
arXiv: 1611.05172
handle: 2381/38617
SummaryThe growth of real‐world objects with embedded and globally networked sensors allows to consolidate the Internet of things paradigm and increase the number of applications in the domains of ubiquitous and context‐aware computing. The merging between cloud computing and Internet of things named cloud of things will be the key to handle thousands of sensors and their data. One of the main challenges in the cloud of things is context‐aware sensor search and selection. Typically, sensors require to be searched using two or more conflicting context properties. Most of the existing work uses some kind of multi‐criteria decision analysis to perform the sensor search and selection, but does not show any concern for the quality of the selection presented by these methods. In this paper, we analyse the behaviour of the SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR multi‐objective decision methods and their quality of selection comparing them with thePareto‐optimality solutions. The gathered results allow to analyse and compare these algorithms regarding their behaviour, the number of optimal solutions and redundancy. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Optimization, FOS: Computer and information sciences, Artificial intelligence, Computer Networks and Communications, Internet of Things, Social Sciences, Mobile Sensor Deployment, Group Decision Making, Resource Discovery, Epistemology, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Management Science and Operations Research, Operations research, Redundancy (engineering), QA76, Decision Sciences, Data science, Computer Science - Networking and Internet Architecture, Context (archaeology), Selection (genetic algorithm), Engineering, Computer security, Cloud computing, TOPSIS, Key (lock), Data mining, Biology, Multi Objective, Networking and Internet Architecture (cs.NI), Wireless Sensor Networks: Survey and Applications, GIS-based Decision Analysis, Internet of Things and Edge Computing, Paleontology, 303, Computer science, FOS: Philosophy, ethics and religion, World Wide Web, Philosophy, Operating system, Operations management, Computer Science, Physical Sciences, Quality (philosophy), Wireless Sensor Networks, Pareto principle, The Internet
Optimization, FOS: Computer and information sciences, Artificial intelligence, Computer Networks and Communications, Internet of Things, Social Sciences, Mobile Sensor Deployment, Group Decision Making, Resource Discovery, Epistemology, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Management Science and Operations Research, Operations research, Redundancy (engineering), QA76, Decision Sciences, Data science, Computer Science - Networking and Internet Architecture, Context (archaeology), Selection (genetic algorithm), Engineering, Computer security, Cloud computing, TOPSIS, Key (lock), Data mining, Biology, Multi Objective, Networking and Internet Architecture (cs.NI), Wireless Sensor Networks: Survey and Applications, GIS-based Decision Analysis, Internet of Things and Edge Computing, Paleontology, 303, Computer science, FOS: Philosophy, ethics and religion, World Wide Web, Philosophy, Operating system, Operations management, Computer Science, Physical Sciences, Quality (philosophy), Wireless Sensor Networks, Pareto principle, The Internet
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 19 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
