Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Apr 28;15(5):10026-47.
doi: 10.3390/s150510026.

A multi-agent framework for packet routing in wireless sensor networks

Dayong Ye  1 , Minjie Zhang  2 , Yun Yang  3
Affiliations

A multi-agent framework for packet routing in wireless sensor networks

Dayong Ye et al. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) have been widely investigated in recent years. One of the fundamental issues in WSNs is packet routing, because in many application domains, packets have to be routed from source nodes to destination nodes as soon and as energy efficiently as possible. To address this issue, a large number of routing approaches have been proposed. Although every existing routing approach has advantages, they also have some disadvantages. In this paper, a multi-agent framework is proposed that can assist existing routing approaches to improve their routing performance. This framework enables each sensor node to build a cooperative neighbour set based on past routing experience. Such cooperative neighbours, in turn, can help the sensor to effectively relay packets in the future. This framework is independent of existing routing approaches and can be used to assist many existing routing approaches. Simulation results demonstrate the good performance of this framework in terms of four metrics: average delivery latency, successful delivery ratio, number of live nodes and total sensing coverage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A sample two-layer architecture.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Performance of routing approaches in a stationary WSN. (a) Average delivery latency; (b) successful delivery ration (%); (c) number of live nodes; (d) total sensing coverage (%).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Performance of routing approaches in a dynamic WSN. (a) Average delivery latency; (b) successful delivery ration (%); (c) number of live nodes; (d) total sensing coverage (%).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Winkler M., Tuchs K.D., Hughes K., Barclay G. Theoretical and practical aspects of military wireless sensor networks. J. Telecommun. Inf. Technol. 2008;2:37–45.
    1. Seema A., Reisslein M. Towards efficient wireless video sensor networks: A survey of existing node architectures and proposal for a flexi-wvsnp design. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2011;13:462–486.
    1. Tavli B., Bicakci K., Zilan R., Barcelo-Ordinas J.M. A survey of visual sensor network platforms. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2012;60:689–726.
    1. Akkaya K., Younis M. A survey on routing protocols for wireless sensor networks. Ad Hoc Netw. 2005;3:325–349.
    1. Li C., Zhang H., Hao B., Li J. A Survey on Routing Protocols for Large-Scale Wireless Sensor Networks. Sensors. 2011;11:3498–3526. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources