Wireless Networks

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1683–1698 | Cite as

You can’t get there from here: sensor scheduling with refocusing delays

  • Yosef Alayev
  • Amotz Bar-Noy
  • Matthew P. Johnson
  • Lance Kaplan
  • Thomas F. La Porta
Article

Abstract

We study a problem in which a single sensor is scheduled to observe sites periodically, motivated by applications in which the goal is to maintain up-to-date readings for all the observed sites. In the existing literature, it is typically assumed that the time for a sensor switching from one site to another is negligible. This may not be the case in applications such as camera surveillance of a border, however, in which the camera takes time to pan and tilt to refocus itself to a new geographical location. We formulate a problem with constraints modeling refocusing delays. We prove the problem to be NP-hard and then study a special case in which refocusing is proportional to some Euclidian metric. We give a lower bound on the optimal cost for the scheduling problem, and we derive exact solutions for some special cases of the problem. Finally, we provide and experimentally evaluate several heuristic algorithms, some of which are based on the computed lower bound, for the setting of one sensor and many sites.

Keywords

Sensor scheduling Delay constraints Sensor networks Sensors Surveillance Resource allocation Algorithms 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was sponsored by US Army Research laboratory and the UK Ministry of Defence and was accomplished under Agreement Number W911NF-06-3-0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the US Army Research Laboratory, the US Government, the UK Ministry of Defence, or the UK Government. The US and UK Governments are authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation hereon.

References

  1. 1.
    Yavuz, M., & Jeffcoat, D. E. (2007). An analysis and solution of the sensor scheduling problem. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yavuz, M., & Jeffcoat, D.E. (2007). Single sensor scheduling for multi-site surveillance. Air Force Research Laboratory : Technical report.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyko, N., Turko, T., Boginski, V., Jeffcoat, D.E., Uryasev, S., Zrazhevsky, G., & Pardalos, P.M. (2009). Robust multi-sensor scheduling for multi-site surveillance. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, ISSN 1382–6905. doi:10.1007/s10878-009-9271-4.
  4. 4.
    Boyko, N., Turko, T., Boginski, V., Jeffcoat, D. E., Uryasev, S., Zrazhevsky, G., et al. (2011). Robust multi-sensor scheduling for multi-site surveillance. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 22(1), 35–51.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jarray, F. (2010). Complexity results for wireless sensor network scheduling. Wireless Sensor Network, 2(5), 343–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalinchenko, K., Veremyev, A., Boginski, V., Jeffcoat, D. E., & Uryasev, S. (2011). Robust connectivity issues in dynamic sensor networks for area surveillance under uncertainty. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 7(2), 235–248.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Uryasev, S., & Pardalos, P. (2011). Detecting and jamming dynamic communication networks in anti-access environments. DTIC Document: Technical report.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Acharya, S., Alonso, R., Franklin, M.J., & Zdonik, S.B. (1995). Broadcast disks: Data management for asymmetric communications environments. In SIGMOD conference, pp. 199–210.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ammar, M. H., & Wong, J. W. (1985). The design of teletext broadcast cycles. Performance Evaluation, 5(4), 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ammar, M. H., & Wong, J. W. (1987). On the optimality of cyclic transmission in teletext systems. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 35(1), 68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bar-Noy, A., Bhatia, R., Naor, J. S., & Schieber, B. (2002). Minimizing service and operation costs of periodic scheduling. Mathematics of Operations Research, 27, 518–544.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silberschatz, A., Galvin, P., & Gagne, G. (2002). Operating system concepts (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fiat, A., Rabani, Y., & Ravid, Y. (1994). Competitive k-server algorithms. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 48(3), 410–428.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chin, W., & Ntafos, S.C. (1986). Optimum watchman routes. In Symposium on computational geometry, pp. 24–33.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Costello, C.J., Diehl, C.P., Banerjee, A., & Fisher, H. (2004). Scheduling an active camera to observe people. In VSSN ’04: Proceedings of the ACM 2nd international workshop on video surveillance and sensor networks, (pp. 39–45). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yiliang, X., & Song, D. (2010). Systems and algorithms for autonomous and scalable crowd surveillance using robotic ptz cameras assisted by a wide-angle camera. Autonomous Robots, 29(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharma, N., Irwin, D., Zink, M., & Shenoy, P. (2012). Multisense: Proportional-share for mechanically steerable sensor networks. Multimedia Systems, 18(5), 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Piciarelli, C., Micheloni, C., & Foresti, G.L. (2010). Occlusion-aware multiple camera reconfiguration. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM/IEEE international conference on distributed smart cameras, ICDSC ’10 (pp. 88–94). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Starzyk, W., & Qureshi, F.Z. (2011). Learning proactive control strategies for ptz cameras. In Distributed smart cameras (ICDSC), 2011 fifth ACM/IEEE international conference on, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mavrinac, A., & Chen, X. (2013). Modeling coverage in camera networks: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision, 101(1), 205–226.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-colmpleteness. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anily, S., Glass, C. A., & Hassin, R. (1998). The scheduling of maintenance service. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 82(1–3), 27–42.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yosef Alayev
    • 1
  • Amotz Bar-Noy
    • 2
  • Matthew P. Johnson
    • 3
  • Lance Kaplan
    • 4
  • Thomas F. La Porta
    • 5
  1. 1.Computer Science, The Graduate CenterCUNYNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Computer and Information Science, Brooklyn College and the Graduate CenterCUNYNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Computer Science, Lehman College and the Graduate CenterCUNYNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Sensors and Electron Device DirectorateU.S. Army Research LabAdelphiUSA
  5. 5.Computer Science and EngineeringPenn State UniversityState CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations