Skip to main content

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Collaborative communication and computational design for energy-efficient edge based learning network

This article was retracted on 13 May 2024

This article has been updated


In this paper, the potential for conserving energy has been used inside the collaborative network. The purpose of this work is to examine a model of a collaborative mobile cloud with the objective of lowering the total energy consumption of network nodes. This model is made up of many different network nodes, all of which collaborate with one another to build the network. We performed a theoretical examination into the quantity of energy that is used by the nodes when they are functioning as part of the network. In addition, a user grouping and scheduling-based system was established in order to establish when and how users should participate in the creation of the network. This was done so that the system could identify when and how users should contribute to the construction of the network. The proposed methodology took into consideration both the user and the base station components, and it made an effort to strike a balance between reducing the amount of energy that was consumed and ensuring that everyone was treated in an equitable manner. Even with higher delay values, the collaborative method may minimise energy use. The suggested approach uses slower but more energy-efficient nodes by increasing the allowable latency, which reduces energy usage and benefits from the diversity of nodes. The results of the simulation are presented by our proposed method from the perspective of user fairness as well as presenting the advantages of conserving energy that are associated with employing the collaborative strategy.

1 Introduction

Our day-to-day activities and way of life are both being impacted by the proliferation of high-speed wireless networks and smartphone technologies [1,2,3]. People tend to spend more time online as a direct result of the proliferation of online services. However, high-data-rate services are putting a burden on the network and making it more difficult for device batteries to last as long as they formerly did. The price of high-data-rate services is often higher, therefor the mobile applications provide shared content to a group of nodes that are connected to one another over a wireless network [4]. In order to get around the wireless capacity bottleneck and benefit from high-data-rate mobile services, the architecture of the network has to be creative while still being efficient with energy use. Research on wireless communication technology is increasingly concentrating on “green communications development”, which refers to the process of developing communication infrastructures, protocols, devices, and services that are more efficient in their use of energy [5]. The nodes are able to move material and information, in addition to communicating with one another via messaging and other kinds of communication. This is one method for lowering the amount of energy used by nodes and the network [6]. We do an analysis on a wireless network that consists of \(k\) nodes all linked to the same base station, also known as a gateway. Nodes are any devices in a network that are capable of local computation and can establish a wireless connection with an access point [7]. Some further applications include mobile crowd sensing, fog computing, and wireless distributed systems [8, 9].

In the system that is proposed, the BS has the option of either unicasting the content to each node or user on a dedicated channel at a rate that is based on the circumstances of their channels or multicasting it once at a rate that is restricted by the conditions of the channel that is considered to be the poorest. The message delivery rate in each scenario is determined by the channel conditions that are expected to be the worst. In a typical configuration, the BS either broadcasts the whole message through multicast to all users and nodes that are asking about it or distributes the content in its entirety via individual streams to each node that makes a request for it. Each network communication interface has to be operational for the whole of the time it takes to receive the message, which might vary. Processing in RF and baseband during data receipt consumes a significant amount of additional energy. In this particular instance, making use of the transmission between network nodes helps to lower overall energy use. Each individual who was chosen receives a different portion of the relevant material. The transmission overhead may be reduced using energy-efficient wireless technologies. This includes the capability of multicasting. We work on the assumption that building a wireless network using wireless connections is going to be more energy efficient than using wireless links. The development of algorithms for grouping and scheduling is our primary focus. Our goal is to work together to establish the most effective network coalition and user selection to implement within each scheduling interval in order to reduce the amount of energy that the network requires while it is being developed.

1.1 Method and materials

The presence of a central network controller makes it relatively simple to synchronise the signals that are being received in communications systems that make use of fixed antenna arrays. This makes it possible to more efficiently process incoming data. This is made feasible by the fact that the central controller is aware not only of the precise position of each transmitter node but also of the distance that separates each of them from one another. This makes it possible for the central controller to perform the actions described above. Because synchronising the receiving signal in such systems makes it possible to obtain a sizeable increase in the quantity of power that is received while simultaneously achieving considerable reductions in the amount of energy used.

Because we do not currently own a centralised network controller, it is probable that we may be required to conduct our network operations in a shared environment. This article describes a system that is based on cooperation and claims that it is still capable of accomplishing significant improvements in energy consumption. The system is shown as having the potential to save a significant amount of energy. Figure 1 illustrates an example of a cooperative network environment, coupled with a thorough portrayal of a theoretical model for the situation involving \(k\) collaborating nodes. It seems to indicate that the signal coming from the collaborative node that is situated the furthest away comes later than the signal coming from the collaborative node that is placed the closest.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The structure of network environment with collaborative nodes

In this paper, an energy consumption model for multi-transmitter systems, often known as collaborative communication, is built. It shows the advantages of using several transmitters and explains how using numerous transmitters may result in a decrease in the amount of energy that is spent. Using numerous transmitters may result in a reduction in the amount of energy that is used.

The benefits that come with using an energy consumption model for multi-transmitter systems are often due to collaborative communication. Collaborative communication may assist to boost the energy efficiency of wireless networks by lowering the amount of energy that is needed by each transmitter. As a result, wireless networks may become more efficient in their use of power. This is because the transmitters may divide and conquer the task of data transmission, potentially reducing overall power consumption. By enhancing data redundancy, collaborative communication has the potential to increase the stability of wireless networks. As an additional use, it may assist in making wireless networks more trustworthy. Because the data is conveyed through many transmitters, the receiver will still obtain the information even if one of the transmitters fails.

Wireless networks' capacity to scale when more nodes are added may be enhanced via cooperative communication. The potential for further network growth is increased. Sharing the data transmission load across the transmitters also allows the network to support more nodes without increasing its overall power usage. This is because it is possible for the transmitters to divide up the data transmission burden. By reducing the power requirements of individual transmitters, cooperative communication has the potential to improve the overall efficiency of wireless networks. As a result, wireless networks may become more efficient in their use of power. This is because the transmitters may divide and conquer the task of data transmission, potentially reducing overall power consumption. For example, if there are two transmitters that are sending out the same data, those transmitters may work together to synchronise their broadcasts so that they are not sending out their signals at the same time. Because of this, the transmitters won't have to send signals for as long, which should result in a decrease in the total amount of energy that is used. When compared to more conventional methods of wireless networking, collaborative communication has the potential to provide a number of distinct benefits including greater energy efficiency, higher dependability, and enhanced scalability.

When creating these models, it is vital to take into account a broad variety of aspects at a number of different stages of the development process. This includes the total amount of energy that is used, the distance that separates the transmitters and the base station, and the quantity of energy that is used up while the network circuit is in operation. For the goal of conducting research and analysis on the suggested system, we have, within the scope of this article, carried out the Monte Carlo simulation that is carried out inside MATLAB®.

The remaining work is arranged as follows. Section 2 presents literature review, Sect. 3 discusses the system model and energy consumption model. Section 4 displays simulation and Sect. 5, concludes this paper.

2 Literature review

Sensor nodes, sensors, and collaborative nodes are all terms used to describe individual nodes in a wireless network, which might number in the hundreds or thousands are used in variety of application [10]. However, wireless network has its own challenges, such as resource constraint, notably limited power source [11]. It is sometimes hard to refresh or replace the power/energy supply of a sensor node in random deployments for monitoring tough conditions like a battlefield or a volcanic region. As a result, creating a means of communication for such gadgets is more difficult than ever. Numerous methods have been developed over the years to optimise the energy consumption of WSN in an effort to save its power source and extend the network's overall lifespan [12,13,14,15]. An effective strategy is multihop communication, in which a signal is sent from one sensor node to the next that is in closer proximity to the base station [16]. This method is great for conserving electricity since it stops the sensor from broadcasting over long distances. Each node must relay the signal it has picked up to its nearby neighbour. However, if a single hop along the multihop network fails, the whole message must be resent. Every node along the multihop route, not only the one initiating the retransmission, experiences an increase in power consumption as a result of the retransmission. In addition, it adds unnecessary cost to long-distance routing [17]. Cooperative communication, which employs the idea of spatial diversity to fight against channel fading and interference through wireless broadcast advantage, has emerged to overcome such limitations. Cooperation between sensors may be achieved by a number of different strategies [18, 19]. These methods succeed when there is perfect synchronisation in the convergence communication but fail otherwise. It also has a number of additional problems, such as difficult scheduling, high costs, unwanted interference, heavy traffic, etc.

Collaborative communication is a relatively new concept in wireless network that aims to improve energy efficiency [20]. In this mode of transmission, several transmitter nodes act as a single node with numerous antennas attached, each sending the identical data to the same receiver. It has been discovered that cooperative communication leads to improved results in terms of received power, energy efficiency, system capacity, and bit error rate (BER) [21]. Constructive interference may result from cooperative communication even if the received signals are only partially synchronised as a result of the synchronisation procedure [22]. In contrast to earlier approaches, which generally addressed the channel as a single route, this study uses collaborative Communication to examine energy efficiency in wireless networks when the channel has the impact of multipath scattering and fading [23, 24].

In traditional multicast, each user equipment or node can downloads the whole content. A mobile content-sharing network has gained popularity in recent months. This study has focused on reducing energy usage [25,26,27,28,29], increasing system throughput [30], or reducing communication costs [31]. Authors in [32, 33] developed wireless dispersed computing network power-saving methods. These contributions focused on power-saving computers, not communication. Authors in [34] proposed the framework and examined the energy-saving potential of mobile cloud. In [35], authors studied the energy efficiency of multicast and unicast transmission techniques in the mobile cloud. The connection between base station and user has seldom been considered in previous research. Mobile devices cannot process or store data due to the high latency of in a wireless network. If the nodes are too weak or message is too big for a single node's memory, the latency limit may not be met.

The Map-Reduce distributed computing architecture [36] is a collaborative computing platform that overcomes these restrictions. The base station (BS) acts as the network's edge and each node computes locally. It may also choose not to employ a third-party computing paradigm in some apps for privacy reasons. Like [36], the study uses distributed computing and problem formulation. Our model assumes computationally and telepathically varied nodes and incorporates a delay restriction. In [37,38,39,40], the authors discuss the trade-off between computational and communication overhead in wireless distributed computing due to teamwork. In this work, the collaborative-computing strategy optimises node energy usage while meeting latency constraints. Due to delay and wireless device energy constraints, this adjustment was made. The proposed wireless collaborative computing method also includes energy efficiency. We'll assume the access point (AP) coordinates collaboration throughout this research since it knows all the nodes' channel state information and computing capabilities.

3 Proposed methodology: collaborative computing framework

This section provides an explanation of the collaborative computing paradigm that was used in this paper. This work also presents the calculation of the amount of time and effort used throughout each step of the collaborative communication.

3.1 Collaborative communication: the computational model

In accordance with the Map-Reduce architecture [36], the nodes are distributed in the network evenly with total \(k\) nodes. First, we make the assumption that the network \(N\) may be randomly split into \(i\) smaller networks (minimum one for each node) of size \(N_{k} \in k \ge 0\) in such a way that \(N_{k} \cap N_{l} = \phi\) for all \(k = l\) and \(N = \bigcap\nolimits_{i = 1}^{k} {N_{i} }\). This will allow us to proceed with the next step of our analysis. We do not take into account the amount of energy and time required to send \(N_{k}\) from the access point to node \(k\). We also make the assumption, for the purpose of making it feasible for the nodes which are operating together, that the local node data \(\left\{ {data_{i} } \right\}_{i = 1}^{k}\) were communicated across all of the nodes through the AP in an earlier phase, which we overlook in this study due to the assumption that \(data_{i}\) is expected to be on the lower end of the spectrum.

During the first phase of the Map-Reduce architecture, known as the Map phase, each node \(k\) computes the intermediate values \(data_{k,l} = g_{k} \left( {data_{l} ,N_{k} } \right), l \in \left[ k \right]\), where the map function is \(g_{k} : \left[ {0, 1} \right]^{{data_{i} }} \times \left[ {0, 1} \right]^{{\left( {\frac{{data_{k} }}{l}} \right)^{T} }}\) on that is being carried out at node \(k\). In the Reduce phase, the values calculated by each node k are lowered. The size is in bits, of the intermediate values generated at node \(k\) should roughly correlate to the size of \(data_{k}\) has. This results in intermediate values being calculated at every node k for the other nodes, i.e. \(a_{k.l}\) \(\forall l \ne k\)) as well as for \(data_{k}\) by making use of the portion \(N_{k}\) of \(N\) that it got from the AP. These values are compared to one another.

In the shuffle phase nodes exchange intermediate values. This paper is based on tractability to build the collaborative computing framework. There is no reliable energy model for coding processes [37,38,39,40]. During this streamlined version of the Shuffle phase, each node \(k\) will send the intermediate values \(data_{k.l} = g_{k} \left( {data_{l} ,N_{k} } \right)\) to node \(l\) over the AP. This will be the case \(\forall l \ne k\). Therefore, it is necessary for node \(k\) to send the AP \(\left( {k - 1} \right)\left( {data_{l,k} /l} \right)T\) bits of the intermediate values. At the end, during the Reduce phase, each node \(l\) combines the \(T\) bits of the intermediate values such that

$$\phi \left( {data_{l} ,N} \right) = h(g_{1} \left( {data_{l} ,N_{1} } \right),g_{2} \left( {data_{l} ,N_{2} } \right), \ldots ,g_{k} \left( {data_{l} ,N_{k} } \right)$$

where \(h: \left[ {0, 1} \right]^{T} \to \left[ {0, 1} \right]^{O}\). The \(O\) operator performs the Reduce function.

3.2 Two phase computational model

It is possible to calculate the amount of energy that a node consumes when participating in collaborative communication by taking into consideration the amount of power that a node utilises in order to transmit data is referred to as the transmission power of the node, the distance that separates the node and the node that is receiving the data is referred to as the distance between the node and the receiver, the pace at which the data is being sent via the connection is referred to as the data rate of the transmission and the period of time that the data is really being conveyed is referred to as the duration of the transmission.

The total energy efficiency of a node may be determined during collaborative communication by using the amount of energy that is used as well as the amount of time that is spent doing the computational work.

The nodes are required to carry out computing during the collaborative communication stages. A computing paradigm is employed in this study which is based in node energy [30]. Assume that the amount of energy that is used up during packet communication at node \(k\) is denoted by the symbol \(Energy_{k}\), and the number \(C_{k}\) indicates the number of cycles that are necessary to process one bit of input data during both the computing phases, i.e. \(Energy_{k}^{1}\) denotes the energy used to transmit the data at node \(k\) (Map phase) and \(Energy_{k}^{2}\) is energy used in vice-versa communication (i.e. Reduce phase). The energy formulas are written as,

$$Energy_{k}^{1} = \left( {kdata_{i} + data_{l,k} } \right)C_{k} P_{k}$$
$$Energy_{k}^{2} = TC_{k} P_{k}$$

It is used to calculate the quantities of energy that are used up at node \(k\) during collaborative communication. Next, assuming that the number of packets that occur per second at node \(k\) is denoted by \(n_{k}\), we can calculate the amounts of time necessary for the both computational phases using the following formulas:

$$t_{k}^{1} = \frac{{\left( {kdata_{i} + data_{l,k} } \right)C_{k} }}{{n_{k} }}$$
$$t_{k}^{2} = \frac{{TC_{k} }}{{n_{k} }}$$

When we utilise the variable \(C_{k}\), it is already possible to see that we have the ability to exercise control over the amount of time and energy that is used up at node \(k\) while the computing phases are in process. This is visible when we see that we are able to see that we have the capacity to exercise control over the amount of time and energy that is used up at node \(k\). This is the situation as a result of the fact that we have the ability to choose how much time and effort is spent. On the other hand, we have no influence whatsoever on the amount of time or energy that is used by the various steps of computing, and as a result, we are unable to alter any of those factors. As a direct result of this, in addition to the fact that the first computational phase has to be finished before the second phase can get under way, the second phase cannot get under way until the first phase is finished. The amount of time that is available for the various phases of computation is equal to \(T - (\mathop {\max }\limits_{k} t_{k}^{2} ) - t_{k}^{1}\). To put this another way, the slowest node in the network is the one that is responsible for limiting the amount of time that is available during the collaborative communication by the amount of time that is required for the phase-2 computation at that node. This is because the slowest node in the network is the one that has the most work to do.

3.3 Transmission of information from nodes to AP

Nodes will exchange interim values over the AP during Shuffle. The exchange involves uplink and downlink communications from the nodes to the AP. However, most applications have greater downlink rates than uplink rates. As a result of this, we do not take into account the amount of time necessary for the downlink connection in our work.

The connection between the base station and the node is known as the downlink connection, and the amount of time it takes for the data to be transmitted depends on a number of different factors like the distance between the base station and the node, the data rate of the transmission, and the congestion on the network. A downlink connection is not necessarily required for collaborative communication. For instance, if the nodes are located in close enough proximity to one another, they will be able to interact with one another directly rather than using the base station. In this scenario, the author would not need to take into consideration the downlink connection since it would not be utilised. It is possible that the sender made the decision to centre their attention on the amount of energy used by the nodes during the collaborative communication.

We make the assumption that all of the nodes are able to interact with the AP in a way that is orthogonal to themselves. We also assume the standard assumption that the channel coherence time is longer than the allowable delay, which we denote by the symbol. Let us assume that \({\mathbb{C}}\) denote the wireless link directed from the node \(k\) to the AP. The communication bandwidth will be denoted as \(B\). The noise power \(\sigma^{2}\) at the AP has bandwidth \(B\), and \(\Gamma\) SNR gap. The formula for calculating the maximum feasible uplink rate of node \(k\) is as follows

$$rate_{uplink} \left( {data_{k} } \right) = Blog_{2} \left( {\frac{{1 + data_{k} \left| {\mathbb{C}} \right|^{2} }}{{\Gamma \sigma^{2} }}} \right)$$

Figure 2 plots data rate variation \(\left( {rate_{uplink} \left( {data_{k} } \right)} \right)\) with number of nodes \(\left( k \right)\). The amount of time that is necessary for node \(k\) to send the \(\left( {k - 1} \right)\left( {\frac{{data_{l,k} }}{l}} \right)T{ }\) bits of intermediate values to the AP may be calculated using the formula

$$t_{k} = \frac{{\alpha \cdot data_{l,k} }}{{rate_{uplink} \left( {data_{k} } \right)}}$$

where \(\alpha = \frac{{\left( {k - 1} \right)T}}{l}\) has been specified for the purpose of simplifying the notation. Then, using the definition of gamma function [30] we define \(f\left( x \right) = \sigma^{2} \Gamma \left( {2^{\frac{x}{B}} - 1} \right)\), and the energy consumed at node k to transport intermediate values is given by

$$Energy_{total} = data_{k} t_{k} = \frac{{t_{k} }}{{\left| {\mathbb{C}} \right|^{2} }}f\left( {\alpha \cdot \frac{{data_{l,k} }}{{t_{k} }}} \right)$$
Fig. 2
figure 2

Data rate variation \(\left( {rate_{uplink} \left( {data_{k} } \right)} \right)\) with number of nodes \(\left( k \right)\)

The entire quantity of energy that was used may now be calculated as a result of this. Because of this, we are able to have some degree of influence on the amount of time and energy that is spent at node \(k\) during the shuffling phase. In this paper we use a technique for shuffling the data is called a shuffle algorithm, and it is a way for randomising the data. The network has the ability to choose the criteria that are most relevant to their application and then tailor the optimisation of the shuffle phase to meet their needs. The network may save both energy and time by perfecting the optimisation of the shuffle step, which, in turn, can increase the overall performance.

3.4 Energy efficient collaborative scheduling

In the algorithm that we have presented, both the base station and the users are engaged in making decisions on when users should participate and which users should participate. As part of this plan, the BS will first be given a candidate list, and then it will schedule users drawn from that list to get packages depending on predetermined criteria. This scheme will begin with the BS obtaining the candidate list.

3.4.1 Grouping of network nodes

In order ensure that the distribution of a single data component uses the least amount of energy possible we make use of a routing algorithm that takes into consideration the amount of energy that is used by each connection. We utilise a network architecture that reduces the amount of time spent travelling between different nodes as much as possible.

In order to keep the minimum amount of energy used for distributing a single data component, the distributor node has to meet the following equation:

$$Energy_{optimal} = \mathop {{\text{argmin}}}\limits_{k} Energy_{k} + \left( {k - 1} \right)Energy_{k,l}$$

Even if it is feasible to provide the best choice for minimising the amount of energy used when \(k\) is picked to receive data, this might result in the same user constantly being selected regardless of the size of their battery. Therefore, in order to determine which user should get data, BS may generate a candidate list that is value-ordered.

The distributor node has the ability to choose the methods that are most relevant to their application and to tailor the optimisation of the distribution process to reflect those selections. The distributor node is able to make significant energy savings by optimising the distribution process, which in turn may increase the application's overall performance.

3.4.2 The selection of nodes and packet scheduling

The BS will choose nodes according to a selection rule and schedule them to function as receivers. The selection rule is the process that the BS follows in order to decide which nodes will take on the role of receivers. Selection criteria often prioritise nodes that are physically near to the base station. This is because the nodes that are physically closer to the base station will have a stronger signal and be better able to receive the sent data. It is also suggested that the nodes with the greatest energy be selected for further processing. The reason for this is that the nodes with the most available power will be able to keep up with the data for longer.

The nodes closest to the base station (BS) and with the most available energy might be selected by the BS. There must be a different set of criteria used as a filter in every possible situation. The base station (BS) may, for instance, choose to use the selection criterion that selects the nodes that are physically situated in the most immediate area of the BS if the application requires the data to be acquired in the least period of time. However, if the application demands that the data be received for a significant amount of time over a period of time, then the BS may opt to utilise the selection criteria that picks the nodes that have the highest energy in them.

Least energy consumption is used as a criterion for node selection in the BS. The BS must choose the nodes that will use the least amount of energy in order to accomplish the task of disseminating the data, according to this criteria. The premise of this rule is that the node's power consumption increases in proportion to its distance from the BS. This is because the node will have to transmit more information to the BS as its distance from the latter increases. The BS is able to calculate the power consumption of each node by factoring in the following conditions:

  • Data must be transmitted to the node before it can be utilised;

  • The hop count to be determined to separate the node from the BS.

The BS may then choose the nodes with the lowest aggregate power consumption. By doing so, we can reduce the amount of power needed to transmit data to an absolute minimum.

Assume that \(U\) is the total number of users in the collaborative network. The BS shall pick the user as the content receiver at each scheduling time in accordance with the energy efficient rule such that the minimum energy consumed node is selected \(min\left( {Energy_{i,k}^{1} + Energy_{i,k}^{2} { }} \right)\).

In the proposed work, the problem of node grouping and scheduling may be found by combining the results of the assessment are then used to build a network, which is then reported to BS. After taking into account both phases and the energy usage, BS will eventually schedule node to operate as a receiver.

  1. 1.

    According to the first selection criterion, the nodes that are able to reduce their overall energy consumption the most will be chosen in the collaborative network. When it comes to data distribution, the top node on the list is the one that has the potential to cause the least amount of energy consumption.

  2. 2.

    The potential for the BS's transmission rate to lower its power consumption is taken into account while making selections. In collaborative communication, it is common knowledge that sending a message to several nodes at once uses more power than sending a single message to the node with the best channel conditions.

  3. 3.

    Since the collaborative communication states that the algorithm must pick the nodes whose energy level is high enough to spread the received data to next node. Thus, the proposed network ensures that each node in the collaborative network will function properly for its entire lifespan.

The collaborative network ensures that every node works properly throughout its lifespan. This may be accomplished by monitoring the functioning of the node and performing routine status checks on it at regular intervals. In the event that the node is not operating as it should, the network has the ability to either repair or replace the node. The network may have redundant nodes. This indicates that there is more than one node that is capable of carrying out the same job. If one of the nodes fails, the role of the failed node may be taken up by another node. Because of this, it is possible to increase the likelihood that the network will continue to operate normally even in the event that one or more nodes fail. Redundancy at the node level refers to the practise of having numerous nodes that are capable of carrying out the same function. This task may be carried either by the individual nodes or by the network as a whole. By using these procedures, the collaborative network may assist to assure that all of its nodes will continue to operate as intended over the whole of its lifetime. This is significant because the nodes in the network are required for the network to function properly.

4 Results and discussion

Through the use of numerical experiments, the performance of the optimum collaborative computing scheme is compared to non-collaborative scenario. The proposed collaborative computing system only involves distributing \(N_{k}\) in an equal and uniform manner across the \(k\) nodes, denoted by the equation \(N_{l,k} = N_{l} /N_{k}\). This is done without taking into consideration the computational capability of the nodes or the quality of the channel connecting them to the AP. We examined the amount of computing load, i.e. capacity of network (with different nodes) w.r.t \(t_{k}\) that can be handled by the proposed technique within the constraints of a certain latency requirement. Maximum computation load or maximum capacity of network is attained using collaborative-computing methods when \(t_{k}\) the effective latency, is employed exclusively to execute local computation. The maximum computation load for the proposed collaborative-computing systems is therefore given by \(Capacity_{max}^{collab} = \sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{k} {\frac{{data_{i} t_{k} }}{{C_{k} }}}\). Figure 3 plots capacity of network (bits/Hz) with delay \(\left( {t_{k} } \right)\). In a setup where nodes operate independently, the maximum compute load that may be performed within the acceptable delay is the most work a single node can accomplish. If we think of the capabilities of the nodes' computers as random variables, then \(Capacity_{max}^{collab}\) may likewise be thought of as a random variable. This figure shows how permitted delay influences probability. This graphic shows that the optimal strategy has the best probability of meeting the latency requirement for \(k\) nodes and a given delay. The collaborative strategy may boost earnings by adding nodes. The suggested system uses node diversity and treats all nodes equally. Figure 4 represents energy consumption with varying number of nodes on collaborative network before energy efficient scheduling. Here (\(Energy_{i,k}^{1} \to Uplink, Energy_{i,k}^{2} \to Downlink\) and \(Energy_{optimal} \to Overall\)). Figure 5 represents energy consumption with varying number of nodes on collaborative network after proposed energy efficient scheduling. Figures 4 and 5 present a comparison between the in terms of the total amount of energy that is used by the nodes during uplink, downlink and overall phase. Each point on the figure represents an average of the results for up to 100 nodes. The consumption of energy by the collaborative system is shown to be around two lower than that of non-collaborative method by this Figs. 4 and 5. It is important to keep in mind that it is not difficult to demonstrate that the entire amount of energy used in the scenario where there is no collaboration uses about \(k\) times more energy than the total amount of energy used in the non-collaboration scheme. A breakdown of the overall energy consumptions are related with the various stages of the proposed collaborative method. Figure 6 represents energy consumption with delay \(\left( {t_{k} } \right)\) on collaborative network before proposed energy efficient scheduling at \(k = 20\). Figure 7 represents energy consumption with delay \(\left( {t_{k} } \right)\) on collaborative network after proposed energy efficient scheduling at \(k = 20\) and \(k = 40\).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Plot of capacity of network (bits/Hz) with delay \(\left( {t_{k} } \right)\)

Fig. 4
figure 4

Energy consumption with varying number of nodes on collaborative network before energy efficient scheduling ((\(Energy_{i,k}^{1} \to Uplink, Energy_{i,k}^{2} \to Downlink\) and \(Energy_{optimal} \to Overall\)))

Fig. 5
figure 5

Energy consumption with varying number of nodes on collaborative network after proposed energy efficient scheduling ((\(Energy_{i,k}^{1} \to Uplink, Energy_{i,k}^{2} \to Downlink\) and \(Energy_{optimal} \to Overall\)))

Fig. 6
figure 6

Energy consumption with delay \(\left( {t_{k} } \right)\) on collaborative network before proposed energy efficient scheduling at \(k = 20\) ((\(Energy_{i,k}^{1} \to Uplink, Energy_{i,k}^{2} \to Downlink\) and \(Energy_{optimal} \to Overall\)))

Fig. 7
figure 7

Energy consumption with delay \(\left( {t_{k} } \right)\) on collaborative network before proposed energy efficient scheduling at \(k = 20\) and \(k = 40\) ((\(Energy_{i,k}^{1} \to Uplink, Energy_{i,k}^{2} \to Downlink\) and \(Energy_{optimal} \to Overall\)))

The evolution of the energy components that make up proposed scheme shows how the allowable latency affects the scheme. This Figs. 6 and 7 demonstrate in particular, that the proposed collaborative approach has the potential to reduce the amount of energy required even when delay values are increased. Increasing the permitted latency enables the proposed scheme to utilise slower but more energy-efficient nodes, which in turn results in a reduction in the amount of energy that is used, which still another advantage is brought about by the variety of the nodes.

5 Conclusion and future work

An approach to wireless collaborative computing that is efficient in terms of energy use has been presented in this body of work. The results of numerical studies demonstrated the advantages of this scheme in comparison with non-collaborative scenario. These advantages include a lower feasible latency, a reduction in the amount of energy used, and the possibility to swap energy for latency and vice versa. Utilising the variety of the nodes in terms of their computational capacities and channel strengths is the method through which these advantages are acquired. However, analytical findings that emphasise the advantages of variety do not already exist; hence, the pursuit of such results provides a first feasible avenue for future research.

For future study, the models that were used in this study to measure the amount of time and effort spent throughout the various stages of the partnership are very simplistic and not even close to being reflective of reality. Therefore, one of the most important goals of future work will undoubtedly be to include into the suggested architecture for collaborative computing models that are more accurate representations of the actual world. Additionally, it was believed that nodes are able to interact with one another in an orthogonal fashion on the uplink, and the downlink was not taken into account. Although it was practical to build down the basis of this framework for collaborative computing, those simplifying assumptions will be re-examined in the future research.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Change history



Base station


Radio frequency


Wireless sensor network


Bit error rate


Access point


Signal to noise ratio


  1. B. Latré, B. Braem, I. Moerman, C. Blondia, P. Demeester, A survey on wireless body area networks. Wirel. Netw. 17(1), 1–18 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. A. Noel, A. Abdaoui, A. Badawy, T. Elfouly, M. Ahmed, M. Shehata, Structural health monitoring using wireless sensor networks: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 19(3), 1403–1423 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. B. Abidi, A. Jilbab, M.E. Haziti, Wireless sensor networks in biomedical: wireless body area networks, in Europe and MENA Cooperation Advances in Information and Communication Technologies (Springer, 2017), pp. 321–329

  4. D. Zhang, S. Liu, T. Zhang, Z. Liang, Novel unequal clustering routing protocol considering energy balancing based on network partition & distance for mobile education. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 88, 1–9 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. I. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, E. Cayirci, Wireless sensor networks: a survey. Comput. Netw. 38(4), 393–422 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. D.-G. Zhang, K. Zheng, T. Zhang, X. Wang, A novel multicast routing method with minimum transmission for wsn of cloud computing service. Soft. Comput. 19(7), 1817–1827 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. M. Chiang, Fog networking: an overview on research opportunities. CoRR, vol. abs/1601.00835, 2016. [Online].

  8. A. Djajadi, M. Wijanarko, Ambient environmental quality monitoring using iot sensor network. Internetw. Indones. J. 08(01), 41–47 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. A.S. Sadiq, T.Z. Almohammad, R.A.B.M. Khadri, A.A. Ahmed, J. Lloret, An energy-efficient cross-layer approach for cloud wireless green communications, in Second International Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC) (IEEE, 2017), pp. 230–234

  10. S.A. Hassan, S.S. Syed, F. Hussain, Communication technologies in iot networks, in Internet of Things (Springer, 2017), pp. 13–26

  11. B. Bejar Haro, S. Zazo, D. Palomar, Energy efficient collaborative beamforming in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 62(2), 496–510 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. J. Feng, Y.-H. Lu, B. Jung, D. Peroulis, Y.C. Hu, Energy-efficient data dissemination using beamforming in wireless sensor networks. ACM Trans. Sens. Netw. 9(3), 31 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. S. Gu, Z. Yu, Q. Zhang, T. Huang, Energy-aware coded transmission strategy for hierarchical cooperative caching networks. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 12(1), 178–182 (2023)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. S. Jayaprakasam, S.K.A. Rahim, C.Y. Leow, Distributed and collaborative beamforming in wireless sensor networks: classifications, trends and research directions. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 19(40), 2092–2116 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. H. Yetgin, K.T.K. Cheung, M. El-Hajjar, L.H. Hanzo, A survey of network lifetime maximization techniques in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 19(2), 828–854 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. S. Biswas, R. Das, P. Chatterjee, Energy-efficient connected target coverage in multi-hop wireless sensor networks, in Industry Interactive Innovations in Science, Engineering and Technology. ed. by S. Bhattacharyya, S. Sen, M. Dutta, P. Biswas, H. Chattopadhyay (Springer, Singapore, 2018), pp.411–421

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. B. Karp, H.T. Kung, Gpsr: greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless networks, in Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, ser. MobiCom ’00 (ACM, 2000), pp. 243–254

  18. H. An, H. Park, Energy-balancing resource allocation for wireless cooperative IoT networks with SWIPT. IEEE Internet Things J. 9(14), 12258–12271 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. S. Gupta, M.C. Vuran, M.C. Gursoy, Power efficiency of cooperative communication in wireless sensor networks, in 3rd International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication Systems (ICSPCS) (IEEE, 2009), pp. 1–10

  20. R. Mudumbai, J. Hespanha, U. Madhow, G. Barriac, Distributed transmit beamforming using feedback control. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 56(1), 411–426 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. H. Naqvi, S. Berber, Z. Salcic, Energy efficient collaborative communications in AWGN and Rayleigh fading channel in wireless sensor networks. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 14, 1382–1396 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. S. Naqvi, Energy-efficient collaborative communications for wireless sensor networks. Ph.D. dissertation, ResearchSpace@ Auckland (2012)

  23. Z. Nurlan, T. Zhukabayeva, M. Othman, A. Adamova, N. Zhakiyev, Wireless sensor network as a mesh: vision and challenges. IEEE Access 10, 46–67 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Y. Zhang, N. Ansari, W. Su, Optimal decision fusion based automatic modulation classification by using wireless sensor networks in multipath fading channel, in IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM) (2011), 1–5

  25. L. Al-Kanj, Z. Dawy, Optimized energy-aware multicasting over wireless cellular networks with multihop cooperation, in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’12), Ottawa, Canada (2012)

  26. J.B. Seo, T. Kwon, V.C.M. Leung, Social groupcasting algorithm for wireless cellular multicast service. IEEE Commun. Lett. 17(1), 47–50 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. L. Al-Kanj, M. Abdallah, Z. Dawy, On optimal mobile terminal grouping in energy aware cooperative content distribution networks, in 2012 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC’12), Paris, France, Apr. 2012.

  28. L. Al-Kanj, Z. Dawy, E. Yaacoub, Energy-aware cooperative content distribution over wireless networks: design alternatives and implementation aspects. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 15(4), 1736–1760 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. L. Al-Kanj, Z. Dawy, W. Saad, E. Kutanoglu, Energy-aware cooperative content distribution over wireless networks: optimized and distributed approaches. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 62(2), 3828–3847 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. E.M. Lo, J. Zhang, Q. Zhang, Cooperative content distribution in multi-rate wireless networks, in IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM’09), Honolulu, HI (2009)

  31. M.F. Leung, S.H. Chan, Broadcast-based peer-to-peer collaborative video streaming among mobiles. IEEE Trans. Broadcast. 53(1), 50–61 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Q. Zeng, Y. Du, K. Huang, Wirelessly powered federated edge learning: optimal tradeoffs between convergence and power transfer. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 21(1), 680–695 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. D. Datla et al., Wireless distributed computing in cognitive radio networks. Ad Hoc Netw. 10(2012), 845–857 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Z. Chang, T. Ristaniemi, Energy efficiency of collaborative OFDMA mobile cluster, in 10th IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC’13), Las Vegas, NV (2013)

  35. Z. Chang, T. Ristaniemi, Efficient use of multicast and unicast in collaborative OFDMA mobile cluster, in IEEE 77th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC’13-spring), Dresden, Germany (2013)

  36. J. Dean, S. Ghemawat, Mapreduce: simplified data processing on large clusters, in OSDI’04: Sixth Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation, San Francisco, CA (2004), pp. 137–150

  37. S. Li, Q. Yu, M.A. Maddah-Ali, A.S. Avestimehr, A scalable framework for wireless distributed computing. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw 25(5), 2643–2654 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. M. Kiamari, C. Wang, A.S. Avestimehr, Coding for edge-facilitated wireless distributed computing with heterogeneous users, in 2017 51st Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers (2017), pp. 536–540

  39. S. Li, M.A. Maddah-Ali, Q. Yu, A.S. Avestimehr, A fundamental tradeoff between computation and communication in distributed computing. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 64(1), 109–128 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. F. Li, J. Chen, Z. Wang, Wireless MapReduce distributed computing (2018). [Online].

Download references


No funding received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



EQD developed the study, contributed in its design and coordination, and collaborated to the drafting of the paper; HG assisted in the drafting of the manuscript, participated in the design of the study, and carried out the statistical analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hengchuan Guo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares that there is nothing to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article has been retracted. Please see the retraction notice for more detail:"

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dong, E., Guo, H. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Collaborative communication and computational design for energy-efficient edge based learning network. J Wireless Com Network 2023, 87 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: