Proof reading by Michel

[UIC2013.git] / bare_conf.tex

diff --git a/bare_conf.tex b/bare_conf.tex
index 72be80c01a6e53183bd5959842d9c8afaaa25320..373f8b56c1a3a86bc5005b3cf99d3e5384a3d845 100755 (executable)
--- a/bare_conf.tex
+++ b/bare_conf.tex
@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
-
+ 

 \documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
 
 \documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
 

-

 \ifCLASSINFOpdf
   
 \else
 \ifCLASSINFOpdf
   
 \else


@@ -42,7 +41,7 @@
 % use a multiple column layout for up to three different
 % affiliations
 \author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkel, Michel Salomon, and Raphael Couturier }
 % use a multiple column layout for up to three different
 % affiliations
 \author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Ali Kadhum Idrees, Karine Deschinkel, Michel Salomon, and Raphael Couturier }

-\IEEEauthorblockA{FEMTO-ST Institute, UMR CNRS, University of Franche-Comt\'e, Belfort, France \\
+\IEEEauthorblockA{FEMTO-ST Institute, UMR CNRS, University of Franche-Comte, Belfort, France \\

 Email:$\lbrace$ali.idness, karine.deschinkel, michel.salomon,raphael.couturier$\rbrace$@femto-st.fr}
 %\email{\{ali.idness, karine.deschinkel, michel.salomon, raphael.couturier\}@univ-fcomte.fr}
 %\and
 Email:$\lbrace$ali.idness, karine.deschinkel, michel.salomon,raphael.couturier$\rbrace$@femto-st.fr}
 %\email{\{ali.idness, karine.deschinkel, michel.salomon, raphael.couturier\}@univ-fcomte.fr}
 %\and


@@ -53,36 +52,34 @@ Email:$\lbrace$ali.idness, karine.deschinkel, michel.salomon,raphael.couturier$\
 %\IEEEauthorblockA{FEMTO-ST Institute, UMR CNRS, University of Franche-Comte, Belfort, France}
 }
 
 %\IEEEauthorblockA{FEMTO-ST Institute, UMR CNRS, University of Franche-Comte, Belfort, France}
 }
 

-

 \maketitle
 
 \maketitle
 

-

 \begin{abstract}
 One of  the fundamental challenges in Wireless  Sensor Networks (WSNs)
 \begin{abstract}
 One of  the fundamental challenges in Wireless  Sensor Networks (WSNs)

-is  coverage   preservation, while  extending   the  network  lifetime
-continuously  and effectively  during  monitoring a  certain area  (or
+is  coverage  preservation  and  extension  of  the  network  lifetime
+continuously  and  effectively  when  monitoring a  certain  area  (or

 region) of interest. In this paper a coverage optimization protocol to
 improve the lifetime in  heterogeneous energy wireless sensor networks
 is proposed.   The area of  interest is first divided  into subregions
 using a  divide-and-conquer method and then scheduling  of sensor node
 activity  is  planned for  each  subregion.   The proposed  scheduling
 region) of interest. In this paper a coverage optimization protocol to
 improve the lifetime in  heterogeneous energy wireless sensor networks
 is proposed.   The area of  interest is first divided  into subregions
 using a  divide-and-conquer method and then scheduling  of sensor node
 activity  is  planned for  each  subregion.   The proposed  scheduling

-considers  activity  rounds during  which  a  small  number of  nodes,
-remaining  active for sensing,  is selected  to ensure  coverage. Each
-round consists  of four phases:  (i)~Information Exchange, (ii)~Leader
+considers  rounds during  which  a small  number  of nodes,  remaining
+active  for  sensing, is  selected  to  ensure  coverage.  Each  round
+consists  of   four  phases:  (i)~Information   Exchange,  (ii)~Leader

 Election, (iii)~Decision,  and (iv)~Sensing.  The  decision process is
 carried  out  by  a  leader  node which  solves  an  integer  program.
 Simulation  results show that  the proposed  approach can  prolong the
 network lifetime and improve the coverage performance.
 \end{abstract}
 
 Election, (iii)~Decision,  and (iv)~Sensing.  The  decision process is
 carried  out  by  a  leader  node which  solves  an  integer  program.
 Simulation  results show that  the proposed  approach can  prolong the
 network lifetime and improve the coverage performance.
 \end{abstract}
 

- %\keywords{Area Coverage, Wireless Sensor Networks, lifetime Optimization, Distributed Protocol.}
+%\keywords{Area Coverage, Wireless Sensor Networks, lifetime Optimization, Distributed Protocol.}

  
  

- \IEEEpeerreviewmaketitle
+\IEEEpeerreviewmaketitle

 
 \section{Introduction}
 \noindent Recent years have witnessed significant advances in wireless
 communications and embedded micro-sensing MEMS technologies which have
 
 \section{Introduction}
 \noindent Recent years have witnessed significant advances in wireless
 communications and embedded micro-sensing MEMS technologies which have

-made  emerge wireless  ensor networks  as  one of  the most  promising
+made  emerge wireless  sensor networks  as one  of the  most promising

 technologies~\cite{asc02}.   In fact, they  present huge  potential in
 several  domains ranging  from  health care  applications to  military
 applications.  A sensor network is  composed of a large number of tiny
 technologies~\cite{asc02}.   In fact, they  present huge  potential in
 several  domains ranging  from  health care  applications to  military
 applications.  A sensor network is  composed of a large number of tiny


@@ -91,35 +88,56 @@ processing  and wireless communication  capabilities, which  enable to
 sense its environment, to compute, to store information and to deliver
 report messages to a base station.
 %These sensor nodes run on batteries with limited capacities. To achieve a long life of the network, it is important to conserve battery power. Therefore, lifetime optimisation is one of the most critical issues in wireless sensor networks.
 sense its environment, to compute, to store information and to deliver
 report messages to a base station.
 %These sensor nodes run on batteries with limited capacities. To achieve a long life of the network, it is important to conserve battery power. Therefore, lifetime optimisation is one of the most critical issues in wireless sensor networks.

-One of  the main design challenges  in wireless sensor  networks is to
+One of the main design issues in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) is to

 prolong the  network lifetime,  while achieving acceptable  quality of
 service for applications.  Indeed, sensor nodes have limited resources
 in terms of memory, energy and computational power.
 
 prolong the  network lifetime,  while achieving acceptable  quality of
 service for applications.  Indeed, sensor nodes have limited resources
 in terms of memory, energy and computational power.
 

-%\medskip
-Since sensor nodes have limited battery life and without being able to replace 
-batteries, especially in remote and hostile environments,
-it is desirable that a WSN should be deployed with 
-high density and thus redundancy can be exploited to increase 
-the lifetime of the network. In such a high density network, if all sensor nodes 
-were to be activated at the same time, the lifetime would be reduced. Consequently, 
-future software may need to adapt appropriately to achieve acceptable quality of service for applications.  
-In this paper we concentrate on area coverage problem, with the objective of maximizing the network lifetime by using an adaptive scheduling. Area of interest is divided into subregions and an activity scheduling for sensor nodes is planned for each subregion.
-Our scheduling scheme works in round which includes a discovery phase to exchange information between sensors of the subregion, then a sensor is chosen in suitable manner to carry out a coverage strategy.  This coverage strategy involves the resolution of an integer program which provides the activation of the sensors for the next round.
-
-
-The remainder  of the paper is  organized as follows.
-Section~\ref{rw} reviews the related work in the field. 
-Section \ref{pd} is devoted to the scheduling strategy for energy-efficient coverage. 
-Section \ref{cp} gives the coverage model formulation which is used to schedule the activation of sensors.
-Section \ref{exp} shows the simulation results conducted on OMNET++, that fully demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed approach. Finally, we give concluding remarks in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
+Since sensor nodes have limited battery life and without being able to
+replace batteries,  especially in remote and  hostile environments, it
+is desirable that  a WSN should be deployed  with high density because
+spatial redundancy can  then be exploited to increase  the lifetime of
+the network. In such a high  density network, if all sensor nodes were
+to be  activated at the same  time, the lifetime would  be reduced. To
+extend the lifetime  of the network, the main idea  is to take benefit
+from  the overlapping  sensing regions  of some  sensor nodes  to save
+energy  by  turning  off  some  of  them  during  the  sensing  phase.
+Obviously, the deactivation of nodes  is only relevant if the coverage
+of the monitored area  is not affected.  Consequently, future software
+may  need to  adapt  appropriately to  achieve  acceptable quality  of
+service  for  applications.  In  this  paper  we  concentrate on  area
+coverage  problem,  with  the  objective  of  maximizing  the  network
+lifetime  by using  an adaptive  scheduling. The  area of  interest is
+divided into subregions and an activity scheduling for sensor nodes is
+planned for  each subregion.  Our scheduling  scheme considers rounds,
+where a  round starts with  a discovery phase to  exchange information
+between  sensors of  the subregion,  in  order to  choose in  suitable
+manner a sensor  node to carry out a  coverage strategy. This coverage
+strategy involves the resolution  of an integer program which provides
+the activation  of the  sensors for the  sensing phase of  the current
+round.
+
+The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.  The next section
+% Section~\ref{rw}
+reviews the related work in the field.  Section~\ref{pd} is devoted to
+the    scheduling     strategy    for    energy-efficient    coverage.
+Section~\ref{cp} gives the coverage model formulation which is used to
+schedule  the  activation  of  sensors.  Section~\ref{exp}  shows  the
+simulation  results obtained  using  the discrete  event simulator  on
+OMNET++  \cite{varga}. They  fully demonstrate  the usefulness  of the
+proposed  approach.   Finally, we  give  concluding  remarks and  some
+suggestions for future works in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.

 
 \section{\uppercase{Related work}}
 \label{rw}
 \noindent 
 
 \section{\uppercase{Related work}}
 \label{rw}
 \noindent 

-This section is dedicated to the various approaches proposed in the literature for the coverage lifetime maximization problem where the objective is to optimally schedule sensors'activities in order to extend network lifetime  in a randomly deployed network. As this problem is subject to a wide range of interpretations, we suggest to recall main definitions and assumptions related to our work. 
+This section  is dedicated to  the various approaches proposed  in the
+literature for  the coverage lifetime maximization  problem, where the
+objective  is to optimally  schedule sensors'  activities in  order to
+extend  network  lifetime in  a  randomly  deployed  network. As  this
+problem is subject  to a wide range of  interpretations, we suggest to
+recall main definitions and assumptions related to our work.

 
 

-{\bf Coverage}

 %\begin{itemize}
 %\item Area Coverage: The main objective is to cover an area. The area coverage requires
 %that the sensing range of working Active nodes cover the whole targeting area, which means any
 %\begin{itemize}
 %\item Area Coverage: The main objective is to cover an area. The area coverage requires
 %that the sensing range of working Active nodes cover the whole targeting area, which means any


@@ -129,27 +147,100 @@ This section is dedicated to the various approaches proposed in the literature f
 
 %\item Barrier Coverage An objective to determine the maximal support/breach paths that traverse a sensor field. Barrier coverage is expressed as finding one or more routes with starting position and ending position when the targets pass through the area deployed with sensor nodes~\cite{Santosh04,Ai05}.
 %\end{itemize}
 
 %\item Barrier Coverage An objective to determine the maximal support/breach paths that traverse a sensor field. Barrier coverage is expressed as finding one or more routes with starting position and ending position when the targets pass through the area deployed with sensor nodes~\cite{Santosh04,Ai05}.
 %\end{itemize}

+{\bf Coverage}

 
 

-The most discussed coverage problems in literature can be classified into two types \cite{} : area coverage and targets coverage. An area coverage problem is to find a minimum number of sensors to work such that each physical point in the area is monitored by at least a working sensor. Target coverage problem is to cover only a finite number of discrete points called targets. 
- Our work will concentrate on the area coverage by design and implement a strategy which efficiently select the active nodes that must maintain both sensing coverage and network connectivity and in the same time improve the lifetime of the wireless sensor network. But requiring that all physical points are covered may be too strict, specially where the sensor network is not dense. 
-Our approach represents an area covered by a sensor as a set of primary points and tries to maximize the total number of primary points that are covered in each round, while minimizing overcoverage (points covered by multiple active sensors simultaneously).\\
-{\bf Lifetime}\\
-Various definitions exist for the lifetime of a sensor network. Main definitions proposed in the literature are related to the remaining energy of the nodes \cite{} or to the percentage of coverage \cite{}. The lifetime of the network is mainly defined as the amount of time that the network can satisfy its coverage objective (the amount of time that the network can cover a given percentage of its area or targets of interest). In our simulation we assume that the network is alive until all nodes have been drained of their energy or the sensor network disconnected and we measure the coverage ratio during the process.
-
-{\bf Activity scheduling}\\
-Activity scheduling is to schedule the activation and deactivation of nodes 'sensor units. The basic objective is to decide which sensors are in which states (active or sleeping mode) and for how long a time such that the application coverage requirement can be guaranteed and network lifetime can be prolonged. Various approaches, including centralized, distributed and localized algorithms, have been proposed for activity scheduling.  In the distributed algorithms, each node in the network autonomously makes decisions on whether to turn on or turn off itself only using local neighbour information. In centralized algorithms, a central controller (node or base station) informs every sensor of the time intervals to be activated.
+The most  discussed coverage problems in literature  can be classified
+into two types \cite{ma10}: area coverage (also called full or blanket
+coverage) and target coverage.  An  area coverage problem is to find a
+minimum number of sensors to work such that each physical point in the
+area is within the sensing range  of at least one working sensor node.
+Target coverage problem  is to cover only a  finite number of discrete
+points  called targets.   This type  of coverage  has  mainly military
+applications. Our work will concentrate on the area coverage by design
+and implementation of a  strategy which efficiently selects the active
+nodes   that  must   maintain  both   sensing  coverage   and  network
+connectivity and in the same time improve the lifetime of the wireless
+sensor  network.   But  requiring  that  all physical  points  of  the
+considered region are covered may  be too strict, especially where the
+sensor network is not dense.   Our approach represents an area covered
+by a sensor as a set of primary points and tries to maximize the total
+number  of  primary points  that  are  covered  in each  round,  while
+minimizing  overcoverage (points  covered by  multiple  active sensors
+simultaneously).
+
+\newpage
+
+{\bf Lifetime}
+
+Various   definitions   exist   for   the   lifetime   of   a   sensor
+network~\cite{die09}.  Main definitions proposed in the literature are
+related to the  remaining energy of the nodes or  to the percentage of
+coverage. The lifetime of the  network is mainly defined as the amount
+of  time that  the network  can  satisfy its  coverage objective  (the
+amount of  time that the network  can cover a given  percentage of its
+area or targets of interest). In this work, we assume that the network
+is alive  until all  nodes have  been drained of  their energy  or the
+sensor network becomes disconnected, and we measure the coverage ratio
+during the WSN lifetime.  Network connectivity is important because an
+active sensor node without  connectivity towards a base station cannot
+transmit information on an event in the area that it monitor.
+
+{\bf Activity scheduling}
+
+Activity scheduling is to  schedule the activation and deactivation of
+sensor nodes.  The  basic objective is to decide  which sensors are in
+what states (active or sleeping mode)  and for how long, such that the
+application  coverage requirement  can be  guaranteed and  the network
+lifetime can be  prolonged. Various approaches, including centralized,
+distributed, and localized algorithms, have been proposed for activity
+scheduling.  In  the distributed algorithms, each node  in the network
+autonomously makes decisions on whether  to turn on or turn off itself
+only using  local neighbor information. In  centralized algorithms, a
+central controller  (a node or  base station) informs every  sensor of
+the time intervals to be activated.

 
 {\bf Distributed approaches}
 
 
 {\bf Distributed approaches}
 

-Some distributed algorithms have been developed in~\cite{Gallais06,Tian02,Ye03,Zhang05,HeinzelmanCB02}. Distributed algorithms typically operate in rounds for predetermined duration. At the beginning of each round, a sensor exchange information with its neighbors and makes a decision to either turn on or go to sleep for the round. This decision is basically based on simple greedy criteria like the largest uncovered area \cite{Berman05efficientenergy}, maximum uncovered targets \cite{1240799}. 
-In \cite{Tian02}, the scheduling scheme is divided into rounds, where each round has a self-scheduling phase followed by a sensing phase. Each sensor broadcasts  a message to its neighbours containing node ID and node location at the beginning of each round. Sensor determines its status by a rule named off-duty eligible rule which tells him to turn off if its sensing area is covered by its neighbours. A back-off scheme is introduced to let each sensor delay the decision process with a random period of time, in order to avoid that nodes make conflicting decisions simultaneously and that a part of the area is no longer covered.
-\cite{Prasad:2007:DAL:1782174.1782218} propose a model for capturing the dependencies between different cover sets and propose localized heuristic based on this dependency. The algorithm consists of two phases, an initial setup phase during which each sensor calculates and prioritize the covers and a sensing phase  during which each sensor first decides its on/off status and then remains on or off  for the rest of the duration. 
-Authors in \cite{chin2007} propose a novel distributed heuristic named distributed Energy-efficient Scheduling for k-coverage (DESK) so that the energy consumption among all the sensors is balanced, and network lifetime is maximized while the coverage requirements being maintained. This algorithm works in round, requires only 1-sensing-hop-neighbour information, and a sensor decides its status (active/sleep) based on its perimeter coverage computed through the k-Non-Unit-disk coverage algorithm  proposed in \cite{Huang:2003:CPW:941350.941367}.\\
-
-Some others approaches  do not consider synchronized and predetermined period of time where the sensors are active or not. Each sensor maintains its own timer and its time wake-up is randomized \cite{Ye03} or regulated \cite{cardei05} over time. 
+Some      distributed     algorithms      have      been     developed
+in~\cite{Gallais06,Tian02,Ye03,Zhang05,HeinzelmanCB02}.     Distributed
+algorithms typically operate in  rounds for predetermined duration. At
+the beginning  of each round,  a sensor exchange information  with its
+neighbors and makes a decision to  either remain turned on or to go to
+sleep for the round. This decision is basically based on simple greedy
+criteria       like       the       largest       uncovered       area
+\cite{Berman05efficientenergy},      maximum     uncovered     targets
+\cite{1240799}.   In \cite{Tian02}, the  scheduling scheme  is divided
+into rounds, where each round  has a self-scheduling phase followed by
+a sensing phase.  Each sensor  broadcasts a message containing node ID
+and node location  to its neighbors at the beginning  of each round. A
+sensor determines  its status by  a rule named off-duty  eligible rule
+which tells  him to  turn off if  its sensing  area is covered  by its
+neighbors. A  back-off scheme is  introduced to let each  sensor delay
+the decision process  with a random period of time,  in order to avoid
+that nodes  make conflicting decisions simultaneously and  that a part
+of       the       area        is       no       longer       covered.
+\cite{Prasad:2007:DAL:1782174.1782218}  defines a model  for capturing
+the dependencies  between different cover sets  and proposes localized
+heuristic  based on this  dependency.  The  algorithm consists  of two
+phases, an initial setup phase during which each sensor calculates and
+prioritize the  covers and  a sensing phase  during which  each sensor
+first decides  its on/off status, and  then remains on or  off for the
+rest  of the  duration.  Authors  in \cite{chin2007}  propose  a novel
+distributed  heuristic named  Distributed  Energy-efficient Scheduling
+for k-coverage  (DESK) so  that the energy  consumption among  all the
+sensors  is balanced,  and  network lifetime  is  maximized while  the
+coverage requirements  is being  maintained.  This algorithm  works in
+round, requires only  1-sensing-hop-neighbor information, and a sensor
+decides  its status  (active/sleep)  based on  its perimeter  coverage
+computed  through the k-Non-Unit-disk  coverage algorithm  proposed in
+\cite{Huang:2003:CPW:941350.941367}.
+
+Some others approaches do  not consider synchronized and predetermined
+period  of time  where the  sensors are  active or  not.  Indeed, each
+sensor  maintains its  own timer  and its  time wake-up  is randomized
+\cite{Ye03} or regulated \cite{cardei05} over time.

 %A ecrire \cite{Abrams:2004:SKA:984622.984684}p33
 
 %A ecrire \cite{Abrams:2004:SKA:984622.984684}p33
 

-

 %The scheduling information is disseminated throughout the network and only sensors in the active state are responsible
 %for monitoring all targets, while all other nodes are in a low-energy sleep mode. The nodes decide cooperatively which of them will remain in sleep mode for a certain
 %period of time.
 %The scheduling information is disseminated throughout the network and only sensors in the active state are responsible
 %for monitoring all targets, while all other nodes are in a low-energy sleep mode. The nodes decide cooperatively which of them will remain in sleep mode for a certain
 %period of time.


@@ -158,104 +249,225 @@ Some others approaches  do not consider synchronized and predetermined period of
 
 %In this paper we focus on centralized algorithms because distributed algorithms are outside the scope of our work. Note that centralized coverage algorithms have the advantage of requiring very low processing power from the sensor nodes which have usually limited processing capabilities. Moreover, a recent study conducted in \cite{pc10} concludes that there is a threshold in terms of network size to switch from a localized to a centralized algorithm. Indeed the exchange of messages in large networks may consume  a considerable amount of energy in a localized approach compared to a centralized one. 
 
 
 %In this paper we focus on centralized algorithms because distributed algorithms are outside the scope of our work. Note that centralized coverage algorithms have the advantage of requiring very low processing power from the sensor nodes which have usually limited processing capabilities. Moreover, a recent study conducted in \cite{pc10} concludes that there is a threshold in terms of network size to switch from a localized to a centralized algorithm. Indeed the exchange of messages in large networks may consume  a considerable amount of energy in a localized approach compared to a centralized one. 
 

-{\bf Centralized approaches}\\
-Power efficient centralized schemes differ according to several criteria \cite{Cardei:2006:ECP:1646656.1646898}, such as the coverage objective (target coverage or area coverage), the node deployment method (random or deterministic) and the heterogeneity of sensor nodes (common sensing range, common battery lifetime). The major approach is to divide/organize the sensors into a suitable number of set covers where each set completely covers an interest region and to activate these set covers successively. 
-
-First algorithms proposed in the literature consider that the cover sets are disjoint: a sensor node appears in exactly one of the generated cover sets. For instance Slijepcevic and Potkonjak \cite{Slijepcevic01powerefficient} propose an algorithm which allocates sensor nodes in mutually independent sets to monitor an area divided into several fields. Their algorithm constructs a cover set by including in priority the sensor nodes which cover critical fields, that is to say fields that are covered by the smallest number of sensors. The time complexity of their heuristic is $O(n^2)$ where $n$ is the number of sensors.  ~\cite{cardei02} present
-a graph coloring technique to achieve energy savings 
-by organizing the sensor nodes into a maximum number of disjoint 
-dominating sets which are activated successively. The dominating 
-sets do not guarantee the coverage of the whole region of interest. 
-Abrams et al.\cite{Abrams:2004:SKA:984622.984684} design three approximation algorithms for a variation of the set k-cover problem, where the objective is
-to partition the sensors into covers such that the number of
-covers that include an area, summed over all areas, is maximized. Their work builds upon previous work in~\cite{Slijepcevic01powerefficient} and the generated cover sets do not provide complete coverage of the monitoring zone. 
-
+{\bf Centralized approaches}
+
+Power  efficient  centralized  schemes  differ  according  to  several
+criteria \cite{Cardei:2006:ECP:1646656.1646898},  such as the coverage
+objective  (target coverage  or  area coverage),  the node  deployment
+method (random or deterministic) and the heterogeneity of sensor nodes
+(common sensing range, common battery lifetime). The major approach is
+to divide/organize  the sensors into  a suitable number of  set covers
+where each  set completely covers  an interest region and  to activate
+these set covers successively.
+
+First algorithms  proposed in the  literature consider that  the cover
+sets  are  disjoint: a  sensor  node appears  in  exactly  one of  the
+generated  cover   sets.   For  instance   Slijepcevic  and  Potkonjak
+\cite{Slijepcevic01powerefficient}   propose    an   algorithm   which
+allocates sensor nodes in mutually independent sets to monitor an area
+divided into several fields. Their algorithm constructs a cover set by
+including in  priority the sensor  nodes which cover  critical fields,
+that  is to  say fields  that are  covered by  the smallest  number of
+sensors. The time complexity of  their heuristic is $O(n^2)$ where $n$
+is the number of  sensors.  \cite{cardei02}~describes a graph coloring
+technique  to achieve energy  savings by  organizing the  sensor nodes
+into a maximum number of  disjoint dominating sets which are activated
+successively. The dominating sets do not guarantee the coverage of the
+whole        region        of        interest.        Abrams        et
+al.~\cite{Abrams:2004:SKA:984622.984684}   design  three  approximation
+algorithms  for a  variation of  the  set k-cover  problem, where  the
+objective is to partition the sensors into covers such that the number
+of covers that  include an area, summed over  all areas, is maximized.
+Their        work        builds        upon       previous        work
+in~\cite{Slijepcevic01powerefficient} and the  generated cover sets do
+not provide complete coverage of the monitoring zone.

 
 %examine the target coverage problem by disjoint cover sets but relax the requirement that every  cover set monitor all the targets and try to maximize the number of times the targets are covered by the partition. They propose various algorithms and establish approximation ratio.
 
 
 %examine the target coverage problem by disjoint cover sets but relax the requirement that every  cover set monitor all the targets and try to maximize the number of times the targets are covered by the partition. They propose various algorithms and establish approximation ratio.
 

-In~\cite{Cardei:2005:IWS:1160086.1160098}, the authors propose a heuristic to
-compute the disjoint set covers (DSC). In order to compute the maximum number of covers, they
-first transform DSC into a maximum-flow problem ,
-which is then formulated as a mixed integer programming problem
-(MIP). Based on the solution of the MIP, they design a heuristic
-to compute the final number of covers. The results show a slight performance
-improvement in terms of the number of produced DSC in comparison to~\cite{Slijepcevic01powerefficient} but it incurs
-higher execution time due to the complexity of the mixed integer programming resolution.
- %Cardei and Du \cite{Cardei:2005:IWS:1160086.1160098} propose a method to efficiently compute the maximum number of disjoint set covers such that each set can monitor all targets. They first transform the problem into a maximum flow problem which is formulated as a mixed integer programming (MIP). Then their heuristic uses the output of the MIP to compute disjoint set covers. Results show that these heuristic provides a number of set covers slightly larger compared to \cite{Slijepcevic01powerefficient} but with a larger execution time due to the complexity of the mixed integer programming resolution.
-Zorbas et al. \cite{Zorbas2007} present B\{GOP\}, a centralized coverage algorithm introducing sensor candidate categorisation depending on their coverage status and the notion of critical target to call targets that are associated with a small number of sensors. The total running time of their heuristic is $0(m n^2)$ where $n$ is the number of sensors, and $m$ the number of targets. Compared to algorithm's results of Slijepcevic and Potkonjak \cite{Slijepcevic01powerefficient}, their heuristic produces more cover sets with a slight growth rate in execution time.
+In~\cite{Cardei:2005:IWS:1160086.1160098},   the  authors   propose  a
+heuristic  to compute  the  disjoint  set covers  (DSC).  In order  to
+compute the maximum number of  covers, they first transform DSC into a
+maximum-flow problem, which  is then formulated  as a  mixed integer
+programming  problem (MIP).  Based on  the solution  of the  MIP, they
+design a heuristic to compute  the final number of covers. The results
+show  a slight  performance  improvement  in terms  of  the number  of
+produced  DSC in comparison  to~\cite{Slijepcevic01powerefficient}, but
+it incurs  higher execution  time due to  the complexity of  the mixed
+integer      programming     resolution.       %Cardei      and     Du
+\cite{Cardei:2005:IWS:1160086.1160098} propose a method to efficiently
+compute the maximum  number of disjoint set covers  such that each set
+can  monitor all  targets. They  first  transform the  problem into  a
+maximum  flow   problem  which  is  formulated  as   a  mixed  integer
+programming (MIP). Then their heuristic  uses the output of the MIP to
+compute  disjoint  set  covers.  Results  show  that  these  heuristic
+provides  a   number  of  set  covers  slightly   larger  compared  to
+\cite{Slijepcevic01powerefficient}  but with  a larger  execution time
+due  to the complexity  of the  mixed integer  programming resolution.
+Zorbas  et  al.  \cite{Zorbas2007}  present  B\{GOP\},  a  centralized
+coverage   algorithm  introducing   sensor   candidate  categorization
+depending on their  coverage status and the notion  of critical target
+to  call  targets   that  are  associated  with  a   small  number  of
+sensors. The total running time of their heuristic is $0(m n^2)$ where
+$n$ is the number of sensors,  and $m$ the number of targets. Compared
+to    algorithm's    results     of    Slijepcevic    and    Potkonjak
+\cite{Slijepcevic01powerefficient},  their   heuristic  produces  more
+cover sets with a slight growth rate in execution time.

 %More recently Manju and Pujari\cite{Manju2011}
 
 %More recently Manju and Pujari\cite{Manju2011}
 

-In the case of non-disjoint algorithms \cite{Manju2011}, sensors may participate in more than one cover set. 
-In some cases this may prolong the lifetime of the network in comparison to the disjoint cover set algorithms but designing  algorithms for non-disjoint cover sets generally incurs a higher order of complexity. Moreover in case of a sensor's failure, non-disjoint scheduling policies are less resilient and less reliable because a sensor may be involved in more than one cover sets. For instance, Cardei et al.~\cite{cardei05bis} present a linear programming (LP) solution
-and a greedy approach to extend
-the sensor network lifetime by organizing the sensors into a
-maximal number of non-disjoint cover sets. Simulation results show that by allowing sensors to 
-participate in multiple sets, the network lifetime
-increases compared with related work~\cite{Cardei:2005:IWS:1160086.1160098}. In~\cite{berman04}, the authors have formulated the lifetime problem and suggested another (LP) technique to solve this problem. A centralized provably near
-optimal solution based on the Garg-K\"{o}nemann algorithm~\cite{garg98} is also proposed.
+In the  case of non-disjoint algorithms  \cite{Manju2011}, sensors may
+participate  in more  than  one cover  set.   In some  cases this  may
+prolong  the lifetime  of the  network in  comparison to  the disjoint
+cover set algorithms, but  designing algorithms for non-disjoint cover
+sets  generally induces a  higher order  of complexity.   Moreover, in
+case of a sensor's  failure, non-disjoint scheduling policies are less
+resilient and less  reliable because a sensor may  be involved in more
+than one  cover sets.  For instance,  Cardei et al.~\cite{cardei05bis}
+present a  linear programming (LP)  solution and a greedy  approach to
+extend the  sensor network lifetime  by organizing the sensors  into a
+maximal  number of  non-disjoint cover  sets. Simulation  results show
+that by allowing sensors to  participate in multiple sets, the network
+lifetime         increases        compared         with        related
+work~\cite{Cardei:2005:IWS:1160086.1160098}.   In~\cite{berman04}, the
+authors  have formulated  the lifetime  problem and  suggested another
+(LP)  technique to  solve this  problem. A  centralized  provably near
+optimal      solution     based      on      the     Garg-K\"{o}nemann
+algorithm~\cite{garg98} is also proposed.

 
 {\bf Our contribution}
 
 {\bf Our contribution}

-%{decoupage de la region en sous region, selection de noeud leader, formulation %et resolution du probleme de couverture, planification périodique
-There are three main questions which should be answered  to build a scheduling strategy. We give a brief answer to these three questions to describe our approach before going into details in the subsequent sections.
-\begin{itemize}
-\item {\bf How must be planned the 
-phases for information exchange, decision and sensing over time?}
-Our algorithm partitions the time line into a number of rounds. Each round contains 4 phases : information Exchange, Leader Election, Decision, and Sensing. 
-
-\item {\bf What are the rules to decide which node has to turn on or off?}
-Our algorithm tends to limit the overcoverage of points of interest to avoid turning on too much sensors covering the same areas at the same time, and tries to prevent undercoverage. The decision is a good compromise between these two conflicting objectives. 

 
 

-\item {\bf Which node should make such decision ?}
-As mentioned in \cite{pc10}, both centralized and distributed algorithms have their own advantages and disadvantages. Centralized coverage algorithms have the advantage of requiring very low processing power from the sensor nodes which have usually limited processing capabilities. Distributed algorithms are very adaptable to the dynamic and scalable nature of sensors network. Authors in \cite{pc10} concludes that there is a threshold in terms of network size to switch from a localized to a centralized algorithm. Indeed the exchange of messages in large networks may consume  a considerable amount of energy in a localized approach compared to a centralized one. Our work does not consider only one leader to compute and to broadcast the schedule decision to all the sensors. When the size of network increases, the network is divided in many subregions and the decision is made by a leader in each subregion.
+There are  three main questions which  should be addressed  to build a
+scheduling strategy. We  give a brief answer to  these three questions
+to describe our  approach before going into details  in the subsequent
+sections.
+\begin{itemize}
+\item {\bf  How must be  planned the phases for  information exchange,
+  decision  and sensing over  time?}  Our  algorithm divides  the time
+  line  into  a  number  of  rounds. Each  round  contains  4  phases:
+  Information Exchange, Leader Election, Decision, and Sensing.
+
+\item {\bf What are the rules to decide which node has to be turned on
+  or off?}  Our algorithm tends to limit the overcoverage of points of
+  interest  to avoid  turning on  too much  sensors covering  the same
+  areas  at the  same time,  and tries  to prevent  undercoverage. The
+  decision  is  a  good   compromise  between  these  two  conflicting
+  objectives.
+
+\item {\bf  Which node  should make such  decision?}  As  mentioned in
+  \cite{pc10}, both centralized  and distributed algorithms have their
+  own  advantages and  disadvantages. Centralized  coverage algorithms
+  have the advantage  of requiring very low processing  power from the
+  sensor  nodes which  have usually  limited  processing capabilities.
+  Distributed  algorithms  are  very  adaptable  to  the  dynamic  and
+  scalable nature of sensors network.  Authors in \cite{pc10} conclude
+  that there is a threshold in  terms of network size to switch from a
+  localized  to  a  centralized  algorithm.  Indeed  the  exchange  of
+  messages  in large  networks may  consume a  considerable  amount of
+  energy in  a localized approach  compared to a centralized  one. Our
+  work does not  consider only one leader to  compute and to broadcast
+  the  schedule decision  to all  the sensors.  When the  network size
+  increases,  the  network  is  divided  in many  subregions  and  the
+  decision is made by a leader in each subregion.

 \end{itemize}
 
 \end{itemize}
 

+\section{\uppercase{Activity scheduling}}
+\label{pd}

 
 

+We consider  a randomly and  uniformly deployed network  consisting of
+static  wireless sensors. The  wireless sensors  are deployed  in high
+density to ensure initially a full coverage of the interested area. We
+assume that  all nodes are  homogeneous in terms of  communication and
+processing capabilities and heterogeneous in term of energy provision.
+The  location  information is  available  to  the  sensor node  either
+through hardware  such as embedded  GPS or through  location discovery
+algorithms.   The   area  of  interest   can  be  divided   using  the
+divide-and-conquer strategy  into smaller areas  called subregions and
+then  our coverage  protocol  will be  implemented  in each  subregion
+simultaneously.   Our protocol  works in  rounds fashion  as  shown in
+figure~\ref{fig1}.

 
 

- \section{\uppercase{Activity scheduling}}
-\label{pd}
-We consider a randomly and uniformly deployed network consisting of static wireless sensors. The wireless sensors are deployed in high density to ensure initially a full coverage of the interested area. We assume that all nodes are homogeneous in terms of  communication and processing capabilities and heterogeneous in term of energy.  The location information is available to the sensor node either through hardware such as embedded GPS or through location discovery algorithms.
-The area of interest can be divided using the divide-and-conquer strategy into smaller area called subregions and then our coverage protocol will be implemented in each subregion simultaneously. Our protocol works in rounds fashion as in figure \ref{fig:4}. 

 %Given the interested Area $A$, the wireless sensor nodes set $S=\lbrace  s_1,\ldots,s_N \rbrace $ that are deployed randomly and uniformly in this area such that they are ensure a full coverage for A. The Area A is divided into regions $A=\lbrace A^1,\ldots,A^k,\ldots, A^{N_R} \rbrace$. We suppose that each sensor node $s_i$ know its location and its region. We will have a subset $SSET^k =\lbrace s_1,...,s_j,...,s_{N^k} \rbrace $ , where $s_N = s_{N^1} + s_{N^2} +,\ldots,+ s_{N^k} +,\ldots,+s_{N^R}$. Each sensor node $s_i$ has the same initial energy $IE_i$ in the first time and the current residual energy $RE_i$ equal to $IE_i$  in the first time for each $s_i$ in A. \\ 
 
 \begin{figure}[ht!]
 \centering
 %Given the interested Area $A$, the wireless sensor nodes set $S=\lbrace  s_1,\ldots,s_N \rbrace $ that are deployed randomly and uniformly in this area such that they are ensure a full coverage for A. The Area A is divided into regions $A=\lbrace A^1,\ldots,A^k,\ldots, A^{N_R} \rbrace$. We suppose that each sensor node $s_i$ know its location and its region. We will have a subset $SSET^k =\lbrace s_1,...,s_j,...,s_{N^k} \rbrace $ , where $s_N = s_{N^1} + s_{N^2} +,\ldots,+ s_{N^k} +,\ldots,+s_{N^R}$. Each sensor node $s_i$ has the same initial energy $IE_i$ in the first time and the current residual energy $RE_i$ equal to $IE_i$  in the first time for each $s_i$ in A. \\ 
 
 \begin{figure}[ht!]
 \centering

-\includegraphics [width=70mm]{FirstModel.eps}
-\caption{Multi-Round Coverage Protocol}
-\label{fig:4}
+\includegraphics[width=85mm]{FirstModel.eps} % 70mm
+\caption{Multi-round coverage protocol}
+\label{fig1}

 \end{figure} 
 
 \end{figure} 
 

-Each round is divided into 4 phases : Information (INFO) Exchange, Leader Election, Decision, and Sensing. For each round there is exactly one set cover responsible for sensing task. This protocol is more reliable against the  unexpectedly node failure because it works into rounds, and if the node failure is detected before taking the decision, the node will not participate in decision and if the node failure occurs after the decision, the sensing task of the network will be affected temporarily only during the period of sensing until starting new round, since a new set cover will take charge of the sensing task in the next round. The energy consumption and some other constraints can easily be taken into account since the sensors can update and then exchange the information (including their residual energy) at the beginning of each round. However, the preprocessing phase (INFO Exchange, leader Election, Decision) are energy consuming for some nodes even when they not join the network to monitor the area. We describe each phase in more detail.
-
-\subsection{\textbf INFO Exchange Phase}
-
-Each sensor node $j$  sends its position, remaining energy $RE_j$, number of local neighbours $NBR_j$  to all wireless sensor nodes in its subregion by using INFO packet and listen to the packets sent from other nodes. After that, each node will have information about all the sensor nodes in the subregion. In our model, the remaining energy corresponds to the time that a sensor can live in the active mode.
-
+Each round  is divided  into 4 phases  : Information  (INFO) Exchange,
+Leader  Election, Decision,  and  Sensing.  For  each  round there  is
+exactly one set cover responsible  for sensing task.  This protocol is
+more reliable  against the unexpectedly node failure  because it works
+in rounds.   On the  one hand,  if a node  failure is  detected before
+taking the 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 affected temporarily: only during
+the period of sensing until a  new round starts, since a new set cover
+will take  charge of the  sensing task in  the next round.  The energy
+consumption  and  some other  constraints  can  easily  be taken  into
+account  since  the  sensors   can  update  and  then  exchange  their
+information (including their residual energy) at the beginning of each
+round.  However,   the  pre-sensing  phases   (INFO  Exchange,  Leader
+Election,  Decision) are energy  consuming for  some nodes,  even when
+they do not  join the network to monitor the  area. Below, we describe
+each phase in more detail.
+
+\subsection{\textbf INFOrmation Exchange Phase}
+
+Each sensor node $j$ sends  its position, remaining energy $RE_j$, and
+the number of local neighbors  $NBR_j$ to all wireless sensor nodes in
+its subregion by using an INFO  packet and then listens to the packets
+sent from  other nodes.  After that, each  node will  have information
+about  all the  sensor  nodes in  the  subregion.  In  our model,  the
+remaining energy corresponds to the time that a sensor can live in the
+active mode.

 
 %\subsection{\textbf Working Phase:}
 
 %The working phase works in rounding fashion. Each round include 3 steps described as follow :
 
 \subsection{\textbf Leader Election Phase}
 
 %\subsection{\textbf Working Phase:}
 
 %The working phase works in rounding fashion. Each round include 3 steps described as follow :
 
 \subsection{\textbf Leader Election Phase}

-This step includes choosing the Wireless Sensor Node Leader (WSNL) which will be responsible of executing coverage algorithm  to choose the list of active sensor nodes that contribute in covering the subregion.
-All the sensor nodes cooperates to select WSNL. After the phase of information exchange , each sensor have all information about the other nodes in the same subregion, after that each node will execute the leader election procedure to determine who is the leader?(each node will know who is the leader) where all the nodes in the same subregion will select the same leader based on the received information from all other nodes in the same subregion.The leader will be selected as follow: It will select the node that have maximum number of neighbour  as a leader.If there are more than one node have the same maximum number of neighbours , it will take all these nodes and then select the node that have larger remaining energy. If there are more than one node have the same maximum number of neighbours and the same remaining energy then it will select the node  with larger index among them. Each subregion in the area of interest will select its own WSNL independently for each round. 
+This  step includes choosing  the Wireless  Sensor Node  Leader (WSNL)
+which  will  be  responsible  of executing  coverage  algorithm.  Each
+subregion  in  the   area  of  interest  will  select   its  own  WSNL
+independently  for each  round.  All the  sensor  nodes cooperates  to
+select WSNL.  The nodes in the  same subregion will  select the leader
+based on  the received  information from all  other nodes in  the same
+subregion.  The selection criteria  in order  of priority  are: larger
+number  of neighbors,  larger remaining  energy, and  then in  case of
+equality, larger index.

 
 \subsection{\textbf Decision Phase}
 
 \subsection{\textbf Decision Phase}

-The WSNL will solve an integer program (see section \ref{cp}) to select which sensors will be activated in the next round to cover the subregion. WSNL will send Active-Sleep packet to each sensor in the subregion based on algorithm's results. 
+The  WSNL will  solve an  integer  program (see  section~\ref{cp})  to
+select which sensors will be  activated in the following sensing phase
+to cover  the subregion.  WSNL will send  Active-Sleep packet  to each
+sensor in the subregion based on algorithm's results.

 %The main goal in this step after choosing the WSNL is to produce the best representative active nodes set that will take the responsibility of covering the whole region $A^k$ with minimum number of sensor nodes to prolong the lifetime in the wireless sensor network. For our problem, in each round we need to select the minimum set of sensor nodes to improve the lifetime of the network and in the same time taking into account covering the region $A^k$ . We need an optimal solution with tradeoff between our two conflicting objectives.
 %The above region coverage problem can be formulated as a Multi-objective optimization problem and we can use the Binary Particle Swarm Optimization technique to solve it. 
 %The main goal in this step after choosing the WSNL is to produce the best representative active nodes set that will take the responsibility of covering the whole region $A^k$ with minimum number of sensor nodes to prolong the lifetime in the wireless sensor network. For our problem, in each round we need to select the minimum set of sensor nodes to improve the lifetime of the network and in the same time taking into account covering the region $A^k$ . We need an optimal solution with tradeoff between our two conflicting objectives.
 %The above region coverage problem can be formulated as a Multi-objective optimization problem and we can use the Binary Particle Swarm Optimization technique to solve it. 

-\\

 
 \subsection{\textbf Sensing Phase}
 
 \subsection{\textbf Sensing Phase}

-       Active sensors in the round will execute their sensing task to preserve maximal coverage  in the region of interest. We will assume that the cost of keeping a node awake (or sleep) for sensing task is the same for all wireless sensor nodes in the network. Each sensor received Active-Sleep packet will go to awake or sleep for a time equal to the period of sensing until starting new round.  
-
-
+Active  sensors  in the  round  will  execute  their sensing  task  to
+preserve maximal  coverage in the  region of interest. We  will assume
+that the cost  of keeping a node awake (or sleep)  for sensing task is
+the same  for all wireless sensor  nodes in the  network.  Each sensor
+will  receive an  Active-Sleep packet  from WSNL  telling him  to stay
+awake or  go sleep  for a time  equal to  the period of  sensing until
+starting a new round.

 
 %\subsection{Sensing coverage model}
 %\label{pd}
 
 %\noindent We try to produce an adaptive scheduling which allows sensors to operate alternatively so as to prolong the network lifetime. For convenience, the notations and assumptions are described first.
 %The wireless sensor node use the  binary disk sensing model by which each sensor node will has a certain sensing range is reserved within a circular disk called radius $R_s$.
 
 %\subsection{Sensing coverage model}
 %\label{pd}
 
 %\noindent We try to produce an adaptive scheduling which allows sensors to operate alternatively so as to prolong the network lifetime. For convenience, the notations and assumptions are described first.
 %The wireless sensor node use the  binary disk sensing model by which each sensor node will has a certain sensing range is reserved within a circular disk called radius $R_s$.

-\noindent We consider a boolean disk coverage model which is the most widely used sensor coverage model in the literature. Each sensor has a constant sensing range $R_s$. All space points within a disk centered at the sensor with the radius of the sensing range is said to be covered by this sensor. We also assume that the communication range is at least twice of the sensing range. In fact, Zhang and Zhou ~\cite{Zhang05} prove that if the transmission range is at least twice of the sensing range, a complete coverage of a convex area implies connectivity among the working nodes in the active mode.
+\noindent We consider a boolean  disk coverage model which is the most
+widely used sensor coverage model in the literature. Each sensor has a
+constant sensing range $R_s$. All  space points within a disk centered
+at  the sensor with  the radius  of the  sensing range  is said  to be
+covered by this sensor. We also assume that the communication range is
+at   least  twice   of  the   sensing  range.   In  fact,   Zhang  and
+Zhou~\cite{Zhang05} prove that if  the transmission range fulfills the
+previous  hypothesis, a  complete coverage  of a  convex  area implies
+connectivity among the working nodes in the active mode.

 %To calculate the coverage ratio for the area of interest, we can propose the following coverage model which is called Wireless Sensor Node Area Coverage Model to ensure that all the area within each node sensing range are covered. We can calculate the positions of the points in the circle disc of the sensing range of wireless sensor node based on the Unit Circle in figure~\ref{fig:cluster1}:
 
 %\begin{figure}[h!]
 %To calculate the coverage ratio for the area of interest, we can propose the following coverage model which is called Wireless Sensor Node Area Coverage Model to ensure that all the area within each node sensing range are covered. We can calculate the positions of the points in the circle disc of the sensing range of wireless sensor node based on the Unit Circle in figure~\ref{fig:cluster1}:
 
 %\begin{figure}[h!]


@@ -272,8 +484,10 @@ The WSNL will solve an integer program (see section \ref{cp}) to select which se
 %We choose to representEach wireless sensor node will be represented into a selected number of primary points by which we can know if the sensor node is covered or not.
 % Figure ~\ref{fig:cluster2} shows the selected primary points that represents the area of the sensor node and according to the sensing range of the wireless sensor node.
 
 %We choose to representEach wireless sensor node will be represented into a selected number of primary points by which we can know if the sensor node is covered or not.
 % Figure ~\ref{fig:cluster2} shows the selected primary points that represents the area of the sensor node and according to the sensing range of the wireless sensor node.
 

-\noindent Instead of working with area coverage, we consider for each sensor a set of points called primary points. And we assume the sensing disk defined by a sensor is covered  if all primary points of this sensor are covered.
-
+\noindent Instead of working with  area coverage, we consider for each
+sensor a set of points called  primary points. We also assume that the
+sensing disk defined  by a sensor is covered if  all primary points of
+this sensor are covered.

 %\begin{figure}[h!]
 %\centering
 %\begin{tabular}{cc}
 %\begin{figure}[h!]
 %\centering
 %\begin{tabular}{cc}


@@ -283,28 +497,17 @@ The WSNL will solve an integer program (see section \ref{cp}) to select which se
 %\caption{Wireless Sensor Node Area Coverage Model.}
 %\label{fig:cluster2}
 %\end{figure}
 %\caption{Wireless Sensor Node Area Coverage Model.}
 %\label{fig:cluster2}
 %\end{figure}

-
-
-
-\noindent By knowing the position (point center :($p_x,p_y$) of the wireless sensor node and its $R_s$ , we calculate the primary points directly based on proposed model. We use these primary points (that can be increased or decreased as if it is necessary) as references to ensure that the monitoring area of the region is covered by the selected set of sensors instead of using the all points in the area.
-
- \begin{figure}[h!]
-%\centering
-% \begin{multicols}{6}
-\centering
-%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig21.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(a)
-%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig22.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(b)
-\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{principles13.eps}
-%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig25.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(d)
-%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig26.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(e)
-%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig27.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(f)
-%\end{multicols} 
-\caption{Wireless Sensor node represented by 13 primary points }
-\label{fig3}
-\end{figure}
-
-\noindent We can calculate the positions of the selected primary points in the circle disk of the sensing range of wireless sensor node in figure ~\ref{fig3} as follow:\\
-$p_x,p_y$ = point center of wireless sensor node. \\  
+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
+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 points in the area.
+
+\noindent  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{fig2}) as follows:\\
+$(p_x,p_y)$ = 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)) $\\
 $X_1=(p_x,p_y)$ \\ 
 $X_2=( p_x + R_s * (1), p_y + R_s * (0) )$\\           
 $X_3=( p_x + R_s * (-1), p_y + R_s * (0)) $\\


@@ -317,10 +520,22 @@ $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_{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_{13}=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2})) $.

 
 

+ \begin{figure}[h!]
+%\centering
+% \begin{multicols}{6}
+\centering
+%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig21.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(a)
+%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig22.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(b)
+\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{principles13.eps}
+%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig25.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(d)
+%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig26.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(e)
+%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig27.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(f)
+%\end{multicols} 
+\caption{Wireless sensor node represented by 13 primary points}
+\label{fig2}
+\end{figure}

 
 \section{\uppercase{Coverage problem formulation}}
 \label{cp}
 
 \section{\uppercase{Coverage problem formulation}}
 \label{cp}


@@ -329,52 +544,61 @@ $X_{13}=( p_x + R_s * (0), p_y + R_s * (\frac{-\sqrt{2}}{2})) $\\
 
 %To satisfy the coverage requirement, the set of the principal points that will represent all the sensor nodes in the monitored region as $PSET= \lbrace P_1,\ldots ,P_p, \ldots , P_{N_P^k} \rbrace $, where $N_P^k = N_{sp} * N^k $ and according to the proposed model in figure ~\ref{fig:cluster2}. These points can be used by the wireless sensor node leader which will be chosen in each region in A to build a new parameter $\alpha_{jp}$  that represents the coverage possibility for each principal point $P_p$ of each wireless sensor node $s_j$ in $A^k$ as in \eqref{eq12}:\\
 
 
 %To satisfy the coverage requirement, the set of the principal points that will represent all the sensor nodes in the monitored region as $PSET= \lbrace P_1,\ldots ,P_p, \ldots , P_{N_P^k} \rbrace $, where $N_P^k = N_{sp} * N^k $ and according to the proposed model in figure ~\ref{fig:cluster2}. These points can be used by the wireless sensor node leader which will be chosen in each region in A to build a new parameter $\alpha_{jp}$  that represents the coverage possibility for each principal point $P_p$ of each wireless sensor node $s_j$ in $A^k$ as in \eqref{eq12}:\\
 

-
-\noindent Our model is based on the model proposed by \cite{pedraza2006} where the objective is to find a maximum number of disjoint cover sets. To accomplish this goal, authors propose a integer program  which forces undercoverage and overcoverage of targets to become minimal at the same time. They use binary variables $x_{s,l}$ to indicate if the sensor $s$ belongs to cover set $l$.  In our model, we consider binary variables $X_{j}$ which determine the activation of sensor $j$ in the round.  We also consider primary points as targets. The set of primary points is denoted by P, and the set of sensors by J.  \\
-\noindent For a primary point $p$, let $\alpha_{jp}$ denote the indicator function of whether the point $p$ is covered, that is, \\
+\noindent   Our   model   is   based   on  the   model   proposed   by
+\cite{pedraza2006} where the objective is  to find a maximum number of
+disjoint  cover sets.   To accomplish  this goal,  authors  propose an
+integer program which forces undercoverage and overcoverage of targets
+to  become  minimal at  the  same  time.   They use  binary  variables
+$x_{jl}$ to indicate  if sensor $j$ belongs to cover  set $l$.  In our
+model,  we  consider  binary  variables $X_{j}$  which  determine  the
+activation of  sensor $j$ in the  sensing phase of the  round. We also
+consider  primary points  as targets.   The set  of primary  points is
+denoted by $P$ and the set of sensors by $J$.
+
+\noindent  For  a primary  point  $p$,  let  $\alpha_{jp}$ denote  the
+indicator function of whether the point $p$ is covered, that is:

 \begin{equation}
 \alpha_{jp} = \left \{ 
 \begin{array}{l l}
   1 & \mbox{if the primary point $p$ is covered} \\
 \begin{equation}
 \alpha_{jp} = \left \{ 
 \begin{array}{l l}
   1 & \mbox{if the primary point $p$ is covered} \\

- & \mbox{by active sensor node $j$} \\
-  0 & \mbox{Otherwise}\\
+ & \mbox{by sensor node $j$}, \\
+  0 & \mbox{otherwise.}\\

 \end{array} \right.
 %\label{eq12} 
 \end{equation}
 \end{array} \right.
 %\label{eq12} 
 \end{equation}

-The number of sensors that are covering point $p$ is equal to $\sum_{j \in J} \alpha_{jp} * X_{j}$ where :
+The number of sensors that are covering point $p$ is equal to 
+$\sum_{j \in J} \alpha_{jp} * X_{j}$ where:

 \begin{equation}
 X_{j} = \left \{ 
 \begin{array}{l l}
 \begin{equation}
 X_{j} = \left \{ 
 \begin{array}{l l}

-  1& \mbox{if sensor $j$  is active} \\
-  0 &  \mbox{otherwise}\\
+  1& \mbox{if sensor $j$  is active,} \\
+  0 &  \mbox{otherwise.}\\

 \end{array} \right.
 %\label{eq11} 
 \end{equation}
 \end{array} \right.
 %\label{eq11} 
 \end{equation}

-We define the Overcoverage variable $\Theta_{p}$ .\\
-
+We define the Overcoverage variable $\Theta_{p}$ as:

 \begin{equation}
  \Theta_{p} = \left \{ 
 \begin{array}{l l}
 \begin{equation}
  \Theta_{p} = \left \{ 
 \begin{array}{l l}

-  0            & \mbox{if point p is not covered}\\
-  \left( \sum_{j \in J} \alpha_{jp} * X_{j} \right)- 1 & \mbox{otherwise}\\
+  0            & \mbox{if point $p$ is not covered,}\\
+  \left( \sum_{j \in J} \alpha_{jp} * X_{j} \right)- 1 & \mbox{otherwise.}\\

 \end{array} \right.
 \label{eq13} 
 \end{equation}
 \end{array} \right.
 \label{eq13} 
 \end{equation}

-
-
-\noindent$\Theta_{p}$ represents the number of active sensor nodes minus one that cover the primary point $p$.\\
-The Undercoverage variable $U_{p}$ of the primary point $p$ is defined as follow :\\
-
+\noindent More precisely, $\Theta_{p}$ represents the number of active
+sensor  nodes  minus  one  that  cover the  primary  point  $p$.\\
+The Undercoverage variable $U_{p}$ of the primary point $p$ is defined
+by:

 \begin{equation}
 U_{p} = \left \{ 
 \begin{array}{l l}
 \begin{equation}
 U_{p} = \left \{ 
 \begin{array}{l l}

-  1 &\mbox{if point } $p$ \mbox{ is not covered} \\
-  0 & \mbox{otherwise}\\
+  1 &\mbox{if point $p$ is not covered,} \\
+  0 & \mbox{otherwise.}\\

 \end{array} \right.
 \label{eq14} 
 \end{equation}
 
 \end{array} \right.
 \label{eq14} 
 \end{equation}
 

-\noindent Our coverage optimization problem can be formulated as follow.\\
+\noindent Our coverage optimization problem can then be formulated as follows\\

 \begin{equation} \label{eq:ip2r}
 \left \{
 \begin{array}{ll}
 \begin{equation} \label{eq:ip2r}
 \left \{
 \begin{array}{ll}


@@ -391,12 +615,23 @@ X_{j} \in \{0,1\}, &\forall j \in J
 \right.
 \end{equation}
 \begin{itemize}
 \right.
 \end{equation}
 \begin{itemize}

-\item $X_{j}$ : indicating whether or not sensor $j$ is active in the round (1 if yes and 0 if not)
-\item $\Theta_{p}$ : {\it overcoverage}, the number of sensors minus one that are covering point $p$
-\item $U_{p}$ : {\it undercoverage}, indicating whether or not point $p$ is being covered (1 if not covered and 0 if covered) 
+\item  $X_{j}$ :  indicates  whether  or not  sensor  $j$ is  actively
+  sensing in the round (1 if yes and 0 if not);
+\item $\Theta_{p}$  : {\it overcoverage}, the number  of sensors minus
+  one that are covering point $p$;
+\item $U_{p}$  : {\it undercoverage},  indicates whether or  not point
+  $p$ is being covered (1 if not covered and 0 if covered).

 \end{itemize}
 \end{itemize}

-The first group of constraints indicates that some point $p$ should be covered by at least one sensor and, if it is not always the case, overcoverage and undercoverage variables help balance the restriction equation by taking positive values. Second group of contraints ensures for each sensor that the amount of energy consumed during its activation periods will be less than or equal to its remaining energy.
-There are two main objectives. We limit overcoverage of primary points in order to activate a minimum number of sensors and we prevent that parts of the subregion are not monitored by minimizing undercoverage. The weights $w_{\theta}$ and $w_{U}$ must be properly chosen so as to guarantee that the maximum number of points are covered during each round. 
+
+The first group of constraints indicates that some point $p$ should be
+covered by  at least  one sensor and,  if it  is not always  the case,
+overcoverage and undercoverage  variables help balance the restriction
+equation  by taking positive  values. There  are two  main objectives.
+First we limit  overcoverage of primary points in  order to activate a
+minimum  number of  sensors.   Second  we prevent  that  parts of  the
+subregion are not monitored  by minimizing undercoverage.  The weights
+$w_\theta$ and $w_U$  must be properly chosen so  as to guarantee that
+the maximum number of points are covered during each round.

  
 %In equation \eqref{eq15}, there are two main objectives: the first one using  the Overcoverage parameter to minimize the number of active sensor nodes in the produced final solution vector $X$ which leads to improve the life time of wireless sensor network. The second goal by using the  Undercoverage parameter  to maximize the coverage in the region by means of covering each primary point in $SSET^k$.The two objectives are achieved at the same time. The constraint which represented in equation \eqref{eq16} refer to the coverage function for each primary point $P_p$ in $SSET^k$ , where each $P_p$ should be covered by
 %at least one sensor node in $A^k$. The objective function in \eqref{eq15} involving two main objectives to be optimized simultaneously, where optimal decisions need to be taken in the presence of trade-offs between the two conflicting main objectives in \eqref{eq15} and this refer to that our coverage optimization problem is a multi-objective optimization problem and we can use the BPSO to solve it. The concept of Overcoverage and Undercoverage inspired from ~\cite{Fernan12} but we use it with our model as stated in subsection \ref{Sensing Coverage Model} with some modification to be applied later by BPSO.
  
 %In equation \eqref{eq15}, there are two main objectives: the first one using  the Overcoverage parameter to minimize the number of active sensor nodes in the produced final solution vector $X$ which leads to improve the life time of wireless sensor network. The second goal by using the  Undercoverage parameter  to maximize the coverage in the region by means of covering each primary point in $SSET^k$.The two objectives are achieved at the same time. The constraint which represented in equation \eqref{eq16} refer to the coverage function for each primary point $P_p$ in $SSET^k$ , where each $P_p$ should be covered by
 %at least one sensor node in $A^k$. The objective function in \eqref{eq15} involving two main objectives to be optimized simultaneously, where optimal decisions need to be taken in the presence of trade-offs between the two conflicting main objectives in \eqref{eq15} and this refer to that our coverage optimization problem is a multi-objective optimization problem and we can use the BPSO to solve it. The concept of Overcoverage and Undercoverage inspired from ~\cite{Fernan12} but we use it with our model as stated in subsection \ref{Sensing Coverage Model} with some modification to be applied later by BPSO.


@@ -422,129 +657,224 @@ There are two main objectives. We limit overcoverage of primary points in order
 %\item $|.|$ : cardinality of the set
 
 %\end{itemize}
 %\item $|.|$ : cardinality of the set
 
 %\end{itemize}

+

 \section{\uppercase{Simulation Results}}
 \label{exp}
 \section{\uppercase{Simulation Results}}
 \label{exp}

-In this section, we conducted a series of simulations to evaluate the efficiency of our approach
-based on the discrete event simulator OMNeT++ (http://www.omnetpp.org/). We conduct simulations for five
-different densities varying from 50 to 250 nodes. Experimental results were obtained from randomly generated
-networks in which nodes are deployed over a $ 50\times25(m^2) $sensing field. For each network deployment, we
-assume that the deployed nodes can fully cover the sensing field with the given sensing range. 10 simulation runs are performed with different network topologies. The results presented hereafter are the average of these 10 runs. Simulation ends when there all the nodes are dead or the sensor network becomes disconnected (some nodes may not be able to sent to a base station an event they sense) . Our proposed coverage protocol use the Radio energy dissipation model that defined by~\cite{HeinzelmanCB02} as energy consumption model by each wireless sensor node for transmitting and receiving the packets in the network. The energy of each node in the network is initialized randomly within the range 24-60 joules, and each sensor will consumes 0.2 watts during the sensing period  of 60 seconds. Each active node will consumes 12 joules during sensing phase and each sleep node will consume 0.002 joules. Each sensor node will not participate in the next round if it's remaining energy less than 12 joules. In all experiments the parameters are given by $R_s = 5m $ , $ w_{\Theta} =1$ and $w_{U} = |P^2|$.
-We evaluate the efficiency of our approach using some performance metrics such as : coverage ratio, number of
-active nodes ratio, energy saving ratio, Energy Consumption,network lifetime, execution time and the number of stopped simulation runs.
-Our approach is called Strategy (with Two Leaders) will be compared with two approaches: The first one called Strategy (with One Leader) that use the same our approach method but it implemented in $ 50\times25(m^2) $sensing field with one leader. The second method called Simple Heuristic which consists in dividing uniformly the region into squares $(5 * 5)m^2$ . During the  pre-sensing phase, in each square, a sensor is  chosen randomly,  and will be turned on for the next round.
-In our simulation the sensing field is subdivided into two subregions each one equal to $ 25\times25)m^2 $ of the sensing field.
-
-\subsection{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Coverage Ratio:} 
-In this experiment,the Coverage ratio measures how much area of a sensor field is covered. In our case, the coverage ratio is regarded as the number of primary points covered among the set of all primary points within the field. Fig. \ref{fig3} shows the impact of the number of rounds on the average coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes for the three approaches.
-The comparison shows that the Strategy (with One Leader) gives the same or better than the Strategy (with Two Leaders) for rounds from 1 to 14. after that the Strategy (with One Leader) will suffer from the sensor network becomes disconnected more than Strategy (with Two Leaders) leads to give the advantage for Strategy (with Two Leaders) that will give better coverage and more network lifetime for the rest last rounds because the Strategy (with Two Leaders) subdivide the region into 2 subregions and if on of the two subregion becomes disconnected, it not leads to stop the the responsibility of coverage optimization in the other subregion.
+
+In this section, we conducted a series of simulations, to evaluate the
+efficiency  and relevance of  our approach,  using the  discrete event
+simulator  OMNeT++  \cite{varga}. We  performed  simulations for  five
+different densities varying from 50 to 250~nodes. Experimental results
+were  obtained from  randomly generated  networks in  which  nodes are
+deployed over a $(50 \times  25)~m^2 $ sensing field. For each network
+deployment,  we assume  that the  deployed nodes  can fully  cover the
+sensing field  with the given  sensing range.  10 simulation  runs are
+performed  with different  network topologies  for each  node density.
+The results  presented hereafter are the  average of these  10 runs. A
+simulation  ends when all  the nodes  are dead  or the  sensor network
+becomes disconnected  (some nodes may  not be able  to sent to  a base
+station an event they sense).
+
+Our proposed coverage protocol uses the radio energy dissipation model
+defined by~\cite{HeinzelmanCB02} as  energy consumption model for each
+wireless  sensor node  when  transmitting or  receiving packets.   The
+energy of  each node in a  network is initialized  randomly within the
+range 24-60~joules, and each sensor node will consume 0.2 watts during
+the sensing period which will have  a duration of 60 seconds. Thus, an
+active  node will  consume  12~joules during  sensing  phase, while  a
+sleeping  node will  use  0.002  joules.  Each  sensor  node will  not
+participate in the next round if it's remaining energy is less than 12
+joules.  In  all  experiments  the  parameters  are  set  as  follows:
+$R_s=5m$, $w_{\Theta}=1$, and $w_{U}=|P^2|$.
+
+We  evaluate the  efficiency of  our approach  using  some performance
+metrics such as: coverage ratio,  number of active nodes ratio, energy
+saving  ratio, energy consumption,  network lifetime,  execution time,
+and number of stopped simulation runs.  Our approach called Strategy~2
+(with Two Leaders)  works with two subregions, each  one having a size
+of $(25 \times 25)~m^2$.  Our strategy will be compared with two other
+approaches. The first one,  called Strategy~1 (with One Leader), works
+as Strategy~2, but considers only one region of $(50 \times 25)$ $m^2$
+with only  one leader.  The  other approach, called  Simple Heuristic,
+consists in dividing  uniformly the region into squares  of $(5 \times
+5)~m^2$.   During the  decision phase,  in  each square,  a sensor  is
+randomly  chosen, it  will remain  turned  on for  the coming  sensing
+phase.
+
+\subsection{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Coverage Ratio} 
+
+In this experiment, the coverage ratio measures how much the area of a
+sensor field is  covered. In our case, the  coverage ratio is regarded
+as the number  of primary points covered among the  set of all primary
+points  within the field.  Figure~\ref{fig3} shows  the impact  of the
+number of rounds on the  average coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes
+for the  three approaches.  It can be  seen that the  three approaches
+give  similar  coverage  ratios  during  the first  rounds.  From  the
+9th~round the  coverage ratio  decreases continuously with  the simple
+heuristic, while the other two strategies provide superior coverage to
+$90\%$ for five more rounds.  Coverage ratio decreases when the number
+of rounds increases  due to dead nodes. Although  some nodes are dead,
+thanks to  strategy~1 or~2,  other nodes are  preserved to  ensure the
+coverage. Moreover, when  we have a dense sensor  network, it leads to
+maintain the full coverage for  larger number of rounds. Strategy~2 is
+slightly more efficient that strategy 1, because strategy~2 subdivides
+the region into 2~subregions and  if one of the two subregions becomes
+disconnected,  coverage   may  be  still  ensured   in  the  remaining
+subregion.
+

 \parskip 0pt 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 \parskip 0pt 
 \begin{figure}[h!]

-%\centering
-% \begin{multicols}{6}

 \centering
 \centering

-\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{TheCoverageRatio150.pdf} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
-
-\caption{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Coverage Ratio for 150 deployed nodes }
+\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{TheCoverageRatio150.eps} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
+\caption{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Coverage Ratio for 150 deployed nodes}

 \label{fig3}
 \end{figure} 
 
 \label{fig3}
 \end{figure} 
 

-\begin{figure}[h!]
-%\centering
-% \begin{multicols}{6}
-\centering
-%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig21.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(a)
-%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig22.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(b)
-\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{TheCoverageRatio250.pdf} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
-%\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{CR2R2L_2.eps} %\\~ ~ ~(b)
-%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig26.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(e)
-%\includegraphics[scale=0.10]{fig27.pdf}\\~ ~ ~(f)
-%\end{multicols} 
-\caption{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Coverage Ratio for 250 deployed nodes }
-\label{fig4}
-\end{figure}
-
-Fig. \ref{fig4} represents the average coverage ratio provided by
-Strategy (with Two Leaders),Strategy (with One Leader) and Simple Heuristic for 250 deployed nodes while
-varying the number of rounds. We made the same observation as in Fig. \ref{fig3}, i.e.  Strategy (with One Leader) guarantee a good coverage in the beginning the same or equal to Strategy (with Two Leaders) then when the number of rounds increases, the coverage ratio decreases due to network becomes disconnected. Meanwhile,the Strategy (with Two Leaders) ensures better coverage despite the variation in rounds number.\\
-\parskip 0pt 
-As shown in Fig. \ref{fig3} and Fig. \ref{fig4},the Strategy (with Two Leaders) gives a full average coverage ratio or more than 90\% in the first rounds and then it decreases when the number of rounds increases due to dead nodes.Although some nodes are dead, sensor activity scheduling in each subregion choose other nodes to ensure the coverage. Moreover, when we have a dense sensor network, it leads to maintain the full coverage for larger number of rounds.\\
+\subsection{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Active Sensors Ratio} 
+
+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.  This point is  assessed through the  Active Sensors
+Ratio, which is defined as follows:
+\begin{equation*}
+\scriptsize
+\mbox{ASR}(\%) = \frac{\mbox{Number of active sensors 
+during the current sensing phase}}{\mbox{Total number of sensors in the network
+for the region}} \times 100.
+\end{equation*}
+Figure~\ref{fig4} shows  the average active nodes ratio versus rounds
+for 150 deployed nodes.

 
 

-\subsection{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Active Sensor Ratio:} 
-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 Sensor Ratio(\%) = ((the no. of active sensor during this round) /  (Total number of sensors in the network for the subregion)) * 100. Fig. \ref{fig5} and \ref{fig6} shows the average number of active nodes ratio versus rounds for 150 and 250 deployed nodes respectively.
-
-\begin{figure}[h!]
-%\centering
-% \begin{multicols}{6}
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{TheActiveSensorRatio150.pdf} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
-\caption{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Active Sensor Ratio for 150 deployed nodes }
-\label{fig5}
-\end{figure} 

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

-%\centering
-% \begin{multicols}{6}

 \centering
 \centering

-\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{TheActiveSensorRatio250.pdf} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
-\caption{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Active Sensor Ratio for 250 deployed nodes }
-\label{fig6}
+\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{TheActiveSensorRatio150.eps} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
+\caption{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Active Sensors Ratio for 150 deployed nodes }
+\label{fig4}

 \end{figure} 
 
 \end{figure} 
 

-The results in Fig. \ref{fig5} shows the superior of the Strategy (with Two Leaders) and the Strategy (with One Leader) on Simple Heuristic. The Strategy (with One Leader) uses minimum number of active nodes than the Strategy (with Two Leaders) until the last rounds because it uses central control on all the sensing field , the advantage of the Strategy (with Two Leaders) approach is that even if a network is disconnected in a one subregion the other one usually continues the optimization and this leads to extend the lifetime of the network.
-In Fig. \ref{fig6}, we see the same observation that we saw on fig. \ref{fig5} but in the last rounds the Strategy (with Two Leaders) will be the better because the effect of disconnected network increases and it becomes near or equal to the Strategy (with One Leader) leads to give minimum average of active nodes.
-
-\subsection{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Energy Saving Ratio:} 
-
-In this experiment, the Energy saving ratio ESR(\%) =( (No. of alive sensors in the network during this round) / (total number  of sensors in the network for the subregion)) * 100. Fig. \ref{fig5} and \ref{fig6} shows the average number of active nodes ratio versus rounds for all three approach and for 150 and 250 deployed nodes respectively.
+The  results presented  in figure~\ref{fig4}  show the  superiority of
+both proposed  strategies, the Strategy  with Two Leaders and  the one
+with a  single Leader,  in comparison with  the Simple  Heuristic. The
+Strategy with One Leader uses less active nodes than the Strategy with
+Two Leaders until the last  rounds, because it uses central control on
+the whole sensing field.  The  advantage of the Strategy~2 approach is
+that even if a network is disconnected in one subregion, the other one
+usually  continues  the optimization  process,  and  this extends  the
+lifetime of the network.
+
+\subsection{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Energy Saving Ratio} 
+
+In this experiment, we consider a performance metric linked to energy.
+This metric, called Energy Saving Ratio, is defined by:
+\begin{equation*}
+\scriptsize
+\mbox{ESR}(\%) = \frac{\mbox{Number of alive sensors during this round}}
+{\mbox{Total number of sensors in the network for the region}} \times 100.
+\end{equation*}
+The  longer the ratio  is high,  the more  redundant sensor  nodes are
+switched off, and consequently  the longer the  network may  be alive.
+Figure~\ref{fig5} shows the average  Energy Saving Ratio versus rounds
+for all three approaches and for 150 deployed nodes.

 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 %\centering
 % \begin{multicols}{6}
 \centering
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 %\centering
 % \begin{multicols}{6}
 \centering

-\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{TheEnergySavingRatio150.pdf} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
-\caption{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Energy Saving Ratio for 150 deployed nodes }
+\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{TheEnergySavingRatio150.eps} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
+\caption{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Energy Saving Ratio for 150 deployed nodes}

 \label{fig5}
 \end{figure} 
 
 \label{fig5}
 \end{figure} 
 

-\begin{figure}[h!]
-%\centering
-% \begin{multicols}{6}
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{TheEnergySavingRatio250.pdf} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
-\caption{The impact of the Number of Rounds on Energy Saving Ratio for 150 deployed nodes }
-\label{fig6}
-\end{figure} 
+The simulation  results show that our strategies  allow to efficiently
+save energy by  turning off some sensors during  the sensing phase. As
+expected, the Strategy with One Leader is usually slightly better than
+the second  strategy, because the  global optimization permit  to turn
+off more  sensors. Indeed,  when there are  two subregions  more nodes
+remain awake  near the border shared  by them. Note that  again as the
+number of  rounds increase  the two leader  strategy becomes  the most
+performing, since its takes longer  to have the two subregion networks
+simultaneously disconnected.

 
 

-Simulation results explain the efficiency of the Strategy (with Two Leaders) to save the energy during larger number of rounds that seems to be very near the central approach (Strategy (with One Leader))which it be better in general.
+\subsection{The Network Lifetime}

 
 

-\subsection{The Network Lifetime:} 
-we can define the network lifetime as the time until all nodes have been drained of their energy or the sensor network disconnected. In Fig. \ref{fig7}, the network lifetime for different network sizes and for the three approaches is illustrated. 
+We have defined the network lifetime  as the time until all nodes have
+been drained of their energy  or each sensor network monitoring a area
+becomes disconnected.  In figure~\ref{fig6}, the  network lifetime for
+different network sizes and for the three approaches is illustrated.

 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 %\centering
 % \begin{multicols}{6}
 \centering
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]
 %\centering
 % \begin{multicols}{6}
 \centering

-\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{TheNetworkLifetime.pdf} %\\~ ~ ~(a)
+\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{TheNetworkLifetime.eps} %\\~ ~ ~(a)

 \caption{The Network Lifetime }
 \caption{The Network Lifetime }

-\label{fig7}
+\label{fig6}

 \end{figure} 
 
 \end{figure} 
 

-As shown in fig. \ref{fig7}, the network lifetime increase when the size of the network increase because the efficient of our approach in choosing the best representative nodes that will cover all the subregion and let the others nodes to sleep to be used later in the next rounds. Comparison shows that our approach is better than the other two methods in improving the network lifetime and this shows us by distributing the algorithm in each node in the network and subdivide the sensing field into many subregions to be managed independently and simultaneously can be more powerful against the sensor network disconnected in some subregions leads to maximize the lifetime of the network obviously.
-
-\subsection{The Energy Consumption:} 
-In this experiment, we study the effect of the multi-hop communication protocol on the performance of our approach and compare it with other two approaches. The average energy consumption calculated based only on the energy consumed by transmitting and receiving packets by all sensor nodes in the network and during the lifetime of the network for 10 simulation runs divided by the average number of rounds and for different sizes of the network.We took the total energy consumption in both subregions for Strategy (with Two Leaders) and Simple heuristic. Fig. \ref{fig8} illustrates the Energy Consumption for different network sizes and for the three approaches. 
+As  highlighted by figure~\ref{fig6},  the network  lifetime obviously
+increases when the  size of the network increase,  with our approaches
+that lead  to the larger  lifetime improvement.  By choosing  for each
+round the  well suited nodes  to cover the  region of interest  and by
+leaving sleep  the other ones  to be used  later in next  rounds, both
+proposed strategies efficiently prolong the lifetime. Comparison shows
+that the larger the sensor  number, the more our strategies outperform
+the heuristic.   Strategy~2, which uses  two leaders, is the  best one
+because it  is robust  to network disconnection  in one  subregion. 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.
+
+\subsection{The Energy Consumption}
+
+In this experiment, we study the effect of the multi-hop communication
+protocol  on the  performance of  the  Strategy with  Two Leaders  and
+compare  it  with  the  other  two  approaches.   The  average  energy
+consumption  resulting  from  wireless  communications  is  calculated
+considering the  energy spent by  all the nodes when  transmitting and
+receiving  packets during  the network  lifetime. This  average value,
+which  is obtained  for 10~simulation  runs,  is then  divided by  the
+average number of rounds to define a metric allowing a fair comparison
+between networks having different densities.
+
+Figure~\ref{fig7} illustrates the Energy Consumption for the different
+network  sizes and  the three  approaches. The  results show  that the
+Strategy  with  Two  Leaders  is  the  most  competitive  from  energy
+consumption point  of view.  A  centralized method, like  the Strategy
+with  One  Leader, has  a  high energy  consumption  due  to the  many
+communications.   In fact,  a distributed  method greatly  reduces the
+number  of communications thanks  to the  partitioning of  the initial
+network in several independent subnetworks. Let us notice that even if
+a  centralized  method  consumes  far  more  energy  than  the  simple
+heuristic, since the energy cost of communications during a round is a
+small  part   of  the   energy  spent  in   the  sensing   phase,  the
+communications have a small impact on the lifetime.

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

-\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{TheEnergyConsumption.pdf} 
+\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{TheEnergyConsumption.eps} 

 \caption{The Energy Consumption  }
 \caption{The Energy Consumption  }

-\label{fig8}
+\label{fig7}

 \end{figure} 
 
 \end{figure} 
 

-The results show that our approach consume less energy during the lifetime of the network by using multi-hop communication protocol in comparison with other two approaches especially Strategy (with One Leader) in spite of our approach make the network live for a longer time.
-
-\subsection{The impact of Number of Sensors on Execution Time:}
-It is important to have time efficient algorithm to be executed in sensor node because the limited resources in the sensor node. We took the total Execution Time of algorithms in both subregions for Strategy (with Two Leaders) and Simple heuristic. Table \ref{table1} exhibits the execution time for three approaches using different number of sensors.
+\subsection{The impact of Number of Sensors on Execution Time}
+
+A  sensor  node has  limited  energy  resources  and computing  power,
+therefore it is important that the proposed algorithm has the shortest
+possible execution  time. The energy of  a sensor node  must be mainly
+used   for  the  sensing   phase,  not   for  the   pre-sensing  ones.
+Table~\ref{table1} gives  the average execution  times on a  laptop of
+the decision phase during one round.  They are given for the different
+approaches  and   various  numbers  of  sensors.   The   lack  of  any
+optimization explains why the  heuristic has very low execution times.
+Conversely, the  Strategy with One  Leader which requires to  solve an
+optimization  problem considering all  the nodes  presents redhibitory
+execution  times. Moreover,  increasing of  50~nodes the  network size
+multiplies the  time by almost a  factor of 10. The  Strategy with Two
+Leaders has more suitable times.  We think that in distributed fashion
+the solving of the optimization  problem in a subregion can be tackled
+by sensor nodes.  Overall, to be  able deal with very large networks a
+distributed method is clearly required.

 
 \begin{table}[ht]
 \caption{The Execution Time(s) vs The Number of Sensors }
 
 \begin{table}[ht]
 \caption{The Execution Time(s) vs The Number of Sensors }


@@ -552,12 +882,12 @@ It is important to have time efficient algorithm to be executed in sensor node b
 \centering
 
 % used for centering table
 \centering
 
 % used for centering table

-\begin{tabular}{|c| c| c| c |}
+\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

 % centered columns (4 columns)
 % centered columns (4 columns)

-\hline\hline
+      \hline

 %inserts double horizontal lines
 Sensors Number & Strategy & Strategy  & Simple Heuristic \\ [0.5ex]
 %inserts double horizontal lines
 Sensors Number & Strategy & Strategy  & Simple Heuristic \\ [0.5ex]

- & (with Two Leaders) & (with One Leader)  \\ [0.5ex]
+ & (with Two Leaders) & (with One Leader) & \\ [0.5ex]

 %Case & Strategy (with Two Leaders) & Strategy (with One Leader) & Simple Heuristic \\ [0.5ex]
 % inserts table
 %heading
 %Case & Strategy (with Two Leaders) & Strategy (with One Leader) & Simple Heuristic \\ [0.5ex]
 % inserts table
 %heading


@@ -572,8 +902,7 @@ Sensors Number & Strategy & Strategy  & Simple Heuristic \\ [0.5ex]
 \hline
 200 & 4.54 & 169.469 & 0.0046 \\
 \hline
 \hline
 200 & 4.54 & 169.469 & 0.0046 \\
 \hline

-250 & 12.252 & 1581.163 & 0.0056 \\ [1ex]   
-
+250 & 12.252 & 1581.163 & 0.0056 \\

 % [1ex] adds vertical space
 \hline
 %inserts single line
 % [1ex] adds vertical space
 \hline
 %inserts single line


@@ -582,217 +911,65 @@ Sensors Number & Strategy & Strategy  & Simple Heuristic \\ [0.5ex]
 % is used to refer this table in the text
 \end{table}
 
 % is used to refer this table in the text
 \end{table}
 

-Table  \ref{table1} shows the efficiency of our algorithm to produce the solution with good execution time though the Simple Heuristic gives the solution in less time but our approach ensure a better coverage for the region with energy saving and less energy consumption led to extend the lifetime of the network.
+\subsection{The Number of Stopped Simulation Runs}

 
 

-\subsection{The Number of Stopped Simulation Runs :}
-In this study, we will shows the number of stopped simulation runs (the disconnected network) per round for 150 and 250 deployed nodes and for three approaches. Fig. \ref{fig9} and \ref{fig10} illustrate the number of stopped simulation runs per round for 150 and 250 deployed nodes respectively.
+Finally, we will  study the number of simulation  which stopped due to
+network  disconnection, per round  for each  of the  three approaches.
+Figure~\ref{fig8}  illustrates the number  of stopped  simulation runs
+per  round  for 150  deployed  nodes.  It  can  be  observed that  the
+heuristic is  the approach which  stops the earlier because  the nodes
+are  chosen   randomly.   Among  the  two   proposed  strategies,  the
+centralized  one  first   exhibits  network  disconnection.  Thus,  as
+explained previously, in case  of the strategy with several subregions
+the  optimization effectively  continues as  long  as a  network in  a
+subregion   is  still   connected.   This   longer   partial  coverage
+optimization participates in extending the lifetime.

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

-\includegraphics[scale=0.50]{TheNumberofStoppedSimulationRuns150.pdf} 
+\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{TheNumberofStoppedSimulationRuns150.eps} 

 \caption{The Number of Stopped Simulation Runs against Rounds for 150 deployed nodes }
 \caption{The Number of Stopped Simulation Runs against Rounds for 150 deployed nodes }

-\label{fig9}
-\end{figure} 
-
-\begin{figure}[h!]
-\centering
-\includegraphics[scale=0.50]{TheNumberofStoppedSimulationRuns250.pdf} 
-\caption{The Number of Stopped Simulation Runs against Rounds for 250 deployed nodes }
-\label{fig10}
+\label{fig8}

 \end{figure} 
 
 \end{figure} 
 

-The results explain the powerful of our approach against the Stopped Simulation Runs in comparison with other two approaches especially in the last rounds from the network lifetime and this will participate in extending the life time of the network.
-
-\label{Simulation Results}
-
-

 \section{\uppercase{Conclusions and Future Works}}
 \label{sec:conclusion}
 \section{\uppercase{Conclusions and Future Works}}
 \label{sec:conclusion}

-In this paper, we have addressed the problem of lifetime optimization in wireless sensor networks. This is a very natural and important problem, as sensor nodes have limited resources in terms of memory, energy and computational power. To cope with this problem, The field of sensing divided into smaller subregion using the concept of divide-and-conquer method and then multi-rounds coverage protocol will optimize the lifetime in each subregion.The suggested protocol joins two efficient techniques: network Leader Election and sensor activity scheduling where the challenges include how to select the most efficient Leader in each subregion and the best representative active nodes that will optimize the lifetime and take the responsibility of covering the subregion. The network lifetime in each subregion is divided into rounds, each round consists of four phases information exchange, Leader Election, Decision with optimization, and sensing.Our simulation results show that the proposed protocol outperforms or very near some other methods in terms of lifetime, coverage ratio, Active sensor Ratio, energy saving , energy consumption,  execution time, and the number of stopped simulation runs. In future, we will study and prepare the one round coverage protocol by which all active sensor schedules will be prepared in one round using intelligent optimization methods such as swarms optimization or Evolutionary algorithms.

 
 

+In this paper, we have  addressed the problem of coverage and lifetime
+optimization  in wireless  sensor networks.   This is  a key  issue as
+sensor nodes  have limited  resources in terms  of memory,  energy and
+computational power. To  cope with this problem, the  field of sensing
+is   divided   into   smaller   subregions  using   the   concept   of
+divide-and-conquer method,  and then a  multi-rounds coverage protocol
+will optimize  coverage and  lifetime performances in  each subregion.
+The  proposed  protocol  combines  two efficient  techniques:  network
+Leader Election  and sensor activity scheduling,  where the challenges
+include how to select the  most efficient leader in each subregion and
+the best  representative active nodes that will  optimize the lifetime
+while  taking   the  responsibility  of   covering  the  corresponding
+subregion.   The network lifetime  in each  subregion is  divided into
+rounds, each round consists  of four phases: (i) Information Exchange,
+(ii) Leader Election, (iii) an optimization-based Decision in order to
+select  the  nodes remaining  active  for  the  last phase,  and  (iv)
+Sensing. The  simulations results show  the relevance of  the proposed
+protocol in  terms of lifetime, coverage ratio,  active sensors Ratio,
+energy saving,  energy consumption, execution time, and  the number of
+stopped simulation  runs due  to network disconnection.   Indeed, when
+dealing with  large and dense wireless sensor  networks, a distributed
+approach like the one we propose  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.   In
+future,  we  plan to  study  and  propose  a coverage  protocol  which
+computes  all  active  sensor  schedules  in  a  single  round,  using
+optimization  methods  such  as  swarms optimization  or  evolutionary
+algorithms. The computation of all cover sets in one round is far more
+difficult, but will reduce the communication overhead.

 
 % use section* for acknowledgement
 
 % use section* for acknowledgement

-\section*{Acknowledgment}
-
-
-
-
-\begin{thebibliography}{1}
-
-%1
-%\bibitem{wns07}
- % J. Wang, C. Niu, and R. Shen,~\emph{Randomized approach for target coverage scheduling in directional sensor network},~ICESS2007,~pp. 379-390,~2007.
-  
-
-%2
-%\bibitem{dw60}
- % G.~B. Dantzig and P.~ Wolfe,~\emph {Decomposition principle for linear programs},~Operations Research,~pp. 101-111,~ 1960.
- 
-
-\bibitem{asc02}
- I.~ Akyildiz ,~ W.~ Su ,~ Y.~Sankarasubramniam and E. Cayirci,~ emph{A survey on sensor networks},~
- IEEE Comm. Magazine,~pp. 102-114,~2002.
- 
-
-\bibitem{pc10}
- T.~V.~ Padmavathy and M. Chitra,~emph{Extending the Network Lifetime of Wireless Sensor Networks Using Residual Energy Extraction—Hybrid Scheduling Algorithm},~Int. J. of Communications, Network and System Sciences ,~ VOL.~3,No. ~1,pp.~98-106,~2010.
-  
-
-\bibitem{Slijepcevic01powerefficient}
-    S.~ Slijepcevic and M.~ Potkonjak,~emph{Power Efficient Organization of Wireless Sensor Networks},~
-    IEEE International conference on Communications,~pp.~472--476,~2001.
-
-\bibitem{Cardei:2005:IWS:1160086.1160098}
- M.~Cardei, and D.~ Du, ~emph {Improving wireless sensor network lifetime through power aware organization},~
- Wireless Networks,~ vol.~11,~ issue~3,~pp.~333--340,~May~2005.
- 
- 
-%7
-%\bibitem{Cardei05energy-efficienttarget}
-% M.~ Cardei ,~ M.~ T.~ Thai,~ Y.~ Li and W.~ Wu,~ emph{Energy-efficient target coverage in wireless sensor networks},IEEE Infocom,~pp.~1976--1984,~2005.
-
-%8
-%\bibitem{b04}
-% P.~ Berman,~ G.~ Calinescu ,~ C.~ Shah and A.~ Zelikovsky,~emph{Power efficient monitoring management in sensor networks},~Wireless Communications and Networking Conference,~ WCNC. ~2004,~2004.
-
-\bibitem{Berman05efficientenergy}
-   P.~ Berman ,~ G.~ Calinescu ,~ C.~ Shah and A. Zelikovsky,~emph {Efficient energy management in sensor networks},~ Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks. Nova Science Publishers,~Nova Science Publisher,~2005.
-
-\bibitem{1240799}
- J.~ Lu and T.~ Suda,~ emph{Coverage-aware self-scheduling in sensor networks},~  Proceedings. 2003 IEEE 18th Annual Workshop on Computer Communications CCW 2003,~pp.~117-123,~2003.
-
-
-\bibitem{Prasad:2007:DAL:1782174.1782218}
- S.~K.~Prasad, and A.~Dhawan,~emph{Distributed algorithms for lifetime of wireless sensor networks based on dependencies among cover sets},~Proceedings of the 14th international conference on High performance computing ,~HiPC'07,pp.~381--392,~2007.
- 
-
-%12
-%\bibitem{Zorbas:2010:SCP:1715927.1715956}
-% D.~ Zorbas ,~ D. Glynos ,~ P.~ Kotzanikolaou and C.~ Douligeris,~emph {Solving coverage problems in wireless sensor networks using cover sets},~ Ad Hoc Netw.,~ vol.~8,issue~4,~pp.~400--415,June~ 2010.
- 
-%13
-%\bibitem{Garey:1990:CIG:574848}
- %M.~R.~ Garey and D.~S.~ Johnson,~ emph {Computers and Intractability; A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness},~ W. H. Freeman  Co.,~1990.
- 
-%14
-%\bibitem{Caprara98algorithmsfor}
- %  A.~ Caprara ,~ M.~ Fischetti and P.~ Toth ,~ emph{Algorithms for the Set Covering Problem},~ Annals of Operations Research,~  vol.~98,~1998.
-   
-%15   
-%\bibitem{DBLP:journals/eor/AlfieriBBC07}
- %A.~Alfieri ,~ A.~ Bianco,~ P.~ Brandimarte and  C. Chiasserini,~emph {Maximizing system lifetime in wireless sensor networks},~European Journal of Operational Research,~ vol.~181,~  No.~1,~pp.390-402,~2007.
- 
-%16
-%\bibitem{Gu:2009:QTC:1673018.1673025}
-% Y.~ Gu,~ Y.~Ji,~ J. ~Li and B.~ Zhao,~emph {QoS-aware target coverage in wireless sensor networks},~Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput.,~ vol.~9,~issue~12,~pp.~1645--1659,December~ 2009. 
- 
-%17
-%\bibitem{springerlink:10.1007/BF01594937}
- % Y.~ Ye,~emph{An O($n^3L$)) potential reduction algorithm for linear programming},~Mathematical Programming,~vol.~50,~issue~1,~  pp.~239-258,~ 1991.
-  
-
-%18
-%\bibitem{glpk}
-%  A.~ Mahkorin,~emph {GNU Linear Programming Kit, Reference Manual},~2010.
-
-%19
-%\bibitem{Garg98fasterand}
- %   N.~ Garg and J.~ K\"{o}nemann,~emph {Faster and simpler algorithms for multicommodity flow and other fractional packing problems},~In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science,pp.~300--309,~ 1998.
-    
-%20
-%\bibitem{Kuhn55}
-%  H.~ W.~ Kuhn,~emph{The Hungarian Method for the assignment problem},~Naval Research Logistics Quarterly,~vol.~2,~pp.~83--97,~1955.
-
-\bibitem{Cardei:2006:ECP:1646656.1646898}
-M.~Cardei and J.~ Wu,~emph {Energy-efficient coverage problems in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks},~Comput. Commun.,~ vol.~29,~ no.~4,~pp.~413--420,~February 2006.
- 
-
-\bibitem{Manju2011}
-  M.~ Chaudhary and A.~ K. ~ Pujari,~emph{High-Energy-First (HEF) Heuristic for Energy-Efficient Target Coverage Problem},~International Journal of Ad hoc, Sensor and Uniquitous computing (IJASUC),~ vol.~2,
- ~no. ~1,~ 2011.
-   
- 
-
-\bibitem{Abrams:2004:SKA:984622.984684}
-Z.~ Abrams,~ A. ~ Goel and S.~ Plotkin, ~ emph{Set k-cover algorithms for energy efficient monitoring in wireless sensor networks},~ Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on Information processing in sensor networks,~pp.~ 424--432,~ 2004.
- 
-
-
-\bibitem{Zorbas2007}
-D.~ Zorbas ,~ D.~ Glynos ,~ P.~ Kotzanikolaou and C.~ Douligeris,~emph {B\{GOP\}: an adaptive coverage algorithm for wireless sensor networks},~Proceedings of the 13th European Wireless Conference,~Paris,~ France,~2007. 
-
-\bibitem{cardei02}
- M.~ Cardei ,~D.~ MacCallum ,~M.~ X.~ Cheng ,~M.~ Min ,~X.~ Jia ,~D.~ Li and
-               D.~ Du,~emph {Wireless Sensor Networks with Energy Efficient Organization},~Journal of Interconnection Networks,~  vol.~3,~  no.~3-4,pp.~213-229,~2002.
-  
- 
-
-\bibitem{cardei05}
-  M.~ Cardei ,~ J.~ Wu, N.~ Lu and M.~O.~ Pervaiz,~emph{Maximum Network Lifetime with Adjustable Range},~WiMob,~2005.
-  
-
-\bibitem{cardei05bis}
-  M.~ Cardei ,~ M.~ T.~ Thai ,~Y.~ Li and W.~ Wu,~emph {Energy-efficient target coverage in wireless sensor networks},~INFOCOM,~pp.~1976-1984,~2005.
-  
- 
-
-\bibitem{berman04}
-   P.~ Berman and G.~ Calinescu,~emph {Power Efficient Monitoring Management in Sensor Networks},~Proceedings of IEEE Wireless Communication and Networking Conference (WCNC'04),~pp.~2329--2334,~2004.
-
-
-\bibitem{garg98}
- N.~ Garg and J.~ Koenemann,~emph {Faster and Simpler Algorithms for Multicommodity Flow and other Fractional Packing Problems.},~Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science,~pp.~300--309,~1998.
- 
-
-\bibitem{Gallais06}
- A.~ Gallais,~ J.~  Carle ,~D. ~ Simplot-Ryl and I.~ Stojmenovic,~emph {Localized Sensor Area Coverage with Low Communication Overhead},~Proceedings of the Fourth Annual IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications,pp.~328--337,~2006. 
-
-\bibitem{Tian02}
- D. ~ Tian and N.~ D.~ Georganas, ~emph {A coverage-preserving node scheduling scheme for large wireless sensor networks},~Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Wireless sensor networks and applications,~pp.~ 32--41,~2002.
-  
-
-\bibitem{Ye03}
-F. ~Ye,G.~ Zhong,~J.~ Cheng,~S.~ Lu and L. ~ Zhang,~emph {PEAS: A Robust Energy Conserving Protocol for Long-lived Sensor Networks},~ Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems ICDCS'03,~pp.~ 28--37,~2003.
-
- 
-
-\bibitem{Huang:2003:CPW:941350.941367}
- C. ~ Huang and Y. ~ Tseng,~emph {The coverage problem in a wireless sensor network},~Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international conference on Wireless sensor networks and applications WSNA '03,~San Diego, CA, USA,~pp.~115-121,~ 2003.
- 
-
-
-
-\bibitem{Zhang05}
- H.~ Zhang and J.~ C.~ Hou,~emph {Maintaining Sensing Coverage and Connectivity in Large Sensor
-               Networks},~Ad Hoc {\&} Sensor Wireless Networks,~ vol.~1,no.~ 1-2,~2005.
-
-
-\bibitem{HeinzelmanCB02}
- W.~ B.~ Heinzelman ,~ A.~ P.~ Chandrakasan and H.~ Balakrishnan,~emph {An application-specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor networks},~IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,~ vol. ~1,~no. ~4,pp.~ 660-670,~2002.
-
-
-
-\bibitem{pedraza2006}
-       F. ~Pedraza,~A.~ L.~ Medaglia and A. ~ Garcia,~emph {Efficient coverage algorithms for wireless sensor networks},~Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium,~ pp.~ 78 --83,~2006.
-
-
-\bibitem{chin2007}
-C.~ T. ~ Vu, ~ emph {An Energy-Efficient Distributed Algorithm for k-Coverage Problem in Wireless Sensor Networks},~GeorgiaState University,~2007.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-\end{thebibliography}
-
-
- 
-
+%\section*{Acknowledgment}

 
 

+\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
+\bibliography{bare_conf}

 
 % that's all folks
 \end{document}
 
 % that's all folks
 \end{document}