On the Average Case Communication Complexity for Detection in Sensor Networks

  • N. E. Venkatesan
  • Tarun Agarwal
  • P. Vijay Kumar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5067)


The problem of sensor-network-based distributed intrusion detection in the presence of clutter is considered. It is argued that sensing is best regarded as a local phenomenon in that only sensors in the immediate vicinity of an intruder are triggered. In such a setting, lack of knowledge of intruder location gives rise to correlated sensor readings. A signal-space viewpoint is introduced in which the noise-free sensor readings associated to intruder and clutter appear as surfaces \(\mathcal{S_I}\) and \(\mathcal{S_C}\) and the problem reduces to one of determining in distributed fashion, whether the current noisy sensor reading is best classified as intruder or clutter. Two approaches to distributed detection are pursued. In the first, a decision surface separating \(\mathcal{S_I}\) and \(\mathcal{S_C}\) is identified using Neyman-Pearson criteria. Thereafter, the individual sensor nodes interactively exchange bits to determine whether the sensor readings are on one side or the other of the decision surface. Bounds on the number of bits needed to be exchanged are derived, based on communication complexity (CC) theory. A lower bound derived for the two-party average case CC of general functions is compared against the performance of a greedy algorithm. The average case CC of the relevant greater-than (GT) function is characterized within two bits. In the second approach, each sensor node broadcasts a single bit arising from appropriate two-level quantization of its own sensor reading, keeping in mind the fusion rule to be subsequently applied at a local fusion center. The optimality of a threshold test as a quantization rule is proved under simplifying assumptions. Finally, results from a QualNet simulation of the algorithms are presented that include intruder tracking using a naive polynomial-regression algorithm.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alhakeem, S., Varshney, P.K.: A unified approach to the design of decentralized detection systems. IEEE Trans. on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 31(1), 9–20 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Willett, P., Swaszek, P.F., Blum, R.S.: The good, bad and ugly: distributed detection of a known signal in dependent Gaussian noise. IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing 48(12), 3266–3279 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Swaszek, P.F., Willett, P.: Parley as an approach to distributed detection. IEEE Trans. on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 31(1), 447–457 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chair, Z., Varshney, P.K.: Optimal data fusion in multiple sensor detection systems. IEEE Trans. on Aerospace and Electronic systems 22(1), 98–101 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Niu, R., Varshney, P.K., Moore, M., Klamer, D.: Decision fusion in a wireless sensor network with a large number of sensors. In: Proc. 7th IEEE International Conf. on Information Fusion (ICIF 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tang, Z.B., Pattipati, K.R., Kleinman, D.L.: A distributed M-ary hypothesis testing problem with correlated observations. In: Proc. of the 28th IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, pp. 562–568 (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsitsiklis, J., Athans, M.: On the complexity of decentralized decision making and detection problems. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control 30(5), 440–446 (1985)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tu, Z., Blum, R.S.: On the Limitations of Random Sensor Placement for Distributed Signal Detection. In: IEEE International Conf. on Comm., 2007. ICC 2007, pp. 3195–3200 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Agarwal, T., Venkatesan, N.E., Sasanapuri, M.R., Kumar, P.V.: Intruder detection over sensor placement in a hexagonal lattice. In: Proc. The 10th International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Comm., Jaipur, India (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giridhar, A., Kumar, P.R.: Computing and communicating functions over sensor networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Comm. 23(4), 755–764 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amick, H.: A Frequency-Dependent Soil Propagation Model. In: SPIE Conf. on Current Developments in Vibration Control for Optomechanical Systems, Denver, Colorado (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ekimov, A., Sabatier, J.M.: Ultrasonic wave generation due to human footsteps on the ground, Acoustical Society of America(ASA) (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mazarakis, G.P., Avaritsiotis, J.N.: A prototype sensor node for footstep detection. In: Proc. of the Second European Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks, pp. 415–418 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yao, A.C.C.: Some complexity questions related to distributive computing (Preliminary Report). In: Proc. of the eleventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 209–213 (1979)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kushilevitz, E., Nisan, N.: Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bar-Yossef, Z., Jayram, T.S., Kumar, R., Sivakumar, D.: Information theory methods in communication complexity. In: Proc. 17th IEEE Annual Conf. on Computational Complexity, pp. 72–81 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chakrabarti, A., Shi, Y., Wirth, A., Yao, A.: Informational complexity and the direct sum problem for simultaneous message complexity. In: Proc. 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science 2001, pp. 270–278 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dietzfelbinger, M., Wunderlich, H.: A characterization of average case communication complexity. Information Processing Letters 101(6), 245–249 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nisan, N.: The communication complexity of threshold gates. In: Proc. of Combinatorics, Paul Erdos is Eighty, pp. 301–315 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. E. Venkatesan
    • 1
  • Tarun Agarwal
    • 1
  • P. Vijay Kumar
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of ECEIndian Institute of ScienceBangalore 

Personalised recommendations