1
Accuracy-Aware Aquatic Diffusion Process Profiling
UsingRobotic Sensor Networks
IPSN 2012Yu Wang, Rui Tan, Guoliang Xing, Jianxun Wang, and Xiaobo Tan
NSLab study group 2012/07/02Reporter: Yuting
2
Introduction System Model Movement Scheduling Evaluation Conclusion
Outline
3
Goal◦ Detect and monitor aquatic environments◦ Diffusion profile:
Concentration contour maps Elapsed time of diffusion Total amount of discharged substance Location of original source
Movement Scheduling◦ Improve the profiling accuracy◦ Constraints on sensor mobility and energy budget
Introduction (1)
4
System Model◦ Diffusion Process◦ MLE-based Diffusion Profiling◦ Profiling Accuracy Metric◦ Two scheduling algorithm
Experiments◦ Validation of the diffusion model◦ Evaluation by real data traces (on telosB)
simulation using MATLAB◦ Impact of several factors on profiling accuracy
Introduction (2)
5
Introduction System Model Movement Scheduling Evaluation Conclusion
Outline
6
Fickian diffusion-advection model:
◦ t: time elapsed since the discharge of substance◦ c: substance concentration◦ D: diffusion coefficient
Characterize speed of diffusion, depend on (1) species of solvent (2) discharge substance (3) environment factors (ex: temperature)
◦ u: advection speed Usually Dx=Dy, and Dz can be omitted
Diffusion Process Model (1)
7
Assume some initial condition◦ A total of A cm3 of substance is discharged at
location (xs,ys) and t=0 t>0: (x0,y0) = (xs+uxt , ys+uyt)
◦ Distance from any location (x, y) to the source:d = d(x, y) =
◦ Concentration at (x , y): c(d,t)
Diffusion profile Θ = {x0, y0 ,α, β} (β->t, α->A)
Diffusion Process Model (2)
8
Can't use Bayesian (need prior probability) Assume constant-speed advection, then
reading of sensor i : zi = c(di , t)+bi +ni◦ bi : bias◦ ni : noise ~ N(0, ς2), assume {ni} are independent◦ Takes K samples in a short time and average
them, then zi ~ N( c(di , t)+bi , σ2), where σ2 = ς2 /K
=>
Log-likelihood:
ML Estimation
9
A theoretical lower bound on the variance of parameter estimators (Θ here)
Inverse of the Fisher information matrix (FIM) J, J = , is taken over all z
= CRB(Θk) (xi,yi): coordinates of sensor i
Cramér-Rao Bound (CRB)
LX1 , LY1 are 1×N vectorsLX2 , LY2 are N×1 vectors
10
Previous works take det(J) as the metric, but it's too problem-dependent
This paper use a novel metric based on CRB
Larger ω indicates more accurate estimation of x0 and y0 ( Can also use CRB(α), CRB(β) )
ω is function of (x0,y0), (xi,yi), for all i=> use estimated (x0,y0) instead
If sensors are randomly distributed around the diffusion source => ε=0=>
Profiling Accuracy ω
11
Introduction System Model Movement Scheduling Evaluation Conclusion
Outline
12
Assumption◦ Sensors move straight in each profiling iteration◦ Moving distance is always multiple of l meters, where l is
referred to as "step" Profiling iteration has short time duration
◦ Sensor’s straight movement does not cause significant errors Problem statement: s.t.
◦ M: total steps that can be allocated (in one iteration)◦ Li: the largest distance sensor i can move (in one iteration)◦ l: unit of step◦ mi: # of steps (in one iteration)◦ φi: movement orientation (in one iteration)◦ Complexity:
Movement Scheduling
13
φi = ∠(∇iω) ||∇iω||: steepness of the metric ω Proportionally allocate the movement steps
according to sensor’s gradient magnitude:
Complexity: O(N)
Greedy Algorithm
14
Fx the sensor closest to the estimated source location Only schedule other sensors di* = =
,where Dynamic programming algorithm:
Ω(i, m): maximum ω when the first i sensors are allocated with m steps
Complexity: O((N-1)M2) ~ O(N3)
Radial Algorithm
15
SNR-based◦ Move toward the estimated source location to
increase SNR◦ Complexity: should be O(N)
Simulated Annealing◦ Given movement orientations {φi |∀i}, uses
brutal-force search to find the optimal step allocation
◦ Then search for optimal movement orientations by simulated annealing algorithm
◦ Complexity: exponential with respect to N
Two Additional Baseline Algorithms
16
Introduction System Model Movement Scheduling Evaluation Conclusion
Outline
17
The performance of profiling are affected by these errors (GPS, motor)
Iterative approach avoid error accumulation◦ Sensors update their positions and report to cluster
head (in each iteration)
Average GPS error: 2.29(m) Robotic fish speed: expect 2.5m/min when tail
beats at 23° amplitude and 0.9Hz frequency◦ Error not mentioned in the paper
Localization And Control Errors
18
Fig4: Simple clustering methodNodes randomly assigns itself a cluster IDAverage of results from all clusters
Computation Overhead
19
Diffusion Model Validation & PRR
12cm from the water surface
20
Greedy algorithm does not account for the interdependence of sensors in providing the overall profiling accuracy
Movement Scheduling Result
21
10 sensors, 15 profiling iterations Greedy and radial: curves with and without
simulated movement control and localization errors almost overlap => no error accumulation
Radial:better than annealingin terms of bothtime complexityand optimality
Profiling Accuracy Result (1)
22
The variances decrease with increasing A Both the greedy and radial algorithms can
achieve a high accuracy
Profiling Accuracy Result (2)
23
(Fig12) δ: source location bias◦ Diffusion source appears at (δ, 0)◦ Sensors are not randomly deployed around source
Some Impact On Profiling (1)
24
(Fig 14) Fix each di and randomly deploy sensors in different quadrant of plane
Deployment with max ω is still an open issue
Some Impact On Profiling (2)
25
Shortest distance path from sensors to cluster head Trace-driven simulations
◦ Nodes transmit packet to the next hop with success p = PRR retrieved from the communication traces
◦ Nodes re-transmit the packet for 10 times before it is dropped until success
◦ Packet to the cluster head includes:sensor ID, current position, measurement
◦ Packet to the sensor includes:moving orientation, distance
# of packet (re-)transmissions in an iteration:mean 158, standard deviation 28(30 sensors are randomly deployed)
Delay will be within seconds at most
Communication Overhead
26
Introduction System Model Movement Scheduling Evaluation Conclusion
Outline
27
Strength◦ Reduce computation and hardware cost◦ Real hardware implementation of lots of
mathematical model Weakness (also their future work)
◦ Cluster head needed◦ May not work on wavy environments◦ GPS and Zigbee may not work in deep water◦ It seems that the system can't be done in real
time
Comments