Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
T
and the mean located at the cluster center. Another cluster
process is the Matern PP. As for the Thomas PP, the number
of parent points are distributed according to a Poisson PP with
intensity
M
. The number of cluster members in each cluster
is also sampled from a Poisson distribution with mean
M
.
The only difference lies in how the cluster points themselves
are distributed. While for the Thomas PP a normal distribution
is used, the cluster points of a Matern PP are uniformly
distributed over a disc of radius R
M
with the respective parent
point as center. Again, the parent points do not occur in the
resulting realisation of the PP. In our simulations we used the
parameters (
T
,
T
) =(
M
,
M
) =(8.4 10
4
, 12) while the
third parameter,
T
in the Thomas case and R
M
in the Matern
case, controls the cluster spread.
From our analysis we derive the inner product as candi-
date solution for the linear function leading to the proposed
performance prediction metric dened as
=
C(r), g(r)
_
. (4)
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
distance r
p
a
i
r
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
Matern, R
M
= 11
Matern, R
M
= 14
Thomas,
T
= 3
Thomas,
T
= 4
Thomas,
T
= 5
Fig. 2. Pair correlation functions of the considered topologies; sampled from
different types of random point processes with varying cluster spread.
Maximising leads to large metric values indicating minimal
energy consumption. For evaluation we conducted extensive
simulations (2000 runs each) obtaining average energy con-
sumption values
E and computed the respective -metric
values using equation 4. Figure 3 shows the energy consumed
vs. the prediction metric. Interconnected data points belong
to phenomena with identical d
ph
. Markers indicate specic
topologies. From Figure 3 we observe that the energy con-
sumption is directly related to the performance prediction
metric, i.e.
E . This interesting relation holds across all
considered topologies with arbitrary but xed d
ph
. Further-
more, Figure 4 is similar to Figure 3 but in contrast shows
interconnected data points which belong to arbitrary but xed
topologies deployed on phenomena with varying d
ph
. We have
found that
E is again directly related to for any particular
topology across phenomena exhibiting different d
ph
.
As a result, the inner product can be used as a lightweight
and powerful metric for the performance prediction of WSNs.
It is based on C(r) and g(r) solely. While only the correla-
tion structure of the phenomenon needs to be estimated the
pair correlation functions of candidate topologies need to be
stored using a minimal amount of memory. Using prior
to the costly WSN deployment is a lightweight approach to
signicantly improve the cost-efciency of the system. Since
extensive simulations can be completely avoided during the
system design phase this metric enables rapid comparative
performance evaluation of various deployment strategies.
V. EXTENDED METRIC AND ITS APPLICATION
Depending on the application other performance criteria can
play an important role. Since the effectiveness of WSNs is
often dependent on the sensing coverage we extend the per-
formance prediction metric by considering sensing coverage as
second criterion. Full sensing coverage (100 %) is achieved if
the deployed nodes cover at least the collection of interesting
locations of the phenomenon. We denote all those locations
as the set of points of interest (POI). POI is essentially
a point cloud which is selected based on signicant local
0 200 400 600 800 1000
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
performance prediction metric
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
d
[
J
]
Matern, R
M
= 11
Matern, R
M
= 14
Thomas,
T
= 3
Thomas,
T
= 4
Thomas,
T
= 5
d
ph
= 3
d
ph
= 7
d
ph
= 5
d
ph
= 10
d
ph
= 9
Fig. 3. Direct relationship between performance prediction metric and
energy consumption according to varying correlation distance d
ph
; markers
indicate specic topologies.
deviations of the actual neighbouring phenomenon values.
Those deviations represent the highest information content and
are assumed to be most important to the application user. It
is noteworthy that nodes deployed in the area that do not
cover the POI still provide less but useful information. In
order to identify the POI we particularly apply the Laplace
operator and low-pass ltering to the entire phenomenon.
The Laplace operator on the function f is in the two-
dimensional cartesian case a second order differential operator
of the form f =
2
f =
2
f
x
2
+
2
f
y
2
. From the POI we can
derive a priori information which can be incorporated into the
random deployment models in order to improve the sensing
coverage of WSNs. The analysis of enhanced deployment
models exploiting a priori information has been presented in
our previous works [6], [15] and is not the focus of this paper.
However, in Table I we include a fraction of our results
adopted from [6] to be self-contained. Focusing on phenomena
with d
ph
=10 exemplarily, Table I lists simulation results (2000
runs) such as average energy consumption
E and average
sensing coverage v in respect to various deployment models.
The parameters of the models where estimated from the POI
using the minimum contrast method [16]. The term parent-
modied refers to the case where the parent point locations
(cluster centers) are restricted to lie on the rst principal
component of the POI. In addition, the term non-symmetric
refers to case where the shape of the node distribution in each
cluster is dependent on the shape factor . Both options are
examples of how phenomena-related a priori information can
be exploited in order to improve the sensing coverage of the
deployment.
From our analysis, we nd that the degree of similarity
between the PDFs of the POI and the chosen deployment
model is directly related to sensing coverage. As similarity
measures to estimate the distance between distributions we
take into account the Kullback-Leibler divergence [17] and
the Hellinger metric [18]. The symmetric Kullback-Leibler
0 200 400 600 800 1000
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
performance prediction metric
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
d
[
J
]
Matern, R
M
= 11
Matern, R
M
= 14
Thomas,
T
= 3
Thomas,
T
= 4
Thomas,
T
= 5
Fig. 4. Direct relationship between performance prediciton metric and
energy consumption according to various topologies.
divergence of two PDFs p and q is dened as
KL(p, q) = D(p||q) +D(q||p), with (5)
D(p||q) =
p(x) log
_
p(x)/q(x)
_
.
Furthermore, the Hellinger metric is dened as
HM =
_
j
_
_
p(x
j
)
_
q(x
j
)
_
2
_1
2
. (6)
It is preferred to not rely on similarity measures that operate
on PDFs solely since those may be misleading. Hence, we
use in addition the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic [19] and the
Area metric which operate on cumulative distribution functions
(CDFs). The weighted Kolmogorov-Smirnov metric is dened
as
KS = max
x
_
|I(x) M(x)|/
_
M(x)
_
1 M(x)
_
_
, (7)
where I is the CDF of the POI and M is the CDF of the
chosen deployment model. Furthermore, the Area metric Q as
applied in, for example, [20] is dened as
Q(I, M) =
1
J
J
j=1
log(I
1
(j/J)) log(M
1
(j/J))
log(I
1
(1/J)) log(M
1
(1/J))
2J
log(I
1
(1)) log(M
1
(1))
2J
,
(8)
where J denotes the size of the observation window. Since
an increasing degree of similarity of two distribution func-
tions implies decreasing values in the distance between those
functions we denote the similarity measure in the case of
PDF-based measures =1/KL and =1/HM, respectively.
Similarly in the case of CDF-based measures it follows
=1/KS and =1/Q, respectively. The extended prediction
metric can then be dened as
= , (9)
TABLE I
AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION
E AND SENSING COVERAGE v
No. Model description
E[J] v[%]
1 Poisson (
P
= 0.0313) 1066.20 2.99
2 Thomas (
T
,
T
,
T
)(1.1210
3
, 27.9, 5.0) 797.43 3.29
5 Parent-mod. non-sym. Thomas ( = 2) 802.37 9.10
6 Parent-mod. non-sym. Thomas ( = 3) 804.03 9.23
7 Matern (
M
,
M
, R
M
)(1.1510
3
, 27.1, 9.4) 678.40 3.50
10 Parent-mod. non-sym. Matern ( = 2) 626.27 9.54
11 Parent-mod. non-sym. Matern ( = 3) 628.55 10.53
where denotes the introduced performance prediction metric
according to energy consumption. For the evaluation of the
deployment strategies we develop the -metric
= v/
E, (10)
which takes into account simulation results such as energy
consumption
E and sensing coverage v.
Figure 5 shows the direct relationship between the extended
prediction metric and the -metric considering the deploy-
ment strategies achieving largest v-values. Markers indicate
the topology type 5, 6, 10 and 11 from Table I. We can see
the behaviour of all considered similarity measures in respect
to the best performing deployment strategies. While all curves
behave similarly we observe that the CDF-based curves allow
a more clear distinction. Figure 5 shows that the extended
prediction metric can be used instead of the -metric which
captures the overall performance of WSNs from simulations
viewpoint. Thus, the concept of the performance prediction
metric is applicable and can also be extended through merging
of selected performance criteria.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we presented the derivation of a novel metric
for the performance prediction of Wireless Sensor Networks
(WSNs). The proposed metric is based on the correlation in
the sensed phenomenon and the correlation in the location of
the sensor nodes. The main application area of the perfor-
mance prediction metric lies in the design and optimization of
WSNs prior to the costly deployment phase. Since extensive
simulations can be completely avoided it serves as a rapid
and lightweight evaluation tool for comparative analysis of
WSNs. We have shown that this concept is applicable and also
extensible through merging of selected performance criteria.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was nancially supported by the German Re-
search Foundation (DFG) through the UMIC-research centre
at the RWTH Aachen University. We would like to thank Janne
Riihij arvi for stimulating discussions on spatial statistics.
REFERENCES
[1] W. Bajwa, J. Haupt, A. Sayeed, and R. Nowak, Joint Source-Channel
Communication for Distributed Estimation in Sensor Networks, IEEE
Trans. on Information Theory, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 36293653, 2007.
[2] V. Shnayder, M. Hempstead, B. Chen, G. W. Allen, and M. Welsh,
Simulating the power consumption of large-scale sensor network ap-
plications, in Proceedings of the SENSYS, Baltimore, USA, 2004, pp.
188200.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
10
3.2
10
3.4
10
3.6
10
3.8
metric 1000
m
e
t
r
i
c
KL
HM
KS
Q
type 5
type 6
type 10
type 11
Fig. 5. Relation between and -metric in respect to the considered
similarity measures; markers indicate the topology type.
[3] F. Oldewurtel and P. M ah onen, Efciency Analysis and Derivation of
Enhanced Deployment Models for Sensor Networks, Int. Journal of Ad
Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing (IJAHUC), 2010, accepted.
[4] Y. Zou and K. Chakrabarty, Sensor Deployment and Target Localization
in Distributed Sensor Networks, ACM Trans. on Embedded Computing
Systems (TECS), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 6191, 2004.
[5] G. Wang, G. Cao, and T. L. Porta, Movement-Assisted Sensor Deploy-
ment, IEEE Trans. on Mobile Computing, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 640652,
2006.
[6] F. Oldewurtel and P. M ah onen, Analysis of Enhanced Deployment
Models for Sensor Networks, in Proceedings of the VTC spring, Taipei,
Taiwan, 2010, accepted.
[7] S. Pattem, B. Krishnamachari, and R. Govindan, The Impact of Spatial
Correlation on Routing with Compression in Wireless Sensor Networks,
ACM Trans. on Sensor Networks (TOSN), vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 133, 2008.
[8] F. Oldewurtel, J. Ansari, and P. M ah onen, Cross-Layer Design for Dis-
tributed Source Coding in Wireless Sensor Networks, in Proceedings
of the SENSORCOMM, Cap Esterel, France, 2008, pp. 435443.
[9] A. Jindal and K. Psounis, Modeling Spatially Correlated Data in Sensor
Networks, ACM Trans. on Sensor Networks (TOSN), vol. 2, no. 4, pp.
466499, 2006.
[10] D. Stoyan, W. S. Kendall, and J. Mecke, Stochastic Geometry and its
Applications. Wiley, 1995.
[11] J.-P. Ebert, A. Willig, and A. Wolisz, A Gilbert-Elliot Bit Error Model
and the Efcient Use in Packet Level Simulation, in TKN technical
report TKN-99-002, 1999.
[12] F. Oldewurtel, M. Foks, and P. M ah onen, On a Practical Distributed
Source Coding Scheme for Wireless Sensor Networks, in Proceedings
of the VTC spring, Marina Bay, Singapore, March 2008, pp. 228232.
[13] F. Oldewurtel, J. Riihij arvi, and P. M ah onen, Efciency of Distributed
Compression and its Dependence on Sensor Node Deployments, in
Proceedings of the VTC spring, Taipei, Taiwan, 2010, accepted.
[14] J. Riihij arvi, P. M ah onen, and M. R ubsamen, Characterizing Wire-
less Networks by Spatial Correlations, IEEE Communications Letters,
vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3739, 2007.
[15] F. Oldewurtel and P. M ah onen, Estimation and Evaluation of Deploy-
ment Models for Sensor Networks, in Proceedings of the VTC fall,
Anchorage, USA, 2009, pp. 15.
[16] P. J. Diggle and R. J. Gratton, Monte Carlo Methods of Inference for
Implicit Statistical Models, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 193227, 1984.
[17] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory. Wiley,
2006.
[18] A. Ferrante, M. Pavon, and F. Ramponi, Hellinger versus Kullback-
Leibler Multivariable Spectrum Approximation, IEEE Trans. on Auto-
matic Control, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 954967, 2008.
[19] F. Massey, The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for Goodness of Fit, Journal
of the American Statistical Assoc., vol. 46, no. 253, pp. 6878, 1951.
[20] M. Wellens, J. Riihij arvi, and P. M ah onen, Empirical Time and Fre-
quency Domain Models of Spectrum Use, Elsevier Physical Commu-
nication, vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 1032, 2009.