BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Yibei Ling

Yibei Ling contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Networking and Internet ArchitectureComputational ComplexityData Structures and AlgorithmsDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2012arXiv

On Quantification of Anchor Placement

This paper attempts to answer a question: for a given traversal area, how to quantify the geometric impact of anchor placement on localization performance. We present a theoretical framework for quantifying the anchor placement impact. An experimental study, as well as the field test using a UWB ranging technology, is presented. These experimental results validate the theoretical analysis. As a byproduct, we propose a two-phase localization method (TPLM) and show that TPLM outperforms the least-square method in localization accuracy by a huge margin. TPLM performs much faster than the gradient descent method and slightly better than the gradient descent method in localization accuracy. Our field test suggests that TPLM is more robust against noise than the least-square and gradient descent methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Analysis of Power-aware Buffering Schemes in Wireless Sensor Networks

We study the power-aware buffering problem in battery-powered sensor networks, focusing on the fixed-size and fixed-interval buffering schemes. The main motivation is to address the yet poorly understood size variation-induced effect on power-aware buffering schemes. Our theoretical analysis elucidates the fundamental differences between the fixed-size and fixed-interval buffering schemes in the presence of data size variation. It shows that data size variation has detrimental effects on the power expenditure of the fixed-size buffering in general, and reveals that the size variation induced effects can be either mitigated by a positive skewness or promoted by a negative skewness in size distribution. By contrast, the fixed-interval buffering scheme has an obvious advantage of being eminently immune to the data-size variation. Hence the fixed-interval buffering scheme is a risk-averse strategy for its robustness in a variety of operational environments. In addition, based on the fixed-interval buffering scheme, we establish the power consumption relationship between child nodes and parent node in a static data collection tree, and give an in-depth analysis of the impact of child bandwidth distribution on parent's power consumption. This study is of practical significance: it sheds new light on the relationship among power consumption of buffering schemes, power parameters of radio module and memory bank, data arrival rate and data size variation, thereby providing well-informed guidance in determining an optimal buffer size (interval) to maximize the operational lifespan of sensor networks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

On Optimal Deadlock Detection Scheduling

Deadlock detection scheduling is an important, yet often overlooked problem that can significantly affect the overall performance of deadlock handling. Excessive initiation of deadlock detection increases overall message usage, resulting in degraded system performance in the absence of deadlocks; while insufficient initiation of deadlock detection increases the deadlock persistence time, resulting in an increased deadlock resolution cost in the presence of deadlocks. The investigation of this performance tradeoff, however, is missing in the literature. This paper studies the impact of deadlock detection scheduling on the overall performance of deadlock handling. In particular, we show that there exists an optimal deadlock detection frequency that yields the minimum long-run mean average cost, which is determined by the message complexities of the deadlock detection and resolution algorithms being used, as well as the rate of deadlock formation, denoted as $λ$. For the best known deadlock detection and resolution algorithms, we show that the asymptotically optimal frequency of deadlock detection scheduling that minimizes the overall message overhead is ${\cal O}((λn)^{1/3})$, when the total number $n$ of processes is sufficiently large. Furthermore, we show that in general fully distributed (uncoordinated) deadlock detection scheduling cannot be performed as efficiently as centralized (coordinated) deadlock detection scheduling.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access