Proceedings Article10.1145/1127777.1127783
Utility based sensor selection
Fang Bian,David Kempe,Ramesh Govindan +2 more
- 19 Apr 2006
- pp 11-18
164
TL;DR: This paper argues that sensor selection should be based upon a tradeoff between application-perceived benefit and energy consumption of the selected sensor set, and proposes a framework wherein the application can specify the utility of measuring data (nearly) concurrently at each set of sensors.
read more
Abstract: Sensor networks consist of many small sensing devices that monitor an environment and communicate using wireless links. The lifetime of these networks is severely curtailed by the limited battery power of the sensors. One line of research in sensor network lifetime management has examined sensor selection techniques, in which applications judiciously choose which sensors' data should be retrieved and are worth the expended energy. In the past, many ad-hoc approaches for sensor selection have been proposed. In this paper, we argue that sensor selection should be based upon a tradeoff between application-perceived benefit and energy consumption of the selected sensor set. We propose a framework wherein the application can specify the utility of measuring data (nearly) concurrently at each set of sensors. The goal is then to select a sequence of sets to measure whose total utility is maximized, while not exceeding the available energy. Alternatively, we may look for the most cost-effective sensor set, maximizing the product of utility and system lifetime. This approach is very generic, and permits us to model many applications of sensor networks. We proceed to study two important classes of utility functions: submodular and supermodular functions. We show that the optimum solution for submodular functions can be found in polynomial time, while optimizing the cost-effectiveness of supermodular functions is NP-hard. For a practically important subclass of supermodular functions, we present an LP-based solution if nodes can send for different amounts of time, and show that we can achieve an O(log n) approximation ratio if each node has to send for the same amount of time. Finally, we study scenarios in which the quality of measurements is naturally expressed in terms of distances from targets. We show that the utility-based approach is analogous to a penalty-based approach in those scenarios, and present preliminary results on some practically important special cases.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
Sensor Selection via Convex Optimization
Siddharth Joshi,Stephen Boyd +1 more
TL;DR: This paper describes a heuristic, based on convex optimization, that gives a subset selection as well as a bound on the best performance that can be achieved by any selection of k sensor measurements.
Sensor selection for Kalman filtering of linear dynamical systems: Complexity, limitations and greedy algorithms
TL;DR: It is shown that the a priori and a posteriori error covariance-based sensor selection problems are both NP-hard, even under the additional assumption that the system is stable, and via simulations that greedy algorithms perform well in practice.
211
Priority-based target coverage in directional sensor networks using a genetic algorithm
TL;DR: This paper proposes the priority-based target coverage problem and strives to choose a minimum subset of directional sensors that can monitor all targets, satisfying their prescribed priorities, using a genetic algorithm.
113
Attention and Anticipation in Fast Visual-Inertial Navigation
Luca Carlone,Sertac Karaman +1 more
TL;DR: Simulations and real experiments show that the approach ensures state-of-the-art VIN performance while maintaining a lean processing time, and outperforms appearance-based feature selection in terms of localization errors.
Sensor Selection for Event Detection in Wireless Sensor Networks
TL;DR: This work corroborates numerically the validity of the Kullback-Leibler and Chernoff sensor selection criteria, by showing that they lead to sensor selections nearly optimal both in the Neyman-Pearson and Bayes sense.
References
Rate control for communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability
TL;DR: This paper analyses the stability and fairness of two classes of rate control algorithm for communication networks, which provide natural generalisations to large-scale networks of simple additive increase/multiplicative decrease schemes, and are shown to be stable about a system optimum characterised by a proportional fairness criterion.
5.8K
•Journal Article
An Energy-Efficient MAC Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
TL;DR: S-MAC as discussed by the authors is a medium access control protocol designed for wireless sensor networks, which uses three novel techniques to reduce energy consumption and support self-configuration, including virtual clusters to auto-sync on sleep schedules.
5.5K
An energy-efficient MAC protocol for wireless sensor networks
Wei Ye,John Heidemann,Deborah Estrin +2 more
- 07 Nov 2002
TL;DR: S-MAC uses three novel techniques to reduce energy consumption and support self-configuration, and applies message passing to reduce contention latency for sensor-network applications that require store-and-forward processing as data move through the network.
Versatile low power media access for wireless sensor networks
Joseph Polastre,Jason Hill,David E. Culler +2 more
- 03 Nov 2004
TL;DR: B-MAC's flexibility results in better packet delivery rates, throughput, latency, and energy consumption than S-MAC, and the need for flexible protocols to effectively realize energy efficient sensor network applications is illustrated.
An adaptive energy-efficient MAC protocol for wireless sensor networks
Tijs van Dam,Koen Langendoen +1 more
- 05 Nov 2003
TL;DR: T-MAC, a contention-based Medium Access Control protocol for wireless sensor networks, introduces an adaptive duty cycle in a novel way: by dynamically ending the active part of it to handle load variations in time and location.