1 / 40

Data Fusion Improves the Coverage of Sensor Networks

Data Fusion Improves the Coverage of Sensor Networks. Guoliang Xing Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering Michigan State University http://www.cse.msu.edu/~glxing/. Outline. Background Problem definition Coverage of large-scale sensor networks

kalyca
Télécharger la présentation

Data Fusion Improves the Coverage of Sensor Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Data Fusion Improves the Coverage of Sensor Networks Guoliang Xing Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science and EngineeringMichigan State University http://www.cse.msu.edu/~glxing/

  2. Outline • Background • Problem definition • Coverage of large-scale sensor networks • Scaling laws of coverage • Other projects • Model-driven concurrent medium access control • Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration 2

  3. Mission-critical Sensing Applications • Large-scale network deployments • OSU ExScal project: 1450 nodes deployed in a 1260X288 m2 region • Resource-constrained sensor nodes • Limited sensing performance • Stringent performance requirements • High sensing probability, e.g., 90%, low false alarm rate, e.g., 5%, bounded delay, e.g., 20s 3

  4. Sensing Coverage • Fundamental requirement of critical apps • How well is a region monitored by sensors? • Coverage of static targets • How likely is a target detected? 4

  5. Network Density for Achieving Coverage • How many sensors are needed to achieve full or instant coverage of a geographic region? • Any static target can be detected at a high prob. • Significance of reducing network density • Reduce deployment cost • Prolong lifetime by putting redundant sensors to sleep 5

  6. State of the Art • K-coverage • Any physical point in a large region must be detected by at least K sensors • Coverage of mobile targets • Any target must be detected within certain delay • Barrier coverage • All crossing paths through a belt region must be k-covered • Most previous results are based on simplistic models • All 5 papers on the coverage problem published at MobiCom since 2004 assumed the disc model 6

  7. Single-Coverage under Disc Model • Deterministic deployment • Optimal pattern is hexagon • Random deployment • Sensors deployed by a Poisson point process of density ρ • The coverage (fraction of points covered by at least one sensor): [Liu 2004] 7 deterministic deployment random deployment

  8. Sensing Model • The (in)famous disc model • Sensor can detect any target within range r • Real-world sensor detection • There is no cookie-cutter “sensing range”! r Acoustic Vehicle Tracking Data in DARPA SensIT Experiments [Duarte 04]

  9. Contributions • Introduce probabilistic and collaborative sensing models in the analysis of coverage • Data fusion: sensors combine data for better inferences • Derive scaling laws of network density vs. coverage • Coverage of both static and moving targets • Compare the performance of disc and fusion models • Data fusion can significantly improve coverage!

  10. Outline • Background • Problem definition • Coverage of large-scale sensor networks • Scaling laws of coverage • Other projects • Model-driven concurrent medium access control • Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration • Personal perspectives on research 10

  11. Sensor Measurement Model • Sensor reading yi = si + ni • Decayed target energy si = S · w(xi) • Noise energy follows normal distribution ni ~ N(μ,σ2) , 2≤ k ≤5 Acoustic Vehicle Tracking Data in DARPA SensIT Experiments [Duarte 04]

  12. Single-sensor Detection Model • Sensor reading yi • H0 – target is absent • H1 – target is present noise energy distribution sensor reading distribution false alarm rate: probability detection probability: energy t Q(·) – complementary CDF of the std normal distribution false alarm rate detection threshold detection probability 12

  13. Data Fusion Model • Sensors within distance R from target fuse their readings • R is the fusion range • The sum of readings is compared again a threshold η • False alarm rate PF = 1-χn(n· η) • Detection probability PD = 1 –χn(n·η - Σw(xi)) R χn– CDF of Chi-square distribution w(xi) – Energy reading of sensor xi from target 13

  14. Outline • Background • Problem definition • Coverage of large-scale sensor networks • Scaling laws of coverage • Coverage of static targets • Other projects • Model-driven concurrent medium access control • Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration • Personal perspectives on research 14

  15. (α,β)-coverage • A physical point p is (α,β)-covered if • The system false alarm rate PF ≤ α • For target at p, the detection prob. PD ≥ β • (α,β)-coverage is the fraction of points in a region that is (α,β)-covered • Full (0.01, 0.95)-coverage: system false alarm rate is no greater than 1%, and the prob. of detecting any target in the region is no lower than 95% 15

  16. Extending the Disc Model • Classical disc model is deterministic • Extends disc model to stochastic detection • Choose sensing range r such that if any point is covered by at least one sensor, the region is (α,β)-covered • Previous results based on disc model can be extended to (α,β)-coverage δ-- signal to noise ratio S/σ 16

  17. Disc and Fusion Coverage • Coverage under the disc model • Sensors independently detect targets within sensing range r • Coverage under the fusion model • Sensors collaborate to detect targets within fusion rangeR 17

  18. (α,β)-coverage under Fusion Model • The (α,β)-coverage of a random network is given by F(p) – set of sensors within fusion range of point p N(p)– # of sensors in F(P) optimal fusion range 18

  19. Network Density for Full Coverage • ρf and ρd are densities of random networks under fusion and disc models • Sensing range is a constant • Opt fusion range grows with network density  ρf <ρdwhen high coverage is required 19

  20. Network Density w Opt Fusion Range • When fusion range is optimized with respect to network density • When k=2 (acoustic signals) • Data fusion significantly reduces network density , 2≤ k ≤5

  21. Network Density vs. SNR • For any fixed fusion range • The advantage of fusion decreases with SNR 21

  22. Trace-driven Simulations • Data traces collected from 75 acoustic nodes in vehicle detection experiments from DARPA SensIT project • α=0.5, β=0.95, deployment region: 1000m x 1000m

  23. Simulation on Synthetic Data • k=2, target position is localized as the geometric center of fusing nodes 23

  24. Conclusions • Bridge the gap between data fusion theories and performance analysis of sensor networks • Derive scaling laws of coverage vs. network density • Data fusion can significantly improve coverage! • Help to understand the limitation of current analytical results based on ideal sensing models • Provide guidelines for the design of data fusion algorithms for large-scale sensor networks 24

  25. Outline • Background • Problem definition • Coverage of large-scale sensor networks • Scaling laws of coverage • Coverage of static targets • Other projects • Model-driven concurrent medium access control • Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration • Personal perspectives on research 25

  26. Improve Throughput by Concurrency • Enable concurrency by controlling senders' power s1 s2 r1 r2 +

  27. Received Signal Strength • 18 Tmotes with Chipcon 2420 radio • Near-linear RSSdBm vs. transmission power level • Non-linear RSSdBm vs. log(dist), different from the classical model! Received Signal Strength (dBm) Received Signal Strength (dBm) Transmission Power Level Transmission Power Level 27

  28. Packet Reception Ratio vs. SINR • Classical model doesn't capture the gray region 0~3 dB is "gray region" Packet Reception Ratio (%) parking lot, no interferer office, no interferer office, 1 interferer 28

  29. C-MAC Components Power Control Model Currency Check Concurrent Transmission Engine Handshaking Online Model Estimation Interference Model Throughput Prediction Throughput Prediction • Implemented in TinyOS 1.x, evaluated on a 18-mote test-bed • Performance gain over TinyOS default MAC is >2X Presented at IEEE Infocom 2009 29

  30. Performance Evaluation • Implemented in TinyOS 1.x • 16 Tmotes deployed in a 25x24 ft office • 8 senders and 8 receivers

  31. Experimental Results Improve throughput linearly w num of senders system throughput (Kbps) system throughput (Kbps) Number of Senders Time (second)

  32. Deterministic Coverage + Connectivity • Select a set of nodes to achieve • K-coverage: every point is monitored by at least K sensors • N-connectivity: network is still connected if N-1 nodes fail Active nodes Sensing range Sleeping node Communicating nodes A network with 1-coverage and 1-connectivity 32

  33. Connectivity vs. Coverage: Analytical Results • Network connectivity does not guarantee coverage • Connectivity only concerns with node locations • Coverage concerns with all locations in a region • If Rc/Rs 2 • K-coverage  K-connectivity • Implication: given requirements of K-coverage and N-connectivity, only needs to satisfy max(K, N)-coverage • Solution: Coverage Configuration Protocol (CCP) • If Rc/Rs< 2 • CCP + connectivity mountainous protocols ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys), 2003 ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, Vol. 1 (1), 2005 (~600 citations on Google Scholar) 33

  34. Research Summary • Data fusion in sensor networks • Coverage [MobiCom 09]; deployment[RTSS 08]; mobility [ICDCS 08] • MAC protocol design and architecture • C-MAC: concurrent model-driven MAC [Infocom08] • UPMA: unified power management architecture [IPSN 07] • Sensornet/real-time middleware • MobiQuery: spatiotemporal query service for mobile users [ICDCS 05, IPSN 05] • nORB: light-weight real-time middleware for networked embedded systems [RTAS 04] • Controlled mobility • Mobility-assisted spatiotemporal detection [ICDCS 08,IWQoS 08] • Rendezvous-based data transport [MobiHoc 08, RTSS 07] • Power management • Minimum power configuration [MSWiM 07, MobiHoc 05, TOSN 3(2)] • Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration [TOSN 1(1), SenSys 03] • Impact of sensing coverage on geographic routing [TPDS 17(4), MobiHoc 04] • Real-time power-aware routing in sensor networks [IWQoS 06] • Data fusion for target detection [IPSN 04]

  35. Acknowledgement • Students • Rui Tan, Mo Sha • Collaborators • Benyuan Liu, Jianping Wang…..

  36. Michigan State University • First land-grant institution • Founded in 1855, prototype for 69 land-grant institutions established under the Morrill Act of 1862 • One of America's Public Ivy universities • Big ten conferences • University of Illinois, Indiana University, University of Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University,Purdue University, University of Wisconsin • Single largest campus, 8th largest university in the US with 46,648 students and 2,954 faculty members • Rankings of 2008 • 80th worldwide, Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Institute of Higher Education • 71th  in US, U.S. News & World Report

  37. Computer Science & Engineering @MSU • People • 27 tenure-stream faculty • Each year awards approximately 100 BS, 40 MS, and 10 PhD degrees in Computer Science • Research • 9 research laboratories, with annual research expenditures exceeding $3.5 million • Rankings • 15th graduate program in US, a recent article of Comm. of ACM • Top 100, Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Institute of Higher Education

  38. My Group • Research • Sensor networks • Data fusion, power management, voice streaming, controlled mobility • Low-power wireless networks • MAC, Interference management • Cyber-physical systems • Students • Supervise 6 PhDs (CityU and MSU), 2 MS • Co-supervise 4 PhDs (CAS, CWM, UTK, MSU)

  39. Ranking of Journals* • Tier 1 • IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking (TON) • Tier 1.5 • ACM Trans. on Sensor Networks (TOSN) • IEEE Trans. on Mobile Computing (TMC) • IEEE Trans. on Computers (TC) • IEEE Trans. on Parallel and Distributed Systems (TPDS) *The ranking is only applicable to Sensor Network research

  40. Ranking of Conferences* • Tier 0: SIGCOMM, MobiCom (~10%)[1] • Tier 1: MobiHoc (10~15%)[3], SenSys[1], MobiSys (15~18%), • Tier 1.5: Infocom[1], ICDCS (~18%) [3], RTSS[4] (20~25%), ICNP, PerCom (10-15%) • Tier 2:IPSN[3], IWQoS, [1] MSWiM (20~25%) [1], MASS[2], DCOSS (~25%) • Tier 4: Globecom, WCNC, ICC…..(>30%) *Partially borrowed from Prof. Dong Xuan’s talk *The ranking is only applicable to Sensor Network research, and may significantly change for other fields

More Related