2007 2nd International Conference on Communication Systems Software and Middleware 2007
DOI: 10.1109/comswa.2007.382427
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysis of Dynamic Sensor Networks: Power Law Then What?

Abstract: Abstract-Recent studies on wireless sensor networks (WSN) have shown that the duration of contacts and inter-contacts are power law distributed. While this is a strong property of these networks, we will show that this is not sufficient to describe properly the dynamics of sensor networks. We will present some coupled arguments from data mining, random processes and graph theory to describe more accurately the dynamics with the use of a random model to show the limits of an approach limited to power law contac… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These joint distributions have a significantly different shape for simple random dynamic graph model. This will be discussed in Section 5 (see also [19]). …”
Section: Joint Distributionsmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These joint distributions have a significantly different shape for simple random dynamic graph model. This will be discussed in Section 5 (see also [19]). …”
Section: Joint Distributionsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Note that is was already shown in [19] that merely forcing the contact and inter-contact duration distributions is not sufficient to fully uncover the dynamics of an experimental data set. From all the possible graph properties that can be simulated by our random dynamical graph generator, mainly two graph properties are emphasized for the sake of the clarity: the number of connected components and the number of connected vertices.…”
Section: Set Of Investigated Modelsmentioning
confidence: 98%