Estimation by cross-correlation of the number of

nodes in underwater networks

Md. Shamim Anower, Michael R. Frater, Michael J. Ryan
School of Engineering and Information Technology
The University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy
Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia.
E-mail: m.anower@adfa.edu.au , m.frater@adfa.edu.au , m.ryan@adfa.edu.au
However, the number of operating nodes can vary with time
due to various artificial as well as natural reasons (for example,
some nodes might fail, some could be damaged, or batteries
might fail). So, it is a matter of great interest for a
communication network to know how many operating nodes or
transmitters are available in the region at any point in time to
ensure proper network operation (such as routing) as well as
network maintenance (such as replacement of faulty nodes).
There have been many investigations regarding the estimation
technique. For example, protocols [4-11] have been used to
estimate the number of tag IDs in radio frequency identification
(RFID) systems, which is a similar problem to the estimation of
the number of nodes in wireless communication networks. An
RFID system consists of one (or more) networked
electromagnetic reader and a number of radio frequency tags.
The tags contain limited computation power and memory
whereas the reader is powerful with abundant memory. There
exists a single communication channel to exchange message
between the reader and the tags whereas the tags are unable to
do this among each other. Initially, the tags are totally
unknown to the reader. The reader broadcast messages to the
tags, each tag receive a message and optionally send back a
response to the reader. The reader receives the responses from
the tags and tries to identify them. The tags are identified
properly if only one tag responds at a time. But if more than
one tag responds at a time, then the reader detects only a
collision on the channel. An RFID protocol specifies the
algorithms for the reader and the tags, so that the reader can
collect properly all the tag IDs.
Similarly, a Good-Turing estimator of node estimation for
terrestrial sensor networks has been proposed in Budianu et al.
[12-14], where each transmitting node transmits its ID in every
slot according to a certain probability and the packet collection
can be modeled as an i.i.d. sampling with uniform distribution
by SENMA (an ALOHA-like protocol). In this method they
estimate the number of operating sensors by deriving an
expression for it as a function of missing mass.
Although the abovementioned systems are easy to apply in
RFID as well as terrestrial systems, they do not take into
account the capture effect, which means that they are difficult
to apply in UASN. One solution has been proposed in
Howlader et al. [15, 16], which proposes a node estimation
technique taking the capture effect into account. The procedure
is similar to probabilistic framed slotted ALOHA [4] as the

Abstract- Knowledge of the number of nodes in a network is very

useful in practical network operations. To date techniques
employed to estimate the number of nodes in a network have been
based on some aspect of the communications protocol(s) in use.
Unfortunately, underwater networks have properties such as long
propagation delay, high absorption, and dispersion that limit
protocol-based techniques for estimating the number of nodes in a
network. This paper investigates the estimation of the number of
signal sources (N) in a region of interest through the crosscorrelation of the acoustic signals received at two nodes. It is
shown that the N can be expressed as a function of the mean and
the standard deviation of the cross-correlation function. On the
assumption that the signal sources are nodes in an underwater
network, this method can be used to estimate the number of
network nodes.
Keywords- cross-correlation, estimation, underwater acoustic
sensor networks (UASN), underwater communications.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Determining accurately the number of nodes in a

communications network is an important issue for practical
applications. In a communications network, for example,
network operations (such as routing and medium access) and
information retrieval and processing depend upon the number
of transmitting nodes (which can be considered to be
equivalent to the number of signal sources) present. Moreover,
estimation of the number of nodes, i.e. the number of
transmitters has recently received much attention in the field of
wireless sensor networks. In underwater networks there may be
a large number of network nodes deployed over a large area for
a practical purpose such as for oceanographic data collection or
pollution monitoring. In other applications underwater vehicles
in an underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSN) using
electromagnetic waves [1] and acoustic waves [2,3], equipped
with a sufficient fraction of operating nodes that can
communicate with each other travel underwater for the purpose
of climatic data collection, environmental monitoring, seismic
and acoustic monitoring to surveillance and national security,
military and health care, discovering natural resources as well
as locating man-made artefacts or extracting information for
scientific analysis. Optimal performance requires a balance of
the number of operating nodes, energy efficiency, and the
lifetime of the network. So the number of operating nodes is a
crucial factor for the networks.

978-1-4244-7322-9/YR/$26.00 2009 IEEE

probing node sends a probe request with frame size F (the

number of slots in the frame) and a probability P. Each
neighbouring transmitting node generates a random integer
between 1 and F and transmits in that slot within the frame. In
the responded frame there will be some singleton slots n l
where the packets are received correctly, some collided slots
nc where two or more packets are collided and some empty
slots n0 . But in their estimation only the empty slots are
remain unchanged. With this finding they derive an expression
to estimate the number of nodes as:
Number

of

Nodes

The procedural steps to determine the CCF are: first, the

transmitted signals from a number of different random signal
sources within range are received by two sensors separated by
a certain distance in the region; the received signals are
summed at each of the two sensor locations, and these two
signals are then cross-correlated. The estimate of the number of
signal sources (assumed in our case the number of nodes in an
underwater network) can be obtained based on the mean and
standard deviation of the CCF.

II. METHODOLOGY

F
n0 .
ln

P
F

A. Formulation of Random Signal Cross-correlation Problem

to Estimate the Number of Nodes

However all of the abovementioned procedures for the

estimation of the number of nodes in RFID systems and in
wireless sensor networks are similar in that they are based on
protocol design. But, underwater propagation characteristics
[17] such as propagation delay, high absorption, and dispersion
may make the use of protocol methods difficult. Using these
conventional protocol-based techniques to obtain precise
measurements is often expensive and inefficient.
In this paper, we propose a simple novel estimation
technique based on the cross-correlation of the acoustic signals
received at two nodes in the network. The cross-correlation of
signals received from random signal sources at each end of the
channel is an important issue in current research and this
technique has been investigated by the researchers to estimate
the Greens function (GF), a form of cross-correlation function
(CCF). For example, it has been shown theoretically that GF
can be obtained with ambient signal cross-correlation in the
simple case of a homogeneous medium with attenuation [18].
Similarly, Snieder [19] and Godin [20] have shown the
extraction of the Greens function in the case of a
heterogeneous medium. Some researchers [21, 22] have given
their attention to the emergence rate of the time-domain
Greens function (TDGF). Moreover, ward identities [23],
fluctuations [24] and mean and variance [25] have been
performed in diffuse field-field correlations. However none of
these investigations has focused on the estimation of the
number of signal sources.

Let us consider two probing nodes surrounded by N

transmitting nodes in a three-dimensional space as shown in
Fig. 1(a). We assume that the transmitting nodes are the
sources of white Gaussian signals and uniformly distributed
over the volume of a large sphere whose centre lies half way
between the probing nodes because only a sphere provides an
equal amount of signal coming from every direction. The
propagation velocity is assumed to be constant which is in our
case the sound velocity c in the medium.
To formulate the random signal cross-correlation problem, in
this analysis the 3-D space is taken as a cube and the probing
nodes P1, P2 and a transmitting node T are taken at locations
(x1,y1,z1), (x2,y2,z2), and (x3,y3,z3) respectively somewhere inside
the cube as shown in Fig. 1(b). The separation between the
probing nodes is then, dDBS (x1 x2)2 (y1  y2)2 (z1 z2)2 . Consider
that node T emits a signal S1(t) which is infinitely long. The
signals received respectively by the sensors in P1 and P2 will
be:
(1)
S r1 (t ) D1S1 (t  W 1 )
and
S r2 (t )

D 2 S1 (t  W 2 )

(2)
where, D1 and D 2 are the attenuations due to path loss present
in the medium and W 1 d1 / c and W 2 d 2 / c are the time
delays for the signal to reach the sensors.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. Distribution of the underwater network nodes, taking (a) N transmitting nodes and (b) only one transmitting node.

Thus the signals received from N nodes by the two sensors

in P1 and P2 will be:
N

S rt1 (t )

k1S k t  k1 

Var (C1, 2 (W ))

k 1

k 2 S k (t

 k 2 )

k 1

f

f

S rt 1 (t ) S rt 2 (t  )dt

(7)

Var(C1,2 (W ))

C12,2 (W )  C1,2 (W )

(8)

It is quite difficult to analyze the random signal crosscorrelation problem to estimate the standard deviation and the
mean in the above way, but the problem can be reframed as a
probability problem. Reframing it as a probability problem
make analysis much simpler. The process is discussed in the
following section.

(4)

respectively.
Assuming W d DBS / c is the time shift in cross-correlation,
and then the CCF is:

C1,2 (W )

Thus the standard deviation, V , of the CCF, which is the

square root of the variance, can be obtained as:

(3)

and
S rt 2 (t )

C12, 2 (W )  C1, 2 (W )

C. Reframing the Cross-correlation Problem as Probability

Problem

(5)

which takes the form of a series of delta functions as it is a

cross-correlation of two signals which are the summation of
several white Gaussian signals.

To reframe, we discretize the signals used in the previous

section with a certain sampling rate, and assume for ease of
analysis that the delays take integer values. It is shown in
section II.A that the cross-correlation of two signals (which are
the summation of several random signals) takes the form of a
series of delta functions and will occupy the space between
sensors where we have divided that space by several bins as in
Fig. 2.
To demonstrate the problem of cross-correlation as a
probability problem, consider an experiment of the repetitive
type in which only the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an event
is recorded. Suppose the probability of occurrences of an event
in a performed experiment is p. Let q=1p denotes the
probability that it fails to occur. Success is the occurrence of
the event at a given trial of the experiment. If the event does
not occur, it is called a failure. Let n independent trials be made
and denote by X the number of successes that are obtained in
the n trials. In our case, the number of trials, n is equivalent to
the number of transmitting nodes, N and the probability of
success; p is equivalent to 1/b, where b is the number of bins.

B. The Standard Deviation, of the CCF

Now, the ensemble average of this random signal crosscorrelation can be expressed in (6) [18]:
1

& & & &

rP2  rT rP1  rT

f &
,
C1,2 (W ) Q2Tv drT
(6)
&
&
&
&
rP  rT rP  rT
f
1
2

uG t 

c
c

where Q2 represents the acoustic power of the signals emitted
from the transmitting nodes and is taken constant over time and
space, is the creation rate of the random signal sources whose
unit is per unit time per volume, rs are the corresponding
distances from the origin.
The variance of this CCF (that is, the square of the mean
level of the fluctuations) is defined as:

Fig. 2. Bins, b in the cross-correlation process

where K ( b  1) is a constant and known to us. Thus from

simulation we can readily estimate the number of nodes by
knowing only the ratio of standard deviation to the mean of the
CCF.

III. ESTIMATION OF N
The estimation technique of the number of nodes, N is
discussed in this section. First, it is theoretically demonstrated
that N is related to b and the ratio of standard deviation to the
mean, R of the CCF. Then, the result from the theory is
investigated by simulation. This technique assumes that the
received power from each node is the same, which can be
achieved by sending a probe request from the sensors, and each
node setting its transmit power in accordance with the received
power from the probe.
A.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Simulations have been performed in the Matlab
programming environment. Fig. 3 shows the simulation results
for N with respect to R. It is obvious from Fig. 3 that the theory
matches the simulation results. In the figure, two lines; the
solid and the dotted indicate respectively the theoretical
(obtained from the mathematical relationships shown in section
III.A) and the simulated (obtained from simulation as discussed
in section III.B).
Fig. 3 shows that the simulated lines are very close to each
other, which indicates that the process is good enough for
estimation. Again it is obvious that the b will be larger if d DBS
increases and it has an effect on the estimation process, which
is discussed in section III.A. Again, it is shown in Fig. 3 that
large values of d DBS result in large values of R and closer the
simulated lines to the theoretical lines.
It is also obvious from Fig. 3 that a good approximation of
the number of nodes, N, can be obtained from the ration R of
the CCF even when the distances between sensors are small.

Theoretical Estimation

The expected value or the first moment (the mean) of the

CCF is:
E ( X ) mean, P C1,2 (W ) np
(9)
N u (1 / b)
where b is twice the number of samples between sensors
(NSBS), m minus one, as we cross-correlate two vectors of
length m1.
And, the standard deviation of the CCF is:

n u p u (1  p)
N u (1 / b) u (1  1 / b)

Thus the ratio of standard deviation to the mean, R is:

q
(1  1 / b)
(b  1)
R V yP
np
N u (1 / b)
N

(10)

V.
(11)

Knowledge of the number of nodes in a network is very

useful in practical network operations. To date techniques
employed to estimate the number of nodes in a network have
been based on some aspect of the protocol(s) in use. The
existing methods regarding the protocol design have some
limitations to estimate the number in underwater networks. In
this paper we have shown that the cross-correlation of random
signal can be used to estimate the number of nodes or
transmitters in underwater network. Mathematically derived
expressions have been investigated by simulation and the
results agree with the mathematics. The technique using crosscorrelation depends on several assumptions as the random
signal sources are the nodes of an underwater network, the
emitted signals are white Gaussian in nature, the received
signals are of equal power, and the delays take integer values.
Although the technique is based on a number of assumptions, it
is a simple, novel technique to estimate the number of signal
sources in the environment.
In future work, we intend to address the assumptions made here
with regard to the nature of the signal sources (transmitters or
noise sources), the distribution of the signal sources (for other
than Gaussian distribution), the signal sources of different
powers, and the delays with fractional values. Moreover, we
intend to conduct experimentation within real networks.

After some manipulation we have:

b 1
N
(12)
R2
This is the relationship between the number of nodes, N and
the ratio of standard deviation to the mean, R of the CCF. Since
we know b and we can measure and (and therefore
determine R) from the CCF, we can readily determine the
number of nodes, N.
B.

CONCLUSION

Estimation from Simulation

As discussed in the previous section, after cross-correlating

signals at two sensors received from a number of random
Gaussian signal sources, the CCF can be obtained, which is a
rectangular pulse over the space between sensors. Then it is
easy to estimate the mean and the standard deviation of this
CCF and therefore the ratio, R as the sampling rate and d DBS
are known. In the particular case where the sampling rate, speed
of propagation, and d DBS are assumed to be fixed then it is
obvious from (12) that the number of nodes, N is inversely
proportional to the square of the ratio, R. Thus (12) becomes:
K
,
(13)
N
R2

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 3. Estimation of the number of nodes; (a) dDBS = 0.25 m; (b) dDBS = 1 m; (c) dDBS = 2 m

[13] C. Budianu and L. Tong, Estimation of the number of

operating sensors in a sensor network, presented at 2003
Asilomar Conf. Signals, Systems, Computers. [Online].
Available: http://acsp.ece.cornell.edu/pubC.html/
[14] C. Budianu and L. Tong, GoodTuring estimation of the
number of operating sensors: A large deviations
analysis, Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, Signal Processing
(ICASSP), Montreal, QC, Canada, May 2004.
[15] M.S.A. Howlader, M.R. Frater, and M.J. Ryan,
Estimating the number of neighbours and their
distribution in an underwater communication network
(UWCN), MILCIS2007, Canberra, 20-22 November
2007.
[16] M.S.A. Howlader, M.R. Frater, and M.J. Ryan,
Estimation in Underwater Sensor networks taking into
account capture IEEE Oceans07, Aberdeen, Scotland,
18-21 June 2007.
[17] L. Liu, S. Zhou and Jun-Hong Cui, Prospects and
problems of wireless communication for underwater
sensor networks, Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2008,
Published online in Wiley InterScience. DOI=
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcm.654
[18] P. Roux, K. Sabra, W. Kuperman, and A. Roux,
Ambient noise crosscorrelation in free space: theoretical
approach, J. Acoustic Soc. Am., 117, 7984, 2005.
[19] R. Snieder, Extracting the Greens function of
attenuating heterogeneous acoustic media from
uncorrelated waves, J. Acoustic Soc. Am., Vol. 121, No.
5, 2637-2643, May 2007.
[20] O.A. Godin, Recovering the Acoustic Greens function
from ambient noise cross correlation in an
inhomogeneous moving medium, Physical Review
Letters, The American Physical Society, 97,
054301(2006).
[21] O.I. Lobkis and R.L. Weaver, On the emergence of the
greens function in the correlations of a diffuse field, J.
Acoustic Soc. Am., 110, 30113017, 2001.
[22] K.G. Sabra, P. Roux, and W.A. Kuperman, Emergence
rate of the time-domain Greens function from the
ambient noise cross-correlation function, J. Acoustic
Soc. Am., Vol. 118, No. 6, 35243531, December 2005.
[23] R.L. Weaver, Ward identities and the retrieval of
Greens functions in the correlations of a diffuse field,
Wave Motion, 45 (2008), 596-604.
[24] R.L. Weaver and O.I. Lobkis, Fluctuations in diffuse
field-field correlations and the emergence of the Greens
function in open systems, J. Acoustic Soc. Am., Vol.
117, No. 6, 34323439, June 2005.
[25] R.L. Weaver and O.I. Lobkis, The mean and variance of
diffuse-field correlations in finite bodies, J. Acoustic
Soc. Am., Vol. 118, No. 6, 3447-3456, December 2005.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]
[3]
[4]

[5]

[6]
[7]

M.R. Frater, M.J. Ryan, and R.M. Dunbar,

Electromagnetic communications within swarms of
autonomous underwater vehicles, in Proc. WUWNet06,
September 25, 2006, Los Angeles, California, USA.
E.M. Sozer, M. Stojanovic, and J.G. Proakis,
Underwater acoustic networks, IEEE J. Oceanic Engg.,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 7283, 2000.
A. Quazi, W. Konard, Underwater Acoustic
Communication, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol.
20, No. 2, pp. 2430, 1982.
M. Kodialam and T. Nandagopal, Fast and Reliable
Estimation Schemes In RFID Systems, Proc. Mobicom
06, September 23-26, 2006, Los Angeles, California,
USA.
M.A. Bonuccelli, F. Lonetti, and F. Martelli, Tree
slotted aloha: a new protocol for tag identification in
RFID networks, Proc. of IEEE Int. Symposium on a
World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks,
pp.603608, Jun. 2006.
M. A.-I. Center, Draft protocol specification for a 900
MHz class 0 radio frequency identification tag,
http://www.epcglobalinc.org , Feb. 2003.
C. Law, K. Lee, and K.-Y. Siu, Efficient memoryless
protocol for tag identification (extended abstract), Proc.
4th Int. workshop on Discrete Algorithms and methods
for mobile computing and communications (DIALM
00), New York, USA, 2000, pp. 7584.

[8]

J. Ryu, H. Lee, Y. Seok, T. Kwon and Y. Choi, A

Hybrid Query Tree Protocol for Tag Collision Arbitration
in RFID systems, IEEE Int. Conf. on Communications,
pp. 59815986, Jun. 2007.
[9] J. Myung, W. Lee and J. Srivastava, Adaptive binary
splitting for efficient RFID tag anti-collision, IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 10 (3), pp.144146, Mar.
2006.
[10] J. Myung, W. Lee, J. Srivastava and T.K. Shih, TagSplitting: adaptive collision arbitration protocols for
RFID tag identification, IEEE T. Parall. Distr., Vol. 18
(6), pp. 763-775, Jun. 2007.
[11] M.A. Bonuccelli, F. Lonetti, F. Martelli, Perfect tag
identification
protocol
in
RFID
networks,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0805/0805.1877v1.pd
f, May 13, 2008
[12] C. Budianu, S. Ben-David, and L. Tong, Estimation of
the Number of Operating Sensors in Large-Scale Sensor
Networks with Mobile Access, IEEE Transactions on
Signal Processing, Vol. 54, No. 5, May 2006.