Advertisement

Reduced-Complexity Decentralized Detection of Spatially Non-Constant Phenomena

  • G. Ferrari
  • M. Martalò
  • M. Sarti
Conference paper
Part of the Signals and Communication Technology book series (SCT)

Abstract

In this chapter, we study sensor networks with decentralized detection of a non-constant phenomenon, whose status might change independently from sensor to sensor. In particular, we consider binary phenomena characterized by a fixed number of status changes (from state “0” to state “1”) across the sensors. This is realistic for sensor networking scenarios where abrupt spatial variations of the phenomenon under observation need to be estimated, e.g., an abrupt temperature increase, as could be the case in the presence of a fire in a specific zone of the monitored surface. In such scenarios, we derive the minimum mean square error (MMSE) fusion algorithm at the access point (AP). The improvement brought by the use of quantization at the sensors is investigated. Finally, we derive simplified (sub-optimum) fusion algorithms at the AP, with a computational complexity lower than that of schemes with MMSE fusion at the AP.

Keywords

Sensor Network Access Point Minimum Mean Square Error Fusion Rule Fusion Algorithm 
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]
    I. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, “A survey on sensor networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag., Vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 102–114, August 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Barros and M. Tüchler, v“Scalable decoding on factor trees: A practical solution for wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., Vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 284–294, February 2006.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd Edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    G. Ferrari and R. Pagliari, “Decentralized binary detection with noisy communication links,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., Vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1554–1563, October 2006.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    I. Y. Hoballah and P. K. Varshney, “An information theoretic approach to the distributed detection problem,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, Vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 988–994, September 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, Volume I: Estimation Theory, {Prentice-Hall}, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    F. R. Kschischang, B. J. Frey, and H. A. Loeliger, “Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, Vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 498–519, February 2001.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. M. Lam and A. R. Reibman, “Design of quantizers for decentralized estimation systems,” {IEEE Trans. Commun.}, Vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 1602–1605, November 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Z.-Q. Luo, “An isotropic universal decentralized estimation scheme for a bandwidth constrained ad hoc sensor network,” {IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun.}, Vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 735–744 April 2005.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Nowak and U. Mitra, “Boundary estimation in sensor networks: Theory and methods,” in {Proc. 2nd Int. Work. on Inform. Processing in Sensor Networks}, Palo Alto, CA, USA, April 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Nowak, U. Mitra, and R. Willett, “Estimating inhomogeneous fields using wireless sensor networks,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., Vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 999–1006, August 2004.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    A. Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1991.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    W. Shi, T. W. Sun, and R. D. Wesel, “Quasi-convexity and optimal binary fusion for distributed detection with identical sensors in generalized gaussian noise,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 446–450,January 2001.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. N. Simic and S. Sastry, “Distributed environmental monitorning using random sensor networks,” in {Proc. 2nd Int. Work. on Inform. Processing in Sensor Networks, Palo Alto, CA, USA, April 2003, pp. 582–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. Viswanathan and P. K. Varshney, “Distributed detection with multiple sensors–part I: Fundamentals,” Proc. IEEE, Vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 54–63, January 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Ferrari
    • 1
  • M. Martalò
    • 1
  • M. Sarti
    • 2
  1. 1.Wireless Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks (WASN) Laboratory, Department of Information EngineeringUniversity of ParmaParmaItaly
  2. 2.Elettric 80 S.p.A.VianoItaly

Personalised recommendations