2022 IEEE 28th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS)

An Improved Least-square based Jammer

2022 IEEE 28th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) | 978-1-6654-7315-6/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICPADS56603.2022.00041

Localization Algorithm
Ruiqiong Tong∗ , Yicong Du∗ , Hongbo Liu∗ , Yingying Chen†
∗ University
of Electronic Science and Technology of China,China
Email: ruiqiongtong@gmail.com,202112081362@std.uestc.edu.cn, hongbo.liu@uestc.edu.cn
† Rutgers University,USA

Email: yingche@scarletmail.rutgers.edu

Abstract—Due to the shared nature of wireless mediums,

jamming attacks have long been a great hazard to the security
of wireless networks. A plethora of efforts have been spent
to mitigate the impact of jamming attacks, and especially the
localization technique of malicious jammer emerges in the last
decade and enables us to remove the interfering devices from
the physical layer. Since it is impossible to directly measure
the interfering signal in a jamming scenario, many existing
methods rely on inaccurate ranging estimation to locate the
jammers. In this paper, we propose an improved least-square
jammer localization method leveraging the network distribution
properties. Specifically, we exploit the stochastic geometry theory
to analyze the coverage changes of wireless devices around
the jammer, which are then used to improve the accuracy of
ranging estimation. Extensive numerical results demonstrate the
effectiveness and robustness of the proposed jammer localization
methods under various scenarios. Notably, the improved least-
squares method has a decreasing of 35 % on the mean localization
error comparing to the traditional least-square method.
Index Terms—Jammer localization, Stochastic point process,
Least-Square
I. I NTRODUCTION
Nowadays, with the extensive development of wireless com-
munication technologies, a myriad of convenient applications
have been utilized in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) for
health detection [2], healthcare [17], military tracking [10],
and mobile Internet networks for emergency rescue [25],
traffic detection [16], etc. Due to the open nature of wire-
less communication, in addition to unintentional interference,
jamming attacks incurred from malicious blocking of signals
within reachable region are seriously harmful. Specifically, the
attacker can broadcast the tampered information to prevent
legitimate devices from receiving expected information, caus-
ing communication interruptions. To eliminate such malicious
jamming and ensure reliable communication in networks,
many efforts have been invested in improving physical-layer
security by exploiting diverse channel properties (e.g., fre-
quency hopping, spread spectrum [8] [12] [28]) and setting
friendly jammer [13] to disturb attackers, etc. Moreover,
jammer localization as an anti-interference tactic has recently
been studied [18].
Jammer localization is to estimate the location of the jam-
ming source by means of measurement or non-measurement.
Hongbo Liu is the corresponding author.
(a) (b)
Node Jammer Estimated Jammer
Hearing Range based LSQ
Hearing Range based Improved LSQ
Fig. 1. An example of a comparison of the improved LSQ-based jammer
localization and LSQ-based jammer localization.
The measurement-based jammer localization requires the ul-
trasonic and infrared devices to detect the target position by
measuring specific indicators (e.g., the received signal strength
index (RSSI) [4], time of arrival (TOA), time difference of
arrival (TDOA) [19], and the angle of arrival (AOA) [1] of
the signal from the jammer). Typically, the accuracy of jammer
localization relies on the effective measurement of indicators,
which may incur high monetary and communication overhead
[22]. To address the issues, researchers have proposed a variety
of non-measurement methods to achieve jammer localization
based on the location information of blocked nodes. For
instance, typical methods include Centroid Localization (CL),
Weighted Centroid Localization (WCL) [6] [5], and Minimum
Closed Rectangle Center Localization (MERCL) [22] [26].
However, the aforementioned algorithms leveraging exhaus-
tive search or alternating projection are still computationally
intensive and not suitable for the energy-constrained devices.
[9] [21].
The Least-square (LSQ) method, a computationally efficient
solution with a closed-form expression, can be utilized to
estimate the location of the node [14]. Specifically, the jammer
localization can be well transformed into the least squares
problem, iteratively narrowing the gap between the estimated
position and the real one. To explore the efficiency of searching
estimated position, considerable search algorithms based on
the least squares method have been proposed successively,
such as two-step LSQ [24], weighted LSQ [29], Gravitational
Search Algorithm, Beetle Antennae Search Algorithm [15],
etc. These studies mainly focus on enhancing search efficiency,
while they still lack an effective approach for network theoret-

978-1-6654-7315-6/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE 258

DOI 10.1109/ICPADS56603.2022.00041
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:58:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ical analysis, where the result of localization accuracy remains
empirical.
In this paper, we present an improved least square-based
jammer localization algorithm for locating jamming sources
using neighbor changes of nodes. To addresses these long-
standing problems, this paper model nodes location as a
homogeneous Poisson point process (HPPP), which allows
coverage (SNR distribution) of wireless nodes to be brought
to bear from stochastic geometry. For precise localization,
we also apply the derived coverage to investigate the change
of communication range. By exploiting expectation of the
hearing range towards improving the least squares algorithm,
our jammer localization algorithm is conducive to error es-
timation, as shown in Fig. 1. In addition, the simulation
experiments show that the improved least squares algorithm
has good performance under different interference radii, node
densities, interference source locations, and other propagation
environments.
We summarize the contributions as follows:
• We propose an improved least square-based jammer lo-
calization algorithm using neighbor variations of nodes,
where a tractable mathematical formula is derived to
analyze metrics such as coverage and signal-to-noise
ratio.
• We deduce the distribution of the upper and lower bounds
of the hearing range, making it convenient to analyze
the localization accuracy of least square-based jammer
localization algorithms.
• Our experimental evaluations demonstrate that the pro-
posed algorithm improves the localization accuracy by
around 30% in different scenarios with comparison to
the traditional LSQ.
We organize the rest of this paper as follows: In Section II,
we present recent work, and in Section III, we illustrate the
network model, the jamming attack model, and the hearing
range estimation method. Then, we introduce the improved
least squares method for estimating hearing range in Section
IV, part of the derivation of stochastic geometry theory. Next,
we show the performance of the improved least squares
method algorithm in Section V. Finally, we make a conclusion
and outlook in Section VI.
II. R ELATED W ORK
The target positioning algorithm in the wireless network
can be divided into and non-range methods. By placing
measuring equipments (TDOA, AOA and RSSI), the range-
based methods estimate the target orientation. In [19], it
measures the time difference between the target device and
different receiving devices and estimates the spatial position
of the target.In [4], this method needs to measure RSSI by
adopting four receiving devices. However, RSSI measurements
are susceptible to deviations due to line-of-sight, fading, etc.
Furthermore, the positioning method of measuring the (AOA)
signal has been widely used in practice. The drawback of
this method is that direction-finding accuracy decreases as the
distance between the receiving device and the target increases
259
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:58:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[1]. With the enhancement of computer simulation capabilities,
[7] introduced the power adjustment to enlarge the power
when the PDR of nodes decreases with distance between
the jammer and nodes increasing. It can be found that the
accuracy of the rang-based algorithm requires the acquisition
of additional receiving equipment. In order to alleviate the
above problems, a localization algorithm appears, which relies
on the already existing nodes of the network topology. The
most typical ones are centroid localization (CL) [29] and
weighted centroid localization (WCL) [23]. The estimated
coordinates of unknown nodes to be located are represented
by polygon centroids composed of reference points.
Numerous least squares method-based search algorithms,
such as the two-step LSQ algorithm, weighted LSQ algo-
rithm, gravitational search algorithm, beetle antenna search
algorithm, etc., have been presented in order to investigate
the effectiveness of searching approximated positions. These
research are mostly concerned with improving search effec-
tiveness, but they still don’t have a good method for network
theoretical analysis, where the outcome of localization accu-
racy is still empirical.
The virtual force iterative method [11] and the least-square
algorithm based on neighbors’ change shows low power
consumption in the experiment. The above methods uses the
LSQ algorithm to provide a basic idea for further research on
jammer localization. The goal of many subsequent studies is to
improve the efficiency of the search algorithm. However, due
to the lack of theoretical analysis such as the distribution of
nodes in the network, the estimation effect of the localization
algorithm is empirical. To solve the above problems, we use
the theory of stochastic geometry to improve the accuracy
of the least squares method through the theoretically derived
distance distribution.
III. M ODEL AND P ROBLEMS
In this section, we start by outlining the basic wireless
network for analyzing the jamming effects. Then, we study
the impact of a jammer on the wireless communication at the
network topology level. At last, we introduce the basic least-
square algorithm.
A. Network Model
In this section, we first outline that the network model based
on the homogeneous Poisson point process. We introduce
nodes’ hearing range and the basic LSQ jammer localization
algorithm, which is convenient for coping with the shortcom-
ings of the traditional algorithm.
To solve the jammer positioning problem, our designed
wireless network has the following characteristics:
Omnidirectional antenna. Each node is equipped with an
omnidirectional antenna with the same transmission power
level, which has the ability to receive and transmit omnidi-
rectional signals.
Neighbor awareness. Each node in the network has a table
that records its own location, the location of neighbor nodes,
and the number of neighbors. Then it updates when the
 where γ0 is the received SN R threshold for all the nodes. The
communication links among nodes are bidirectional. Specifi-
cally, the link between node A and node B is considered to
be connected iff both the conditions lA→B = 1 and lB→A = 1
are satisfied.
To define the nodes’ communication ability, we discuss the
concepts of hearing range and sending range.
• Hearing range. Consider A as a receiver has an area in
Node Jammer which any transmitter T must satisfy SN RT →A > γ0 .
------ Hearing Range • Sending range. Similarly, A as a transmitter has a region
Jammer’s NLB in which any receiver R must satisfy SN RA→R > γ0 .
Sending Range
In the nonjamming situation, the hearing range of node A
q with A as the center and a radius of rc , where
is a circle
Pt G
rc = (4π)2 γ0 PN
. In an interference scenario, the hearing
Fig. 2. Hearing range and sending range changes with three spots: outside range of node A is shrink. Suppose that the hearing range
the jammer’s NLB, at the edge the jammer’s NLB, inside the jammer’s NLB.
under jamming is still a circle centerted at A (we set A’s
coordinate is (0, 0)) with radius rh

rh = min(rc , argmin(d|(SN R(d) > γ0 )), (4)

location or connection status of neighbor nodes change.
Multihop. In densely deployed large-scale networks such as The detail derivation is
WSN, we assume that nodes communicate in a multi-hop
Pt G Pj G
manner. SN R(d) > γ0 =⇒ 2 2 > γ0 (5)
Stationary. Once the node is deployed, the position is fixed (4π) d2 (4π) xJ 2
throughout jamming attack. |xJ |
=⇒ d < √ , (6)
Homogeneous. We assume that each node has the same β
status and the same ability to send and receive signals before P
jamming attack. where β = γ0 Pjt .
In Fig. 2, owing to the jamming effect, the sending range of
B. Channel Model under Jamming node A becomes an irregular shape [14], increasing computa-
tional complexity. The interfering signal also decays with the
To facilitate analyzing the communication capability of increasing of distance and is reduced to the normal ambient
nodes, we utilize signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to model the noise level with the circle (i.e. NLB) in the center of the
links of nodes in the network. The nodes in the simple jammer.
communication scenario are divided into three entities: trans- To balance the trade-off between realistic propagation and
mitter A (coordinate (0, 0)), receiver B (coordinate (x, y)) simulation model, we use the log-normal shadowing model
and the jammer J (coordinate (xJ , 0)). The SN RA→B of the that has the following form:
messages sent by A measured at B is defined as:
d
Ps P L(d) = P L(d0 ) − 10ηlog( ) + xσ , (7)
SN RA→B = , (1) d0
PN + PJ
where P L(d0 ) represents the received power at distance d0 ,
where Ps , PJ and PN are the received powers of node B η is fading index, and xσ is the zero-mean Gaussian random
from node A, from the jammer J, and the average ambient variable.
noise floor, respectively. To be specific, we use the standard
free-space propagation to model the received power as: C. Network under Jamming
Pt Gt Gr λ2 Pt G In order to facilitate the analysis, the jammer we suppose
Pr = 2 = 2 , (2) is the constant jammer, which will perform uninterrupted
(4π) d2 L (4π) d2
transmission. Moreover, each jammer is equipped with om-
2
where G = Gt Gr λL . Pt is the transmission power, Gt is the nidirectional antenna, it can transmits at the same power
transmitter antenna gain, Gr is the receiver antenna gain, d is level. Before interference occurs, all nodes can communicate
the T-R separation distance, and L is the system factor. with their neighbors. From Fig. 3, once the jammer becomes
Thus, whether node A can successfully transmit a message activated, the topology changes reflected by the neighbors’
to node B is defined as lA→B lost. According to the changes in the node neighbor table after
( being affected by the interference, the nodes in the network
1 if SN RA→B > γ0 are divided into three categories (i.e., unaffected node NU ,
lA→B = , (3)
0 if SN RA→B ≤ γ0 jammed node NJ , and boundary node NB ).

260

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:58:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Jammed Node Jammer
Unaffected Node n10
Jammer
n1 n1
Boundary Node n7
n2 n2 n7

n3 n3
n5 n4
n4 n5
n6 n9
n6
n8

Node A Remaining Neighbor

…… 𝒓𝒍 Lost Neighbor
------ 𝒓𝒖 Current Hearing Range
Fig. 3. An example of the network change caused by jamming.
Fig. 4. An example of lower bound and upper bound of node A under
different node density. Lower bound : the farthest neighbor that node A can
still hear. Upper bound: The closest node that nodeA cannot be heard.
• Unaffected node. The nodes depicted in green circles
can receive packets from all of their neighbors. Nu =
(x1 2 − xm 2 ) + (y1 2 − ym 2 )
 
{nb |∀na ∈ N br{nb } , SN RA→B > γ0 }.
• Boundary node. The nodes depicted in grey filled
 (x2 2 − xm 2 ) + (y2 2 − ym 2 ) 
b= , (10)
spots is considered to lose some neighbors. NB =
 ... 
2 2 2 2
{ni |(∃na ∈ Nu , SN RA→I > γ0 ) and (∀na ∈ (xm−1 − xm−1 ) + (ym−1 − ym−1 )
N br{ni } ∩ NJ , SN RA→I ≤ γ0 )}. X = [xJ , yJ , β]T , (11)
• Jammed node. The jammed nodes depicted in red
squares cannot receive any message from any neighbors. where X = C T C −1 C T b. Solving the matrix X by the least
NJ = {nj |∀na ∈ NU , SN RA→J ≤ γ0 }. squares algorithm can be used to obtain the estimated jammer
In these categories, we use N br(na ) as the set of neighbors coordinate.
of node A without actived-jammer.
IV. M ETHOD
D. Jammer Localization with Least-square Algorithm The previous sections illustrate the basic idea of least-square
algorithm that exploiting hearing range. In this section, we
In this section, we extend the description of the basic least-
will explain hearing range estimation issue and the coverage
square algorithm to localize the jammer.
analysis of the network.
In the prior, we conduct the hearing range shrink im-
pacted by jammer, which be leveraged to construct the LSQ A. Analysis of Distance Distribution
P r a −2
algorithm. We have SN RB→A ≈ PJt dhJA −2 ≈ γ0 , when In traditional least squares algorithm, the real hearing range
node B is located at the edge of hearing range of node A determined by the hearing radius is considered the distance
(coordinate (xA , yA )). rha is the distance between jammer between the lost neighbor set Lo and remaining neighbor
and A. We have (xA − xJ 2 ) + (yA − yJ 2 ) = βrha 2 , given set Re . As shown in Fig. 4, Lo is {n5 , n6 , n7 } and Re is
M nodes {(x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ), · · · , (xm , ym )} with the shrink {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } in the left figure, the average distance between
hearing range node {rh1 , rh2 , · · · , rhm }, we obtain the fol- n4 and n5 is hearing radius, which is marked as the red circle.
lowing equations: Specifically, in classical method [14], the upper bound ru

(x1 − xJ 2 ) + (y1 − yJ 2 ) = βrh1 2 , of A’s hearing radius is the nearest node to A from the set


(x − x 2 ) + (y − y 2 ) = βr 2 ,
 Lo , and the lower bound rl equals the furthest node in the set
2 J 2 J h2
(8) Re . Thus, rha is estimated as (rl + ru )/2 according to the


 . . . strong assumption that the nodes are uniformly distributed.
(xm − xJ 2 ) + (ym − yJ 2 ) = βrhm 2 ,

The hearing range can provide critical distance information,
and the distance is affected by the distribution of nodes that
where (xi , yi ) and (xJ , yJ ) are the coordinates of node i and have to be considered. As shown in Fig.4, when the network
the jammer. To convert the above equations into nonlinear nodes are sparse, the hearing radius may be close to the green
form that can be solved by LSQ algorithm, we give the lower boundary, but when the network nodes are dense, the
following euqations CX = b by Gaussian elimination: hearing radius may be close to the upper boundary circle. As
1 2 the result, the hearing radius rha is not always equals the mean
− rh2 m )
 
x1 − xm y1 − ym 2 (rh1
 x2 − xm 1 2 2 value of rl and ru .
y2 − ym − rhm ) 
2 (rh2
C=  , (9)
 ... ... ... 
1 2 2
xm−1 − xm ym−1 − ym (r
2 hm−1 − r hm )

261

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:58:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 within an arbitrary set. P (N (S), S) in Φ is the probability
that N nodes inside an area S (|S|).
(λS)N eλS
P (N (S), S) = (12)
N!
where λ is approximately calculated as N|S|
(S)
.
According to the Slivnyak’s theorem [20], all nodes are
independent and the statistical properties of nodes at any
location are consistent with those of typical users at fixed
locations.
According to HPPP [3], the communication distance d
between two nodes follows a distribution, and its probability
density function f (d) is presented as:
Fig. 5. Simulation of the distribution of neighbors of the center (0, 0).
∂F (d) 2
f (d) = = 2πλde−λπd . (13)
∂d

Fig. 7 shows that curve of f (d) impacted by the path loss

exponent α and the intensity λ of Φ. When α <= 1, the
gradient descent rate is greater than the gradient descent
rate at α > 1. Which is proportional to the degree of
concentration. We assume that any two pairs of node distances
dJ , ds are independent and identically distributed, so the joint
probability density function can be expressed by the product
fdJ × fds ,where fdJ , fds are the probability density functions
of dJ and ds . This assumption is also consistent with the
principle of HPPP Thus, we can input f (d) (probability
density function of d) into formula of SN R to get the coverage
P rob(SN R > γ0 ), when SN RB→A ≈ ( PPJt )( ddJs )2 = ( PPJt ) uv 2
Fig. 6. Lower bound and upper bound. P rob(SN R > γ0 ) ≜ fSN R (z) and the probability density
function of uv = z is
Essentially, some feasibility analysis have been conducted Z ∞
to verify the hearing range’s non-uniform distribution. We use f uv (z) = vfu (uv)fv (v)dv (14)
the Monte Carlo method to simulate statistical distribution of 0
the neighbor nodes whose distance from the center (coordinate u p
Z ∞
2 2
(0, 0)) is greater than rc in the two-dimensional HPPP model. P rob( > β) = uv 3 (λπ)2 e−λπv (u +1)
v 0
As shown in Fig. 5, by fitting the existing curve, we find that Z ∞ (15)
Pt PJ δ Pt PJ
the distribution of neighbors is skewed and asymmetric, which = 2
(λπ) 2 2
e−λπ t e−λπ( v−1 + vz ) dv,
means that the expectation of the distance distribution is not 0 z v(v − 1)
always arithmetic mean. where u = dJ , v = ds and fu (u), fv (v) are distance probabil-
To further analysis the hearing range, we consider that ity density function of dJ , ds , respectively. δ = 1+PP´ td−2 .
J
there is an upper and lower bound on the hearing range 2 2
of the center point, and clearly marked the boundary by fu (u) = 2πλue−λπu , fv (v) = 2πλve−λπv (16)
using the Otsu segmentation algorithm. From Fig.6, we model
C. Improved LSQ with Distance Estimation
the distributions for set Re and set Lo in red and green
bars, respectively. The overlapping part is where the hearing In this section, we propose the distribution of distances
range is located, and the upper and lower bounds after Otsu between the upper and lower bounds, and the distribution of
segmentation are marked with black dotted lines. hearing range is derived based on it.
In order to facilitate the estimation of the real hearing radius
B. Coverage and Distance Model rhi of node i located sandwiched between ru and rl , we
The above analysis qualitatively illustrates the distance dis- assume that the expectation of the absolute value of the sub-
tribution, aiming to give a concrete mathematical expression. traction of ru and rl plus rl is rhi , (i.e. rhi = E|ru − rl | + rl ).
We derive the distance between upper and lower bounds esti- The nearest node’s distance from node A in lost neigh-
mated from the coverage that contains distance information. bor set Lo = [L1 , L2 , . . . , Lm ] is Lmin . The furthest
1) Nodes Model with Poisson Point Process : The homo- node’s distance from node A in remaining neighbor set
geneous Poisson point process (HPPP) Φ of intensity λ [27] Re = [R1 , R2 , . . . , Rn ] is Rmax . Lmin satisfies condition:
is used to describe the distribution of the number of points P rob(Lmin ) = P rob(L1 ≧ Lmin , L2 ≧ Lmin , . . . , Lm ≧

262

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:58:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 7. Curves of the probability density function for the variables d and |rl − ru | are shown in (a) and (b), respectively.

S to the area of the region can be calculated approximately

as the product of network intensity λ and area of S. The
probability density function of Re denoted as fRe (t) is
δ δ n
fRe (t) = nλπ 2 (1 − e−λπ t ) . (19)
t
where δ = 1+PP´ td−2 . The distance between lower bound and
J
upper bound can be calculated as |ru − rl | ≈ |Lmin − Rmax |,
and the probability density function of |Lmin −Rmax | denoted
as fL−R (zL−R ) is
Z ∞
δ2 −λπ δt
fL−R (zL−R ) = nm(λπ)2 2e
(a) Estimation error of the LSQ and improved LSQ algorithm 2
t (t + zL−R )
0
−λπ δt
n−1 −mλπ δ (20)
(1 − e ) e t+zL−R
dt,

where δ = 1+PP´ td−2 . Because the above distribution contains

J
complex integrals, it is computationally expensive and may
not be directly solved in the end. Nevertheless, our goal is
expectation of |ru − rl |, we use numerical approximation to
estimate the expectation when it has N discrete values. It is
worth noted that in order to reduce the estimation error as
much as possible, we design N to be very large (e.g., N >
(b) Improved LSQ algorithm under different densities. 3000). And the expectation of the above distribution is
PN
Fig. 8. Cumulative error distribution function of estimation error: (a) Estima- |ru − rl |
tion error of the LSQ and improved LSQ algorithm under the same parameters. E[|ru − rl |] ≈ i=1 (21)
(b) Estimation error of the improved LSQ algorithm under different densities.
N
where E[|ru − rl |] ≜ E[g(x)] is simplified form. In order
Lmin ). Lmin ’s probability density function denotes as fLo (tl )
to display the distribution of the range of |Lmin − Rmax |,
is
δ −λπ tδ m much efforts are invested into the approximate solution of its
fLo (tl ) = mλπ 2 e l . (17) probability density function, and we implement the discrete-
tl
valued simulation of the continuous values using the fast
Similarly, Rmax satisfies the following condition: Fourier transform. As given in Fig.7, the larger of n and m,
P rob(Rmax ) = P rob(R1 ≤ Rmax , R2 ≤ Rmax , . . . , Rn ≤ the more nodes fall in sets Re and Lo , resulting in a narrower
Rmax ), distance between the upper and lower bounds. As the result,
n ≈ λS(Re ), m ≈ λS(Lo ), (18) the LSQ algorithm equation C utilized our new estimation of
rˆh = ru + E[g(x)] is
2
1
ˆm 2 )
 
x1 − xm y1 − ym h1 − rh
2 (rˆ
2
 x2 − xm y2 − ym 1
h2 − rh
2 (rˆ ˆm 2 ) 
where S(Re ) is area of set X, S(Lo ) is area of set Y . C= 
 ... ... ... 
According to HPPP, the ratio of the number of nodes in region 1 2 2
xm−1 − xm ym−1 − ym 2 (rhm−1 ˆ − rhˆm )

263

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:58:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 (a)
Fig. 9. Performance impacted by different parameters:(a) The jammer’s NLB. (b) The Jammer’s positon in the corner (marked as margin) and at the center.
(c) The SN R’s threshold γ0 .
(a) Noise Power
(b) Number of Nodes
Fig. 10. Performance impacted by noise power and number of nodes.
By solving the matrix X though this improved least squares
algorithm, we obtain the estimated jammer coordinate.
V. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION
A. Experimental Setup
We evaluate the performance of improved LSQ localization
algorithm by numerical simulation. In particular, we set the
parameters η = 2 and θ = 0 for simulating the real scenario
in the log-normal model. Therefore, we can capture the main
features of the implementation and avoid the unreproducible
experimental results due to differential placement of experi-
mental equipments.
Each of our individual results was conducted through 3000-
topology of network. Taking LSQ algorithm as a comparison,
in the area of [10 × 10] we first measure the cumulative
distribution function (CDF) of the mean error of the improved
LSQ positioning, as shown in Fig. 8 (a) and Fig. 10. Within
range between [0, 1], the cumulative error of our algorithm is
50% on average, which means that the algorithm converges
faster than the original LSQ algorithm.
264
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:58:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
(b) (c)
B. Experimental Results
The impact of SN R’s threshold. The previous analysis
and derivation were done by comparing the SNR and the
threshold, and we wanted to investigate the impact of changes
in the threshold of SN R on the localization accuracy. As the
threshold increases from 0.5 to 1, our mean error rates of the
improved LSQ algorithm vary from 14.6% to 38.4%, in Fig.
9. This is because as the threshold increases, the number of
jammed points increases, and the distribution of the hearing
range of nodes becomes more concentrated.
The impact of node density. We measured the cumulative
position estimation error by changing the network density λ
to 0.5, 1, 2. It can be seen that when the error distance is
less than 1m, the smaller the node strength λ, the greater the
cumulative error. This is because the communication nodes are
more denser when λ is 0.5 than λ is 0.2, in Fig. 8 (b) and Fig.
9. The more neighbor nodes that can be used for localization,
the smaller the estimation error of jammer’ location is.
The impact of noise power. We set the average error when
the noise power varies from 0.5 to 2, and the average accuracy
of both LSQ algorithm and improved LSQ algorithm is above
1.6 m,in Fig. 10. Again, it is clear that the estimation error
increases in proportion to the noise power. This is due to the
fact that the signal-to-noise ratio of the node surrounding the
jammer decreases as noise power increases.
The impact of jammer’s NLB range. We measured the
average positioning error of a 300-node network changing
the jammer’s NLB radius to [1, 2, 3], and plotted the results
in Fig.9. Again, we observe that the performance of the
improved LSQ algorithm decreases with increasing NLB.
When N LB = 1, the estimation error is reduced by about
50%. However, when range of the jammer’s NLB increases,
(N LB = 2, N LB = 3) the estimated position of the jammer
does not change much. This is because the influence of the
jammer’s NLB on the positioning result is indirect, and it will
be affected by the noise power.
The impact of jammer position. Respectively, given corner
(5, 0), (5, 5) and center (0, 0), when we set λ intensity as 0.5,
we observe that the mean localization error at center is reduced
by 0.2 m. When the jammer is located at the corner, the
average estimation error is around 1.5 m. This is because when
 the jammer is in the corner, the neighbor nodes around it that
can be used to locate are concentrated on one side, resulting
in a decrease in the accuracy of the localization algorithm.
C ONCLUSION
In this work, we address the problem of locating jammers in
wireless networks and propose an improved LSQ localization
algorithm to estimate the jammer’s location. We have shown
that the changes in a node’s hearing range can be estimated
by exploiting changes in its neighbors. Thus, we locate the
jammer by examining the neighbor list changes of nodes and
utilizing a least squares problem.
To assess positioning accuracy, we propose a mathematical
tool to model the jamming network. Moreover, by utilizing
the deduced distribution of the hearing range , we enhanced
the least squares algorithm based on jammer localization. To
demonstrate the effectiveness of our improved least squares
algorithm to localize jammer, we provide an extensible model
that can be used to study complex networks, such as the non-
homogeneous poisson point with variable node densities. We
can also locate jammer in the cellular network, which is more
realistic and guide our future efforts.
To evaluate the improved LSQ algorithm, we build a shadow
model-based simulation environment and utilize some im-
portant parameters obtained from experiments. Our extensive
simulation results confirm that the improved LSQ-based algo-
rithm can effectively locate jammers in complex experimental
configurations.
R EFERENCES
[1] Amr Abdelaziz, C. Emre Koksal, and Hesham El Gamal. On the
security of angle of arrival estimation. In 2016 IEEE Conference on
Communications and Network Security (CNS), pages 109–117, 2016.
[2] Ahmad Alaiad and Lina Zhou. Patients’ adoption of wsn-based smart
home healthcare systems: An integrated model of facilitators and bar-
riers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(1):4–23,
2017.
[3] Jeffrey G. Andrews, Francois Baccelli, and Radha Krishna Ganti. A
tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks. IEEE
Transactions on Communications, 59(11):3122–3134, 2011.
[4] Suvankar Barai, Debajyoti Biswas, and Buddhadeb Sau. Estimate
distance measurement using nodemcu esp8266 based on rssi technique.
In 2017 IEEE Conference on Antenna Measurements and Applications
(CAMA), pages 170–173, 2017.
[5] Nirupama Bulusu, Vladimir Bychkovskiy, Deborah Estrin, and John
Heidemann. Scalable, ad hoc deployable rf-based localization. In
Proceedings of the grace hopper conference on celebration of women
in computing, volume 31, 2002.
[6] Nirupama Bulusu, John Heidemann, and Deborah Estrin. Gps-less
low-cost outdoor localization for very small devices. IEEE personal
communications, 7(5):28–34, 2000.
[7] Abdolreza Hatamlou, Salwani Abdullah, and Zalinda Othman. Gravita-
tional search algorithm with heuristic search for clustering problems. In
2011 3rd Conference on Data Mining and Optimization (DMO), pages
190–193, 2011.
[8] Ashish Khisti and Gregory W. Wornell. Secure transmission with multi-
ple antennas—part ii: The mimome wiretap channel. IEEE Transactions
on Information Theory, 56(11):5515–5532, 2010.
[9] Joon-Ho Lee and Sangho Jo. Improvement of exhaustive search based
maximum-likelihood doa estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2010
National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, pages 246–249, 2010.
[10] Sang Hyuk Lee, Soobin Lee, Heecheol Song, and Hwang Soo Lee.
Wireless sensor network design for tactical military applications :
Remote large-scale environments. In MILCOM 2009 - 2009 IEEE
Military Communications Conference, pages 1–7, 2009.
265
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Electronic Science and Tech of China. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:58:34 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[11] Hongbo Liu, Zhenhua Liu, Yingying Chen, and Wenyuan Xu. Deter-
mining the position of a jammer using a virtual-force iterative approach.
Wireless Networks, 17(2):531–547, 2011.
[12] Shuiyin Liu, Yi Hong, and Emanuele Viterbo. Practical secrecy using
artificial noise. IEEE Communications Letters, 17(7):1483–1486, 2013.
[13] Wanchun Liu, Xiangyun Zhou, Salman Durrani, and Petar Popovski.
Secure communication with a wireless-powered friendly jammer. IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, 15(1):401–415, 2016.
[14] Zhenhua Liu, Hongbo Liu, Wenyuan Xu, and Yingying Chen. Exploiting
jamming-caused neighbor changes for jammer localization. IEEE
Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 23(3):547–555, 2011.
[15] Yucheng Lyu, Yuanbin Mo, Songqing Yue, and Wenwu Liu. Improved
beetle antennae algorithm based on localization for jamming attack in
wireless sensor networks. IEEE Access, 10:13071–13088, 2022.
[16] Munienge Mbodila, Ekabua Obeten, and Isong Bassey. Implementation
of novel vehicles’ traffic monitoring using wireless sensor network in
south africa. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communication
Software and Networks (ICCSN), pages 282–286, 2015.
[17] Rajesh Kannan Megalingam, Divya M. Kaimal, and Maneesha V.
Ramesh. Efficient patient monitoring for multiple patients using wsn.
In 2012 International Conference on Advances in Mobile Network,
Communication and Its Applications, pages 87–90, 2012.
[18] Zhao Niu, Haozhu Li, Xin Zhou, and Jun Huang. Overview of
jammer localization in wireless sensor networks. In 2020 IEEE 9th
Joint International Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence
Conference (ITAIC), volume 9, pages 9–13, 2020.
[19] Tianzhu Qiao, Yu Zhang, and Huaping Liu. Nonlinear expectation maxi-
mization estimator for tdoa localization. IEEE Wireless Communications
Letters, 3(6):637–640, 2014.
[20] B. D. Ripley. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics
in Society), 151(1):239–240, 1988.
[21] Arian Shoari, Gonzalo Mateos, and Alireza Seyedi. Analysis of
target localization with ideal binary detectors via likelihood function
smoothing. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 23(5):737–741, 2016.
[22] Arian Shoari and Alireza Seyedi. Localization of an uncooperative target
with binary observations. In 2010 IEEE 11th International Workshop
on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC),
pages 1–5. IEEE, 2010.
[23] Yanqiang Sun, Refik Molva, Melek Önen, Xiaodong Wang, and Xing-
ming Zhou. Catch the jammer in wireless sensor network. In 2011 IEEE
22nd International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio
Communications, pages 1156–1160. IEEE, 2011.
[24] Chao Wang, Hui-Ming Wang, Xiang-Gen Xia, and Chaowen Liu.
Uncoordinated jammer selection for securing simome wiretap channels:
A stochastic geometry approach. IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, 14(5):2596–2612, 2015.
[25] Huiyong Wang, Minglu Zhang, and Jingyang Wang. Design and
implementation of an emergency search and rescue system based on
mobile robot and wsn. In 2010 2nd International Asia Conference on
Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (CAR 2010), volume 1,
pages 206–209, 2010.
[26] Tongxiang Wang, Tao Liang, Xianglin Wei, and Jianhua Fan. Local-
ization of directional jammer in wireless sensor networks. In 2018
International Conference on Robots and Intelligent System (ICRIS),
pages 198–202, 2018.
[27] Charles Wiame, Luc Vandendorpe, and Claude Oestges. Stochastic
geometry based coverage estimation using realistic urban shadowing
models. In 2018 IEEE 87th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC
Spring), pages 1–5, 2018.
[28] Xi Zhang, Xiangyun Zhou, and Matthew R. McKay. Enhancing secrecy
with multi-antenna transmission in wireless ad hoc networks. IEEE
Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 8(11):1802–1814,
2013.
[29] Jun Zheng and Yik-Chung Wu. Joint time synchronization and localiza-
tion of an unknown node in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Transactions
on Signal Processing, 58(3):1309–1320, 2010.