Evaluating Local Contributions to Global Performance in Wireless Sensor and Actuator Networks

  • Christopher J. Rozell
  • Don H. Johnson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4026)


Wireless sensor networks are often studied with the goal of removing information from the network as efficiently as possible. However, when the application also includes an actuator network, it is advantageous to determine actions in-network. In such settings, optimizing the sensor node behavior with respect to sensor information fidelity does not necessarily translate into optimum behavior in terms of action fidelity. Inspired by neural systems, we present a model of a sensor and actuator network based on the vector space tools of frame theory that applies to applications analogous to reflex behaviors in biological systems. Our analysis yields bounds on both absolute and average actuation error that point directly to strategies for limiting sensor communication based not only on local measurements but also on a measure of how important each sensor-actuator link is to the fidelity of the total actuation output.


Sensor Network Sensor Node Wireless Sensor Network Communication Link Sensor Measurement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nowak, R.D.: Distributed EM algorithms for density estimation and clustering in sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Proc. 51, 2245–2253 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rabbat, M., Nowak, R.D.: Distributed optimization in sensor networks. In: Intl. Symposium on Information Proc. in Sensor Networks (IPSN), Berkeley, CA (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blatt, D., Hero, A.O.: Distributed maximum likelihood estimation in sensor networks. In: Intl. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Proc., Montreal, Canada (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu, J., Chu, M., Liu, J., Reich, J.E., Zhao, F.: State-centric programming for sensor and actuator network systems. IEEE Pervasive Computing Magazine 2(4) (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gerkey, B., Mataric, M.: A market-based formulation of sensor-actuator network coordination. In: AAAI Spring Symp. on Intel. Embed. and Dist. Sys., AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coates, M.: Evaluating causal relationships in wireless sensor/actuator networks. In: Intl. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Proc., Philadelphia, PA (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lemmon, M.D., Ling, Q., Sun, Y.: Overload management in sensor-actuator networks used for spatially-distributed control systems. In: Proceedings of the ACM Sensys Conference (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kandel, E., Schwartz, J., Jessell, T.: Principles of Neural Science. Appleton & Lange, Norwalk, CT (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neil, D.M.: Compensatory eye movements. In: Sandeman, D., Atwood, H. (eds.) The Biology of Crustacea, Neural Integration and Behavior, pp. 133–163. Academic Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glantz, R., Nudelman, H., Waldrop, B.: Linear integration of convergent visual inputs in an oculomotor reflex pathway. J. of Neurophys. 52(6), 1213–1225 (1984)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nowak, R., Mitra, U., Willett, R.: Estimating inhomogeneous fields using wireless sensor networks. IEEE J. on Selected Areas in Comm. 22(6), 999–1006 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christensen, O.: An Introduction to Frames and Riesz Bases. Birkhauser, Boston, MA (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duffin, R., Schaeffer, A.: A class of nonharmonic Fourier series. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 72(2), 341–366 (1952)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daubechies, I.: Ten Lectures on Wavelets. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bolcskei, H., Hlawatsch, F., Feichtinger, H.: Frame-theoretic analysis of oversampled filter banks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Proc. 46(12), 3256–3268 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Candès, E., Donoho, D.: New tight frames of curvelets and optimal representations of objects with piecewise C 2 singularities. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 57(2), 219–266 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strohmer, T., Heath Jr., R.: Grassmannian frames with applications to coding and communcations. Applied and Comp. Harmonic Analysis 14(3), 257–275 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goyal, V., Kovačević, J., Kelner, J.: Quantized frame expansions with erasures. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 10, 203–233 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gao, J., Harris, C., Gunn, S.: On a class of support vector kernels based on frames in function hilbert spaces. Neural Computation 13, 1975–1994 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Balan, R., Casazza, P., Heil, C., Landau, Z.: Density, overcompleteness, and localization of frames, I. Theory (preprint, 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Rozell
    • 1
  • Don H. Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations