2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not
imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of
Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

Sensors (Basel). 2015 Jul; 15(7): 17572–17620. PMCID: PMC4541950

Published online 2015 Jul 20. doi: 10.3390/s150717572 PMID: 26205271

Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm

Muhammad Iqbal,1 Muhammad Naeem,1,2 Alagan Anpalagan,2,* Ashfaq Ahmed,1 and Muhammad Azam1

Leonhard M. Reindl, Academic Editor

Abstract

Optimization problems relating to wireless sensor network planning, design, deployment and op‐
eration often give rise to multi-objective optimization formulations where multiple desirable objec‐
tives compete with each other and the decision maker has to select one of the tradeoff solutions.
These multiple objectives may or may not conflict with each other. Keeping in view the nature of
the application, the sensing scenario and input/output of the problem, the type of optimization
problem changes. To address different nature of optimization problems relating to wireless sensor
network design, deployment, operation, planing and placement, there exist a plethora of optimiza‐
tion solution types. We review and analyze different desirable objectives to show whether they
conflict with each other, support each other or they are design dependent. We also present a
generic multi-objective optimization problem relating to wireless sensor network which consists
of input variables, required output, objectives and constraints. A list of constraints is also pre‐
sented to give an overview of different constraints which are considered while formulating the op‐
timization problems in wireless sensor networks. Keeping in view the multi facet coverage of this
article relating to multi-objective optimization, this will open up new avenues of research in the
area of multi-objective optimization relating to wireless sensor networks.

Keywords: algorithms, conflicting objectives, multi-objective optimization, wireless sensor

network

1. Introduction
Back to Top

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 1/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Optimization plays a key role in wireless sensor networks. The optimization in WSNs can be
broadly categorized into single and multi-objective optimization problem. In single objective opti‐
mization, the main aim of the optimizer is to minimize or maximize one objective under various
constraints. Where as, in multi-objective optimization multiple objectives are simultaneously opti‐
mized. Most of the real-world problems involve multiple objectives, where all objectives need to be
optimized simultaneously. This condition makes the multi-objective optimization (MOO) a challeng‐
ing task and undoubtedly a very hot topic of research for theorists and engineers [1–6]. Usually,
the problem formulation is done as an initial phase, where the desired scenarios are formulated
as multi-objective optimization problems, and are solved by using different algorithms. The multi‐
ple objectives may or may not be conflicting, but in most of the cases, the objectives conflict with
each other [7–10]. Therefore, it is very less probable to find a global optimal solution, contrary to
the problems of the single objective optimization [11]. In MOO there exists multiple optimal solu‐
tions, and the decision maker has to choose the best among them, depending on the priorities of
the objectives to be achieved. Depending upon the preference of the multiple objectives, the opti‐
mization problem can be tackled using various techniques [12]. The most commonly used ap‐
proach is to combine multiple objectives to one figure of merit by assigning different weights to
different objectives and then perform single objective optimization algorithm. Weights can be as‐
signed to multiple conflicting objectives through direct assignment, eigenvector method, entropy
method and minimal information method, etc. Few other commonly used multi-objective handling
techniques are Min-Max, Pareto, Ranking, Goals, Preference, Gene, Sub-population, Lexicographic,
Phenotype sharing function and Fuzzy [13].

WSNs have been widely adopted for monitoring purpose, e.g., to monitor the environment, habi‐
tat, greenhouse, climate, water networks [14], and personal health [15]. Similarly, WSNs have been
proven a great tool for automation, e.g., home automation [16] and industrial automation [17,18]
etc., are few promising applications of WSNs. WSNs are composed for tiny nodes, where the nodes
sense data from the environment and pass the data to the central processing unit. The nodes are
usually equipped with low power, low energy and very little memory [19,20]. Due to the limited
on-board resources, the designing, deployment and the operations of WSNs become challenging,
while simultaneously providing the quality of service requirements [21,22]. Researchers have pro‐
posed and adopted various techniques in order to utilize the resource constrained WSNs effi‐
ciently [23–27]. For example, [26] has proposed a multi-objective hybrid optimization algorithm
to solve the coverage and connectivity problem and to enhance the performance of the WSNs in
terms of network life time, by joining a multi-objective on-demand algorithm employing Genetic
Algorithm (GA) and a local on line algorithm. In [27], the authors have used a formulation of data
aggregation problem as a mixed integer linear optimization problem, by minimizing the total
power, considering the co-channel interference constraints.

Abundant literature is available where MOO has been used to solve different optimization prob‐
lems relating to WSNs. This article presents an updated review of the MOO techniques being used
to solve different problems relating to design, operation, deployment, placement, planning and
management of WSNs. The paper provides an insight into varying degree of preferences for dif‐

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 2/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

ferent conflicting objectives. Therefore, it can provide means to configure WSNs for different
tradeoffs between various performance parameters depending upon the application environment
of the WSN.

Highlights of the previous surveys/reviews on the topic are shown in Table 1. It can be inferred
that the existing surveys do not encompass the subject completely. For example in [23] the au‐
thors have focussed the problem of node placement and surveyed different solution techniques to
enhance the performance of the WSNs. The authors categorized the existing literature into dy‐
namic and static node placement strategies. They argued that neither of the two techniques in iso‐
lation can provide the desired result. Therefore, they suggested to use a mix of static and dynamic
schemes. Particle swarm optimization (PSO) techniques have been reviewed in [24] for the opti‐
mal deployment, node localization, clustering and data aggregation in wireless sensor networks
(WSNs). The authors investigated PSO based techniques with respect to their suitability for WSNs
and suggested how to tailor them according to the peculiar characteristics of sensor nodes. In
[25], the authors have categorized various WSNs applications and reviewed different energy con‐
servation schemes specifically, their impact on the overall performance of the specific application.
They also surveyed some existing techniques based on evolutionary algorithm to achieve various
trade-offs between multiple conflicting requirements for prolonging the lifetime of the WSNs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 3/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Table 1

Existing reviews/surveys relating to multi-objective optimization in wireless sensor networks.

Review Type Optimization Algorithms

Ref.
Technology Specific Objective Specific Generic EA Heuristic Other

[1] ✓

[2] ✓

[3] ✓

[4] ✓

[5] ✓

[6] ✓

[12] ✓

[13] ✓

[23] ✓ ✓ ✓

[24] ✓ ✓

[25] ✓ ✓ ✓

[29] ✓ ✓ ✓

[30] ✓ ✓ ✓

[31] ✓ ✓ ✓

[32] ✓

[33] ✓

[34] ✓

[35] ✓ ✓

[36] ✓

[37] ✓

Metaheuristic algorithms are getting popular due to their better performance in terms of conver‐
gence to the optimality and avoidance from being trapped in local optima [28]. A review is pre‐
sented in [29] which elaborates application of metaheuristic algorithms to solve multi-objective
optimization problems relating to data clustering in wireless sensor networks. The paper elabo‐
rates some nomenclature to highlight the aspects of clustering and depicts some important chal‐
lenges to implement the technique. Biologically inspired computing for the optimization of WSNs
have been reviewed in [30]. The authors have shown how the metaphoric relationship can be de‐
veloped between the two systems namely, biological and non-biological. They have also shown the
three stage process of ensembles design for an artificial system inspired from biological system.
Therefore, the aforementioned surveys are either objective function specific or they are centered

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 4/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

about some specific algorithms to tackle the problems relating to multi-objective optimization in
WSNs. Multi-objective deployment of wireless sensor nodes has been surveyed in [31] to achieve
pareto optimal front while considering multiple conflicting objectives namely, coverage, energy ef‐
ficiency, lifetime and the number of sensors.

For the sake of completeness and clarity we have included some surveys relating to different
multi-objective optimization algorithms and their general application in various fields. For example
[2] presents an overview of methods and theory of evolutionary multi-objective optimization.
Specifically, the tutorial presents basic principles of multi-objective optimization and evolutionary
algorithms, and various algorithmic concepts namely, fitness assignment, diversity assurances and
eliticism. The tutorial also elaborates performance of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms and
highlights some issues relating to its simplified implementation. A survey of evolutionary multi-ob‐
jective algorithms applied to different engineering application is provided in [3]. The authors have
classified different algorithms into three different categories, namely the mehtods with a priori ar‐
ticulation of preferences, methods with posteriori articulation of preferences and methods with
no articulation of preferences. A comprehensive survey of evolutionary based multi-objective opti‐
mization techniques is presented in [6] in a way to motivate the implementation of various tech‐
niques in the emerging technological fields. The paper elaborates each technique while focusing
the relative advantages and disadvantages and the feasibility of implementation in specific applica‐
tion. The existing surveys [1–6,12,13,23–25,29–37] do not encompass the subject completely.

This article reviews the recent work published on multi-objective optimization algorithms applied
to wireless sensor networks to achieve various trade-offs among different conflicting objectives.
The existing work in this research area has been classified with respect to different network types,
different applications, different solution types and different conflicting objectives. We also summa‐
rize different objectives used to formulate the multi-objective optimization problem, i.e., maximiza‐
tion of coverage, minimization of packet error rate, maximization of network life, maximization of
energy efficiency, minimization of cost, minimization of delay and maximization of throughput. We
analyze the relationship between different objectives in the multi-objective formulations and
present some widely used simulation tools. As an example of MOO problem, we also present a
general resource allocation problem in sensor network which consists of inputs, outputs, con‐
straints and objectives.

Paper Organization

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2, presents a generic resource allocation problem in
WSNs and Section 3 depicts classification and formulation of optimization objectives. A pictorial
view of the relationship between desirable objectives is presented in Section 4 and solution ap‐
proaches are classified in Section 6. In Section 5, different constraints considered while formulat‐
ing MOO problems in WSNs are elaborated and Section 7, highlights existing trends of research
community with respect to the research focussed on different multi-objective optimization tech‐
niques, with respect to the research focussed on different optimization formulations, with respect
to the research focussed on different optimization objectives and the research emanating from dif‐
ferent geographical areas of the world. Finally, Section 8 concludes the paper by reflecting some
open challenges.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 5/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

2. Generic Multi-Objective Optimization Problem in Wireless Sensor Networks

The generic multi-objective optimization problem consists of four segments: (1) inputs; (2) re‐
quired output; (3) objectives; and (4) constraints. Figure 1 shows different possibilities for each
part of the problem. In the generic resource allocation problem, the input parameters/decision
variables are set by the network operators or the regulatory authorities. For example, selection of
transmit frequency is influenced by the surrounding radio frequency environment and the regula‐
tory rules. The selection of frequency can affect the transmission range of the sensors and ulti‐
mately many important performance parameters namely, coverage, bit error rate and delay.
Increasing or decreasing the transmit power can significantly impact many desirable objectives
namely, maximizing energy efficiency, link quality, network life time, reliability, coverage, cost and
packet error rate. In [38], the authors have proposed an optimization formulation to maintain
sensing coverage by keeping a minimum number of active sensor nodes and a small amount of en‐
ergy consumption in wireless sensor network. Energy consumption has been considered in [39]
by simultaneously satisfying delay and reliability through a multiobjecitve optimization algorithm.
Total energy and residual energy of the nodes can also affect many performance indicators for ex‐
ample, coverage, throughput, network life time and packet error rate. A multi-objective formula‐
tion has been used in [40] to achieve a tradeoff solution between energy consumption and packet
error rate. Location and density of the sensors determine the overall cost and the network perfor‐
mance in terms of observability, coverage, transmission range, reliability and energy consumption.
Practical optimization problems relating to wireless sensor networks are constrained by many fac‐
tors namely, network connectivity, interference, quality of service, transmit energy, coverage,
topology, density, cost, latency, reliability and delay. These constrained optimization problems are
expected to precipitate in optimal location of sensors, optimal number of sensors, optimal sched‐
uling, optimal transmit power, optimal coverage, optimal throughput, optimal delay, optimal cost,
optimal packet error rate, fairness and reliability. Nature of multi-objective optimization problem
will change in accordance with certain input parameters, required objective function to optimize
and the constraints imposed by the specific area of sensor network deployment.

Figure 1

Generic multi-objective optimization problem in wireless sensor networks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 6/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

3. Classification of Optimization Objectives

In general, many real world design problems relating to engineering are inherently characterized
by the presence of multiple objectives which conflict with each other [12]. Similarly, various practi‐
cal scenarios relating to efficient sensor network design, operation, placement, layout, planning
and management give rise to multi-objective optimization formulations. In this section we elabo‐
rate the relevant work against each aspect of multi-objective optimization relating to WSNs as
shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Classification of optimization objectives.

3.1. Multi-Objective Optimization Focussed on Design Related Problems in WSNs

The design of WSNs is a relatively intricate task with significant influence on various performance
parameters namely, quality, cost and efficiency of real life sensor applications. One of the design
goals is to maximize the lifetime of the sensor network in a way that sensors effectively monitor
the region of interest and communicate the observed information to the central processing sta‐
tion. [41]. A multi-objective optimization approach has been proposed in [42] for the modular de‐
sign architecture of QoS aware routing protocol to ensure the homogeneous depletion rate of en‐
ergy. A scheme for the minimization of energy consumption has been proposed in [43] by treating
the design problem of beam pattern optimization as a multi-objective formulation. Mathematical
formulations of some commonly used design related objectives have been depicted in Table 2. In
the following we elaborate multi-objective optimization in sensor network related to various de‐
sign problems.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 7/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Table 2

Design related objectives in wireless sensor networks.

g p y p
sensing; Qf denotes global
probability of false alarm; T
denotes samples during one
sampling process.

[50] Coverage preservation and Where x is the decision variable

maximize F (x)
energy conservation vector. In general, f1, ⋯ , fn are in
= (f1 (x) , … … , (5)
conflict with each other, and then
T
fn (x))
finding the optimum can be
interpreted as finding a good trade-
off between all f1, ⋯, fn of F.

[135] Energy efficiency, packet error Where μ denotes the optimal

maximize Φ. μ (6)
rate, average delay weights vector; Φ denotes the real
time vector.

[136] Optimum structure of heat 2

The internal diameter of three
1000R
exchanger max : I = (7) tubes set as optimization variable
¯¯¯¯
¯
ΔP
and these variable are Dtube1,Dtube2
and Dtube3. Its unit is millimeters.

[137] Minimum energy Where Fi(x) is an objective

minimize F (x)
consumption, uniform battery function, for 1 ≤ i ≤ n; wi denotes a
= (F1 (x) , … … ,
power depletion, and (8) weight selected by a network
T

minimum delay Fn (x)) )

designer to reflect the relative
importance of the objective
function; ci denotes a coefficient
that not only scales Fi(x) but also
helps produce a one-dimensional
function.

[138] Maximizing the network Multi-objective function. Objective

maxB so s (℘)
lifetime subject to QoS d

(9) 1 maximizes the residual energy of

b
max L
constraints i
the selected nodes. Objective 2
maximizes the residual energy of
the forwarding set. Bsosd represents
end-to-end path battery cost; ℘
represents the set of paths between
the nodes; L represents local
b
i

battery cost for each node.

3.1.1. Network Lifetime

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 8/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Network lifetime is very critical parameter related to sensor network performance and has been
tackled at various levels namely, design, operation and deployment. For example in [44], a sto‐
chastic multi-objective algorithm for WSNs has been proposed to maximize the aggregate utility
and to extend the lifetime of the network. Space-based applications of wireless sensor networks
are considered in [45], where authors have proposed a multi-objective formulation to address the
problems of maximization of lifetime, minimization of energy consumption and maximization of
the coverage. In [46], authors have formulated a multi-utility function to represent various perfor‐
mance metrics of the WSN and then jointly optimized the utility function and the lifetime maxi‐
mization. A multi-objective routing protocol design has been proposed in [47,48] to maximize the
lifetime while considering other conflicting objectives like, minimization of energy consumption,
minimization of delay and secure routing.

3.1.2. Energy Conservation

Wireless sensor nodes are inherently energy constrained devices. Furthermore, most of the times
these devices are deployed in hard to reach areas where recharge or replacement of batteries is
not possible. Therefore, energy conservation through efficient utilization of available energy helps
to prolong the operation of the network. Maximization of energy conservation is one of the desir‐
able objectives which has been addressed in various articles, for example in [49], a multi-objective
evolutionary algorithm has been proposed to jointly optimize two conflicting objectives namely,
maximization of energy conservation and maximizing the accuracy of spectrum sensing. Coverage
performance and the energy conservation have been jointly optimized in [50] by formulating a
multi-objective optimization problem and using evolutionary algorithm based decomposition ap‐
proach. The authors showed that their algorithm performed better than the Non-dominated
Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) [50]. Design of routing algorithm has been proposed in
[51–53] to optimize various conflicting objectives including energy conservation, packet delivery
ratio, jitter, delay and robustness. The solution for energy conservation has also been searched in
optimal cluster formation, for example in [54], a multi-objective optimization technique has been
proposed to maximize energy conservation and to minimize the delay in data collection process.

3.1.3. Coverage Efficiency

Coverage efficiency or coverage maximization is one of the key issues of sensor network deploy‐
ment which is affected by other desirable objectives which may or may not conflict. Various multi-
objective formulations have been proposed in the literature to maximize the coverage while con‐
sidering other desirable objectives at the same time. For example in [55], the authors have pro‐
posed a hybrid multi-objective optimization technique for the design of wireless sensor networks
to maximize the coverage and to minimize the energy consumption. Maximization of coverage,
minimization of active sensor nodes and energy consumption have been simultaneously optimized
in [56] by suggesting a multi-objective optimization technique. Simultaneous optimization of the
coverage efficiency and energy consumption is one of the key design problems. In [57], the au‐
thors have proposed a solution inspired from the nature called, multi-objective evolutionary algo‐
rithm based on decomposition to simultaneously optimize the coverage control and energy con‐
sumption. A hybrid routing protocol design has been proposed in [58] by using a multi-objective
optimization approach to improve the coverage efficiency and to reduce the energy consumption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 9/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

3.1.4. Clustering

Multi-objective optimization based clustering schemes are being preferred over the single objec‐
tive optimization based clustering techniques. Multi-objective optimization facilitates to consider
multiple optimization criteria while formulating the clustering as an optimization problem. For ex‐
ample in [59], an automatic clustering technique is proposed which is based on the hybrid evolu‐
tionary algorithm immunized PSO. A multi-objective optimization based clustering algorithm has
been proposed in [60] which simultaneously optimizes network life time, energy consumption,
dead sensor nodes and delivery of total data packets to the base station. The authors argued that
the proposed clustering algorithm based on particle swarm optimization gave better results as
compared to the other existing methods.

3.1.5. Throughput

Maximization of throughput is the critical issue in the design of energy constrained wireless sen‐
sor networks. Throughput optimization of energy sharing wireless sensor networks has been pro‐
posed in [61] for the design of energy sharing technique by using ultra-capacitor based energy
harvesting system. Solar power sensor network design approach has been proposed in [62] to
maximize the throughput in order to better utilize the solar power and to ensure fairness for all
nodes across the network. The design of a cloud-integrated sensor network architecture has been
proposed in [63] by using a multi-objective optimization algorithm to maximize the throughput
and minimize the bandwidth and energy consumption. The design of efficient spectrum sensing
and power allocation techniques have been proposed in [64] to maximize the throughput and
minimize the interference.

3.1.6. Reliability

A reliable and complete knowledge of some event of interest is mandatory for taking the desired
decision. For example up-to-date and accurate information of current plant state is essential for
plant monitoring, control and real time optimization. The accuracy and provision of different esti‐
mates of various parameters largely depend on the sensor network deployed in the plant. In [65],
optimal design of wireless sensor networks for chemical plants is discussed using stochastic opti‐
mization technique for selecting the type, number and location of the nodes to achieve the re‐
quired accuracy. A multi-objective optimization technique has been used in [66] to design an opti‐
mal routing protocol for maximizing the reliability, performance and efficiency.

The design of quality of service routing protocol is proposed in [67] which can accommodate dif‐
ferent types of data traffic. The proposed routing protocol used multi-objective optimization to si‐
multaneously optimize latency, reliability, residual energy in sensor nodes and transmission power
between the nodes.

3.1.7. Accuracy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 10/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

In the process industry, wireless sensor networks are deployed to obtain accurate measurements
of different process variables at different sampling rates. For example, in chemical and biochemi‐
cal processes, temperature and pressure are measured more frequently whereas, molecular
weight and concentration are measured less frequently. In [68], the authors have proposed a
multi-objective algorithm to obtain a trade-off between the quality of measurement and the cost of
the measurement. A trade-off between the two conflicting objectives of maximization of measure‐
ment accuracy and minimization of energy consumption has been achieved by using a lossy com‐
pression technique in [69]. The proposed design technique facilitates the node to transmit less
amount of data after compression and hence can save energy during transmission. The design of
intermittent fault detection in sensor nodes has been proposed in [70]. A trade-off has been ob‐
tained between the accuracy of fault detection and the detection latency by using a multi-objective
optimization technique in there.

3.1.8. Monitoring

Monitoring and identification of moving objects and differentiation between normal and abnormal
events/states for the purpose of surveillance are popular applications of wireless sensor net‐
works [71,72]. For example, the design of intelligent transportation system using sensor network
has been proposed in [73] to detect the regions with vulnerable or dangerous drivers. A multi-ob‐
jective sensor network model has been proposed in [74] for water sensor network design to mon‐
itor the water distribution system of municipalities. The proposed model focused on minimizing
the volume of water from potential contamination, minimizing the expected time of detection and
maximizing the probability of contamination detection. Monitoring of oceanic turbulence is the key
to take preemptive measures for the safe transportation of mass and energy in the ocean and for
the safety of the inhabitants along the costal cities [75]. Airfoil shear probes are the instruments
to monitor and measure the turbulence in the ocean. A multi-objective optimization algorithm has
been proposed in [76] to obtain the critical design parameters of the probe so as to enhance its
sensitivity.

3.1.9. Fabrication

Multi-objective optimization formulation has been used in designing various parameters during
fabrication of biosensor to increase the detection sensitivity. In [77], a design guide for extremely
sensitive photonic crystal biosensor has been proposed. The scheme facilitates the selection of
grating pitch and duty based on the constraints of lithography and measurement system. Photonic
sensors have the potential to replace the traditional electrical sensors due to their peculiar prop‐
erties namely, small size and weight, enhanced sensitivity and immunity from electromagnetic in‐
terference [78]. A multi-objective optimization scheme has been proposed in [79] to design a
wavelength division multiplexing fiber Bragg grating sensor network to simultaneously minimize
the bandwidth of the optical source and the overlapping spectra.

3.2. Multi-Objective Optimization Focussed on Operation Related Problems in WSNs

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 11/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

There are lot of multi-objective optimization schemes which have been proposed for the optimal
operation of wireless sensor networks. Table 3 shows some mathematical formulations of opera‐
tion related objectives in WSNs. In this subsection, we classify the operation related activities into
coverage efficiency, target tracking, energy consumption, monitoring, network life time, reliability
and throughput. Multi-objective optimization related to aforementioned categories of the opera‐
tional activities have been discussed in the following.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 12/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Table 3

Operation related objectives in wireless sensor networks.

s p
energy consumption for the
whole network; ρ represents the
wireless sensor network node
utilization.

[141] Maximize the total throughput, Normalize the first objective

min F = w1 (1 − F1 )
minimize the total transmission ɛ,ρι
,ρs between 0 and 1 and second
power + F2 w2 objective is to reduce the carbon
∑
K

k=1
Ck (15) footprint. Ck represents the
F1 = K

channel capacity of the kth user

max
∑ Ck
k=1

co

for shared band; Cmaxk

E 2

F2 =
CO
Emax

represents upper bound of the

sum-rate capacity Ck; ECO2 is the
CO2 emission; w1 and w2 are
used to create a joint
minimization (or maximization)
objective.

[142] Minimum interrogation cycle, Three stage optimization to

min S
maximum reader utilization, and {p
c,s

i
},{γ
i
c,s
},S,W ,E
(16) single stage optimization
energy efficiency + ξ1 (W + ξ2 E ) problem. ξ1 and ξ2 are constants
which depend on the number of
readers and the maximum
output power; W represents the
RFID reader utilization; E
represents the RFID power
consumption; S denotes the
interrogation circle.

[143] To balance network ∗

Where Q* mean Q optimal value.
Q = max Qi,t+1 (st ,
communication ability and at
(17)
energy efficiency pt )

[144] Operation Where i=1,2,3…,N; bi is the

N

max ∑ bi and min

number of bits; pi is allocated
i=1
i=1
i=1 power per subcarrier.
(18)
N

∑ pi

i=1

3.2.1. Energy Conservation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 13/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Wireless sensor nodes need to increase their transmission power in order to increase signal to
noise ratio and to decrease the bit error rate. On the other hand, increase in transmission power
will compromise the energy conservation, minimization of interference and the life time of the net‐
work. Therefore, multi-objective optimization algorithms are used to obtain trade offs involving
energy efficiency and other conflicting objectives. For example in [39], the authors investigated
the effect of various parameters of energy consumption in nanosensor networks and proposed a
multi-objective optimization formulation to achieve a balance between the energy consumption,
delay and bit error rate. In [80], a multi-objective optimization algorithm has been proposed to
maximize energy conservation and lifetime of the network by using a data aggregation route algo‐
rithm. A trade-off has been obtained between energy efficiency and end-to-end delay by using a
multi-objective routing algorithm in [81]. A multi-objective optimization scheme has been used in
[82] to simultaneously optimize the conflicting objectives namely, energy conservation, lifetime
and coverage. The authors have used a probabilistic scheduling strategy to achieve a balance be‐
tween the two conflicting objectives. A cross-layer mutli-objective approach has been used in [83]
to obtain a trade-off between energy efficiency and packet loss.

3.2.2. Coverage Efficiency

When the sensor nodes are deployed randomly, the number of sensors is usually more than nec‐
essary [84]. Therefore, it is not essential to operate all the nodes in active mode simultaneously. A
proper sensor scheduling scheme is required to keep some nodes in sleep state and others in the
active mode to help ensure coverage efficiency and energy conservation. A multi-objective opti‐
mization formulation has been suggested in [85] to optimize the conflicting objectives of coverage
efficiency, life time and connectivity. The authors argued that the proposed algorithm could pro‐
vide better coverage with the same level of energy conservation as compared to the others.
Maintaining efficient coverage and prolonging the lifetime of wireless sensor networks is one of
the important issues in WSNs. In [86], a multi-objective optimization algorithm has been proposed
to get optimal coverage efficiency and prolonged network lifetime even in the presence of sensing
errors. Pareto optimal solutions have been achieved in [87,88] for finding the balance between
coverage efficiency and the capacity of the network.

3.2.3. Target Tracking

Target tracking in the field of observation is one of the critical tasks performed by the wireless
sensor network. Minimization of number of selected sensors for efficient target tracking has been
modeled as multi-objective optimization problem in [89] which achieved a pareto optimal trade-
off between the number of selected sensors and the accuracy of estimation. A generalized un‐
scented Kalman filter tracking algorithm has been proposed in [90]. The proposed algorithm con‐
sidered energy efficiency and target tracking performance simultaneously by using a multi-objec‐
tive optimization formulation.

3.2.4. Network Lifetime

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 14/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

For the prolonged operation of WSNs, efficient utilization of energy is one of the critical issues. In
[91], a strategy is proposed for the maximization of the lifetime of the network by using a multi-
objective clustering algorithm. To maximize the lifetime, the proposed algorithm controls the en‐
ergy depletion of cluster heads in a way to balance their load which results in prevention of faster
death of highly loaded cluster heads. A multi-objective optimization formulation has been pro‐
posed in [92] which selects the cluster head to maximize the lifetime of the network. Transmission
range of the sensor node can affect the battery depletion and hence the lifetime of the network. In
[93], an optimal transmission range has been searched to maximize the lifetime of the network by
using an ant based heuristic algorithm.

3.2.5. Monitoring

Wireless sensor networks are being used for monitoring and surveillance applications in various
practical scenarios including warehouse monitoring, cargo fleet monitoring, home monitoring, hu‐
man activity monitoring, health monitoring, industrial process monitoring and infrastructure mon‐
itoring [94–96]. A multi-objective optimization strategy has been proposed in [97] for dynamic
monitoring of the bridge. The authors applied the proposed scheme on the dynamic monitoring of
a bridge in Quzhou, China. The experimental results complemented the ideal information acquired
by means of ANSYS simulation. A pervasive health monitoring system using body area sensor net‐
work has been discussed in [98], where authors have suggested an optimal resource allocation
technique for sustainable power supply and guaranteeing the quality of service to support data
streams. Accurate localization of sensor nodes is critical in many applications namely, remote pa‐
tient monitoring, people and goods tracking, environment monitoring and wildlife habitat monitor‐
ing. In [99], a multi-objective optimization algorithm has been suggested to accurately localize the
sensor nodes so as to measure data having more geographical relevance.

3.2.6. Others

In addition to the popular target areas of multi-objective optimization relating to solving different
operational tasks namely, coverage efficiency, network life time, target tracking and monitoring,
there are several other areas which have also been considered. For example in [100], the authors
have used multi-objective optimization formulation to control the green house environment by
tuning the parameters of proportional integral and derivative controller. A framework has been
proposed in [101] for such systems which collect potentially uncertain observations to be applied
to various control actions during each sampling instant. One of the important parts of the this
framework consists of fuzzy discrete event system model of sensor data collection so as to evalu‐
ate and fuse the sensor observations. The suggested technique is applied to a mobile robot which
is assigned a task to follow a predefined path while avoiding any hurdle on the way.

3.3. Multi-Objective Optimization Focussed on Deployment Related Problems in WSNs

Wireless sensor network deployment problem encompasses the determination of positions for
sensor nodes in order to achieve intended coverage, connectivity and energy efficiency while
keeping the number of nodes as minimum as possible [102]. Optimal deployment of WSN guaran‐

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 15/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

tees sufficient quality of service, increased network life time and minimum cost [24]. Table 4 de‐
picts mathematical formulations of some commonly used objectives related to deployment of wire‐
less sensor network nodes. In the following, different objectives related to optimal deployment of
wireless sensor networks are elaborated.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 16/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Table 4

Deployment related objectives in wireless sensor networks.

[145] Maximum coverage with f1 is the net energy consumed and

→
min Y = F ( x )
minimum energy consumption 2nd objective function is
maximize the area of coverage.
= (∑
ɛ
i s
Ei , (24)
NCovp are number of uncovered
∑
p M ɛ N C ovp ) points, which are used to express
coverage; Ei is the energy
consumed by each node i; M is
the total number of monitoring
points; S is the set of sensor
nodes.

[146] Number, position and

N ss

orientation Fs = ∑ (wsi × φ i ) (25) Where

s is fitness
i=0
function; Nss is maximum
number of available sensors; wsi
is weight related to i
simultaneously illuminated
sensors; φi is total angular
interval with i illuminated
sensors.

[147] Bit-Error-Rate minimization, First objective function for bit-

fmin_ber
system throughput error-rate and 2nd Object
log (0.5)−log (P )
Nc 10 10 bei

maximization, power ∑
i=1
1−
log
10
(0.5)−log
10
(10
−12
)
function for throughput. Nc is
=
consumption minimization Nc
number of carriers; Lj is the size
(26)
fmax_tp
transmission frame size in bytes;
L
Nc L +o

O is physical layer overhead; H is

i
i
∑ .(1−P bei ) .Rci
i=1 L +O+H
i

=
.T DDi
MAC and IP layers overhead; Pbei
Nc

is the probability of bit error rate;

Rci is the coding rate; TDD is
percentage of transmit time.

[148] Minimum number of sensor Rc is the communication range of

X×Y

nodes and provide maximum min F1 = ∑ di a node; Rs is sensing range; di

i=1
coverage and connectivity represents the random
X×Y
(27)
min F2 = ∑ 1 deployment of sensor nodes; X
i=1
and Y are the coordinates of a
−(Rc −Rs )
− e particular area.

3.3.1. Coverage Efficiency

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 17/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Optimal deployment of sensor network has been considered in the context of various preferences
namely, coverage efficiency, network life time, energy conservation, efficient monitoring and mini‐
mum node density. In [103], the authors have tackled the problem of optimal deployment while
considering the conflicting objectives of maximizing the coverage efficiency and network life time
simultaneously. A PSO based multi-objective optimization formulation has been proposed in [104],
which have optimized the coverage efficiency and the energy consumption of ad hoc wireless sen‐
sor networks. Maximization of coverage efficiency and minimization of cost through optimal sen‐
sor network deployment has been addressed in [105], where authors have proposed a multi-ob‐
jective optimization technique based of PSO. Optimal deployment of heterogeneous WSN has been
considered in [106] to optimize the coverage, average number of hops and network reliability.
Deployment of WSN for smart grid communication has been addressed in [107] by optimizing
coverage and end-to-end latency. In [108], a technique for optimal deployment of sensor network
has been proposed to optimize the coverage efficiency and lifetime of the network.

3.3.2. Energy Conservation

Owing to the peculiarities of wireless sensor networks, energy conservation or energy efficiency is
one of the most critical objectives and has been tackled at various levels namely, design, operation
and deployment. Various deployment strategies have been proposed in the literature focusing on
the maximization of energy conservation. For example in [9], the authors have proposed an opti‐
mal deployment scheme which considered minimization of net energy consumption along with
other objectives including maximizing the area of coverage, maximizing the network life time, and
minimizing the number of deployed sensor nodes. Energy conservation has been tackled in [109]
through optimal deployment of body sensor network for the objectives of minimizing energy con‐
sumption, minimizing bandwidth and maximizing data yield. Deployment problem of relay node
has been addressed in [110], where authors have proposed a multi-objective optimization formu‐
lation to minimize energy consumption and to maximize the coverage area.

3.3.3. Network Lifetime

There are several research work relating to the deployment of sensor network while considering
network lifetime along with other conflicting or non conflicting objectives. For example, optimal
node deployment has been investigated in [111] to maximize optimal sensing coverage and net‐
work lifetime of wireless sensor networks. In [112], an optimal deployment of sensor network has
been considered to simultaneously maximize network lifetime and coverage.

3.3.4. Accuracy of Measurements

Accuracy of measurements from the sensing area is of paramount importance for extracting any
conclusion from the observed data. Efforts have been made towards acquiring accurate informa‐
tion relating to the area or the phenomena under observation. For example, deployment of opti‐
mal sensor has been addressed in [113] by using a multi-objective optimization technique for si‐
multaneous optimization of the probability of a successful search and the probability of false

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 18/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

search. In [114] a multi-objective optimization algorithm has been suggested for optimal spectrum
sensing in cognitive radio sensor network by achieving a trade off between probabilities of detec‐
tion and probabilities of false alarm.

3.4. Multi-Objective Optimization Focused on Placement Related Problems in WSNs

Wireless sensor network placement problem encompasses the determination of positions and in‐
ter-node distance for sensor nodes in order to achieve intended coverage, connectivity and en‐
ergy efficiency while keeping the number of nodes as minimum as possible. Optimal placement of
WSN guarantees sufficient quality of service, increased network life time and minimum cost. In the
following, different objectives relating to optimal placement of wireless sensor networks have
been discussed.

min imize λ (28)

T
min [f1 (γ) f2 (γ)]
→
(29)
γ Γɛ

where γ⃗ is a sensor placement problem,

fw1,w2 (S, T ) = w 1 ctotal + w 2 ttotal

(30)
min fw1,w2 (S, T )
S,T

3.4.1. Node Density

Finding optimal sensor node density in the field of observation has significant influence on the
quality of observation and the cost of the network. Various multi-objective optimization algorithms
have been proposed in the literature to find the optimal node density along with considering
other objectives that may or may not conflict with it. For example, in [115], the authors have pro‐
posed a multi-objective optimization algorithm to find the optimal quantity and location of sensor
nodes for stay cable damage identification of cable-stayed bridge under uncertainty. A multi-objec‐
tive heuristic localization technique for wireless sensor network has been proposed in [116]
which is based on harmony search algorithm. The proposed approach is focused on minimization
of squared error between the estimated and measured spacing between the nodes and the num‐
ber of connectivity neighborhood constraints violated by the candidate topology. In [117], a multi-
objective optimization formulation has been used to maximize the observations of the smart grid
system while keeping the number of phasor measurement units as minimum as possible. The au‐

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 19/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

thors also considered contingency constraints and optimal allocation of these sensor devices on
utility systems. Simultaneous minimization of the number of nodes and the energy consumption
for wireless sensor network has been addressed in [118] by using a multi-objective optimization
based on hybrid evolutionary algorithm. Optimal sensor network placement for the observation of
water distribution system has been addressed by [119], where authors have proposed a multi-ob‐
jective optimization algorithm to minimize the number of sensors and their optimal placement to
ensure a prescribed reliability level for the network.

3.4.2. Coverage Efficiency

Optimal placement of sensor network has been considered in the context of various preferences
namely, coverage efficiency, network life time, energy conservation and minimum node density. In
[120] a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm has been proposed for solving optimal sensor
placement problem. The proposed approach has been used to maximize coverage, maximize de‐
sired connectivity level and minimize energy cost. Optimal sensor node placement in the field of
interest has been addressed in [121], by utilizing a biologically inspired multi-objective optimiza‐
tion algorithm. The proposed algorithm searched optimal placement of sensor network to maxi‐
mize the coverage and connectivity with minimum energy consumption. Simultaneous optimiza‐
tion of coverage efficiency and network life time has been addressed in [122] through optimal de‐
ployment of sensor nodes.

3.4.3. Energy Conservation

Energy conservation is one of the critical issues due to the peculiar characteristics of the wireless
sensor networks. Therefore, it has been discussed at various levels namely, design, operation, de‐
ployment and placement. A multi-objective optimization algorithm has been proposed in [123] to
find the optimal placement of sensor network while simultaneously optimizing energy consump‐
tion and detection capability. Relay node placement problem in wireless sensor network has been
addressed in [124] by using a multi-objective optimization formulation to search a trade-off be‐
tween the average energy consumption and average coverage.

3.5. Multi-Objective Optimization Focussed on Layout Related Problems in WSNs

Layout of wireless sensor network deals with determining optimal location of sensor node in or‐
der to maximize the coverage, minimize energy consumption and to prolong the life time of the
network. For example in [125], the authors have used a multi-objective optimization technique to
solve the sensor layout problem with the objective of minimizing energy consumption and the
number of nodes while considering the constraint of full coverage. Sensor layout problem has
been addressed in [126] to minimize the number of sensors used while maximizing the quality of
information contained in the measurement data for the identification of structural damage. A
multi-objective optimization formulation has been suggested in [127] for the optimal layout of
wireless sensor network. The proposed approach obtained a trade-off between maximization of
the coverage and the life time of the network. Furthermore, the authors also investigated the im‐

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 20/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

pact of sensing range and communication range on the optimal layout. An energy efficient layout
strategy has been proposed in [128] to maximize the coverage and life time of the network by us‐
ing a multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm.

f1 (x) = Length (x)

f1 (x)
(31)
f2 (x) = Max ({E (xi )} )
i=1

n 2
Coverage = [U R (xi , yi ) /Area]
i=1 Sensor
(32)
Lifetime = min (Tfailure,i ) /Tmax
i=1,…,n

where E() is the function related to consumed energy.

3.6. Multi-Objective Optimization Focussed on Network Management Related Problems in WSNs

Performance of wireless sensor networks can be improved by dynamically managing the settings
of sensor network nodes. The sensor settings which can be manipulated namely, detection thresh‐
old, sensor selection for fusion and specific fusion rule, can influence the measurements of the
sensors. To get the optimal settings of the sensor network parameters, various multi-objective op‐
timization techniques have been proposed in the literature, for example in [129], the authors have
proposed an optimal management strategy to find the appropriate settings of biometric sensors.
In the proposed approach, risk is modeled as a multi-objective optimization formulation with
global false acceptance rate and global false rejection rate as the two competing objectives. An op‐
timal network management methodology has been suggested in [130] through the use of an evo‐
lutionary multi-objective optimization algorithm. The proposed management strategy is used to
maximize the coverage area of the sensor field and minimize the overlapping of the area being
covered by the neighboring sensors.

3.7. Multi-Objective Optimization Focussed on Planning Related Problems in WSNs

Optimal planing of the sensor network is a fundamental issue, both from the effective observabil‐
ity point of view and from the economic point of view [131,132]. Various attempts have been
made to solve the optimal planning problem of wireless sensor networks, for example in [133],
the authors have used a multi-objective optimization algorithm to find trade-off between hard‐
ware cost, coverage, link quality and life time of wireless sensor networks. Radio frequency identi‐
fication network planning has been considered in [134] by using a multi-objective optimization al‐
gorithm to simultaneously optimize the coverage of the radio frequency tag, load balance, eco‐
nomic efficiency and interference.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 21/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

B (Ut ) = ∑ I¯ (X, Zk ) (33)

k=1

4. Relationship between Different Desirable Objectives

Most of the practical scenarios relating to wireless sensor networks are modeled as multi-objec‐
tive optimization formulations where multiple desirable objectives compete with each other and
the decision maker has to choose one of the tradeoff solutions. These multiple objectives may or
may not conflict with each other. Figure 3 elaborates the relationship between different desirable
objectives. Different objectives are connected together with lines having different pattern depend‐
ing upon the relationship between objectives. Red solid line connects the two objectives which
have conflicting relationship, for example, maximization of coverage conflicts with the packet error
rate, delay, network/battery life time and the overall cost of the system. Whereas, the line consist‐
ing of dashes and dots connects the two objectives which have no direct relationship with each
other rather they are design dependent for example, maximization of coverage has not direct rela‐
tionship with the throughput, energy efficiency and the QoS. The supporting relationship between
the two objectives has been shown with line consisting of dashes for example, maximization of
network/battery life supports the maximization of energy efficiency and minimization of the over‐
all cost of the system. In the following, we discuss each objective separately and its relation with
other objectives.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 22/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Figure 3

Relation between desirable objectives in wireless sensor networks (WSNs), where “N/B” = network/battery life;
“QoS” = quality of service; “Cov” = coverage; “D” = delay; “Cost” = total cost of the system; “T” = throughput of the
system; “EE” = energy efficiency; “PER” = packet error rate.

Coverage control or coverage maximization is one of the critical research issues in wireless sensor
networks and reflects the performance of the network in terms of monitoring a field of interest by
properly deploying the nodes [149,150]. Coverage and lifetime of the sensor network have been
jointly optimized in [86] by using a multi-objective optimization algorithm based on memetic algo‐
rithm. The sensor node deployment problem has been considered in [145] to jointly optimize the
two objectives namely, maximum coverage and minimum energy consumption. Coverage, delay
and energy consumption are optimized by using multi-objective optimization algorithm in [151].
The authors argued that the proposed probabilistic network model can achieve a comprehensive
view of the trade-offs that result from coverage, delay and energy. Multi-objective formulation has
been used in [152] to optimize the two conflicting objectives i.e., coverage and cost of WSNs. Like
coverage, packet error rate is another performance parameter which also conflicts with other de‐
sirable objectives. For example in [147], three conflicting objectives namely, packet error rate, en‐
ergy consumption and throughput are being considered. Packet error rate conflicts with the
network/battery lifetime, as increasing the transmit power can reduce the error rate which is de‐
sirable but at the same time it will deplete the battery power more rapidly which is undesirable.
Similarly, the other desirable objectives which conflict with the bit error rate are delay, energy effi‐
ciency, cost and throughput. Whereas, coverage and QoS do not have direct relationship with the
error rate, rather these are design dependent. Maximization of throughput is another desirable
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 23/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

objective which conflicts with packet error rate, cost, energy efficiency, delay and network/battery
life. A multi-objective optimization framework for optimal resource allocation in cognitive radio
wireless sensor networks (CRSNs) is presented in [141] to jointly optimize the conflicting objec‐
tives of maximization of throughput and minimization of total transmission power. In [143], the
authors have proposed a multi-objective optimization algorithm to achieve a balance between the
throughput and energy consumption of CRSNs. Minimization of end-to-end delay is desirable but it
conflicts other desirable objectives including minimization of packet error rate, maximization of
throughput, minimization of overall cost and QoS assurance. Whereas minimization of delay has
design dependent relationship with network/battery lifetime, coverage and energy efficiency.
Trade-off between end-to-end delay and energy conservation has been achieved in [153] by using
heuristic optimization approach, called variance minimizing greedy minimum energy consumption
forwarding protocol. A multi-objective optimization based routing scheme for wireless sensor net‐
works has been proposed in [154] to optimize end-to-end delay, reliability, jitter, interference and
energy consumption. QoS implementation is the desirable objective which conflicts with
network/battery lifetime, delay and the overall cost of the wireless sensor networks. For example
in [138], the authors have proposed a multi-objective routing strategy to find the trade-off be‐
tween QoS and maximizing the network lifetime. A QoS aware geographic opportunistic routing
protocol has been proposed as a multi-objective formulation to optimize QoS and end-to-end de‐
lay in wireless sensor networks [155].

In sensor network optimization formulations, maximization of network/battery lifetime is a desir‐

able objective which conflicts with maximization of coverage, maximization of throughput, mini‐
mization of packet error rate and QoS. Whereas prolonging the lifetime is supported by energy ef‐
ficiency and cost minimization objectives. Network/battery lifetime has no direct relationship with
the minimization of delay. Energy optimized routing protocol based on clustering has been pro‐
posed in [156,157] to maximize the network lifetime and maximize the coverage. The authors
have used multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm to find the trade-off between the
two conflicting objectives. A multi-objective routing protocol has been considered in [158,159] to
simultaneously optimize the two conflicting objectives namely, network lifetime and end-to-end de‐
lay. Maximization of energy efficiency conflicts with the objective of maximization of throughput
whereas it supports the objectives of minimizing cost and maximizing the network/battery life‐
time. For example, energy efficiency and network lifetime have been jointly optimized in [160] by
considering a multi-objective hybrid routing algorithm for wireless sensor network. Whereas, en‐
ergy efficiency is design dependent with respect to packet error rate, QoS, coverage and end-to-
end delay. Finally, the minimization of overall cost is the ultimate objective of any network opera‐
tor but it conflicts with many performance parameters of the network for example QoS, coverage
maximization, delay minimization, throughput maximization and packet error rate minimization.
Whereas, it is supported by the objectives of network/battery lifetime maximization and energy
efficiency maximization. The problem of cost minimization and coverage maximization has been
formulated as multi-objective optimization of sensor node deployment in [161]. Similarly in [162],
the conflicting objectives of cost minimization and delay minimization have been jointly optimized
by using a routing algorithms for hop count based forwarding in WSNs.

5. Constraints Employed While Formulating Optimization Problems in WSNs

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 24/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

In many practical problems, the input parameters can not be selected arbitrarily, rather they are
prescribed by some physical limitations. Different configuration of the input variables can lead to
different nature of optimization problem and can largely affect the output of the optimization.
Figure 4 highlights various constraints which have been considered in the articles mentioned
against each while formulating the optimization problem.

Figure 4

Constraints used to formulate optimization problems in WSNs.

For example, the constraint of ensuring connectivity between different nodes of sensor
network has been considered in [85] while obtaining a trade-off between coverage rate,
percentage of active sensor nodes and unbalanced energy consumption. Connectivity and
coverage constraints have been considered in [134], where authors have used a multi-objective
optimization to achieve a trade-off between coverage, load balance, economic efficiency and
interference. In [163], the authors have used an evolutionary approach to minimize the cost of
the network and maximize the system reliability while considering the constraints of coverage
and connectivity.
Energy consumption is a critical parameter which influence the overall performance of wireless
sensor network and its effective lifetime. Therefore, abundant literature is available considering
power or energy consumption as their design objective or considering it as the constraint while
formulating the optimization problem. For example, in [164], a multi-objective optimization
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 25/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

technique has been discussed while considering the constraint of energy consumption to
maximize the prediction accuracy and minimize the latency. The constraint of energy
consumption has also been considered in [165] , where the authors have proposed a technique
to maximize the the coverage and efficiency of tracking the mobile targets.
Some monitoring or measuring applications of wireless sensor networks require to provide
with real time sensing capability in order to facilitate protection of those persons who are at
risk to potentially harmful environments, including soldiers, first responders, and deep-sea and
space explorers [166]. Some bio medical sensors require low data rate, e.g., heartbeat, blood
pressure and electroencephalogram but the data may be delay sensitive and must be delivered
to the main processor with in some specified time limits. In [42], a multi-objective routing
algorithm has been proposed to ensure QoS for different traffic types while ensuring the delay
constraints. Reliability of information transmission, interference, QoS, radio resource, coverage,
topology, transmission range, number of hops, spatial density, cost and storage are few other
constraints which have been considered in numerous articles while formulating the multi-
objective optimization problem for the optimization of wireless networks.

6. Solution Types/Algorithms

A general optimization problem consists of input variables, outputs, constraints and objective
function. In most of the optimization problems relating to the wireless sensor networks, these con‐
stituent parts can be combined with many different combinations giving rise to many different
types of optimization problems. Therefore, no single solution algorithm exists which can provide
optimal solution to different optimization problems related to wireless sensor network. Figure 5
shows the general classification of solution types to solve different multi-objective optimization
problems which have been elaborated below.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 26/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Figure 5

Different Types of Solution Algorithms.

6.1. Genetic Algorithms

Genetic Algorithms (GA) try to emulate natural evolution process by assigning a fitness value to
each competing solution of the problem and employing the principle of survival of the fittest. The
landmark work of [167], where genetic algorithm was successfully applied to design the sensor
network which precipitated the development of several other variations of GA-based techniques.
For example in [168], genetic algorithm has been proposed to solve the problem of optimal de‐
ployment of wireless sensor network for maximization of the probability of successful search of a
moving target in the sensing field. Genetic algorithm has been used to solve the wireless sensor
network deployment problem in [169] to maximize the coverage, minimize the number of sensors
deployed, maximize the mean weightage of the sensors deployed and minimize the proximity of
target to sensors. In [170], the authors have used genetic algorithm to solve the multi-objective
optimization formulation used to achieve optimal deployment of sensor nodes at the port of entry
for inspecting the containers in order to detect the presence of illegal cargo. Genetic algorithm
based normal boundary intersection algorithm has been used in [113] to solve a multi-objective
optimization problem. The problem addressed the optimization of the sensor field configuration
for the detection of the moving target. A multi-objective optimization technique has been pro‐
posed in [171] for the task scheduling in wireless sensor networks. The authors have suggested to
use the genetic algorithm to achieve a trade off between the makespan, efficiency of task perform‐
ing and lifetime of the network.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 27/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

6.2. Non Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II

Inherently, multi-objective formulations do not result in a single solution which simultaneously op‐
timizes all objectives. Therefore, contrary to the single objective optimization, multi-objective opti‐
mization gives a large number of alternative solutions located on or near the Pareto-optimal front.
Non dominated sorting algorithm II (NSGA II) has the ability to find multiple Pareto-optimal solu‐
tions in one single run [172]. NSGA II has been opted by many researchers to solve various multi-
objective optimization formulations relating to different problems of wireless sensor network. For
example in [173], NSGA II has been used for the topology control. The authors argued that the
Pareto-optimal front can be achieved in order to obtain low power consumption, higher robust
structure and lower contention among the nodes. A compatible control algorithm has been pro‐
posed in [174] for greenhouse environment by using NSGA II. The technique focuses on finding a
trade-off between the minimum energy consumption and higher control precision. In [175], the
authors have used NSGA II to solve a multi-objective optimization problem relating to distributed
detection in wireless sensor networks. The proposed scheme was analyzed and the simulation re‐
sults showed that significant energy savings at the cost of slightly increasing the best achievable
decision error probability. A multi-objective optimization approach has been suggested in [148]
for the optimal deployment of wireless sensor networks. The authors have used NSGA II algo‐
rithm to solve the problem and verified the results through simulation that their proposed scheme
could maintain coverage and connectivity in the given sensing area with relatively small number of
sensors.

6.3. Particle Swarm Optimization Based Algorithms

Particle swarm optimization (PSO) was developed in 1995 [176] which was based on swarm be‐
havior such as fish and bird schooling in nature. Due to its peculiar structure, the intelligence does
not reside in the individuals rather it is distributed among a group of many individuals. PSO has
gained immense popularity in recent years and has been used in several research articles to solve
different optimization formulations. For example in [60], a multi-objective optimization formula‐
tion has been used to obtain energy efficient clustering and routing algorithms for wireless sensor
networks. The proposed algorithm was based on particle swarm optimization approach to achieve
a trade off between network life time, energy consumption, dead sensor nodes and delivery of to‐
tal data packets to the base station. In [91], the authors have suggested to use a multi-tier cluster‐
ing approach using cultural-based multi-objective particle swarm optimization to maximize the life
time of the wireless sensor networks. A cooperative spectrum sensing technique in cognitive radio
network has been proposed in [177] which exploited multi-objective hybrid invasive weed opti‐
mization and particle swarm optimization. This soft decision fusion technique was suggested to
optimize the global decision threshold and weight coefficient vector was assigned to each cognitive
users to facilitate maximization of detection probability and minimization of false alarm probabil‐
ity and overall probability of error at the same time. A dynamic sensor network management tech‐
nique using multi-objective particle swarm optimization has been proposed in [178]. The output
of the algorithm was the selection of sensors, threshold of the individual sensor and optimal deci‐
sion fusion rule. A multi-objective optimization approach for sensor network management
through fitness function design has been suggested in [179], by using a particle swarm optimiza‐
tion. The authors argued that the swarm can be designed to reduce run time for real-time applica‐
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 28/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

tions as well as improving the performance of the system. In [180], a multi-objective discrete parti‐
cle swarm optimization for multisensor image alignment has been proposed to obtain global best
match points. The intermittent fault detection in wireless sensor networks is formulated as a multi-
objective optimization problem [181]. The problem is solved by using a PSO based algorithm to
achieve a trade off between inter test interval and maximum number of tests required to diagnose
the node failure.

6.4. Evolution Based Algorithms

Evolution based multi-objective optimization algorithms use a population based approach in

which more than one solution participates in an iteration and evolves a new population of solu‐
tions in each subsequent iteration [11]. These algorithms are easy to implement and do not re‐
quire any derivative information. Therefore, evolution based algorithms have a wide-spread appli‐
cability and have been extensively used to solve multi-objective optimization formulations relating
to wireless sensor networks. For example in [9], sensor node deployment problem has been for‐
mulated as a multi-objective optimization problem. The authors suggested to use multi-objective
evolutionary algorithm to find an arrangement of sensor node to maximize the area of coverage,
minimize the net energy consumption, maximize the network life time and minimize the number of
deployed nodes while maintaining the desired connectivity level. An evolution based multi-objec‐
tive optimization algorithm has been used in [182] for guarding a central base from enemy at‐
tacks, searching out and destroying enemy units. The authors analyzed the effectiveness of their
proposed algorithm and argued that it can evolve to complete the multi-objective task, each time
with the loss of one sensor. Energy problems in traditional sensor nodes can be solved by using
energy harvesting micro electro-mechanical systems (EH-MEMS). Multi-objective design optimiza‐
tion of EH-MEMS has been suggested in [183]. The authors used evolutionary based algorithm to
find the trade off between energy harvesting capability and the overall volume of the device. An
evolution based approach has been used in [184] to develop a multi-objective optimization formu‐
lation for determining the optimal number of sensors, locating and setting their orientation pa‐
rameters in an amorphously generated 3-D terrain. This formulation has been used to find a
tradeoff between maximizing the observability of the region of interest, maximizing the stealth of
the sensors, and minimizing the cost of the sensors used. In [185], an evolution based algorithm
has been used to minimize energy consumption and to increase life time of wireless sensor net‐
works based on cooperative multiple input multiple output systems. A multi-objective optimization
formulation based on evolutionary algorithm has been used in [186] for maximizing coverage ra‐
tio, minimizing the number of active sensors and maximizing network life time or diminishing en‐
ergy consumption.

6.5. Bio-Inspired Heuristic Algorithms

Bio-inspired algorithms are now among the most widely used algorithms for optimization and
computational intelligence. In this subsection, we review some of the work using bio-inspired algo‐
rithms to solve the multi-objective optimization formulations in order to address different issues
relating to wireless sensor networks. The sensor node placement problem has been modeled as a
multi-objective optimization problem in [145], where authors have used a bio-inspired algorithm
to maximize the coverage and minimize the energy consumption. A bio-inspired based algorithm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 29/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

has been used to solve a multi-objective optimization problem in [93] by finding the optimal trans‐
mission range in order to avoid energy hole problem in wireless sensor networks and to maxi‐
mize the life time of the network. A territorial predator scent marking algorithm has been used in
[121] for the optimal placement of the sensor nodes by simultaneously optimizing the coverage,
connectivity and energy consumption.

6.6. Stochastic Algorithms

Most of the real-life problems relating to various fields require to have the optimization models
and computational solution algorithms that deal with the multi-objective nature and with the sto‐
chastic behavior of the problem simultaneously [33]. For example in [162], a statistically assisted
routing algorithm for hop count based forwarding in wireless sensor networks has been pro‐
posed for the minimization of cost and delay of the network. A stochastic algorithm has been pro‐
posed to solve a multi-objective optimization formulation for wireless sensor networks in [44] for
maximizing aggregate utility and prolonging the network lifetime. In [187], the authors have advo‐
cated to use the stochastic optimization technique for simultaneously optimizing the squared er‐
ror between the inter-node distances and the number of connectivity constraints which are not
satisfied. A stochastic algorithm has been used in [188] to address the problem of tracking multi‐
ple people in a network of video sensors. The authors have proposed a multi-objective optimiza‐
tion strategy by combining short term feature correspondences across the sensors with long term
feature dependency models. The overall objective of the algorithm was to achieve simultaneous
optimization of the local similarities between features along the track for each person and the long
term distribution of the features along that path.

6.7. Heuristic Algorithms

Heuristic algorithm is a solution approach which is based on trial-and-error to achieve reasonably

accurate solutions to a complex problem in a relatively practical time. Abundant literature is avail‐
able in which heuristic algorithms are used to solve the multi-objective optimization problems. For
example in [55], the authors have used greedy heuristic approach to solve a hybrid multi-objective
optimization for simultaneously optimizing the coverage and connectivity of wireless sensor net‐
works. A noisy optimization problem for neuronal signaling in medical sensor-actuator networks
was formulated in [189], where authors used heuristic algorithm to achieve a tradeoff between
signaling latency and signaling robustness. A heuristic algorithm has been proposed in [190] to
solve multi-objective optimization formulation for optimizing sensor queries. The authors have
used the multi-objective technique to minimize the response time of queries and energy consump‐
tion of the networks. A large number of WSNs is usually deployed in the area under observation
and each node has its own set of configurations. Every configuration affects the quality of obser‐
vation significantly. Therefore, configuring the network with proper parameter is critical for the
performance of the network. Since the overall network configurations are huge, exhaustive search
in the configuration space is not feasible. In [191], authors used a heuristic multi-objective search
method to find near optimal configurations. A multi-objective optimization formulation has been
used in [192] for dynamic spectrum allocation in wireless sensor networks. The proposed tech‐
nique has been solved by using heuristic algorithm to obtained a trade off between maximizing
fairness, maximizing spectrum utilization, reflecting the priority among sensor data and avoiding
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 30/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

unnecessary spectrum handoff. A heuristic algorithm has been used in [193] to solve the problem
of optimum design of a dual range force sensor for obtaining high sensitivity, broad bandwidth
and large measurement range. In [194], the authors have used an heuristic algorithm to solve a
multi-objective optimization approach for sensor arrangement in a complex indoor environment.
The optimal arrangement was achieved to maximize coverage rate, minimize interference rate, and
the number of sensors.

6.8. Metaheuristic Algorithms

Metaheuristic algorithms generally perform better than simple heuristics. Any metaheuristic algo‐
rithm consists of two components, namely selection of the best solutions and randomization. The
selection of best ensures that the solutions will tend to converge to the optimality where as ran‐
domization helps avoid the solutions being trapped at the local optima [28]. Lot of literature is
available where authors have used metaheuristic algorithms to solve the multi-objective optimiza‐
tion relating to wireless sensor networks. For example in [195], a metaheuristic algorithm has
been proposed to solve multi-objective optimization problem relating to multi-radio wireless mesh
networks. Metaheuristic algorithm has been used in [151] to solve a multi-objective optimization
framework for achieving optimal performance of wireless ad hoc networks in terms of reliability,
delay and energy spent. In [53], the authors used metaheuristic algorithm to solve a multi-objec‐
tive optimization framework for routing in wireless ad hoc networks. The algorithm achieved a
trade off between delay, robustness and energy consumption. Sensor network layout problem has
been formulated as a multi-objective optimization formulation in [125], where authors have sug‐
gested to use metaheuristic algorithm to solve this problem.

6.9. Fuzzy Logic Based Algorithms

Fuzzy logic is a mathematical discipline developed to present human reasoning in rigorous mathe‐
matical notation. Unlike classical reasoning where a proposition is either true or false, fuzzy logic
establishes approximate truth value of a proposition based on linguistic variables and inference
rules [196]. A common approach to deal with multi-objective optimization problems is to use
weighted sum based cost function which usually is not sufficient to reach the desired solution.
Fuzzy logic uses a fuzzy aggregation operator, namely the ordered weighted averaging [197] as an
alternative to weighted sum approach for dealing with the multi-objective cost function. Fuzzy ran‐
dom variables are used to represent both fuzziness and the randomness of the objectives and
constraints in routing optimization model introduced in [154]. The proposed model was used to
discover the optimal routes, which were the tradeoff among the multiple objectives of delay, relia‐
bility, energy, latency, jitter, communication interference and energy balance. The authors argued
that the proposed method fully utilized the advantages of Pareto optimal solution with the single
run of the algorithm. In [159], the authors have used a fuzzy logic based algorithm to solve a
multi-objective routing problem to simultaneously optimize lifetime and source to sink delay in
wireless sensor network. A fuzzy based thermal management strategy has been proposed in [198]
to control the temperature of a 3-D stacked system integrating cores, memories, sensors and radio
frequency devices. The efficiency of the such a microprocessor system-on-chips is affected by the
temperature. The proposed algorithm used a fuzzy controller to efficiently control the tempera‐
ture without compromising the other performance parameters.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 31/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

6.10. Differential Evolution Based Algorithms

Differential evolution is a solution algorithm to address multi-objective optimization problems.

This technique is based on trial-and-error approach for finding different tradeoffs while dealing
with multiple conflicting objectives. For example in [136], a differential evolution based clustering
algorithm has been proposed for wireless sensor networks to increase the lifetime of the network.
The authors investigated the proposed algorithm and found that its performance was better than
the other existing protocols in terms of network life, number of dead sensor nodes, energy con‐
sumption and convergence rate of the algorithm. A multi-objective differential evolution algorithm
has been used in [199] for the automatic clustering with application to micro-array data analysis.
The authors compared the performance of their proposed algorithm with other state of the art al‐
gorithms specially NSGA II and found that the performance of their proposed scheme was better
than others.

6.11. Memetic Algorithms

Memetic algorithms are computational intelligence structures which also exploit trial-and-error
strategy to find the Pareto optimal solution set. A multi-objective coverage optimization scheme
based on memetic algorithm has been proposed in [86] for the optimization of coverage. The au‐
thors argued that the algorithm could achieve optimal deployment of network coverage while con‐
sidering coverage degree, node utilization, and node residual energy. A multi-objective memetic al‐
gorithm has been presented in [64] for a joint spectrum sensing and power allocation problem in
a multichannel, multi-user cognitive wireless network. Efficient spectrum sensing and power allo‐
cation scheme was designed to maximize the throughput of secondary users and minimize the in‐
terference to primary users in a cognitive sensor network paradigm.

6.12. Miscellaneous Algorithms

In addition to the more commonly used algorithms as discussed in the preceding subsections,
there are many other algorithms which have been used to address different multi-objective opti‐
mization problems relating to wireless sensor networks. For example in [8], a goal programming
approach has been used to solve a multi-objective optimization formulation for maximizing net‐
work life time and maximizing the throughput for multimedia wireless sensor networks. In [27],
Lagrangean relaxation technique has been used to solve a multi-objective optimization based
channel constrained data aggregation routing algorithm in multi radio wireless sensor networks
to minimize the total transmission. Lexicographic optimization based on greedy approach has
been used in [42] to customize the QoS services for each traffic category in body wireless sensor
networks. Game theoretic approach has been proposed in [200] to address a multi-objective opti‐
mization formulation for maximizing the success ratio of key management service and minimizing
the nodes's cost of security and energy. In [201], fast Lipschitz algorithm has been suggested to si‐
multaneously optimize different conflicting objectives in wireless sensor networks. Interval pro‐
gramming has been proposed in [202] to solve the multi-objective optimization problem relating
to sensor network deployment in the marine vehicles. A Bayesian approach has been proposed in
[203] to solve the multi-objective optimization problem relating to the structural health monitor‐

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 32/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

ing sensor network. The proposed algorithm could successfully obtain a trade off between the
cost of the and the accuracy of observation. In [204], a Bayesian approach has been suggested for
optimizing decentralized detection networks. An artificial intelligence based algorithm has been
proposed in [205] to solve a multi-objective optimization formulation relating to route planning of
intelligent transport system employing wireless sensor network.

7. Multi-Objective Optimization in Wireless Sensor Networks: Trends

To show the interest of the research community in the field of multi-objective optimization for
wireless sensor networks, we have categorized this trend into different dimensions.

(1) Focus of research with respect to multi-objective optimization algorithms.

(2) Focus of research with respect to optimization objectives.
(3) Focus of research with respect to nature of optimization problem.

7.1. Focus of Research with Respect to Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms

Contrary to the single objective optimization, a solution to a multi-objective problem is a concept

rather than a definition [3]. Therefore, there is usually no single global solution, and it is therefore
necessary to find a set of solutions satisfying the optimality conditions. Pareto optimal solutions
consist of solutions that are not dominated by any other solutions. A solution X is said to dominate
Y if X is better or equal to Y in all attributes, and strictly better in at least one attribute [12].
Therefore, Pareto optimal solutions provide different trade-off scenarios where none is better
than the other and the decision maker chooses one according to the preferences or specific re‐
quirements. Due to the its characteristics to achieve different trade-off solutions, Pareto optimal
solution approaches are being preferred which is evident from Figure 6. In more than half of the
articles in the literature, Pareto optimal approach has been used to solve the multi-objective opti‐
mization problems. Other commonly used technique is the weighted sum approach. It scalarizes a
set of objectives into a single objective by assigning different weights to each objective.
Conceptually this method is simplest and also widely used but it is affected by the selection of dif‐
ferent weights. The selection of weights depends on the preference of each objective which is de‐
cided by the decision maker [11]. Therefore, the outcome of the approach is highly sensitive to the
choice of the weights. There are few other less commonly used approaches namely, weighted aver‐
age, Pareto archived evolution strategy, normal boundary intersection, weighted Chevyshev norm,
weighted sum of square, lexicographic and epsilon constrained.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 33/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Figure 6

Trend of research community w.r.t. multi-objective optimization techniques. Where, EC = Epsilon constrained, Lex
= Lexicographic, WSS = Weighted sum of square, WCN = Weighted chevyshev norm, NBI = Normal boundary inter‐
section, PAES = Pareto archived evolution strategy, WAVG = Weighted average, WSUM = Weighted sum and PO =
Pareto optimal.

7.2. Focus of Research with Respect to Optimization Objectives

Optimization problems relating to wireless sensor networks can be broadly categorized as design
optimization, deployment optimization, optimal operation, optimal planning, optimal layout, opti‐
mal management and optimal placement. Figure 7 shows distribution of articles corresponding to
the aforementioned optimization objectives. Research community is predominantly inclined to‐
wards tackling the issues of design, deployment and operation related optimization problems. For
example, optimal design of data forwarding protocol has been proposed in [137] to minimize en‐
ergy consumption, uniform battery power depletion and minimize delay. Sensor network deploy‐
ment problem has been considered in [206] with the objectives of coverage maximization, satis‐
faction of detection threshold and energy minimization. A coverage control strategy has been pro‐
posed in [140] for solving the conflicting problems of energy consumption, equilibrium energy
and network coverage in wireless sensor networks. Less frequently tackled problems are related
to planning, layout, management and placement.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 34/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Figure 7

Trend of research community w.r.t. optimization objectives.

7.3. Focus of Research with Respect to Nature of Optimization Problem

In various applications of wireless sensor networks, the desirable objectives including but not lim‐
ited to maximization of coverage, maximization of battery life, maximization of energy efficiency,
minimization of cost, minimization of delay, maximization of throughput and minimization of
packet error rate are formulated by using different optimization formulations. Different practical
scenarios related to optimization give rise to different nature of optimization problem. Figure 8
shows a glimpse of the trend relating to different optimization formulations. It is evident that most
of the desirable scenarios culminate in NP-Hard optimization formulations. For example in [207],
optimization of connectivity, coverage, cost, network lifetime and service quality has been formu‐
lated as NP-Hard optimization problem. The problem of optimal channel assignment to maximize
the throughput, improve fairness and handoff experience of the users have been formulated as
NP-Hard problem in [195]. The other commonly used optimization formulations are combinato‐
rial, non-convex, convex, mixed-integer linear programming, linear programming, non-linear pro‐
gramming, NP-Complete, mixed-integer non-linear programming, integer linear programming and
concave.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 35/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

Figure 8

Trend of research community w.r.t. nature of Multi-objective Optimization (MOO) formulations.

8. Conclusions and Future Work

Optimization problems relating to wireless sensor network planning, design, deployment and op‐
eration often give rise to multi-objective optimization formulations where multiple desirable objec‐
tives compete with each other and the decision maker has to select one of the tradeoff solutions.
These multiple objectives may conflict with each other. For example, maximization of coverage
conflicts with the packet error rate, delay, network/battery life time and the overall cost of the sys‐
tem. Whereas in some cases, there exist multiple objectives having no direct relationship with each
other, rather they are design dependent; e.g., maximization of coverage has no direct relationship
with the throughput, energy efficiency and the QoS. On the other hand, some objectives support
each other; e.g., maximization of network/battery life supports the maximization of energy effi‐
ciency and minimization of the overall cost of the system. Keeping in view the nature of applica‐
tion, the sensing scenario, input and output of the problem, the type of optimization problem
changes. To address different nature of optimization problems relating to wireless sensor network
design, deployment, operation, planing and placement, there exist a plethora of optimization solu‐
tion types.

Due to resource constraints of wireless sensor networks, optimization method that requires rela‐
tively less memory and computational power, and produces acceptable results is highly desirable
in view of implementing it on each sensor node. This article presented a contemporary review of
multi-objective optimization techniques being used to solve different problems relating to design,
operation, deployment, placement, planning and management of wireless sensor networks. We an‐
alyzed the existing literature to show the trend of the research community with respect to multi-
objective optimization algorithms, nature of optimization problems, year-wise optimization objec‐
tives and with respect to research emanating from different geographical areas. We also pre‐
sented a generic resource allocation problem in wireless sensor networks which consists of input
variables, required output, objectives and constraints. A list of constraints are also presented to

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 36/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

give an overview of different constraints which are considered while formulating the optimization
problem in wireless sensor networks. Finally, the article classified different solution algorithms be‐
ing used to solve the optimization problems relating to wireless sensor networks.

Keeping in view the multi facet coverage of this article relating to multi-objective optimization, it
can be expected that this article will open up new avenues of research in the area of multi-objec‐
tive optimization relating to wireless sensor networks. For example, efficient wireless charging is
an open challenge in wireless sensor networks in order to efficiently charge the motes and to pro‐
long the network life time. Similarly, adopting the renewable energy sources to provide adequate
power to the motes can be another challenging task. Prolonged life time coupled with the en‐
hanced processing power can also be formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem.
Similarly, simultaneous solution of security and energy issues also become a multi-objective task.
Therefore, a multi-objective optimization framework can be developed to jointly optimize the secu‐
rity, power, lifetime and the onboard processing capability.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by NSERC Discovery Grants.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

1. Guliashki V., Toshev H., Korsemov C. Survey of evolutionary algorithms used in multiobjective optimization. Probl. Eng.
Cybem. Robot. 2009;60:42–54. [Google Scholar]

2. Zitzler E., Laumanns M., Bleuler S. Metaheuristics for Multiobjective Optimisation. Springer; Berlin, Germany: 2004. A
tutorial on evolutionary multiobjective optimization; pp. 3–37. [Google Scholar]

3. Marler R.T., Arora J.S. Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
2004;26:369–395. [Google Scholar]

4. Coello C.A. An updated survey of GA-based multiobjective optimization techniques. ACM Comput. Surv. 2000;32:109–143.
[Google Scholar]

5. Zhou A., Qu B.Y., Li H., Zhao S.Z., Suganthan P.N., Zhang Q. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A survey of the state of
the art. Swarm Evol. Comput. 2011;1:32–49. [Google Scholar]

6. Coello C.A.C. A comprehensive survey of evolutionary-based multiobjective optimization techniques. Knowl. Inf. Syst.
1999;1:269–308. [Google Scholar]

7. Paull L., SaeediGharahbolagh S., Seto M., Li H. Sensor driven online coverage planning for autonomous underwater
vehicles. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS); Vilamoura-
Algarve, Portugal. 7–12 October 2012; pp. 2875–2880. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 37/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

8. Garcia-Sanchez A.J., Garcia-Sanchez F., Rodenas-Herraiz D., Garcia-Haro J. On the Optimization of Wireless Multimedia
Sensor Networks: A Goal Programming Approach. Sensors. 2012;12:12634–12660. [Google Scholar]

9. Sengupta S., Das S., Nasir M., Panigrahi B.K. Multi-objective node deployment in WSNs: In search of an optimal trade-off
among coverage, lifetime, energy consumption, and connectivity. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2013;26:405–416. [Google Scholar]

10. Tharmarasa R., Kirubarajan T., Peng J., Lang T. Optimization-based dynamic sensor management for distributed
multitarget tracking. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 2009;39:534–546. [Google Scholar]

11. Deb K. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Volume 16 John Wiley & Sons; New York, NY, United
States: 2001. [Google Scholar]

12. Andersson J. A Survey of Multiobjective Optimization in Engineering Design. Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Linkoping University; Linkoping, Sweden: 2000. [Google Scholar]

13. Tan K.C., Lee T.H., Khor E.F. Evolutionary algorithms for multi-objective optimization: Performance assessments and
comparisons. Artif. Intelli. Rev. 2002;17:251–290. [Google Scholar]

14. Watson J.P., Greenberg H.J., Hart W.E. A multiple-objective analysis of sensor placement optimization in water networks.
Proceedings of the World Water and Environment Resources Congress; Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 27 June–1 July 2004; pp.
456–465. [Google Scholar]

15. Alam M.M., Hamida E.B. Surveying Wearable Human Assistive Technology for Life and Safety Critical Applications:
Standards, Challenges and Opportunities. Sensors. 2014;14:9153–9209. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Othman M.F., Shazali K. Wireless sensor network applications: A study in environment monitoring system. Procedia
Eng. 2012;41:1204–1210. [Google Scholar]

17. Silva I., Guedes L.A., Portugal P., Vasques F. Reliability and availability evaluation of wireless sensor networks for
industrial applications. Sensors. 2012;12:806–838. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Zhao G. Wireless sensor networks for industrial process monitoring and control: A survey. Netw. Protoc. Algorithms.
2011;3:46–63. [Google Scholar]

19. Yick J., Mukherjee B., Ghosal D. Wireless sensor network survey. Comput. Netw. 2008;52:2292–2330. [Google Scholar]

20. Akyildiz I.F., Su W., Sankarasubramaniam Y., Cayirci E. A survey on sensor networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2002;40:102–
114. [Google Scholar]

21. Hammoudeh M., Newman R. Adaptive routing in wireless sensor networks: QoS optimisation for enhanced application
performance. Inf. Fusion. 2015;22:3–15. [Google Scholar]

22. Ferentinos K.P., Tsiligiridis T.A. Adaptive design optimization of wireless sensor networks using genetic algorithms.
Comput. Netw. 2007;51:1031–1051. [Google Scholar]

23. Younis M., Akkaya K. Strategies and techniques for node placement in wireless sensor networks: A survey. Ad Hoc Netw.
2008;6:621–655. [Google Scholar]

24. Kulkarni R.V., Venayagamoorthy G.K. Particle swarm optimization in wireless-sensor networks: A brief survey. IEEE
Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part CAppl. Rev. 2011;41:262–267. [Google Scholar]

25. Rault T., Bouabdallah A., Challal Y. Energy efficiency in wireless sensor networks: A top-down survey. Comput. Netw.
2014;67:104–122. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 38/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

26. Martins F.V., Carrano E.G., Wanner E.F., Takahashi R.H., Mateus G.R. A hybrid multiobjective evolutionary approach for
improving the performance of wireless sensor networks. IEEE Sens. J. 2011;11:545–554. [Google Scholar]

27. Yen H.H. Optimization-based channel constrained data aggregation routing algorithms in multi-radio wireless sensor
networks. Sensors. 2009;9:4766–4788. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Yang X.S. Engineering Optimization: An Introduction with Metaheuristic Applications. John Wiley & Sons; New York, NY,
United States: 2010. [Google Scholar]

29. Kurada R.R., Pavan D.K.K., Rao D.A. A preliminary survey on optimized multiobjective metaheuristic methods for data
clustering using evolutionary approaches. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 2013 doi: 10.5121/ijcsit.2013.550. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1312.2366. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Jabbar S., Iram R., Minhas A.A., Shafi I., Khalid S., Ahmad M. Intelligent optimization of wireless sensor networks
through bio-inspired computing: survey and future directions. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2013 doi: 10.1155/2013/42108.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Marks M. A survey of multi-objective deployment in wireless sensor networks. J. Telecommun. Inf. Technol. 2010;3:36–
41. [Google Scholar]

32. Reyes-Sierra M., Coello C.C. Multi-objective particle swarm optimizers: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Int. J. Comput.
Intell. Res. 2006;2:287–308. [Google Scholar]

33. Gutjahr W.J., Pichler A. Stochastic multi-objective optimization: A survey on non-scalarizing methods. Ann. Oper. Res.
2013:1–25. doi: 10.1007/sl0479-013-1369-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Pilát M. Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization: A Short Survey of the State-of-the-art. Proceedings of the Contributed
Papers Part I-Mathematics and Computer Sciences; WDS, Prague, Czech. 1–4 June 2010; pp. 13–18. [Google Scholar]

35. Mezura-Montes E., Coello C.A.C. A survey of constraint-handling techniques based on evolutionary multiobjective
optimization. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature; PPSN IX, Reykjavik,
Iceland. 9–13 September 2006. [Google Scholar]

36. Ghosh A., Dehuri S. Evolutionary algorithms for multi-criterion optimization: A survey. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Sci.
2004;2:38–57. [Google Scholar]

37. Okabe T., Jin Y., Sendhoff B. A critical survey of performance indices for multi-objective optimisation. Proceedings of the
2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation; CEC'03, Canberra, Australia. 8–12 December 2003; pp. 878–885. [Google
Scholar]

38. Jia J., Chen J., Chang G., Wen Y., Song J. Multi-objective optimization for coverage control in wireless sensor network with
adjustable sensing radius. Comput. Math. Appl. 2009;57:1767–1775. [Google Scholar]

39. Mohrehkesh S., Weigle M.C. Optimizing Communication Energy Consumption in Perpetual Wireless Nanosensor
Networks. Proceedings of the IEEE Globecom; Atlanta, GA, USA. 9–13 December 2013; pp. 545–550. [Google Scholar]

40. Masazade E., Rajagopalan R., Varshney P.K., Sendur G.K., Keskinoz M. Evaluation of local decision thresholds for
distributed detection in wireless sensor networks using multiobjective optimization. Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE
Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers; Pacific Grove, CA, USA. 26–29 October 2008; pp. 1958–1962.
[Google Scholar]

41. Konstantinidis A., Yang K. Multi-objective k-connected deployment and power assignment in wsns using a problem-
specific constrained evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. Comput. Commun. 2011;34:83–98. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 39/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

42. Razzaque M.A., Hong C.S., Lee S. Data-centric multiobjective QoS-aware routing protocol for body sensor networks.
Sensors. 2011;11:917–937. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Jayaprakasam S., Rahim A., Kamal S., Leow C.Y., Yusof M., Fairus M. Beampatten optimization in distributed
beamforming using multiobjective and metaheuristic method. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Wireless Technology
and Applications (ISWTA); Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. 28 September–1 October 2014; pp. 86–91. [Google Scholar]

44. He S., Chen J., Xu W., Sun Y., Thulasiraman P., Shen X. A stochastic multiobjective optimization framework for wireless
sensor networks. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2010 doi: 10.1155/2010/43061. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Yang E., Erdogan A.T., Arslan T., Barton N.H. Multi-objective evolutionary optimizations of a space-based reconfigurable
sensor network under hard constraints. Soft Comput. 2011;15:25–36. [Google Scholar]

46. Liao S., Zhang Q. A Multi-Utility Framework with Application for Studying Tradeoff between Utility and Lifetime in
Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2013;PP doi: 10.1109/TVT.2014.237279. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Santamarίa M.L., Galmés S. Multi-objective Simulated Annealing Approach for Optimal Routing in Time-Driven Sensor
Networks. Proceedings of the IEEE 19th International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis & Simulation of Computer and
Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS); Singapore, Singapore. 25–27 July 2011; pp. 458–461. [Google Scholar]

48. Yao X., Zheng X. A secure routing scheme based on multi-objective optimization in wireless sensor networks.
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security; Suzhou, China. 13–17
December 2008; pp. 436–441. [Google Scholar]

49. Liu W., Qin G., Li S., He J., Zhang X. A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm for Energy-Efficient Cooperative Spectrum
Sensing in Cognitive Radio Sensor Network. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2015 doi: 10.1155/2015/58158. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

50. Ö zdemir S., Bara'a A.A., Khalil Ö .A. Multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition for energy efficient
coverage in wireless sensor networks. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2013;71:195–215. [Google Scholar]

51. Kulkarni N., Prasad N.R., Prasad R. MMOHRA: Mobility aware multi-objective hybrid routing algorithm for Wireless
Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Wireless Communications, Vehicular
Technology, Information Theory and Aerospace & Electronic Systems (VITAE); Aalborg, Denmark. 11–14 May 2014; pp. 1–
5. [Google Scholar]

52. Khalil E.A., Bara'a A.A. Stable-Aware Evolutionary Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. Wirel. Pers. Commun.
2013;69:1799–1817. [Google Scholar]

53. Jaffres-Runser K., Comaniciu C., Gorce J.M. A multiobjective optimization framework for routing in wireless ad hoc
networks. Ad Hoc Netw. 2013;11:2147–2171. arXiv preprint arXiv:0902.0782. [Google Scholar]

54. Cheng C.T., Leung H. A Multi-Objective Optimization Framework for Cluster-Based Wireless Sensor Networks.
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery
(CyberC); Sanya, China. 10–12 October 2012; pp. 341–347. [Google Scholar]

55. Martins F.V., Carrano E.G., Wanner E.F., Takahashi R.H., Mateus G.R. Hybrid multiobjective approach for designing
wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of
Wireless and Mobile Systems; New York, NY, USA. 27–30 October 2009; pp. 321–324. [Google Scholar]

56. Jameii S.M., Faez K., Dehghan M. Multi-Objective Energy Efficient Optimization Algorithm for Coverage Control in
Wireless Sensor Networks. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2013;3:25–33. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 40/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

57. Ozdemir S., Attea B., Khalil O. Bio-Inspired Algorithms for Coverage Efficiency Iin Wireless Sensor Networks.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing, Networking and Digital Technologies (ICCNDT2012); Sanad,
Bahrain. 11–13 November 2012; pp. 65–73. [Google Scholar]

58. Valentini G., Abbas C.J.B., Villalba L.G., Astorga L. Dynamic multi-objective routing algorithm: A multi-objective routing
algorithm for the simple hybrid routing protocol on wireless sensor networks. IET Commun. 2010;4:1732–1741. [Google
Scholar]

59. Nanda S.J., Panda G. Automatic clustering algorithm based on multi-objective Immunized PSO to classify actions of 3D
human models. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2013;26:1429–1441. [Google Scholar]

60. Kuila P., Jana P.K. Energy efficient clustering and routing algorithms for wireless sensor networks: Particle swarm
optimization approach. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2014;33:127–140. [Google Scholar]

61. Bai S., He T. Throughput Optimization in Energy Sharing Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the IEEE 10th
International Conference on Mobile Ad-Hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS); Hangzhou, China. 14–16 October 2013; pp. 254–
262. [Google Scholar]

62. Yang S., Mccann J.A. Distributed Optimal Lexicographic Max-Min Rate Allocation in Solar-Powered Wireless Sensor
Networks. ACM Trans. Sens. Netw. (TOSN) 2014;11:1–35. [Google Scholar]

63. Phan D.H., Suzuki J., Omura S., Oba K. Toward sensor-cloud integration as a service: Optimizing three-tier
communication in cloud-integrated sensor networks. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Body Area
Networks. ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering); Boston, MA,
USA. 30 September–2 October 2013; pp. 355–362. [Google Scholar]

64. Dang H.V., Kinsner W. Multiobjective memetic optimization for spectrum sensing and power allocation in cognitive
wireless networks. Proceedings of the IEEE 27th Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE);
Toronto, ON, Canada. 4–7 May 2014; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]

65. Carnero M., Hernandez J.L., Sánchez M.C. Design of Sensor Networks for Chemical Plants Based on Meta-Heuristics.
Algorithms. 2009;2:259–281. [Google Scholar]

66. Tate J., Woolford-Lim B., Bate I., Yao X. Evolutionary and principled search strategies for sensornet protocol
optimization. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern. 2012;42:163–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. Djenouri D., Balasingham I. Traffic-differentiation-based modular QoS localized routing for wireless sensor networks.
IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2011;10:797–809. [Google Scholar]

68. Kadu S.C., Bhushan M., Gudi R. Optimal sensor network design for multirate systems. J. Process Control. 2008;18:594–
609. [Google Scholar]

69. Marcelloni F., Vecchio M. Enabling energy-efficient and lossy-aware data compression in wireless sensor networks by
multi-objective evolutionary optimization. Inf. Sci. 2010;180:1924–1941. [Google Scholar]

70. Mahapatro A., Panda A. Choice of Detection Parameters on Fault Detection in Wireless Sensor Networks: A
Multiobjective Optimization Approach. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2014;78:649–669. [Google Scholar]

71. Field R., Grigoriu M. Optimal design of sensor networks for vehicle detection, classification, and monitoring. Probab.
Eng. Mech. 2006;21:305–316. [Google Scholar]

72. Carapezza E.M., Hintz T.M. Unattended Ground Sensor Technologies and Applications II. Volume 4040 Society of Photo
Optical Instrumentation Engineers; Orlando, Florida: 2000. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 41/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

73. Matzka S., Wallace A.M., Petillot Y.R. Efficient resource allocation for attentive automotive vision systems. IEEE Trans.
Intell. Transp. Syst. 2012;13:859–872. [Google Scholar]

74. Aral M.M., Guan J., Maslia M.L. A multi-objective optimization algorithm for sensor placement in water distribution
systems. Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; Honolulu, HI, USA. 12–16 May 2008; pp.
1–11. [Google Scholar]

75. Kioroglou S., Tragou E., Zervakis V. Assessing shelf mixing using CTD, ADCP, and free falling shear probe turbulence
data. Cont. Shelf Res. 2013;69:73–87. [Google Scholar]

76. Wang Y., Xu T., Wu Z., Liu Y., Wang S. Structure Optimal Design and Performance Test of Airfoil Shear Probes. IEEE Sens. J.
2015;15:27–36. [Google Scholar]

77. Ju J., Han Y.A., Kim S.M. Design Optimization of Structural Parameters for Highly Sensitive Photonic Crystal Label-Free
Biosensors. Sensors. 2013;13:3232–3241. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

78. Allwood G., WILD G., Hinckley S. Wavelength division multiplexing of a fibre bragg grating sensor using transmit-reflect
detection system. Proceedings of the 37th Australian Conference on Optical Fibre Technology; Sydney, Australia. 9–13
December 2012. [Google Scholar]

79. Jiang H., Chen J., Liu T., Fu H. Design of an FBG Sensor Network Based on Pareto Multi-Objective Optimization. IEEE
Photonics Technol. Lett. 2013;25:1450–1453. [Google Scholar]

80. Guo W., Hong W., Zhang B., Chen Y., Xiong N. Reliable Adaptive Data Aggregation Route Strategy for a Trade-off between
Energy and Lifetime in WSNs. Sensors. 2014;14:16972–16993. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

81. Yetgin H., Cheung K.T.K., Hanzo L. Multi-objective routing optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Proceedings of
the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC); Paris, France. 1–4 April 2012; pp. 3030–3034.
[Google Scholar]

82. Sengupta S., Das S., Nasir M., Vasilakos A.V., Pedrycz W. An evolutionary multiobjective sleep-scheduling scheme for
differentiated coverage in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 2012;42:1093–1102.
[Google Scholar]

83. Zogovic N., Dimic G., Bajic D. PHY-MAC Cross-Layer Approach to Energy-Efficiency and Packet-Loss Trade-off in Low-
Power, Low-Rate Wireless Communications. IEEE Commun. Lett. 2013;17:661–664. [Google Scholar]

84. Wang B., Lim H.B., Ma D. A survey of movement strategies for improving network coverage in wireless sensor
networks. Comput. Commun. 2009;32:1427–1436. [Google Scholar]

85. Jameii S.M., Faez K., Dehghan M. Multiobjective Optimization for Topology and Coverage Control in Wireless Sensor
Networks. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2015 doi: 10.1155/2015/36381. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

86. Chen Z., Li S., Yue W. Memetic Algorithm-Based Multi-Objective Coverage Optimization for Wireless Sensor Networks.
Sensors. 2014;14:20500–20518. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

87. Li J., Zeng J., Su X., Luo W., Wang J. Self-optimization of coverage and capacity in LTE networks based on central control
and decentralized fuzzy Q-learning. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2012 doi: 10.1155/2012/87859. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

88. Parasuraman R., Fabry T., Molinari L., Kershaw K., Castro M.D., Masi A., Ferre M. A Multi-Sensor RSS Spatial Sensing-
Based Robust Stochastic Optimization Algorithm for Enhanced Wireless Tethering. Sensors. 2014;14:23970–24003. [PMC
free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 42/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

89. Cao N., Masazade E., Varshney P.K. A multiobjective optimization based sensor selection method for target tracking in
Wireless Sensor Networks. Proceedings of the IEEE 16th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION);
Istanbul, Turkey. 9–12 July 2013; pp. 974–980. [Google Scholar]

90. Hu X., Bao M., Hu Y.H., Xu B. Energy Balanced Scheduling for Target Tracking with Distance-Dependent Measurement
Noise in a WSN. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2013 doi: 10.1155/2013/17962. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

91. Gao W., Zou W., Zhou Z., Du P., Zhang J., Xin H. A Multi-Tier Clustering Strategy for Wireless Sensor Network Longevity
Using Cultural-Based Multiobjective Particle Swarm Optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE 74th Vehicular Technology
Conference (VTC Fall); San Francisco, CA, USA. 5–8 September 2011; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]

92. Wagh S., Prasad R. Maximizing lifetime of wireless sensor networks using genetic approach. Proceedings of the IEEE
International Advance Computing Conference (IACC); Gurgaon, India. 21–22 February 2014; pp. 215–219. [Google Scholar]

93. Liu M., Song C. Ant-Based Transmission Range Assignment Scheme for Energy Hole Problem in Wireless Sensor
Networks. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2012 doi: 10.1155/2012/29071. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

94. Song G., Wei Z., Zhang W., Song A. Design of a networked monitoring system for home automation. IEEE Trans. Consum.
Electron. 2007;53:933–937. [Google Scholar]

95. Wei X., Xijun Y., Xiaodong W. Design of Wireless Sensor Networks for Monitoring at Construction Sites. Intell. Autom. Soft
Comput. 2012;18:635–646. [Google Scholar]

96. Gokce E.I., Shrivastava A.K., Ding Y. Fault Tolerance Analysis of Surveillance Sensor Systems. IEEE Trans. Reliab.
2013;62:478–489. [Google Scholar]

97. You T., Jin H., Li P. Optimal Placement of Wireless Sensor Nodes for Bridge Dynamic Monitoring Based on Improved
Particle Swarm Algorithm. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2013 doi: 10.1155/2013/39093. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

98. He Y., Zhu W., Guan L. Optimal resource allocation for pervasive health monitoring systems with body sensor networks.
IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2011;10:1558–1575. [Google Scholar]

99. Qiao D., Pang G.K. Evolutionary approach on connectivity-based sensor network localization. Appl. Soft Comput.
2014;22:36–46. [Google Scholar]

100. Hu H., Xu L., Wei R., Zhu B. Multi-objective control optimization for greenhouse environment using evolutionary
algorithms. Sensors. 2011;11:5792–5807. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

101. Schmidt K.W., Boutalis Y.S. Fuzzy discrete event systems for multiobjective control: Framework and application to
mobile robot navigation. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2012;20:910–922. [Google Scholar]

102. Bojkovic Z., Bakmaz B. A survey on wireless sensor networks deployment. WSEAS Trans. Commun. 2008;7:1172–1181.
[Google Scholar]

103. Konstantinidis A., Yang K., Zhang Q., Zeinalipour-Yazti D. A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for the deployment
and power assignment problem in wireless sensor networks. Comput. Netw. 2010;54:960–976. [Google Scholar]

104. Xiaoling W., Lei S., Jie Y., Hui X., Cho J., Lee S. Embedded Software and Systems. Springer; Berlin, Germany: 2005. Swarm
based sensor deployment optimization in ad hoc sensor networks; pp. 533–541. [Google Scholar]

105. Wu X., Lei S., Jin W., Cho J., Lee S. Advanced Web and Network Technologies, and Applications. Springer; Berlin, Germany:
2006. Energy-efficient deployment of mobile sensor networks by PSO; pp. 373–382. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 43/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

106. Lanza-Gutiérrez J.M., Gomez-Pulido J.A., Vega-Rodrίguez M.A., Sanchez-Perez J.M. Multi-objective evolutionary
algorithms for energy-efficiency in heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of the IEEE Sensors Applications
Symposium (SAS); Brescia, Italy. 7–9 February 2012; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]

107. Sun W., Wang J. Cross-Layer QoS Optimization of Wireless Sensor Network for Smart Grid. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw.
2014 doi: 10.1155/2014/32706. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

108. Wu H., Zhang Q., Nie S., Sun W., Guan X. An Energy Distribution and Optimization Algorithm in Wireless Sensor
Networks for Maritime Search and Rescue. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2013 doi: 10.1155/2013/72586. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

109. Phan D.H., Suzuki J., Omura S., Oba K., Vasilakos A. Multiobjective communication optimization for cloud-integrated
body sensor networks. Proceedings of the 14th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing
(CCGrid); Chicago, IL, USA. 27–29 May 2014; pp. 685–693. [Google Scholar]

110. Lanza-Gutierrez J.M., Gomez-Pulido J.A., Vega-Rodriguez M.A., Sanchez-Perez J.M. A parallel evolutionary approach to
solve the relay node placement problem in wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Amsterdam; The Netherlands. 6–10 July 2013; pp. 1157–1164. [Google Scholar]

111. Kuawattanaphan R., Kumrai T., Champrasert P. Wireless sensor nodes redeployment using a multiobjective
optimization evolutionary algorithm. Proceedigs of the IEEE Region 10 International Conference on TENCON; Xi'an, China.
22–25 October 2013; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]

112. Pradhan P.M., Panda G. Connectivity constrained wireless sensor deployment using multiobjective evolutionary
algorithms and fuzzy decision making. Ad Hoc Netw. 2012;10:1134–1145. [Google Scholar]

113. Mukherjee K., Gupta S., Ray A., Wettergren T.A. Statistical-Mechanics-Inspired Optimization of Sensor Field
Configuration for Detection of Mobile Targets. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern. 2011;41:783–791. [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]

114. Pradhan P.M., Panda G. Cooperative spectrum sensing in cognitive radio network using multiobjective evolutionary
algorithms and fuzzy decision making. Ad Hoc Netw. 2013;11:1022–1036. [Google Scholar]

115. Hou L.Q., Zhao X.F., Han R.C. Optimal Sensor Placement for Stay Cable Damage Identification of Cable-Stayed Bridge
under Uncertainty. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2013 doi: 10.1155/2013/361594. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

116. Manjarres D., del Ser J., Gil-Lopez S., Vecchio M., Landa-Torres I., Salcedo-Sanz S., Lopez-Valcarce R. On the design of a
novel two-objective harmony search approach for distance-and connectivity-based localization in wireless sensor
networks. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2013;26:669–676. [Google Scholar]

117. Guo X.C., Liao C.S., Chu C.C. Multi-objective power management on smart grid. Proceedings of the IEEE 18th
International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD); Hsinchu, Taiwan. 21–23 May 2014;
pp. 733–737. [Google Scholar]

118. Perez A.J., Labrador M.A., Wightman P.M. A multiobjective approach to the relay placement problem in wsns.
Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC); Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico.
28–31 March 2011; pp. 475–480. [Google Scholar]

119. Aral M.M., Guan J., Maslia M.L. Optimal design of sensor placement in water distribution networks. J. Water Re sour.
Plan. Manag. 2009;136:5–18. [Google Scholar]

120. Chaudhry S.B., Hung V.C., Guha R.K., Stanley K.O. Pareto-based evolutionary computational approach for wireless
sensor placement. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2011;24:409–425. [Google Scholar]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 44/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

121. Abidin H.Z., Din N., Yassin I., Omar H., Radzi N., Sadon S. Sensor Node Placement in Wireless Sensor Network Using
Multi-objective Territorial Predator Scent Marking Algorithm. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2014;39:6317–6325. [Google Scholar]

122. Konstantinidis A., Yang K. Multi-objective energy-efficient dense deployment in Wireless Sensor Networks using a
hybrid problem-specific MOEA/D. Appl. Soft Comput. 2011;11:4117–4134. [Google Scholar]

123. Cheng C.T., Leung H. Multi-objective directional sensor placement for wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of the
IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS); Melbourne, Australia. 1–5 June 2014; pp. 510–513. [Google
Scholar]

124. Lanza-Gutiérrez J.M., Gomez-Pulido J.A., Vega-Rodriguez M.A. Theory and Practice of Natural Computing. Springer;
Berlin, Germany: 2013. A Trajectory Algorithm to Solve the Relay Node Placement Problem in Wireless Sensor Networks;
pp. 145–156. [Google Scholar]

125. Molina G., Alba E., Talbi E.G. Optimal Sensor Network Layout Using Multi-Objective Metaheuristics. J. Univers. Comput.
Sci. 2008;14:2549–2565. [Google Scholar]

126. Raich A.M., Liszkai T.R. Multi-objective Optimization of Sensor and Excitation Layouts for Frequency Response
Function-Based Structural Damage Identification. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2012;27:95–117. [Google Scholar]

127. Jourdan D., de Week O.L. Layout optimization for a wireless sensor network using a multi-objective genetic algorithm.
Proceedings of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC 2004-Spring); Milan, Italy. 17–19 May 2004; pp. 2466–2470.
[Google Scholar]

128. Chaudhary D.K. Application of Multi objective Particle Swarm Optimization to Maximize Coverage and Lifetime of
wireless Sensor Network. Int. J. Comput. Eng. Res. 2012;2:1628–1633. [Google Scholar]

129. Nasir M., Sengupta S., Das S., Suganthan P.N. An improved multi-objective optimization algorithm based on fuzzy
dominance for risk minimization in biometric sensor network. Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary
Computation (CEC); Brisbane, Australia. 10–12 June 2012; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]

130. Sakr Z., Wesolkowski S. Sensor network management using multiobjective evolutionary optimization. Proceedings of
the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications (CISDA); Paris, France. 11–15
April 2011; pp. 39–42. [Google Scholar]

131. Pietrabissa A., Poli C., Ferriero D.G., Grigioni M. Optimal planning of sensor networks for asset tracking in hospital
environments. Decis. Support Syst. 2013;55:304–313. [Google Scholar]

132. Chakrabarty K., Iyengar S.S., Qi H., Cho E. Grid coverage for surveillance and target location in distributed sensor
networks. IEEE Trans. Comput. 2002;51:1448–1453. [Google Scholar]

133. He D., Portilla J., Riesgo T. A 3D multi-objective optimization planning algorithm for wireless sensor networks.
Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society; Vienna, Austria. 10–13 November
2013; pp. 5428–5433. [Google Scholar]

134. Ma L., Hu K., Zhu Y., Chen H. Cooperative artificial bee colony algorithm for multi-objective RFID network planning. J.
Netw. Comput. Appl. 2014;42:143–162. [Google Scholar]

135. Hao J., Wang Z., Yang H., Li Z. Image Processing and Transmission Scheme Based on Generalized Gaussian Mixture with
Opportunistic Networking for Wireless Sensor Networks. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2014 [Google Scholar]

136. Kuila P., Jana P.K. A novel differential evolution based clustering algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Appl. Soft
Comput. 2014;25:414–425. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 45/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

137. Ammari H.M. On the energy-delay trade-off in geographic forwarding in always-on wireless sensor networks: A multi-
objective optimization problem. Comput. Netw. 2013;57:1913–1935. [Google Scholar]

138. Houngbadji T., Pierre S. QoSNET: An integrated QoS network for routing protocols in large scale wireless sensor
networks. Comput. Commun. 2010;55:1334–1342. [Google Scholar]

139. Fazio P., de Rango F., Sottile C., Santamaria A.F. Routing optimization in vehicular networks: A new approach based on
multiobjective metrics and minimum spanning tree. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2013 doi: 10.1155/2013/59867. [CrossRef]
[Google Scholar]

140. Zhou H., Liang T., Xu C., Xie J. Multiobjective coverage control strategy for energy-efficient wireless sensor networks.
Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2012 doi: 10.1155/2012/720734. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

141. Naeem M., Pareek U., Lee D.C., Anpalagan A. Estimation of distribution algorithm for resource allocation in green
cooperative cognitive radio sensor networks. Sensors. 2013;13:4884–4905. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

142. Choi J., Lee C. An MILP-based cross-layer optimization for a multi-reader arbitration in the UHF RFID system. Sensors.
2011;11:2347–2368. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

143. He J., Peng J., Jiang F., Qin G., Liu W. A DistributedQ Learning Spectrum Decision Scheme for Cognitive Radio Sensor
Network. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2014 doi: 10.1155/2015/301317. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

144. Bedeer E., Dobre O., Ahmed M., Baddour K. A Multiobjective Optimization Approach for Optimal Link Adaptation of
OFDM-Based Cognitive Radio Systems with Imperfect Spectrum Sensing. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2014;13:2339–2351.
[Google Scholar]

145. Abidin H., Din N., Jalil Y. Multi-objective Optimization (MOO) approach for sensor node placement in WSN.
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication Systems (ICSPCS); Gold Coast,
Australia. 16–18 December 2013; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]

146. Nascimento A.L., Simõ es A.R., Carvalho F.G.M.D., Alarcó n P.N.D.S. Automatic Satellite Sun Sensors Placement Using
Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm. Proceedings of the IEEE Computational Intelligence and 11th Brazilian Congress on
Computational Intelligence (BRICS-CCI & CBIC); Recife, Brazil. 8–11 September 2013; pp. 402–408. [Google Scholar]

147. Chen W., Li T., Yang T. Intelligent control of cognitive radio parameter adaption: Using evolutionary multi-objective
algorithm based on user preference. Ad Hoc Netw. 2014;26:3–16. [Google Scholar]

148. Syarif A., Benyahia I., Abouaissa A., Idoumghar L., Sari R.F., Lorenz P. Evolutionary multi-objective based approach for
wireless sensor network deployment. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC); Sydney,
Australia. 10–14 June 2014; pp. 1831–1836. [Google Scholar]

149. Wang B. Coverage Control in Sensor Networks. SpringerScience & Business Media; Berlin, Germany: 2010. [Google
Scholar]

150. Mulligan R., Amman H.M. Coverage in wireless sensor networks: A survey. Netw. Protoc. Algorithms. 2010;2:27–53.
[Google Scholar]

151. Jaffrès-Runser K., Schurgot M.R., Wang Q., Comaniciu C., Gorce J.M. A cross-layer framework for multiobjective
performance evaluation of wireless ad hoc networks. Ad Hoc Netw. 2013;11:2147–2171. [Google Scholar]

152. Kumrai T., Champrasert P., Kuawattanaphan R. Heterogeneous wireless sensor network (WSN) installation using novel
genetic operators in a multiobjective optimization evolutionary algorithm. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference
on Natural Computation (ICNC); Shenyang, China. 23–25 July 2013; pp. 606–611. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 46/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

153. Panigrahi B., De S., Panda B.S., Lan Sun., Luk J.D. Network lifetime maximising distributed forwarding strategies in Ad
Hoc wireless sensor networks. IET Commun. 2012;6:2138–2148. [Google Scholar]

154. Lu J., Wang X., Zhang L., Zhao X. Fuzzy random multi-objective optimization based routing for wireless sensor
networks. Soft Comput. 2014;18:981–994. [Google Scholar]

155. Cheng L., Niu J., Cao J., Das S., Gu Y. QoS Aware Geographic Opportunistic Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE
Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 2013;25:1864–1875. [Google Scholar]

156. Li J., Cao B., Li W., Wang W. Energy optimized approach based on clustering routing protocol for wireless sensor
networks. Proceedings of the 25th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC); Guiyang, China. 25–27 May 2013; pp.
3710–3715. [Google Scholar]

157. Abdul Latiff N., Tsimenidis C., Sharif B.S., Ladha C. Dynamic clustering using binary multi-objective Particle Swarm
Optimization for wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of the IEEE 19th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and
Mobile Radio Communications; Cannes, France. 15–18 September 2008; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]

158. Alwan H., Agarwal A. Multi-objective QoS routing for wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC); San Diego, CA, USA. 28–31 January 2013; pp. 1074–
1079. [Google Scholar]

159. Minhas M.R., Gopalakrishnan S., Leung V.C. Multiobjective routing for simultaneously optimizing system lifetime and
source-to-sink delay in wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of the 29th IEEE International Conference on Distributed
Computing Systems Workshops; Montreal, QC, Canada. 22–26 June 2009; pp. 123–129. [Google Scholar]

160. Kulkarni N., Prasad N., Prasad R. MOHRA: Multi Objective Hybrid Routing Algorithm for Wireless Sensor Network.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Wireless Communications, Vehicular Technology, Information Theory
and Aerospace & Electronic Systems (VITAE); Atlantic City, NJ, USA. 24–27 June 2013; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]

161. González-Castano F.J., Vales Alonso J., Costa-Montenegro E., Ló pez-Matencio P., Vicente-Carrasco E., Parrado-García F.J.,
Gil-Castiñ eira F., Costas-Rodriguez S. Acoustic sensor planning for gunshot location in national parks: A pareto front
approach. Sensors. 2009;9:9493–9512. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

162. Rossi M., Zorzi M., Rao R.R. Statistically assisted routing algorithms (SARA) for hop count based forwarding in
wireless sensor networks. Wirel. Netw. 2008;14:55–70. [Google Scholar]

163. Carnero M., Hernandez J., Sanchez M., Bandoni A. An evolutionary approach for the design of nonredundant sensor
networks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001;40:5578–5584. [Google Scholar]

164. Shakibian H., Moghadam Charkari. N. In-cluster vector evaluated particle swarm optimization for distributed
regression in WSNs. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2014;42:80–91. [Google Scholar]

165. Montoya G.A., Velasquez-Villada C., Donoso Y. Energy optimization in mobile wireless sensor networks with mobile
targets achieving efficient coverage for critical applications. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control. 2013;8:247–254. [Google
Scholar]

166. Hanson M.A., Powell H.C., Jr., Barth A.T., Ringgenberg K., Calhoun B.H., Aylor J.H., Lach J. Body area sensor networks:
Challenges and opportunities. Computer. 2009;1:58–65. [Google Scholar]

167. Sen S., Narasimhan S., Deb K. Sensor network design of linear processes using genetic algorithms. Comput. Chem. Eng.
1998;22:385–390. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 47/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

168. Wettergren T.A., Costa R. Optimal multiobjective placement of distributed sensors against moving targets. ACM Trans.
Sens. Netw. 2012;8:21:1–21:23. [Google Scholar]

169. Oh S.C., Tan C.H., Kong F.W., Tan Y.S., Ng K.H., Ng G.W., Tai K. Multiobjective optimization of sensor network
deployment by a genetic algorithm. Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation; Singapore, Singapore.
25–28 September 2007; pp. 3917–3921. [Google Scholar]

170. Young C.M., Li M., Zhu Y., Xie M., Elsayed E.A., Asamov T. Multiobjective optimization of a port-of-entry inspection
policy. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2010;7:392–400. [Google Scholar]

171. Dai L., Xu H., Chen T., Chao Q., Xie L. A Multi-objective Optimization Algorithm of Task Scheduling in WSN. Int. J.
Comput. Commun. Control. 2014;9:160–171. [Google Scholar]

172. Deb K., Pratap A., Agarwal S., Meyarivan T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol.
Comput. 2002;6:182–197. [Google Scholar]

173. Guo W., Zhang B., Chen G., Wang X., Xiong N. A PSO-Optimized Minimum Spanning Tree-Based Topology Control
Scheme for Wireless Sensor Networks. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2013 doi: 10.1155/2013/985410. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

174. Hu H., Xu L., Zhu B., Wei R. A compatible control algorithm for greenhouse environment control based on MOCC
strategy. Sensors. 2011;11:3281–3302. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

175. Masazade E., Rajagopalan R., Varshney P.K., Mohan C.K., Sendur G.K., Keskinoz M. A multiobjective optimization
approach to obtain decision thresholds for distributed detection in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.
Part B Cybern. 2010;40:444–457. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

176. Kennedy J., Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural
Networks; Perth, WA, USA. 27 November–1 December 1995; pp. 1942–1948. [Google Scholar]

177. Das D., Das S. A cooperative spectrum sensing scheme using multiobjective hybrid IWO/PSO algorithm in cognitive
radio networks. Proceedings of the International Conference on Issues and Challenges in Intelligent Computing Techniques
(ICICT); Ghaziabad, India. 7–8 February 2014; pp. 225–230. [Google Scholar]

178. Veeramachaneni K.K., Osadciw L.A. Dynamic sensor management using multi-objective particle swarm optimizer.
Proceedings of the SPIE Defence and Security Symposium; Kissimmee, FL, USA. 16–20 April 2004; pp. 205–216. [Google
Scholar]

179. Osadciw L., Veeramachaneni K. Sensor network management through fitness function design in multi-objective
optimization. Proceedings of the Conference Record of the Forty-First Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and
Computers; Pacific Grove, CA, USA. 4–7 November 2007; pp. 1648–1651. [Google Scholar]

180. Senthilnath J., Omkar S., Mani V., Karthikeyan T. Multiobjective discrete particle swarm optimization for multisensor
image alignment. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2013;10:1095–1099. [Google Scholar]

181. Mahapatro A., Mohan Khilar P. Detection and diagnosis of node failure in wireless sensor networks: A multiobjective
optimization approach. Swarm Evol. Comput. 2013;13:74–84. [Google Scholar]

182. Roach J., Marks R., Thompson B. Recovery from Sensor Failure in an Evolving Multiobjective Swarm. IEEE Trans. Syst.
Man Cybern. Syst. 2015;45:170–174. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 48/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

183. Benkhelifa E., Moniri M., Tiwari A., de Rueda A.G. Evolutionary multi-objective design optimisation of energy
harvesting MEMS. Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC); New Orleans, LA, USA. 5–8 June
2011; pp. 5–8. [Google Scholar]

184. Topcuoglu H.R., Ermis M., Sifyan M. Positioning and utilizing sensors on a 3-D terrain part I-Theory and modeling.
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part CAppl. Rev. 2011;41:376–382. [Google Scholar]

185. Rong W., Pei T.R., Li Z.T., Shen R.M. Multi-objective Evolutionary Optimizations ofWireless Sensor Network Based on
Cooperative MIMO. J. Chin. Comput. Syst. 2013;34:258–263. [Google Scholar]

186. Rafsanjani M.K., Mirhoseini M., Nourizadeh R. A Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm for Improving Energy
Consumption in Wireless Sensor Networks. Bull. Transilv. Univ. Brasov. 2013;6:107–116. [Google Scholar]

187. Vecchio M., Ló pez-Valcarce R., Marcelloni F. A two-objective evolutionary approach based on topological constraints
for node localization in wireless sensor networks. Appl. Soft Comput. 2012;12:1891–1901. [Google Scholar]

188. Song B., Roy-Chowdhury A.K. Robust tracking in a camera network: A multi-objective optimization framework. IEEE J.
Sel. Top. Signal Process. 2008;2:582–596. [Google Scholar]

189. Suzuki J., Boonma P. Noise-aware evolutionary TDMA optimization for neuronal signaling in medical sensor-actuator
networks. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Companion;
Vancouver, BC, Canada. 12–16 July 2014; pp. 329–1336. [Google Scholar]

190. Zadorozhny V.I., Chrysanthis P.K., Sharma D. Sensor Queries: Algebraic Optimization for Time and Energy. Int. J. Distrib.
Sens. Netw. 2008;4:262–284. [Google Scholar]

191. Nabi M., Blagojevic M., Basten T., Geilen M., Hendriks T. Configuring multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for
design-space exploration of wireless sensor networks. Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Performance Monitoring
and Measurement of Heterogeneous Wireless and Wired Networks; Canary Islands, Spain. 27–28 October 2009; pp. 111–
119. [Google Scholar]

192. Byun S.S., Balasingham I. Approximations of multiobjective optimization for dynamic spectrum allocation in wireless
sensor networks. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE); Las Vegas, NV, USA. 9–
12 January 2010; pp. 427–428. [Google Scholar]

193. Jiang J., Chen W., Liu J., Chen W., Zhang J. Optimum Design of a Dual-Range Force Sensor for Achieving High Sensitivity,
Broad Bandwidth, and Large Measurement Range. IEEE Sens. J. 2015;15:1114–1123. [Google Scholar]

194. Lee J.Y., Seok J.H., Lee J.J. Multiobjective optimization approach for sensor arrangement in a complex indoor
environment. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 2012;42:174–186. [Google Scholar]

195. Rezgui J., Hafid A., Ben Ali R., Gendreau M. Optimization model for handoff-aware channel assignment problem for
multi-radio wireless mesh networks. Comput. Netw. 2012;56:1826–1846. [Google Scholar]

196. Zimmermann H.J. Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications. Springer Science & Business Media; Berlin, Germany: 2001.
[Google Scholar]

197. Yager R.R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man
Cybern. 1988;18:183–190. [Google Scholar]

198. Sabry N.M., Coskun A.K., Atienza D., Rosing T.S., Brunschwiler T. Energy-efficient multiobjective thermal control for
liquid-cooled 3-D stacked architectures. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2011;50:1883–1896. [Google
Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 49/50
2/12/24, 1:19 PM Wireless Sensor Network Optimization: Multi-Objective Paradigm - PMC

199. Suresh K., Kundu D., Ghosh S., Das S., Abraham A., Han S.Y. Multi-objective differential evolution for automatic
clustering with application to micro-array data analysis. Sensors. 2009;9:3981–4004. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]

200. Guo Y., Ma J., Wang C., Yang K. Incentive-Based Optimal Nodes Selection Mechanism for Threshold Key Management in
MANETs with Selfish Nodes. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2013 doi: 10.1155/2013/416983. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

201. Fischione C. Fast-lipschitz optimization with wireless sensor networks applications. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control.
2011;56:2319–2331. [Google Scholar]

202. Benjamin M., Grund M., Newman P. Multi-objective optimization of sensor quality with efficient marine vehicle task
execution. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; Orlando, FL, USA. 15–19 May
2006; pp. 3226–3232. [Google Scholar]

203. Marsh P.S., Frangopol D.M. Lifetime multiobjective optimization of cost and spacing of corrosion rate sensors
embedded in a deteriorating reinforced concrete bridge deck. J. Struct. Eng. 2007;33:777–787. [Google Scholar]

204. Kreidl O.P., Willsky A.S. An efficient message-passing algorithm for optimizing decentralized detection networks. IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control. 2010;55:563–578. [Google Scholar]

205. Di Lecce V., Amato A. Route planning and user interface for an advanced intelligent transport system. IET Intell. Transp.
Syst. 2011;5:149–158. [Google Scholar]

206. Kang C.W., Chen J.H. Multi-objective evolutionary optimization of 3D differentiated sensor network deployment.
Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation; Montreal, QC, Canada. 8–
12 July 2009; pp. 2059–2064. [Google Scholar]

207. He D., Mujica G., Portilla J., Riesgo T. Modelling and planning reliable wireless sensor networks based on multi-
objective optimization genetic algorithm with changeable length. J. Heuristics. 2015;21:257–300. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541950/ 50/50