Wireless Sensor Networks based on TSCH/TDMA with Power Consumption and Latency Constraints

Gabriele Formis; Giacomo Paolini; Gianluca Cena; Stefano Scanzio; Tullio Facchinetti

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 16 references

Wireless Sensor Networks based on TSCH/TDMA with Power Consumption and Latency Constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A relay that reopens a sleeping link every T_min/r converts PRIL-M's energy savings into a tunable latency knob.

desk verdict PRIL-ML is a plausible, clearly described extension that trades a bit of energy for much lower latency, but the paper's central numbers rest on an untested uniform-arrival assumption and no simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12879 v1 pith:LN3EZUKY submitted 2024-11-19 cs.NI

Stefano Scanzio , Gabriele Formis , Tullio Facchinetti , Giacomo Paolini , Gianluca Cena This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.NI

keywords TSCHTDMApowerconsumptionlatencyidlelisteningPRIL-MPRIL-MLwirelesssensornetworks

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

PRIL-M (Proactive Reduction of Idle Listening, multi-hop) nearly eliminates idle listening in TSCH wireless sensor networks by switching a relay receiver off until the next packet of the fastest flow is expected, but slow flows then wait, on average, half that period at each relay. This paper proposes PRIL-ML (PRIL multi-hop with latency constraints), which reopens the sleeping link every $T_{\min}/r$ time units instead of every $T_{\min}$. For $r=4$ the analytical model puts the slow flow's average end-to-end latency at about $9.23$ s instead of $30.58$ s, while total network power rises from about $68.6\,\mu\mathrm{W}$ to $83.8\,\mu\mathrm{W}$. The value of the claim is that it turns PRIL-M's energy savings into a tunable energy-latency knob for industrial applications, at the price of a small, bounded increase in receiver awake time.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the extended sleep command: instead of one long off period, the relay sends a message that repeats an off interval $T_{\mathrm{act}}^{j\to k}$ for $r$ cycles, waking the receiver for at least one slot between repetitions so queued packets can be flushed. This turns the single sleep interval of PRIL-M, whose length tracks the fastest flow's period $T_{\min}^{j\to k}$, into a shorter periodic wake-up. The load-bearing identities are $\Delta_\mu^{\mathrm{PRIL-ML}} = T_{\mathrm{act}}/2$ for mean added relay delay, $\Delta_{\max}^{\mathrm{PRIL-ML}} = T_{\mathrm{act}}$ for worst case, and $\Delta P = (r-1)E_{\mathrm{listen}}/T_{\min}$ for the idle-listening power increase; all three follow from treating slower-flow arrivals as uniform over the fastest flow's period and from FIFO relay service. The authors note the equations are approximate because they ignore retransmission effects, but say simulation data for PRIL-M support the approximation.

What would settle it

Extend the paper's discrete-event simulator, or build the same four-node, two-flow TSCH network on real hardware, with PRIL-ML at $r=4$; if the slower flow's measured average latency is close to the old $30.58$ s rather than about $9.2$ s, or if total power rises by much more than the predicted $15.2\,\mu\mathrm{W}$, the uniform-arrival model does not transfer to PRIL-ML.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that PRIL-ML makes the energy-latency tradeoff of PRIL-M adjustable: by choosing the nominal sleep period $T_{\mathrm{act}}^{j\to k} = \lceil T_{\min}^{j\to k}/r\rceil$ on each relay link, a node wakes the receiver $r$ times while the fastest flow completes one period, so a slower packet queued at the relay waits at most $T_{\mathrm{act}}$ instead of $T_{\min}$. The model gives average extra relay delay $T_{\mathrm{act}}/2$, worst case $T_{\mathrm{act}}$, and an idle-listening power penalty bounded by $(r-1)E_{\mathrm{listen}}/T_{\min}$. Applied to the paper's four-node example with $r=4$, this yields about $9.231$ s average and $32.96$ s worst-case latency for the slow flow, versus $30.58$ s and $69.86$ s for PRIL-M, with network power rising to roughly $83.8\,\mu\mathrm{W}$. The authors state in Section IV that they have not yet simulated PRIL-ML; their estimate rests on the same approximate model that reproduces PRIL-M's simulated average latency closely.

Load-bearing premise

The central predictions assume slower-flow packets arrive at the relay uniformly at random across the fastest flow's period, making $T_{\min}/2$ the average waiting time that PRIL-ML shortens; the authors also note they have not yet simulated PRIL-ML, so that model carries the $r=4$ numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With $r=4$, the slow flow's mean latency falls from about $30.58$ s to about $9.231$ s and its worst case from about $69.86$ s to about $32.96$ s, at a predicted total-power increase from $68.6$ to about $83.8\,\mu\mathrm{W}$.
Each factor of $r$ cuts the added relay delay of PRIL-M by that factor, giving network operators a direct dial for meeting latency budgets while keeping idle listening near zero.
Because the argument uses only slotframe periods and sleep commands, PRIL-ML carries over to TDMA schedules in general, as the authors state explicitly.
The first-hop behavior is unchanged, so PRIL-F still removes idle listening at the first hop and the added latency appears only on relay hops.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves implicit that the linear $r$ dependence of $\Delta P$ implies a crossover value of $r$ at which PRIL-ML's energy consumption reaches that of plain TSCH; computing that crossover per link would bound how aggressively the latency dial can be turned.
A natural testable extension is to make $r$ adaptive: increase it only when a latency-sensitive packet is queued at the relay, which would spend power only when needed and stay below the paper's worst-case $\Delta P$.
Because the uniform-arrival assumption drives the $T_{\min}/2$ baseline, a simulator or testbed that intentionally phase-aligns or bursts the slower flow would show whether the promised factor-$r$ latency improvement holds for correlated traffic.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read the paper. The mechanism is real: PRIL-ML sets the sleep interval to T_min/r and wakes the receiver periodically, which is a straightforward and sensible fix to PRIL-M's latency problem. The description is clear, the equations are simple and internally consistent, and the power-cost bound ΔP = (r−1)E_listen/T_min is a fair upper bound. Credit where due: the PRIL-M latency estimate (31.7 s vs 30.6 s simulated) is close, which gives some confidence that the modeling framework captures the dominant effect.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader put it. PRIL-ML itself is not simulated or implemented. The abstract's "achieves" is too strong; the paper establishes an analytical prediction, not a measured result. Section IV says plainly "we are not able to simulate PRIL-ML behavior yet," and the conclusion lists simulator extension as future work. So the headline numbers — 9.231 s average latency, 83.8 µW total power — are extrapolations.

The stress-test note about commensurate periods is worth taking seriously, but not fatal. T_tau0 ≈ 60 s and T_tau1 ≈ 600 s are nominally commensurate, and if the phases locked, the uniform-arrival assumption would fail and the factor-r improvement could be off in either direction. The authors do say generation processes are asynchronous due to oscillator drift, and their PRIL-M simulation matched the T_min/2 model reasonably, which suggests the uniform assumption worked there. But that does not transfer automatically to PRIL-ML, because the relevant interval is shorter (T_act = T_min/r), and the distribution of arrivals within that shorter window is exactly what determines the latency saving. Without simulation or real implementation, the 9.231 s number is an estimate, not a result.

Minor point: the paper is a short conference paper; the related-work and experimental calibration sections are thin but adequate for the venue. The self-citations are fine given the authors developed the PRIL line.

Bottom line: this is a legit extension, clearly written, with a transparent limitation. It belongs in the TSCH-scheduling conversation. A serious referee should engage: the mechanism is worth publishing, but the claims need to be softened to "predicted" and ideally backed by simulation. I would not block it on the missing simulation alone, but I would ask for either a simulation or a carefully stated uncertainty around the uniform-arrival assumption.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PRIL-ML, an extension of the PRIL-M sleep-command mechanism for TSCH/TDMA wireless sensor networks. The key idea is to reopen a sleeping relay link every T_min/r instead of every T_min, where T_min is the period of the fastest flow traversing the link, thereby reducing the additional relay delay suffered by slower flows. The authors derive approximate formulas for the mean and worst-case additional latency (T_act/2 and T_act, with T_act = T_min/r) and for the worst-case increase in idle-listening power ((r-1)*E_listen/T_min). They report simulation results for standard TSCH and PRIL-M, and they use the PRIL-M simulation to validate the T_min/2 delay model. For PRIL-ML they provide analytical predictions only, predicting that with r=4 the mean latency of the slow flow drops to about 9.231 s and total network power rises to about 83.8 uW.

Significance. If the predictions are correct, PRIL-ML offers a simple, tunable energy-latency tradeoff for TSCH networks, addressing a known weakness of PRIL-M: its large increase in latency for slow flows. The paper's strengths are its clear mechanism, the simple closed-form estimates, and the use of independently published radio energy values rather than fitted parameters. The PRIL-M average-latency model matches simulation reasonably well (31.731 s vs 30.58 s), which gives some credibility to the underlying modeling approach. However, PRIL-ML itself is not simulated or implemented, and the quantitative central claims rest on an untested uniform-arrival assumption. The paper is better read as a proposal with preliminary analytical estimates than as a demonstrated result.

major comments (3)

[Section IV] The central quantitative claims are predictions, not evaluated results. The paper states in Section IV, 'At present, we are not able to simulate PRIL-ML behavior yet,' and then uses the analytical model to obtain the headline numbers (9.231 s mean latency, 83.8 uW total power). The abstract's 'achieves a significantly shorter latency' and the conclusion's 'can be shrunk to less than one-third' therefore overstate what the manuscript establishes. The PRIL-M simulation validates the T_min/2 delay model, but it does not validate the r-fold reopening behavior of PRIL-ML, which changes the wake-up pattern and the interaction between arrivals and sleep intervals. The paper should add a PRIL-ML simulation or, at minimum, explicitly present these values as unvalidated analytical estimates with a clear caveat about their reliability.
[Section III] The derivation of the key latency reduction depends on an assumption that is stated but not tested: 'we can assume that a packet p_i ... arrives to node N_j ... at a time uniformly distributed in the interval [0, T_min] between two subsequent packets belonging to tau_star.' This assumption is load-bearing for the formulas Delta_PRL-ML_mu = T_act/2 and the claimed factor-r improvement. In the paper's own example, T_tau0 = 60 s and T_tau1 = 600 s, so the period ratio is an integer; for deterministic periodic traffic with commensurate periods, the relative phase of the slow flow's arrivals with respect to the fast-flow-triggered wake schedule need not be uniform and could be concentrated at a fixed offset. Retransmissions and clock drift may randomize the phase, but the paper provides no evidence that the resulting distribution is uniform over [0, T_act]. The PRIL-M simulation matching T_min/2 to within 1.15 s does not resolve this, because PRIL-ML changes the reopening pattern. A simulation or a sensitivity analysis over relative phases is needed to support the 9.231 s estimate.
[Section IV] The worst-case predictions are less reliable than the paper suggests. For PRIL-M, the model gives d_hat_max = 77.96 s while simulation gives d_max = 69.86 s, a gap of about 8 s that the paper attributes to the rarity of worst-case retransmission events. The same issue carries over to PRIL-ML: the predicted worst-case value d_hat_max = 32.96 s inherits the same modeling limitations and should be presented as a rough bound rather than a simulated or validated figure. This is especially important because industrial latency constraints typically concern worst-case or high-percentile behavior rather than the mean.

minor comments (3)

[Section III] The statement that 'latency is r times shorter than PRIL-M' is imprecise. The reduction applies to the additional relay delay introduced by PRIL, not to total end-to-end latency, which still includes the baseline TSCH latency. Indeed, the paper's own figures show a reduction from 30.58 s to 9.231 s, which is about a factor of 3.31, not 4.
[Tables I and II] The notation mu_d, sigma_d, d_min, d_p99, d_p99.9, d_p99.99, and d_max is used in Table II and the text without a formal definition. A short definition in the table caption or in Section IV would improve readability.
[Section IV] The paper says the simulator was not extended to PRIL-ML and that an experimental campaign for TSCH was 'not reported here for space reasons.' A brief note on the simulator's validation would help the reader calibrate confidence in the PRIL-M simulation results that are used to support the analytical model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PRIL-ML latency and power estimates follow from stated model assumptions and externally sourced energy data, not from recycled fits or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The derivation chain for PRIL-ML is not circular. Section III defines T_act = ceil(T_min/r) and derives the average relay-delay increase as T_act/2 from the explicitly stated assumption that packets of a slower flow arrive uniformly at random in the inter-arrival interval of the fastest flow. That is a modeling assumption with an analytic consequence, not a fitted constant recycled as a prediction. Section IV applies the same formula with r = 4 to obtain 9.231 s average latency and combines it with an independently published idle-listening energy value (Elisten = 303.3 uJ from reference [16]) to compute 83.8 uW total power. No parameter is fitted to the PRIL-ML target; the PRIL-M simulation is used only to check the approximation of the model for the earlier technique. The self-citations ([13], [15]) describe the baseline PRIL mechanism and are not the load-bearing evidence for PRIL-ML: the paper's own simulator reproduces PRIL-M behavior, and the PRIL-ML estimates are consequences of the stated uniform-arrival model. The admission that PRIL-ML has not yet been simulated is a validation gap about extrapolation and model risk, not circularity. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are invented. The mechanism adds a parameter r and a periodic wake-up schedule but no new hardware, particle, force, or conserved quantity.

free parameters (1)

r (sleep period divisor) = 4 (example setting in Section IV)
User-chosen divisor that sets T_act = ceil(T_min/r). Both the predicted latency reduction (factor r) and the power increase ((r-1)Elisten/T_min) scale with r, so the central results are parameterized by this hand-chosen value.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Uniform arrival phase of slower-flow packets at relay nodes.
Section III: 'we can assume that a packet pi ... arrives to node Nj at a time uniformly distributed in the interval [0, Tj->k min].' This is the basis for the T_min/2 average relay delay and for the PRIL-ML latency estimate.
domain assumption PRIL-M sleep command flushes all queued packets before turning the receiver off.
Taken from the authors' prior PRIL-M work [15]; PRIL-ML's open-close cycle and its claim that queued packets can be sent when the link reopens depend on this behavior.
domain assumption Retransmissions can be ignored in the analytical latency and power formulas.
Section III explicitly says the formulas 'do not take into account the effect of retransmissions on latency and power consumption,' yet the PRIL-ML predictions are computed from these formulas while the simulated baselines include retransmissions.
domain assumption The extra power of PRIL-ML is bounded by idle listening alone on the receiver.
Section III: 'the increase in power consumption over PRIL-M due to PRIL-ML adoption is equal, at worst, to (r-1)Elisten/Tmin.' This assumes no extra transmission, reception, or processing costs from reopening the link.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wireless Sensor Networks based on TSCH/TDMA with Power Consumption and Latency Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LN3EZUKY

@misc{pith2026241112879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wireless Sensor Networks based on TSCH/TDMA with Power Consumption and Latency Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LN3EZUKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12879}
}

read the original abstract

One of the main goals of wireless sensor networks is to permit the involved nodes to communicate with low energy budgets, as they are typically battery-powered. When such networks are employed in industrial scenarios, constraints about latency may have a significant role, too. The TSCH mechanism, and more in general TDMA schemes, rely on traffic scheduling, and consequently they can feature low power consumption and more predictable latency. Some recent proposals like PRIL-M enable further consistent energy savings, but unfortunately they cause at the same time a dramatic increase in latency. This work presents an extension of PRIL-M, we named PRIL-ML, that achieves a significantly shorter latency in exchange for a slight increase in power consumption. Its operating principles are first illustrated, then some approximate equations are provided for assessing analytically the improvements it achieves, starting from simulation results obtained for both standard TSCH and the original PRIL-M technique.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12879 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Heterogeneous and dependable networks in industry – A survey,

S. Scanzio, L. Wisniewski, and P. Gaj, “Heterogeneous and dependable networks in industry – A survey,” Computers in Industry , vol. 125, p. 103388, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

IETF 6TiSCH: A Tutorial,

X. Vilajosana, T. Watteyne, T. Chang, M. Vu ˇcini´c, S. Duquennoy, and P. Thubert, “IETF 6TiSCH: A Tutorial,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 595–615, 2020

work page 2020
[3]

IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks,

“IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks,” IEEE Std 802.15.4- 2020 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.15.4-2015) , pp. 1–800, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Traffic-Aware Reliable Scheduling in TSCH Networks for Industry 4.0: A Systematic Mapping Review,

A. Tabouche, B. Djamaa, and M. R. Senouci, “Traffic-Aware Reliable Scheduling in TSCH Networks for Industry 4.0: A Systematic Mapping Review,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2834–2861, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

Wireless Sensor Networks and TSCH: A Compromise Between Reliability, Power Consumption, and Latency,

S. Scanzio, M. G. Vakili, G. Cena, C. G. Demartini, B. Montrucchio, A. Valenzano, and C. Zunino, “Wireless Sensor Networks and TSCH: A Compromise Between Reliability, Power Consumption, and Latency,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 167 042–167 058, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Evaluating and Modeling IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH Resilience against Wi-Fi Interference in New-Generation Highly- Dependable Wireless Sensor Networks,

G. Cena, C. G. Demartini, M. Ghazi Vakili, S. Scanzio, A. Valen- zano, and C. Zunino, “Evaluating and Modeling IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH Resilience against Wi-Fi Interference in New-Generation Highly- Dependable Wireless Sensor Networks,” Ad Hoc Networks , vol. 106, p. 102199, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Why Channel Hopping Makes Sense, even with IEEE802.15.4 OFDM at 2.4 GHz,

J. Mu ˜noz, P. Muhlethaler, X. Vilajosana, and T. Watteyne, “Why Channel Hopping Makes Sense, even with IEEE802.15.4 OFDM at 2.4 GHz,” in 2018 Global Internet of Things Summit (GIoTS) , 2018, pp. 1–7

work page 2018
[8]

Assessing the Effectiveness of Channel Hopping in IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH Networks,

G. Cena, S. Scanzio, M. G. Vakili, C. G. Demartini, and A. Valenzano, “Assessing the Effectiveness of Channel Hopping in IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH Networks,” IEEE Open Journal of the Industrial Electronics Society, vol. 4, pp. 214–229, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 16 references

[9]

Utilizing Non- Orthogonal Multiple Access for Both Latency and Energy Efficiency Improvement in TSCH-Based WSNs,

N. Gholami, N. Moghim, M. Ghazvini, and S. Haghani, “Utilizing Non- Orthogonal Multiple Access for Both Latency and Energy Efficiency Improvement in TSCH-Based WSNs,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 28 922– 28 937, 2022

2022
[10]

6TiSCH Low Latency Autonomous Scheduling for Industrial Internet of Things,

N. M. Pradhan, B. S. Chaudhari, and M. Zennaro, “6TiSCH Low Latency Autonomous Scheduling for Industrial Internet of Things,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 71 566–71 575, 2022

2022
[11]

MSU-TSCH: A Mobile Scheduling Updated Algorithm for TSCH in the Internet of Things,

W. Jerbi, O. Cheikhrouhou, A. Guermazi, and H. Trabelsi, “MSU-TSCH: A Mobile Scheduling Updated Algorithm for TSCH in the Internet of Things,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 7978–7985, 2023

2023
[12]

DualBlock: Adaptive Intra- Slot CSMA/CA for TSCH,

J. Park, H. Kim, H.-S. Kim, and S. Bahk, “DualBlock: Adaptive Intra- Slot CSMA/CA for TSCH,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 68 819–68 833, 2022

2022
[13]

Enhanced Energy-Saving Mechanisms in TSCH Networks for the IIoT: The PRIL Approach,

S. Scanzio, G. Cena, and A. Valenzano, “Enhanced Energy-Saving Mechanisms in TSCH Networks for the IIoT: The PRIL Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , pp. 1–11, 2022

2022
[14]

Energy Saving in TSCH Networks by Means of Proactive Reduction of Idle Listening,

S. Scanzio, G. Cena, A. Valenzano, and C. Zunino, “Energy Saving in TSCH Networks by Means of Proactive Reduction of Idle Listening,” in Ad-Hoc, Mobile, and Wireless Networks , L. A. Grieco, G. Boggia, G. Piro, Y . Jararweh, and C. Campolo, Eds. Cham: Springer Interna- tional ...

2020
[15]

Ultra-Low Power and Green TSCH-Based WSNs With Proactive Reduction of Idle Listening,

S. Scanzio, F. Quarta, G. Paolini, G. Formis, and G. Cena, “Ultra-Low Power and Green TSCH-Based WSNs With Proactive Reduction of Idle Listening,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , pp. 1–12, 2024

2024
[16]

A Realistic Energy Consumption Model for TSCH Networks,

X. Vilajosana, Q. Wang, F. Chraim, T. Watteyne, T. Chang, and K. S. J. Pister, “A Realistic Energy Consumption Model for TSCH Networks,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 482–489, Feb 2014

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Heterogeneous and dependable networks in industry – A survey,

S. Scanzio, L. Wisniewski, and P. Gaj, “Heterogeneous and dependable networks in industry – A survey,” Computers in Industry , vol. 125, p. 103388, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [2]

IETF 6TiSCH: A Tutorial,

X. Vilajosana, T. Watteyne, T. Chang, M. Vu ˇcini´c, S. Duquennoy, and P. Thubert, “IETF 6TiSCH: A Tutorial,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 595–615, 2020

work page 2020

[3] [3]

IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks,

“IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks,” IEEE Std 802.15.4- 2020 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.15.4-2015) , pp. 1–800, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Traffic-Aware Reliable Scheduling in TSCH Networks for Industry 4.0: A Systematic Mapping Review,

A. Tabouche, B. Djamaa, and M. R. Senouci, “Traffic-Aware Reliable Scheduling in TSCH Networks for Industry 4.0: A Systematic Mapping Review,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2834–2861, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Wireless Sensor Networks and TSCH: A Compromise Between Reliability, Power Consumption, and Latency,

S. Scanzio, M. G. Vakili, G. Cena, C. G. Demartini, B. Montrucchio, A. Valenzano, and C. Zunino, “Wireless Sensor Networks and TSCH: A Compromise Between Reliability, Power Consumption, and Latency,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 167 042–167 058, 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Evaluating and Modeling IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH Resilience against Wi-Fi Interference in New-Generation Highly- Dependable Wireless Sensor Networks,

G. Cena, C. G. Demartini, M. Ghazi Vakili, S. Scanzio, A. Valen- zano, and C. Zunino, “Evaluating and Modeling IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH Resilience against Wi-Fi Interference in New-Generation Highly- Dependable Wireless Sensor Networks,” Ad Hoc Networks , vol. 106, p. 102199, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Why Channel Hopping Makes Sense, even with IEEE802.15.4 OFDM at 2.4 GHz,

J. Mu ˜noz, P. Muhlethaler, X. Vilajosana, and T. Watteyne, “Why Channel Hopping Makes Sense, even with IEEE802.15.4 OFDM at 2.4 GHz,” in 2018 Global Internet of Things Summit (GIoTS) , 2018, pp. 1–7

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Assessing the Effectiveness of Channel Hopping in IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH Networks,

G. Cena, S. Scanzio, M. G. Vakili, C. G. Demartini, and A. Valenzano, “Assessing the Effectiveness of Channel Hopping in IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH Networks,” IEEE Open Journal of the Industrial Electronics Society, vol. 4, pp. 214–229, 2023

work page 2023