PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 27, 2026Electronics0 citationsOpen Access

Graph Neural Network Pipeline for Capacity-Constrained Connected Monitor Placement in IoT-Enabled Wireless Sensor Networks

View Full Paper
EUEge Erberk UsluMKMiray KolZDZüleyha Akusta Dağdevıren

Key Points

  • To develop a learning-based framework for the minimum weighted connected capacitated vertex cover in IoT-enabled wireless sensor networks.
  • Implemented a three-stage pipeline combining supervised graph neural networks, feasibility repair, and local search.
  • Compared twelve graph neural network architectures under unified standards across 309 benchmark instances using 5-fold cross-validation.
  • Ensured feasibility through a deterministic repair module.
  • Achieved 100% feasible covers across all evaluated instances.
  • GIN reached parity with the state-of-the-art hybrid genetic algorithm with a mean gap of −0.37%.
  • Statistical tests indicated significant performance differences across the neural network architectures (Friedman χ2=93.05, p<10−4).

Abstract

Securing IoT-enabled wireless sensor network links requires selecting a minimum-cost set of connected monitor nodes that observes every link while satisfying capacity constraints, a problem known as the minimum weighted connected capacitated vertex cover (MWCCVC). To the best of our knowledge, this work introduces the first learning-based framework for the MWCCVC through a three-stage pipeline that combines supervised graph neural networks, feasibility repair, and local search. We compare twelve graph neural network architectures, including graph convolutional network, graph attention network, GraphSAGE, Graph Isomorphism Network (GIN), and GraphTransformer, under unified features, loss functions, and hyperparameter tuning. Throughout the evaluation on 309 benchmark instances under a 5-fold cross-validation protocol, feasibility is guaranteed by the deterministic repair module instead of being learned by the network, resulting in 100% feasible covers across all evaluated instances. At the large scale, GIN, GraphSAGE, DeeperGIN, and EdgeAwareGIN reach parity with the state-of-the-art hybrid genetic algorithm (HGA), with GIN attaining a mean gap of −0.37% (a difference of less than one percentage point) while completing in seconds instead of HGA’s hours. Statistical tests across the full 309-instance benchmark confirm significant differences between the architectures, with Friedman χ2=93.05, p<10−4. The best-performing architectures remain within about 2% of HGA on small- and medium-scale instances, where HGA is near-optimal, and become the preferred choice at the large scale, mainly because their wall-clock time is much shorter than HGA’s at the same solution quality.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Uslu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a168b280c924ddd1bd5a191https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics15112293
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper