely,  Algorithm~\ref{alg:PeCO}  gives  a brief  description  of  the
 protocol applied by a sensor node $s_k$ where $k$ is the node index in the WSN.
 
 \begin{algorithm}[h!]                
@@ -539,7 +542,7 @@ protocol applied by a sensor node $s_k$ where $k$ is the node index in the WSN.
            }
       
         \emph{$s_k.status$ = COMMUNICATION}\;
-        \emph{Send $ActiveSleep()$ to each node $l$ in subregion} \;
+        \emph{Send $ActiveSleep()$ to each node $l$ in subregion}\;
         \emph{Update $RE_k $}\;
       }	  
       \Else{
@@ -549,37 +552,33 @@ protocol applied by a sensor node $s_k$ where $k$ is the node index in the WSN.
       }  
   }
   \Else { Exclude $s_k$ from entering in the current sensing stage}
-  
- 
-\caption{LiCO($s_k$)}
-\label{alg:LiCO}
-
+\caption{PeCO($s_k$)}
+\label{alg:PeCO}
 \end{algorithm}
 
-In this  algorithm, K.CurrentSize and  K.PreviousSize refer to the  current size
-and the  previous size of  the subnetwork  in the subregion  respectively.  That
-means the  number of sensor nodes  which are still alive.  Initially, the sensor
-node checks its remaining energy $RE_k$,  which must be greater than a threshold
-$E_{th}$  in order  to  participate  in the  current  period.  Each sensor  node
-determines its  position and its subregion  using an embedded GPS  or a location
-discovery algorithm. After  that, all the sensors  collect position coordinates,
-remaining energy, sensor  node ID, and the number of  its one-hop live neighbors
-during the information  exchange. The sensors inside a same  region cooperate to
-elect a  leader. The selection  criteria for the  leader, in order  of priority,
-are: larger  number of neighbors, larger  remaining energy, and then  in case of
-equality,  larger  index.   Once  chosen, the  leader  collects  information  to
-formulate and  solve the integer  program which allows  to construct the  set of
-active sensors in the sensing stage.
-
-%After the cooperation among the sensor nodes in the same subregion, the leader will be elected in distributed way, where each sensor node and based on it's information decide who is the leader. The selection criteria for the leader in order  of priority  are: larger number of neighbors,  larger remaining  energy, and  then in  case of equality, larger index. Thereafter,  if the sensor node is leader, it will execute the perimeter-coverage model for each sensor in the subregion in order to determine the segment points which would be used in the next stage by the optimization algorithm of the LiCO protocol. Every sensor node is selected as a leader, it is executed the perimeter coverage model only one time during it's life in the network.
+In this  algorithm, K.CurrentSize and K.PreviousSize  respectively represent the
+current number and  the previous number of living nodes in  the subnetwork of the
+subregion.  Initially, the sensor node checks its remaining energy $RE_k$, which
+must be greater than a threshold $E_{th}$ in order to participate in the current
+period.  Each  sensor node  determines its position  and its subregion  using an
+embedded  GPS or a  location discovery  algorithm. After  that, all  the sensors
+collect position coordinates,  remaining energy, sensor node ID,  and the number
+of their  one-hop live  neighbors during the  information exchange.  The sensors
+inside a same region cooperate to elect a leader. The selection criteria for the
+leader, in order of priority,  are: larger numbers of neighbors, larger remaining
+energy, and  then in case  of equality, larger  index.  Once chosen,  the leader
+collects information to formulate and  solve the integer program which allows to
+construct the set of active sensors in the sensing stage.
+
+%After the cooperation among the sensor nodes in the same subregion, the leader will be elected in distributed way, where each sensor node and based on it's information decide who is the leader. The selection criteria for the leader in order  of priority  are: larger number of neighbors,  larger remaining  energy, and  then in  case of equality, larger index. Thereafter,  if the sensor node is leader, it will execute the perimeter-coverage model for each sensor in the subregion in order to determine the segment points which would be used in the next stage by the optimization algorithm of the PeCO protocol. Every sensor node is selected as a leader, it is executed the perimeter coverage model only one time during it's life in the network.
 
 % The leader has the responsibility of applying the integer program algorithm (see section~\ref{cp}), which provides a set of sensors planned to be active in the sensing stage.  As leader, it will send an Active-Sleep packet to each sensor in the same subregion to inform it if it has to be active or not. On the contrary, if the sensor is not the leader, it will wait for the Active-Sleep packet to know its state for the sensing stage.
 
-\section{Lifetime Coverage problem formulation}
+\section{Perimeter-based Coverage Problem Formulation}
 \label{cp}
 
 \noindent In this  section, the coverage model is  mathematically formulated. We
-start  with a  description of  the notations  that will  be used  throughout the
+start  with a  description of the notations that will  be used  throughout the
 section.
 
 First, we have the following sets:
@@ -591,7 +590,7 @@ First, we have the following sets:
 \end{itemize}
 $I_j$ refers to the set of  coverage intervals which have been defined according
 to the  method introduced in  subsection~\ref{CI}. For a coverage  interval $i$,
-let $a^j_{ik}$ denote  the indicator function of whether  sensor~$k$ is involved
+let $a^j_{ik}$ denotes  the indicator function of whether  sensor~$k$ is involved
 in coverage interval~$i$ of sensor~$j$, that is:
 \begin{equation}
 a^j_{ik} = \left \{ 
@@ -621,7 +620,7 @@ sensor $j$  is given by  $\sum_{k \in A} a^j_{ik}  X_k$.  To extend  the network
 lifetime,  the objective  is to  activate a  minimal number  of sensors  in each
 period to  ensure the  desired coverage  level. As the  number of  alive sensors
 decreases, it becomes impossible to reach  the desired level of coverage for all
-coverage intervals. Therefore we uses variables $M^j_i$ and $V^j_i$ as a measure
+coverage intervals. Therefore we use variables  $M^j_i$ and $V^j_i$ as a measure
 of the  deviation between  the desired  number of active  sensors in  a coverage
 interval and  the effective  number. And  we try  to minimize  these deviations,
 first to  force the  activation of  a minimal  number of  sensors to  ensure the
@@ -669,9 +668,9 @@ X_{k} \in \{0,1\}, \forall k \in A
 $\alpha^j_i$ and $\beta^j_i$  are nonnegative weights selected  according to the
 relative importance of satisfying the associated level of coverage. For example,
 weights associated with  coverage intervals of a specified part  of a region may
-be  given a  relatively larger  magnitude than  weights associated  with another
+be  given by a  relatively larger  magnitude than  weights associated  with another
 region. This  kind of integer program  is inspired from the  model developed for
-brachytherapy    treatment   planning    for   optimizing    dose   distribution
+brachytherapy treatment planning  for optimizing dose  distribution
 \cite{0031-9155-44-1-012}. The integer  program must be solved by  the leader in
 each subregion at the beginning of  each sensing phase, whenever the environment
 has  changed (new  leader,  death of  some  sensors). Note  that  the number  of
@@ -727,7 +726,7 @@ different node densities going from  100 to 300~nodes were performed considering
 each time 25~randomly  generated networks. The nodes are deployed  on a field of
 interest of $(50 \times 25)~m^2 $ in such a way that they cover the field with a
 high coverage ratio. Each node has an  initial energy level, in Joules, which is
-randomly drawn in the interval $[500-700]$.   If it's energy provision reaches a
+randomly drawn in the interval $[500-700]$.   If its energy provision reaches a
 value below  the threshold $E_{th}=36$~Joules,  the minimum energy needed  for a
 node  to stay  active during  one period,  it will  no more  participate in  the
 coverage task. This value corresponds to the energy needed by the sensing phase,
@@ -737,12 +736,12 @@ pre-sensing phases.  According  to the interval of initial energy,  a sensor may
 be active during at most 20 periods.
 
 The values  of $\alpha^j_i$ and  $\beta^j_i$ have been  chosen to ensure  a good
-network coverage and a longer WSN lifetime.  We have given a higher priority for
+network coverage and a longer WSN lifetime.  We have given a higher priority to
 the  undercoverage  (by  setting  the  $\alpha^j_i$ with  a  larger  value  than
-$\beta^j_i$) so as to prevent the non-coverage  for the interval i of the sensor
-j. On the other hand, we have given  a little bit lower value for $\beta^j_i$ so
-as to  minimize the number of  active sensor nodes which  contribute in covering
-the interval.
+$\beta^j_i$)  so as  to prevent  the non-coverage  for the  interval~$i$ of  the
+sensor~$j$.  On the  other hand,  we have assigned to
+$\beta^j_i$ a value which is slightly lower so as to minimize the number of active sensor nodes which contribute
+in covering the interval.
 
 We introduce the following performance metrics to evaluate the efficiency of our
 approach.
@@ -754,184 +753,254 @@ approach.
   $Lifetime_{50}$  denote, respectively,  the  amount of  time  during which  is
   guaranteed a  level of coverage  greater than $95\%$  and $50\%$. The  WSN can
   fulfill the expected  monitoring task until all its nodes  have depleted their
-  energy or if the network is not more connected. This last condition is crucial
+  energy or if the network is no  more connected. This last condition is crucial
   because without  network connectivity a  sensor may not be  able to send  to a
   base station an event it has sensed.
-\item {{\bf  Coverage Ratio  (CR)}:} it  measures how  well the  WSN is  able to
+\item {\bf  Coverage Ratio (CR)} : it  measures how  well the  WSN is  able to
   observe the area of interest. In our  case, we discretized the sensor field as
   a regular grid, which yields the following equation:
   \begin{equation*}
     \scriptsize
-    \mbox{CR}(\%) = \frac{\mbox{$n$}}{\mbox{$N$}} \times 100.
+    \mbox{CR}(\%) = \frac{\mbox{$n$}}{\mbox{$N$}} \times 100
   \end{equation*}
   where $n$  is the  number of covered  grid points by  active sensors  of every
   subregions during  the current sensing phase  and $N$ is total  number of grid
-  points  in the  sensing field.  In our  simulations we  have set  a layout  of
+  points in  the sensing  field.  In  our simulations  we have  set a  layout of
   $N~=~51~\times~26~=~1326$~grid points.
-
-  % MICHEL TO BE CONTINUED FROM HERE
-
-\item{{\bf Number of Active Sensors Ratio(ASR)}:} It is important to have as few active nodes as possible in each round,
-in  order to  minimize  the communication  overhead  and maximize  the
-network lifetime. The Active Sensors Ratio is defined as follows:
-\begin{equation*}
-\scriptsize
-\mbox{ASR}(\%) =  \frac{\sum\limits_{r=1}^R \mbox{$A_r$}}{\mbox{$S$}} \times 100 .
-\end{equation*}
-Where: $A_r^t$ is the number of active sensors in the subregion $r$ in the current sensing stage, $S$ is the total number of sensors in the network, and $R$ is the total number of the subregions in the network.
-
- 
-
-\item {{\bf  Energy Consumption}:}  energy consumption (EC)  can be seen  as the
-  total   energy   consumed   by   the   sensors   during   $Lifetime_{95}$   or
-  $Lifetime_{50}$, divided  by the number of periods.  Formally, the computation
-  of EC can be expressed as follows:
+\item {\bf Active Sensors Ratio (ASR)}: a  major objective of our protocol is to
+  activate  as few nodes as possible,  in order  to minimize  the communication
+  overhead and maximize the WSN lifetime. The active sensors ratio is defined as
+  follows:
   \begin{equation*}
     \scriptsize
-    \mbox{EC} = \frac{\sum\limits_{m=1}^{M} \left( E^{\mbox{com}}_m+E^{\mbox{list}}_m+E^{\mbox{comp}}_m  
-      + E^{a}_m+E^{s}_m \right)}{M},
+    \mbox{ASR}(\%) =  \frac{\sum\limits_{r=1}^R \mbox{$|A_r^p|$}}{\mbox{$|S|$}} \times 100
   \end{equation*}
-
-where $M$  corresponds to the number  of periods. The total energy consumed by
-the sensors (EC) comes through taking into consideration four main energy factors. The  first one, denoted $E^{\scriptsize  \mbox{com}}_m$, represent the
-energy consumption  spent by  all the nodes  for wireless  communications during
-period $m$.   $E^{\scriptsize \mbox{list}}_m$,  the next factor,  corresponds to
-the  energy consumed by  the sensors  in LISTENING  status before  receiving the
-decision to  go active or  sleep in period $m$.  $E^{\scriptsize \mbox{comp}}_m$
-refers to the energy needed by all the leader nodes to solve the integer program
-during a period.  Finally, $E^a_{m}$ and $E^s_{m}$ indicate  the energy consumed
-by the whole network in the sensing phase (active and sleeping nodes).
-
-
+  where $|A_r^p|$ is  the number of active  sensors in the subregion  $r$ in the
+  current sensing period~$p$, $|S|$ is the number of sensors in the network, and
+  $R$ is the number of subregions.
+\item {\bf Energy Consumption (EC)}: energy consumption can be seen as the total
+  energy  consumed by  the  sensors during  $Lifetime_{95}$ or  $Lifetime_{50}$,
+  divided by  the number of  periods. The value of  EC is computed  according to
+  this formula:
+  \begin{equation*}
+    \scriptsize
+    \mbox{EC} = \frac{\sum\limits_{p=1}^{P} \left( E^{\mbox{com}}_p+E^{\mbox{list}}_p+E^{\mbox{comp}}_p  
+      + E^{a}_p+E^{s}_p \right)}{P},
+  \end{equation*}
+  where $P$ corresponds  to the number of periods. The  total energy consumed by
+  the  sensors  comes  through  taking   into  consideration  four  main  energy
+  factors. The first one, denoted $E^{\scriptsize \mbox{com}}_p$, represents the
+  energy consumption spent  by all the nodes for  wireless communications during
+  period $p$.  $E^{\scriptsize \mbox{list}}_p$,  the next factor, corresponds to
+  the energy  consumed by the sensors  in LISTENING status before  receiving the
+  decision to go active or sleep in period $p$.  $E^{\scriptsize \mbox{comp}}_p$
+  refers to  the energy  needed by  all the  leader nodes  to solve  the integer
+  program during a period.  Finally, $E^a_{p}$ and $E^s_{p}$ indicate the energy
+  consumed by the WSN during the sensing phase (active and sleeping nodes).
 \end{itemize}
 %\end{enumerate}
 
 \subsection{Simulation Results}
-In this section, we present the simulation results of LiCO protocol and the other protocols using a discrete event simulator OMNeT++ \cite{varga} to run different series of simulations. We implemented all protocols precisely on a laptop DELL with Intel Core~i3~2370~M (2.4 GHz)  processor (2 cores) and the MIPS (Million Instructions  Per Second) rate equal to 35330. To be consistent  with the use of a sensor node with Atmels AVR ATmega103L microcontroller (6 MHz) and  a MIPS rate  equal to 6,  the original execution time on the laptop is multiplied by  2944.2 $\left(\frac{35330}{2} \times  \frac{1}{6} \right)$  so as to use it by the energy consumption model especially, after the computation and listening. Employing the modeling language for Mathematical Programming (AMPL)~\cite{AMPL}, the associated integer program instance is generated 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 compared LiCO protocol to three other approaches: the first, called DESK and proposed  by ~\cite{ChinhVu}  is a fully distributed  coverage  algorithm;  the second, called GAF  ~\cite{xu2001geography}, consists in dividing the region
-into fixed  squares.  During the decision  phase, in each square,  one sensor is
-chosen to remain active during the sensing phase; the third, DiLCO protocol~\cite{Idrees2} is an improved version on the work presented in ~\cite{idrees2014coverage}. Note that the LiCO protocol is based on the same framework as that of DiLCO. For these two protocols, the division of the region of interest in 16 subregions was chosen since it produces the best results. The difference between the two protocols relies on the use of the integer programming to provide the set of sensors that have to be activated in each sensing phase. Whereas DiLCO protocol tries to satisfy the coverage of a set of primary points, LiCO protocol tries to reach a desired level of coverage $l$ for each sensor's perimeter. In the experimentations, we chose a level of coverage equal to 1 ($l=1$).
 
-\subsubsection{\textbf{Coverage Ratio}}
-Figure~\ref{fig333} shows the average coverage ratio for 200 deployed nodes obtained with the four methods.
- 
+In  order  to  assess and  analyze  the  performance  of  our protocol  we  have
+implemented PeCO protocol in  OMNeT++~\cite{varga} simulator.  Besides PeCO, two
+other  protocols,  described  in  the  next paragraph,  will  be  evaluated  for
+comparison purposes.   The simulations were run  on a DELL laptop  with an Intel
+Core~i3~2370~M (2.4~GHz)  processor (2  cores) whose MIPS  (Million Instructions
+Per Second) rate  is equal to 35330. To  be consistent with the use  of a sensor
+node based on  Atmels AVR ATmega103L microcontroller (6~MHz) having  a MIPS rate
+equal to 6,  the original execution time  on the laptop is  multiplied by 2944.2
+$\left(\frac{35330}{2} \times  \frac{1}{6} \right)$.  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.
+
+As said previously, the PeCO is  compared to three other approaches. The first
+one,  called  DESK,  is  a  fully distributed  coverage  algorithm  proposed  by
+\cite{ChinhVu}. The second one,  called GAF~\cite{xu2001geography}, consists in
+dividing  the monitoring  area into  fixed  squares. Then,  during the  decision
+phase, in each square, one sensor is  chosen to remain active during the sensing
+phase. The last  one, the DiLCO protocol~\cite{Idrees2}, is  an improved version
+of a research work we presented in~\cite{idrees2014coverage}. Let us notice that
+PeCO and  DiLCO protocols are  based on the  same framework. In  particular, the
+choice for the simulations of a partitioning in 16~subregions was made because
+it corresponds to the configuration producing  the best results for DiLCO. The
+protocols are distinguished  from one another by the formulation  of the integer
+program providing the set of sensors which  have to be activated in each sensing
+phase. DiLCO protocol tries to satisfy the coverage of a set of primary points,
+whereas the PeCO protocol objective is to reach a desired level of coverage for each
+sensor perimeter. In our experimentations, we chose a level of coverage equal to
+one ($l=1$).
+
+\subsubsection{\bf Coverage Ratio}
+
+Figure~\ref{fig333}  shows the  average coverage  ratio for  200 deployed  nodes
+obtained with the  four protocols. DESK, GAF, and DiLCO  provide a slightly better
+coverage ratio with respectively 99.99\%,  99.91\%, and 99.02\%, compared to the 98.76\%
+produced by  PeCO for the  first periods. This  is due to  the fact that  at the
+beginning the DiLCO protocol  puts to  sleep status  more redundant  sensors (which
+slightly decreases the coverage ratio), while the three other protocols activate
+more sensor  nodes. Later, when the  number of periods is  beyond~70, it clearly
+appears that  PeCO provides a better  coverage ratio and keeps  a coverage ratio
+greater  than 50\%  for  longer periods  (15  more compared  to  DiLCO, 40  more
+compared to DESK). The energy saved by  PeCO in the early periods allows later a
+substantial increase of the coverage performance.
+
 \parskip 0pt    
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
  \includegraphics[scale=0.5] {R/CR.eps} 
-\caption{The coverage ratio for 200 deployed nodes}
+\caption{Coverage ratio for 200 deployed nodes.}
 \label{fig333}
 \end{figure} 
 
-DESK,  GAF, and DiLCO provide a little better coverage ratio with 99.99\%, 99.91\%, and 99.02\% against 98.76\% produced by LiCO for the first periods. This is due to the fact that DiLCO protocol put in sleep mode redundant sensors using optimization (which lightly decreases the coverage ratio) while there are more active nodes in the case of others methods. But when the number of periods exceeds 70 periods, it clearly appears that LiCO provides a better coverage ratio and keeps a coverage ratio greater than 50\% for longer periods (15 more compared to DiLCO, 40 more compared to DESK).
+%When the number of periods increases, coverage ratio produced by DESK and GAF protocols decreases. This is due to dead nodes. However, DiLCO protocol maintains almost a good coverage from the round 31 to the round 63 and it is close to PeCO protocol. The coverage ratio of PeCO protocol is better than other approaches from the period 64.
 
-%When the number of periods increases, coverage ratio produced by DESK and GAF protocols decreases. This is due to dead nodes. However, DiLCO protocol maintains almost a good coverage from the round 31 to the round 63 and it is close to LiCO protocol. The coverage ratio of LiCO protocol is better than other approaches from the period 64.
+%because the optimization algorithm used by PeCO has been optimized the lifetime coverage based on the perimeter coverage model, so it provided acceptable coverage for a larger number of periods and prolonging the network lifetime based on the perimeter of the sensor nodes in each subregion of WSN. Although some nodes are dead, sensor activity scheduling based optimization of PeCO selected another nodes to ensure the coverage of the area of interest. i.e. DiLCO-16 showed a good coverage in the beginning then PeCO, when the number of periods increases, the coverage ratio decreases due to died sensor nodes. Meanwhile, thanks to sensor activity scheduling based new optimization model, which is used by PeCO protocol to ensure a longer lifetime coverage in comparison with other approaches. 
 
-%because the optimization algorithm used by LiCO has been optimized the lifetime coverage based on the perimeter coverage model, so it provided acceptable coverage for a larger number of periods and prolonging the network lifetime based on the perimeter of the sensor nodes in each subregion of WSN. Although some nodes are dead, sensor activity scheduling based optimization of LiCO selected another nodes to ensure the coverage of the area of interest. i.e. DiLCO-16 showed a good coverage in the beginning then LiCO, when the number of periods increases, the coverage ratio decreases due to died sensor nodes. Meanwhile, thanks to sensor activity scheduling based new optimization model, which is used by LiCO protocol to ensure a longer lifetime coverage in comparison with other approaches. 
 
+\subsubsection{\bf Active Sensors Ratio}
 
-\subsubsection{\textbf{Active Sensors Ratio}} 
-Having active nodes as few as possible in each period is essential in order to minimize the energy consumption and so maximize the network lifetime. Figure~\ref{fig444} shows the average active nodes ratio for 200 deployed nodes. 
+Having the less active sensor nodes in  each period is essential to minimize the
+energy consumption  and thus to  maximize the network  lifetime.  Figure~\ref{fig444}
+shows the  average active nodes ratio  for 200 deployed nodes.   We observe that
+DESK and  GAF have 30.36  \% and  34.96 \% active  nodes for the  first fourteen
+rounds and  DiLCO and PeCO  protocols compete perfectly  with only 17.92  \% and
+20.16 \% active  nodes during the same  time interval. As the  number of periods
+increases, PeCO protocol  has a lower number of active  nodes in comparison with
+the three other approaches, while keeping a greater coverage ratio as shown in
+Figure \ref{fig333}.
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/ASR.eps}  
-\caption{The active sensors ratio for 200 deployed nodes }
+\caption{Active sensors ratio for 200 deployed nodes.}
 \label{fig444}
 \end{figure} 
 
-We observe that DESK and GAF have 30.36 \% and 34.96 \% active nodes for the first fourteen rounds and DiLCO and LiCO protocols compete perfectly with only 17.92 \% and 20.16 \% active nodes during the same time interval. As the number of periods increases, LiCO protocol has a lower number of active nodes in comparison with the three other approaches, while keeping of greater coverage ratio as shown in figure \ref{fig333}.
+\subsubsection{\bf Energy Consumption}
+
+We studied the effect of the energy  consumed by the WSN during the communication,
+computation, listening, active, and sleep status for different network densities
+and  compared  it for  the  four  approaches.  Figures~\ref{fig3EC}(a)  and  (b)
+illustrate  the  energy   consumption  for  different  network   sizes  and  for
+$Lifetime95$ and  $Lifetime50$. The results show  that our PeCO protocol  is the
+most competitive  from the energy  consumption point of  view. As shown  in both
+figures, PeCO consumes much less energy than the three other methods.  One might
+think that the  resolution of the integer  program is too costly  in energy, but
+the  results show  that it  is very  beneficial to  lose a  bit of  time in  the
+selection of  sensors to  activate.  Indeed the  optimization program  allows to
+reduce significantly the number of active  sensors and so the energy consumption
+while keeping a good coverage level.
 
-\subsubsection{\textbf{The Energy Consumption}}
-We study the effect of the energy consumed by the WSN during the communication, computation, listening, active, and sleep modes for different network densities and compare it for the four approaches. Figures~\ref{fig3EC95} and \ref{fig3EC50} illustrate the energy consumption for different network sizes and for $Lifetime95$ and $Lifetime50$. 
-
-\begin{figure}[h!]
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/EC95.eps} 
-\caption{The Energy Consumption per period with $Lifetime_{95}$}
-\label{fig3EC95}
-\end{figure} 
-                                           
 \begin{figure}[h!]
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/EC50.eps} 
-\caption{The Energy Consumption per period with $Lifetime_{50}$}
-\label{fig3EC50}
+  \centering
+  \begin{tabular}{@{}cr@{}}
+    \includegraphics[scale=0.475]{R/EC95.eps} & \raisebox{2.75cm}{(a)} \\
+    \includegraphics[scale=0.475]{R/EC50.eps} & \raisebox{2.75cm}{(b)}
+  \end{tabular}
+  \caption{Energy consumption per period for (a)~$Lifetime_{95}$ and (b)~$Lifetime_{50}$.}
+  \label{fig3EC}
 \end{figure} 
 
-The results show that our LiCO protocol is the most competitive from the energy consumption point of view. As shown in figures~\ref{fig3EC95} and \ref{fig3EC50}, LiCO consumes much less energy  than the three other methods. One might think that the resolution of the integer program is too costly in energy, but the results show that it is very beneficial to lose a bit of time in the selection of sensors to activate. Indeed this optimization program allows to reduce significantly the number of active sensors and so the energy consumption while keeping a good coverage level.
-%The optimization algorithm, which used by LiCO protocol,  was improved the lifetime coverage efficiently based on the perimeter coverage model.
+%The optimization algorithm, which used by PeCO protocol,  was improved the lifetime coverage efficiently based on the perimeter coverage model.
 
  %The other approaches have a high energy consumption due to activating a larger number of sensors. In fact,  a distributed  method on the subregions greatly reduces the number of communications and the time of listening so thanks to the partitioning of the initial network into several independent subnetworks. 
 
 
 %\subsubsection{Execution Time}
 
-\subsubsection{\textbf{The Network Lifetime}}
-We observe the superiority of LiCO and DiLCO protocols against other two approaches in prolonging the network lifetime. In figures~\ref{fig3LT95} and \ref{fig3LT50}, network lifetime, $Lifetime95$ and $Lifetime50$ respectively, are illustrated for different network sizes.  
+\subsubsection{\bf Network Lifetime}
+
+We observe the superiority of PeCO and DiLCO protocols in comparison with the
+two    other   approaches    in    prolonging   the    network   lifetime.    In
+Figures~\ref{fig3LT}(a)  and (b),  $Lifetime95$ and  $Lifetime50$ are  shown for
+different  network  sizes.   As  highlighted  by  these  figures,  the  lifetime
+increases with the size  of the network, and it is clearly   largest for DiLCO
+and PeCO  protocols.  For instance,  for a  network of 300~sensors  and coverage
+ratio greater than 50\%, we can  see on Figure~\ref{fig3LT}(b) that the lifetime
+is about twice longer with  PeCO compared to DESK protocol.  The performance
+difference    is    more    obvious   in    Figure~\ref{fig3LT}(b)    than    in
+Figure~\ref{fig3LT}(a) because the gain induced  by our protocols increases with
+ time, and the lifetime with a coverage  of 50\% is far  longer than with
+95\%.
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/LT95.eps}  
-\caption{The Network Lifetime for $Lifetime_{95}$}
-\label{fig3LT95}
-\end{figure}
-
-
-\begin{figure}[h!]
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/LT50.eps}  
-\caption{The Network Lifetime for $Lifetime_{50}$}
-\label{fig3LT50}
+  \centering
+  \begin{tabular}{@{}cr@{}}
+    \includegraphics[scale=0.475]{R/LT95.eps} & \raisebox{2.75cm}{(a)} \\  
+    \includegraphics[scale=0.475]{R/LT50.eps} & \raisebox{2.75cm}{(b)}
+  \end{tabular}
+  \caption{Network Lifetime for (a)~$Lifetime_{95}$ \\
+    and (b)~$Lifetime_{50}$.}
+  \label{fig3LT}
 \end{figure} 
 
-As highlighted by figures~\ref{fig3LT95} and \ref{fig3LT50}, the network lifetime obviously increases when the size of the network increases, and it is clearly larger with DiLCO and LiCO protocols compared with the two other methods. For instance, for a network of 300 sensors, the coverage ratio is greater than 50\% about two times longer with LiCO compared to DESK method.
+%By choosing the best suited nodes, for each period, by optimizing the coverage and lifetime of the network to cover the area of interest and by letting the other ones sleep in order to be used later in next rounds, PeCO protocol efficiently prolonged the network lifetime especially for a coverage ratio greater than $50 \%$, whilst it stayed very near to  DiLCO-16 protocol for $95 \%$.
 
-%By choosing the best suited nodes, for each period, by optimizing the coverage and lifetime of the network to cover the area of interest and by letting the other ones sleep in order to be used later in next rounds, LiCO protocol efficiently prolonged the network lifetime especially for a coverage ratio greater than $50 \%$, whilst it stayed very near to  DiLCO-16 protocol for $95 \%$.  
-Figure~\ref{figLTALL} introduces the comparisons of the lifetime coverage for different coverage ratios for LiCO and DiLCO protocols. 
-We denote by Protocol/50, Protocol/80, Protocol/85, Protocol/90, and Protocol/95 the amount of time during which the network can satisfy an area coverage greater than $50\%$, $80\%$, $85\%$, $90\%$, and $95\%$ respectively. Indeed there are applications that do not require a 100\% coverage of the surveillance region. LiCO might be an interesting  method  since it achieves a good balance between a high level coverage ratio and network lifetime.
+Figure~\ref{figLTALL}  compares  the  lifetime  coverage of  our  protocols  for
+different coverage  ratios. We denote by  Protocol/50, Protocol/80, Protocol/85,
+Protocol/90, and  Protocol/95 the amount  of time  during which the  network can
+satisfy an area coverage greater than $50\%$, $80\%$, $85\%$, $90\%$, and $95\%$
+respectively, where the term Protocol refers to  DiLCO  or PeCO.  Indeed there  are applications
+that do not require a 100\% coverage of  the area to be monitored. PeCO might be
+an interesting  method since  it achieves  a good balance  between a  high level
+coverage ratio and network lifetime. PeCO always outperforms DiLCO for the three
+lower  coverage  ratios,  moreover  the   improvements  grow  with  the  network
+size. DiLCO is better  for coverage ratios near 100\%, but in  that case PeCO is
+not ineffective for the smallest network sizes.
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/LTa.eps}  
-\caption{The Network Lifetime for different coverage ratios}
+\centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{R/LTa.eps}
+\caption{Network lifetime for different coverage ratios.}
 \label{figLTALL}
 \end{figure} 
 
-
-%Comparison shows that LiCO protocol, which are used distributed optimization over the subregions, is the more relevance one for most coverage ratios and WSN sizes because it is robust to network disconnection during the network lifetime as well as it consume less energy in comparison with other approaches. LiCO protocol gave acceptable coverage ratio for a larger number of periods using new optimization algorithm that based on a perimeter coverage model. It also means that distributing the algorithm in each node and subdividing the sensing field into many subregions, which are managed independently and simultaneously, is the most relevant way to maximize the lifetime of a network.
+%Comparison shows that PeCO protocol, which are used distributed optimization over the subregions, is the more relevance one for most coverage ratios and WSN sizes because it is robust to network disconnection during the network lifetime as well as it consume less energy in comparison with other approaches. PeCO protocol gave acceptable coverage ratio for a larger number of periods using new optimization algorithm that based on a perimeter coverage model. It also means that distributing the algorithm in each node and subdividing the sensing field into many subregions, which are managed independently and simultaneously, is the most relevant way to maximize the lifetime of a network.
 
 
-\section{\uppercase{Conclusion and Future Works}}
+\section{Conclusion and Future Works}
 \label{sec:Conclusion and Future Works}
-In this paper we have studied the problem of lifetime coverage optimization in
-WSNs. We designed a protocol LiCO that schedules node' activities (wakeup and sleep) with the objective of maintaining a good coverage ratio while maximizing the network lifetime. This protocol is applied on each subregion of the area of interest. It works in periods and is based on the resolution of an integer program to select the subset of sensors operating in active mode for each period. Our work is original in so far as it proposes for the first time an integer program scheduling the activation of sensors based on their perimeter coverage level instead of using a set of targets/points to be covered.
 
- 
-
-
-%To cope with this problem, the area of interest is divided into a smaller subregions using  divide-and-conquer method, and then a LiCO protocol for optimizing the lifetime coverage in each subregion. LiCO protocol combines two efficient techniques:  network
+In this paper  we have studied the problem of  Perimeter-based Coverage Optimization in
+WSNs. We have designed  a new protocol, called Perimeter-based  Coverage Optimization, which
+schedules nodes'  activities (wake up  and sleep  stages) with the  objective of
+maintaining a  good coverage ratio  while maximizing the network  lifetime. This
+protocol is  applied in a distributed  way in regular subregions  obtained after
+partitioning the area of interest in a preliminary step. It works in periods and
+is based on the resolution of an integer program to select the subset of sensors
+operating in active status for each period. Our work is original in so far as it
+proposes for  the first  time an  integer program  scheduling the  activation of
+sensors  based on  their perimeter  coverage level,  instead of  using a  set of
+targets/points to be covered.
+
+%To cope with this problem, the area of interest is divided into a smaller subregions using  divide-and-conquer method, and then a PeCO protocol for optimizing the lifetime coverage in each subregion. PeCO protocol combines two efficient techniques:  network
 %leader election, which executes the perimeter coverage model (only one time), the optimization algorithm, and sending the schedule produced by the optimization algorithm to other nodes in the subregion ; the second, sensor activity scheduling based optimization in which a new lifetime coverage optimization model is proposed. The main challenges include how to select the  most efficient leader in each subregion and the best schedule of sensor nodes that will optimize the network lifetime coverage
 %in the subregion. 
 %The network lifetime coverage in each subregion is divided into
 %periods, each period consists  of four stages: (i) Information Exchange,
 %(ii) Leader Election, (iii) a Decision based new optimization model in order to
 %select the  nodes remaining  active for the last stage,  and  (iv) Sensing.
-We carried out severals simulations to evaluate the proposed protocol.  The  simulation results show that LiCO is  is more energy-efficient than other approaches, with respect to lifetime, coverage ratio, active sensors ratio, and energy consumption. 
-%Indeed, when dealing with large and dense WSNs, a distributed optimization approach on the subregions of WSN like the one we are proposed allows to reduce the difficulty of a single global optimization problem by partitioning it in many smaller problems, one per subregion, that can be solved more easily.
-
-We have identified different research directions that arise out of the work presented here. 
-We plan to extend our framework such that the schedules are planned for multiple periods in advance.
+We  have carried out  several simulations  to  evaluate the  proposed protocol.   The
+simulation  results  show   that  PeCO  is  more   energy-efficient  than  other
+approaches, with respect to lifetime,  coverage ratio, active sensors ratio, and
+energy consumption.
+%Indeed, when dealing with large and dense WSNs, a distributed optimization approach on the subregions of WSN like the one we are proposed allows to reduce the difficulty of a single global optimization problem by partitioning it in many smaller problems, one per subregion, that can be solved more easily. We have  identified different  research directions  that arise  out of  the work presented here.
+We plan to extend our framework so that the schedules are planned for multiple
+sensing periods.
 %in order to compute all active sensor schedules in only one step for many periods;
-We also want to improve our integer program to take into account the heterogeneous sensors, which do not have the same energy, processing,  sensing and communication capabilities;
+We also want  to improve our integer program to  take into account heterogeneous
+sensors  from both  energy  and node  characteristics point of views.
 %the third, we are investigating new optimization model based on the sensing range so as to maximize the lifetime coverage in WSN;
-Finally, our final goal is to implement our protocol using a sensor-testbed to evaluate their performance in real world applications.
+Finally,  it   would  be   interesting  to  implement   our  protocol   using  a
+sensor-testbed to evaluate it in real world applications.
 
-\section*{\uppercase{Acknowledgements}}
-\noindent As a Ph.D. student, Ali Kadhum IDREES would like to gratefully acknowledge the University of Babylon - IRAQ for the financial support and Campus France for the received support.
+\section*{Acknowledgments}
 
- 
+\noindent  As a  Ph.D.   student, Ali Kadhum IDREES  would  like to  gratefully
+acknowledge the  University of Babylon -  IRAQ for financial support  and Campus
+France for the  received support. This work is also partially funded by the Labex ACTION program (contract ANR-11-LABX-01-01). 
 
 
 \ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
