• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1
Using Collective Decision System Support toManage Error in Wireless Sensor Fusion
Arnold B. Urken
Professor of Political ScienceStevens Institute of TechnologyHoboken, NJ 07030aurken@stevens.edu
 
Presented at Fusion 05, the International Conference on Information Fusion, Philadelphia, PA., July, 2005.
 
2
Using Collective Decision System Support toManage Error in Wireless Sensor Fusion
*
Arnold B. Urken
Professor of Political ScienceStevens Institute of TechnologyHoboken, NJ 07030aurken@stevens.edu
A
bstract 
– 
 
When sensor fusion uses voting methods to produce collective decisions on the basis of incompleteand imperfect information that would be produced if voting information were perfect and complete, thecollective outcomes will be error-resilient. Theseoutcomes will not be changed by breakdowns in wirelessnetwork communications or decision making errors. Error-resilient collective outcome (ERCO) analysismakes it possible to predict how long to wait or howmany votes to reach an optimal collective decision. ERCO analysis also provides a new framework forgaining strategic and tactical advantages from network-centric information sharing. This framework raises newtheoretical and empirical research opportunities forintegrating voting theory and fusion research.
Keywords:
wireless sensor networks, distributeddetection, error, decision fusion, voting systems, error-resilient.Patent pending. Portions of this work were supported bycontract DAAE30-00-D-1011 to the Stevens Wireless Network Security Center, 2004. Approved for GeneralPublic Release.
1
Introduction
 
Current developments in the design and deployment of sensors are challenging existing methodologies forcollecting data and producing useful information inwireless networks. In commercial and securityapplications of sensor technology, producing precise andaccurate intelligence is being constrained by newstandards for reliability, cost, processing speed andenergy conservation. Although voting methods havebeen used to address problems of sensor communicationsin networks, sensor fusion techniques have not beendeveloped to overcome errors caused by breakdowns innetwork communications and faulty decision making.This paper outlines a new approach to wireless sensorfusion that uses voting systems to manage these errors.The paper is organized to explain how voting systemcan be designed to provide error-resilient sensor fusion.Section 2 provides a framework that explains themotivation for developing a new approach andsummarizes the state of the art in building errormanagement into voting processes. Section 3 presentsthe concept of an error-resilient collective outcome(ERCO) and explains how voting systems can bedesigned to measure ERCO efficiency for complexdecision tasks in risky network environments. In thesesystems, voting methods are used to answer different andcomplementary questions about the same data. Section 4applies this theoretical approach to a complex decisiontask in which voter ratings are processed throughplurality, approval, and Copeland scoring methods in aMonte-Carlo simulation to compare their ERCOefficiency. And Section 5 discusses the simulationresults and outlines key questions for future research.
2
Sensor Design and Deployment
New sensor designs and deployment plans are drivingforces in the evolution of sensor fusion techniques. Forexample, sensors that use light-scattering technology toidentify and detect more than one agent have led toproposals [1] for deploying large sensor arrays of multipurpose sensors in cities to provide protectionagainst NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical)attacks. These deployments could provide earlywarnings that enable targeted populations to take evasiveaction and permit first responders to mitigate damage.Innovative use of materials is extending suchcapabilities by creating smaller, mobile, and inexpensivesensor systems that can increase the scope and accuracy
 
3
of multifaceted data that can be collected to produceknowledge [2]. By understanding the underlyingcomplex patterns in such artificial environments, controlscan be designed to generate precise and accurate sensorinformation.However innovations in the ability of sensors toproduce complex knowledge have not taken full accountof the problems of producing information in wirelessnetworks. Sensor capabilities are limited by decision-making and transmission errors. Physical interactionswith sensed environments can degrade sensor reliabilityand speed in detecting phenomena. Even if sensorperformance is not degraded by environmentalconditions, technology costs and energy constraints maylimit the feasibility of deploying enough sensors tomonitor a situation.Moreover, when sensors are not attacked by physical orcyber attacks, the wireless networks that are needed fortransmitting data and producing knowledge pose risks.Data collection can be thwarted by malicious actions thatdivert messages to the wrong destination or overwhelmthe processing speed and energy constraints provided bynetwork architecture. Although malicious attackers canuse commercial jamming devices to thwart wirelesscommunications, the same effect can be causedinadvertently by environmental distortions frombackground radiation from buildings.For these reasons, decision fusion should not beconsidered an afterthought in the development anddeployment of new techniques for sensor knowledge.Error should be integrated into the design of wirelesssensor architecture. Wireless systems based on suchdesigns will facilitate the development and deploymentof innovative sensors in two ways. First, they can removeobstacles that limit deployment of emerging sensortechniques for producing more complex intelligence.And second, wireless sensor systems that are resilient toerror will enable designers of sensors to increase thecomplexity of inputs that can enhance the scope andaccuracy of knowledge.
2.1Voting, Error, and Decision Fusion
 
Sensor fusion models have been developed to plandecision tasks and the collection of sensor data, addressthe ontological basis of fusion processes [10], useBayesian techniques to manage the integration of sensordata [13], and design local sensor decision thresholds tomaximize detection performance [12]. Fusion modelsthat have used voting systems to achieve similar analyticobjectives [11] have drawn from voting theory as well astheoretical insights about processing data in computernetworks [4, 5]. Each of these analytical perspectivesaddresses the problem of error in different ways, thoughneither perspective incorporates the concept of error-resilient fusion into the voting process itself.The computer science and computer engineeringliteratures have used voting methods in sensor fusionbecause processing of votes does not require muchbandwidth or computational overhead. With notableexceptions [6], applications of voting systems areconfined to the use of simple methods of weighting voteswith majority rule to control sensor fusion processes. Inthese studies, there is usually a focus on how to weightthe votes.Voting systems contain subsystems that enableindividual voters to communicate information aboutpreferences and judgments to form a collective outcome.Each voting system contains subsystems based on rulesfor the endowment of votes that can be used to expressindividual information, rules for the allocation of votes,and rules for aggregating votes to create a collectiveoutcome. For instance, “plurality voting,” commonlyused in elections in many Western democratic polities,includes an endowment of one vote, an allocationconstraint that restricts assigning the vote to a singlechoice—normally without splitting or saving the vote—and a plurality aggregation rule that recognizes thechoice with the most votes as the winner.Computer scientists counterbalance the application of voting methods with techniques for managing problemscaused by breakdowns in network communication thatprevent the production of collective outcomes. Forexample, statistical techniques are used to remove clutter,cleanse data, and weight votes. These techniques dependon the assumption that data collection satisfiesquantitative and qualitative requirements necessary forthe application of statistical methodology. Theserequirements entail the creation of networks that arecomputationally intensive, energy inefficient, anddependent on sequential sharing of information [7],In the theoretical voting literature, where elections arethe focus of analysis, the most common assumption isthat votes are collected successfully to produce acollective outcome that reveals the group preference.Problems in voting theory, social choice, and collectivedecision making analyses focus on how to process thevoting data once it received so that collective outcomeswith particular attributes can be created. And although
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...