Suppression and failures in sensor networks: a Bayesian approach

Sensor networks allow continuous data collection on unprecedented scales. The primary limiting factor of such networks is energy, of which communication is the dominant consumer. The default strategy of nodes continually reporting their data to the root results in too much messaging. Suppression stands to greatly alleviate this problem. The simplest such scheme is temporal suppression, in which a node transmits its reading only when it has changed beyond some e since last transmitted. In the absence of a report, the root can infer that the value remains within ±e hence, it is still able to derive the history of readings produced at the node. The critical weakness of suppression is message failure, to which sensor networks are particularly vulnerable. Failure creates ambiguity: a non-report may either be a suppression or a failure. Inferring the correct values for missing data and learning the parameters of the underlying process model become quite challenging. We propose a novel solution, BaySail, that incorporates the knowledge of the suppression scheme and application-level redundancy in Bayesian inference. We investigate several redundancy schemes and evaluate them in terms of in-network transmission costs and out-of-network inference efficacy, and the trade-off between these. Our experimental evaluation shows application-level redundancy outperforms retransmissions and basic sampling in both cost and accuracy of inference. The BaySail framework shows suppression schemes are generally effective for data collection, despite the presence of failures.

[1]  David E. Culler,et al.  Taming the underlying challenges of reliable multihop routing in sensor networks , 2003, SenSys '03.

[2]  Samuel Madden,et al.  PAQ: Time Series Forecasting for Approximate Query Answering in Sensor Networks , 2006, EWSN.

[3]  Dan Suciu,et al.  Towards correcting input data errors probabilistically using integrity constraints , 2006, MobiDE '06.

[4]  Alan E. Gelfand,et al.  Spatial process modelling for univariate and multivariate dynamic spatial data , 2005 .

[5]  Gustavo Alonso,et al.  Declarative Support for Sensor Data Cleaning , 2006, Pervasive.

[6]  Adrian F. M. Smith,et al.  Sampling-Based Approaches to Calculating Marginal Densities , 1990 .

[7]  Suman Nath,et al.  Tributaries and deltas: efficient and robust aggregation in sensor network streams , 2005, SIGMOD '05.

[8]  Edward Y. Chang,et al.  Adaptive stream resource management using Kalman Filters , 2004, SIGMOD '04.

[9]  David E. Culler,et al.  Versatile low power media access for wireless sensor networks , 2004, SenSys '04.

[10]  Ramesh Govindan,et al.  Understanding packet delivery performance in dense wireless sensor networks , 2003, SenSys '03.

[11]  Parag Agrawal,et al.  Trio: a system for data, uncertainty, and lineage , 2006, VLDB.

[12]  H. Balakrishnan,et al.  Mitigating congestion in wireless sensor networks , 2004, SenSys '04.

[13]  Frederick Reiss,et al.  Design Considerations for High Fan-In Systems: The HiFi Approach , 2005, CIDR.

[14]  Dan Suciu,et al.  Efficient query evaluation on probabilistic databases , 2004, The VLDB Journal.

[15]  Wei Hong,et al.  Approximate Data Collection in Sensor Networks using Probabilistic Models , 2006, 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'06).

[16]  Srinivasan Seshan,et al.  Synopsis diffusion for robust aggregation in sensor networks , 2004, SenSys '04.

[17]  Michael A. West,et al.  Bayesian Forecasting and Dynamic Models (2nd edn) , 1997, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[18]  Jerry Nedelman,et al.  Book review: “Bayesian Data Analysis,” Second Edition by A. Gelman, J.B. Carlin, H.S. Stern, and D.B. Rubin Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2004 , 2005, Comput. Stat..

[19]  Richard A. Davis,et al.  Efficient Gibbs Sampling of Truncated Multivariate Normal with Application to Constrained Linear Regression , 2004 .

[20]  C. Pipper,et al.  [''R"--project for statistical computing]. , 2008, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[21]  Samuel Madden,et al.  MauveDB: supporting model-based user views in database systems , 2006, SIGMOD Conference.

[22]  Samuel Madden,et al.  Using Probabilistic Models for Data Management in Acquisitional Environments , 2005, CIDR.

[23]  Jeffrey Considine,et al.  Approximate aggregation techniques for sensor databases , 2004, Proceedings. 20th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[24]  Charu C. Aggarwal,et al.  Mining massively incomplete data sets by conceptual reconstruction , 2001, KDD '01.

[25]  Wei Hong,et al.  Model-Driven Data Acquisition in Sensor Networks , 2004, VLDB.

[26]  Jennifer Widom,et al.  Adaptive filters for continuous queries over distributed data streams , 2003, SIGMOD '03.

[27]  Jennifer Widom,et al.  Adaptive precision setting for cached approximate values , 2001, SIGMOD '01.

[28]  Jun Yang,et al.  Constraint chaining: on energy-efficient continuous monitoring in sensor networks , 2006, SIGMOD Conference.