Advertisement

Contour Approximation in Sensor Networks

  • Chiranjeeb Buragohain
  • Sorabh Gandhi
  • John Hershberger
  • Subhash Suri
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4026)

Abstract

We propose a distributed scheme called Adaptive-Group-Merge for sensor networks that, given a parameter k, approximates a geometric shape by a k-vertex polygon. The algorithm is well suited to the distributed computing architecture of sensor networks, and we prove that its approximation quality is within a constant factor of the optimal. We also show through simulation that our scheme outperforms several other alternatives in preserving important shape features, and achieves approximation quality almost as good as the optimal, centralized scheme. Because many applications of sensor networks involve observations and monitoring of physical phenomena, the ability to represent complex geometric shapes faithfully but using small memory is vital in many settings.

Keywords

Sensor Node Convex Hull Geographic Information System Approximation Quality Contour Boundary 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bulusu, N., Heidemann, J., Estrin, D.: GPS-less low cost outdoor optimization for very small devices. IEEE Personal Communications Magazine 7(5), 28–34 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan, T.: Faster core-set constructions and data stream algorithms in fixed dimensions. In: Proc. 20th Annu. ACM Sympos. Comput. Geom., pp. 152–159 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chintalapudi, K.K., Govindan, R.: Localized edge detection in sensor fields. In: IEEE Intl. Workshop on Sensor Network Protocols and Applications, pp. 59–70 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Douglas, D., Peucker, T.: Algorithms for the reduction of the number of points required to represent a digitized line or its caricature. Canadian Cartographer 10(2), 112–122 (1973)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dudley, R.M.: Metric entropy of some classes of sets with differentiable boundaries. J. Approx. Theory 10, 227–236 (1974)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilbert, A.C., Kotidis, Y., Muthukrishnan, S., Strauss, M.J.: One-pass wavelet decompositions of data streams. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15(3), 541–554 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Govindan, R., Kohler, E., Estrin, D., Bian, F., Chintalapudi, K., Gnawali, O., Rangwala, S., Gummadi, R., Stathopoulos, T.: Tenet: An architecture for tiered embedded networks. Technical report, University of California, Los Angeles, November 10 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hellerstein, J.M., Hong, C.-M., Madden, S., Stanek, K.: Beyond average: Toward sophisticated sensing with queries. In: Zhao, F., Guibas, L.J. (eds.) IPSN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2634, pp. 63–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hershberger, J., Snoeyink, J.: Speeding up the Douglas-Peucker line simplification algorithm. In: Proc. 5th Intl. Symp. on Spatial Data Handling, pp. 134–143 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kolesnikov, A.: Efficient Algorithms for Vectorization and Polygonal Approximation. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Joensuu (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kotz, D., Newport, C., Elliott, C.: The mistaken axioms of wireless-network research. Technical Report TR2003-467, Dept. of Computer Science, Dartmouth College (July 2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madden, S., Franklin, M.J., Hellerstein, J., Hong, W.: Tag: a tiny aggregation service for ad-hoc sensor networks. In: Proc. of OSDI (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mallat, S.: A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing. Academic Press, London (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moses, R., Krishnamurthy, D., Patterson, R.: A self-localization method for wireless sensor networks. EURASIP J. Applied Signal Processing 2003(4), 348–358 (2003)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nowak, R.D., Mitra, U.: Boundary estimation in sensor networks: Theory and methods. In: Zhao, F., Guibas, L.J. (eds.) IPSN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2634, pp. 80–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shrivastava, N., Buragohain, C., Agrawal, D., Suri, S.: Medians and beyond: New aggregation techniques for sensor networks. In: Proc. of SenSys 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh, M., Bakshi, A., Prasanna, V.K.: Constructing topographic maps in networked sensor systems. In: Proc. of Workshop on Algorithms for Wireless and Mobile Networks (ASWAN) (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toussaint, G.T.: Solving geometric problems with the rotating calipers. In: Proc. IEEE MELECON 1983, pp. A10.02/1–4 (1983)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yarvis, M., Kushalnagar, N., Singh, H., Rangarajan, A., Liu, Y., Singh, S.: Exploiting heterogeneity in sensor networks. In: Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhao, J., Govindan, R.: Understanding packet delivery performance in dense wireless sensor networks. In: Proc. of the 1st Intl. Conf. on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys 2003, pp. 1–13 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiranjeeb Buragohain
    • 1
  • Sorabh Gandhi
    • 1
  • John Hershberger
    • 2
  • Subhash Suri
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara
  2. 2.Mentor Graphics Corp.Wilsonville

Personalised recommendations