| Literature DB >> 35669657 |
Minggang Yang1, Cuifang Gao2, Junmei Han1.
Abstract
The wireless sensor network collects data from various areas through specific network nodes and uploads it to the decision-making layer for analysis and processing. Therefore, it has become a perception network of the Internet of Things and has made great achievements in monitoring and prevention at this stage. At this stage, the main problem is the motive power of sensor nodes, so the energy storage and transmission of wireless sensor network is imminent. Mobile edge computing technology provides a new type of technology for today's edge networks, enabling it to process resource-intensive data blocks and feedback to managers in time. It is a new starting point for cloud computing services, compared to traditional cloud computing services. The transmission speed is more efficient and will be widely used in various industries and serve them in the future. Among them, education and related industries urgently need in-depth information, which in turn promotes the rapid development of data mining by sensor networks. This article focuses on data mining technology, mainly expounds the meaning and main mining methods of data mining technology, and conducts data mining on sports training requirements from the aspects of demand collection and analysis, algorithm design and optimization, demand results and realization, etc. Monitor the training status and give the trainer reasonable suggestions. Through the processing of the training data mining results and proofreading the database standardized training data, we can formulate a personalized program suitable for sportsmen, reduce sports injuries caused by no trainer's guidance, and open new doors for training modes. Therefore, this paper studies the sensor network technology, edge computing deployment algorithm, and sports training data mining.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35669657 PMCID: PMC9167000 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8056360
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Sensor node structure.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of energy consumption ratio.
Figure 3Wireless communication system model.
Comparison of five aspects of wireless sensor networks and the Internet of Things.
| Wireless communication | Internet of Things | |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | “Things” specifically refer to sensors | “Things” include almost all things that can be connected to the internet |
| Use | Mainly used for information retrieval, generally without feedback operation | Mutual assistance between things and network owners can carry out more complex feedback activities |
| Information sources | Any device and equipment that can collect information | |
| Basic network | No | Internet, telecommunication network, mobile network, sensor network, etc. |
| Thing-to-thing | Object to object, person to person |
Figure 4Edge network architecture based on SDN technology.
Figure 5Computational complexity comparison of algorithms.
Figure 6The influence of the number of edge servers on the average access delay of edge servers.
Figure 7Comparison of network reliability under the constraints of edge server access delay.
Comparison of computational complexity of edge server optimized deployment algorithms.
| Algorithm | Computational complexity |
|---|---|
| EOESPA |
|
| RNOESPA |
|
| KXICA |
|
| RESPA | O(1) |
Experimental simulation parameter table.
| Experimental parameters | Numerical value |
|---|---|
| Number of edge servers | [1, 4] |
| Number of APs | [10, 40] |
| Number of mobile devices | [200, 1000] |
| Average data volume of service requests | [20, 100]KB |
| AP failure probability | [0.05, 0.08] |
| Link failure probability | [0.02, 0.08] |
| Network attachment rate | 2 |
| AP maximum data transmission rate | 1.0 Gbps |
Comparison of computational complexity of optimized deployment algorithms.
| Algorithm | Computational complexity |
|---|---|
| OESDA | 0(| |
| LAHSDA |
|
| CEHSDA | 0( |
| SEHSDA | 0( |
| GSDA | 0( |
Network topology settings.
| Topology | Number of nodes | Number of links |
|---|---|---|
| Spiraliglit | 15 | 16 |
| Sago | 18 | 17 |
| Noel | 19 | 25 |
| Shentel | 28 | 35 |
| Missouri | 67 | 83 |
Figure 8Data mining step diagram.