1: \documentclass{article}

2: %\def   \HOME{E:/ys87/references/texmacros}

3: 

4: \def\ignore#1{}

5: \def\myadd{\bf }

6: 

7: \input macros

8: \input setup

9: \input labelfig.tex

10: 

11: \usepackage{spconf,amsmath,epsfig,epsf,psfrag,amssymb,amsfonts,latexsym, amsmath,color}

12: \usepackage{verbatim}

13: \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal}

14: 

15: 

16: 

17: 

18: \newcommand{\bth}{\mbox{${\bf \theta}$}}

19: \newcommand{\bzero}{\mbox{${\bf 0}$}}

20: \newcommand{\bS}{\mbox{$\mathcal{S}$}}

21: \newcommand{\bDc}{\mbox{${\bf \Dc}$}}

22: \newcommand{\bRc}{\mbox{${\bf \Rc}$}}

23: \newcommand{\bHc}{\mbox{${\bf \Hc}$}}

24: \newcommand{\bTc}{\mbox{${\bf \Tc}$}}

25: \newcommand{\bFc}{\mbox{${\bf \Fc}$}}

26: \newcommand{\bPc}{\mbox{${\bf \Pc}$}}

27: \newcommand{\bGc}{\mbox{${\bf \Gc}$}}

28: 

29: 

30: 

31: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

32: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

33: 

34: \newcommand{\Var}{\mbox{${\mbox{Var}}$}}

35: 

36: \def\nn{\nonumber}

37: \def\defeq{\stackrel{\Delta}{=}}

38: \def\Ebb{{\mathbb E}}

39: \def\Rbb{{\mathbb R}}

40: 

41: %\newcommand{\Kmsc}{\mbox{$\mathscr{K}$}}

42: \newcommand{\Kmsc}{{\mathscr{K}}}

43: \newcommand{\Imsc}{{\mathscr{I}}}

44: \newcommand{\SNR}{\mbox{SNR}}

45: 

46: 

47: \definecolor{bgrd}{rgb}{1,1,1}

48: \definecolor{grey}{rgb}{0.9,0.9,0.6}

49: \definecolor{gray}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,0.5}

50: \def\tcr{\textcolor{red}}

51: \def\tcb{\textcolor{blue}}

52: \def\tck{\textcolor{black}}

53: \def\tcy{\textcolor{yellow}}

54: \def\tcg{\textcolor{green}}

55: \def\tcbg{\textcolor{bgrd}}

56: \def\tcm{\textcolor{magenta}}

57: \def\tcw{\textcolor{white}}

58: \def\tcgry{\textcolor{gray}}

59: 

60: 

61: \newtheorem{model}{Model}

62: 

63: 

64: % Example definitions.

65: % --------------------

66: \def\x{{\mathbf x}}

67: \def\L{{\cal L}}

68: 

69: % Title.

70: % ------

71: \title{Optimal Node Density for Two-Dimensional Sensor Arrays}

72: %

73: % Single address.

74: % ---------------

75: \name{Youngchul Sung\sthanks{{\scriptsize Y. Sung and H. Yu is

76: with the Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute

77: of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon 305-701, South Korea.

78: Email:ysung@ee.kaist.ac.kr and hjyu@stein.kaist.ac.kr. H. V. Poor

79: is with the Dept. of Electrical Engineering,  Princeton

80: University, Princeton, NJ 08544. Email: poor@princeton.edu. The

81: work of Y. Sung was  supported in part by Brain Korea 21 Project,

82: the School of Information Technology, KAIST. The work of H. V. Poor was

83: supported in part by the U. S. National Science Foundation under Grants ANI-03-

84: 38807 and CNS-06-25637.}}, H. Vincent Poor

85: and Heejung Yu }

86: \address{}

87: 

88: 

89: %\twoauthors

90: %  {A. Author-one, B. Author-two\sthanks{Thanks to XYZ agency for funding.}}

91: %   {School A-B\\

92: %   Department A-B\\

93: %   Address A-B}

94: %  {C. Author-three, D. Author-four\sthanks{The fourth author performed the work

95: %   while at ...}}

96: %   {School C-D\\

97: %   Department C-D\\

98: %   Address C-D}

99: 

100: 

101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

102: \begin{document}

103: \maketitle

104: 

105: 

106: \ninept

107: 

108: {\footnotesize

109: \begin{abstract}

110: The problem of optimal node density for {\em ad hoc} sensor

111: networks deployed for making inferences about two

112: dimensional correlated random fields is considered. Using

113: a symmetric first order conditional

114: autoregressive Gauss-Markov random field model, large

115: deviations results are used to characterize the asymptotic per-node

116: information gained from the array.  This result then allows an analysis

117: of the node

118: density that maximizes the information under an energy constraint,

119: yielding insights into the trade-offs among the

120: information, density and energy.

121: 

122: \end{abstract}

123: }

124: 

125: %{\footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index Terms-}}  Neyman-Pearson

126: %detection, error exponent, GMRF}

127: 

128: 

129: \section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}

130: 

131: We consider the design of wireless {\em ad hoc} sensor networks

132: for making inferences about correlated random fields

133:  that can model various physical processes, such as

134: temperature, humidity or the density of a certain gas, in a

135: two-dimensional (2-D) space. In particular, we consider the

136: optimal density problem for sensor networks deployed for

137: statistical inference such as detection or reconstruction of the

138: underlying field. From the information-theoretic perspective,

139: statistical inference via sensor networks can be viewed as a problem of

140: extracting information about an underlying physical process using

141: networked sensor nodes that consume energy for both sensing and

142: communication. Thus, the optimal density problem can be formulated

143: as follows.

144: 

145: \begin{problem} \label{problem:optdensity} Given a sensor network deployed on a

146:  fixed coverage area of size $2L \times 2L$ and

147: with total available energy $E$, find the node density $\mu_n$ that

148: maximizes the total information $I_t$ obtainable from the

149: network.

150: \end{problem}

151: 

152: \noindent To address this problem, we model the signal field as a

153: 2-D Gauss-Markov random field (GMRF), and consider the

154: Kullback-Leibler information (KLI) and mutual information (MI)

155: \cite{Liese&Vajda:06IT} as ways of quantifying inferential performance. (The

156: operational meaning of the KLI is given by its appearance as  the error exponent of

157: the miss probability of Neyman-Pearson detection of the signal

158: field in sensor noise, whereas that of the MI is given by its role as a measure

159: of  uncertainty reduction.)  Our approach to determine the total

160: information obtainable  from a sensor network is based on the large deviations principle

161: (LDP). That is, for large networks, the total information is

162: approximately given by the product of the number of sensors and

163: the asymptotic per-node information, or  the asymptotic information rate.

164: (The units of these intensive quantities is thus nats/sample.)

165: Although closed-form expressions for the

166: asymptotic per-node information are not available for general 2-D

167: signals, for   the  conditional

168: autoregression (CAR) model  closed-form

169: expressions for the asymptotic KLI and MI rates have been determined by the authors in

170: \cite{Sung&Poor&Yu:08ICASSP}.

171:   Based on these   expressions for asymptotic information

172:   rates and their properties, in the current paper we investigate the problem

173:   of optimal node density.

174:   It is seen that there exists a density maximizing the total

175:   information obtainable under an energy constraint.  The optimal density

176:   is easily obtained numerically, and the behavior of the total information as a function

177:   of the density is explained.

178: 

179: 

180: 

181: 

182: \vspace{-0.5em}

183: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

184: \subsection{Related Work}

185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

186: \vspace{-0.3em}

187: 

188: The issues of optimal sensor density  and optimal sampling have

189: been considered  based on LDP in  previous work (e.g.,

190: \cite{Chamberland&Veeravalli:06IT}). However, most work in this

191: area is  based on  one-dimensional (1-D) signal or time series models

192: that do not capture the two-dimensionality of actual spatial

193: signals. In contrast, our work is based on the LDP results obtained in

194: \cite{Sung&Poor&Yu:08ICASSP}, where a closed-form expression for

195: the  asymptotic KLI rate is obtained in the spectral domain. For a

196: 2-D setting, an error exponent was obtained for the detection of

197: 2-D GMRFs in \cite{Anandkumar&Tong&Swami:07ICASSP}, where the

198: sensors are located randomly and the Markov graph is based on the

199: nearest neighbor  dependency enabling a loop-free graph. In that

200: work, however, measurement noise was not considered, unlike the

201: present analysis.

202: 

203: \vspace{-0.7em}

204: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

205: \section{Signal Model and Background}

206: \label{sec:systemmodel} \vspace{-0.5em}

207: 

208: In this section, we briefly introduce our previous work

209: \cite{Sung&Poor&Yu:08ICASSP} relevant to the sensor density

210: problem. To simplify the problem and gain insight into the 2-D

211: case, we assume that sensors are located on a 2-D lattice

212: $\Ic_n=[-n:1:n]^2$, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:2dHGMRF}, and thus

213: form a 2-D array. We model the underlying physical process as a

214: 2-D GMRF and assume that each sensor has Gaussian measurement

215: noise. So, the observation $Y_{ij}$ of Sensor $ij$ on the 2-D

216: lattice ${\mathcal I}_n$ is given by

217: \begin{equation} \label{eq:hypothesis2d}

218:  Y_{ij} = X_{ij}+ W_{ij}, ~~ij \in {\cal I}_n,

219: \end{equation}

220: where  $\{W_{ij}\}$ represents independent and identically

221: distributed (i.i.d.) zero-mean Gaussian measurement noise with

222: variance $\sigma^2$, and $\{X_{ij}\}$ is a  GMRF on $\Ic_n$,

223: independent of $\{W_{ij}\}$. Note that the observation samples

224: form a 2-D hidden GMRF on $\Ic_n$. In the following, we summarize

225: our relevant LDP results on GMRFs that will be useful in the

226: sequel.

227: 

228: \begin{figure}[htbp]

229: \centerline{

230:     \begin{psfrags}

231:     \psfrag{ij}[l]{{\scriptsize $(i,j)$}}

232:     \psfrag{xij}[c]{{\scriptsize $X_{ij}$}}

233:     \psfrag{wij}[l]{{\scriptsize $W_{ij}$}}

234:     \psfrag{yij}[c]{{\scriptsize $Y_{ij}$}}

235:     \psfrag{Nij}[c]{{\scriptsize Sensor $ij$}}

236:     \psfrag{r}[c]{{\scriptsize $d_n$}}

237:     \scalefig{0.33}\epsfbox{figures/2dgmrf.eps}

238:     \end{psfrags}

239: } \caption{2-D sensor array on a lattice ${\mathcal I}_n$: Hidden

240: Markov structure} \label{fig:2dHGMRF}

241: \end{figure}

242: 

243: \begin{definition}[GMRF \cite{Rue&Held:book}]\label{def:GMRF}

244: A random vector $\Xbf=(X_1,X_2,\cdots,$ $X_n)$ $\in {\mathbb R}^n$

245: is a Gauss-Markov random field with respect to (w.r.t.). a labelled graph ${\mathcal

246: G}=({\mathcal \nu},{\mathcal E})$ with mean vector $\mubf$ and

247: precision matrix $\Qbf

248: >0$, if its probability density function is given by

249: {\footnotesize

250: \begin{equation}

251: p(\Xbf) = (2\pi)^{-n/2}|\Qbf|^{1/2}\exp\left( - \frac{1}{2}

252: (\Xbf-\mubf)^T \Qbf (\Xbf-\mubf) \right),

253: \end{equation}}

254: and $Q_{lm} \ne 0 \Longleftrightarrow \{l,m\} \in {\mathcal

255: E}~\mbox{for all}~ l \ne m$.  Here, ${\mathcal \nu}$ is  the set

256: of all nodes $\{1,2,\cdots, n\}$ and ${\mathcal E}$ is the set of

257: edges connecting pairs of nodes, which represent the conditional

258: dependence structure.

259: \end{definition}

260: 

261: 

262: \noindent Note that the 2-D indexing scheme $ij$ in

263: (\ref{eq:hypothesis2d}) can be properly converted to an 1-D scheme

264: to apply Definition \ref{def:GMRF}. From here on, we use the 2-D

265: indexing scheme for convenience.

266: 

267: 

268: 

269: \begin{definition}[The Conditional Autoregression (CAR)]

270: A GMRF $\{X_{ij}\}$ is said to be a conditional autoregression if

271: it is specified using a set of full conditional normal

272: distributions with means and precisions: {\footnotesize

273: \begin{eqnarray}

274: \Ebb \{ X_{ij}|\Xbf_{-ij}\} &=&  -\frac{1}{\theta_{00}}

275: \sum_{i^\prime j^\prime \in {\mathcal I}_\infty \ne 00}

276: \theta_{i^\prime j^\prime} X_{i+i^\prime,j+j^\prime}, \label{eq:condMean2DInf}\\

277: \mbox{Prec}\{X_{ij}|\Xbf_{-ij}\} &=& \theta_{00} > 0,

278: \label{eq:condPrec2DInf}

279: \end{eqnarray}}

280: where $\Xbf_{-ij}$ denotes the set of all variables except

281: $X_{ij}$.

282: \end{definition}

283: 

284: \noindent By imposing first order symmetry on the correlation

285: structure, we have the symmetric first order conditional

286: autoregression (SFCAR) defined by the conditions {\small

287: \begin{eqnarray*}

288: \Ebb \{ X_{ij}|\Xbf_{-ij}\} &=&  \frac{\lambda}{\kappa} (X_{i+1,j}+X_{i-1,j}+X_{i,j+1}+X_{i,j-1}),\\

289: \mbox{Prec}\{X_{ij}|\Xbf_{-ij}\} &=& \kappa > 0,

290: \end{eqnarray*}}

291: where $0 \le \lambda \le \frac{\kappa}{4}$. Here,

292: $\theta_{00}=\kappa$ and $\theta_{1,0} = \theta_{-1,0} =

293: \theta_{0,1} = \theta_{0,-1} = -\lambda$.  The SFCAR model is the

294: 2-D extension of the 1-D autoregressive (AR) model that is widely

295: used to model basic correlation in 1-D. Here in the 2-D case we have

296: symmetric conditional dependence on four neighboring nodes in the

297: four (planar) directions, capturing basic 2-D correlation structure. It

298: can be shown that the GMRF defined by the SFCAR model is a zero-mean

299: stationary Gaussian process on ${\mathcal I}_\infty$ with

300: power spectral density \cite{Rue&Held:book}

301: \begin{equation}

302: f(\omega_1,\omega_2) = \frac{1}{4\pi^2 \kappa (1 - 2 \zeta

303: \cos\omega_1 - 2 \zeta \cos\omega_2)},

304: \end{equation}

305: where the {\em edge dependence factor} $\zeta$ is defined as

306: \vspace{-0.5em}

307: \begin{equation}

308: \zeta

309: \defeq \frac{\lambda}{\kappa}, ~~~~ 0 \le \zeta \le 1/4.

310: \end{equation}

311: The SFCAR model is useful especially because the correlation

312: strength is captured in this single quantity $\zeta$ for SFCAR

313: signals, which enables us to investigate the per-node information

314: as a function of the field correlation. Here, $\zeta =0$ corresponds

315: to the i.i.d. case, whereas $\zeta =1/4$ corresponds to the

316: perfectly correlated case. Henceforth, we assume that the 2-D

317: stochastic signal $\{X_{ij}\}$ in (\ref{eq:hypothesis2d}) is given

318: by a stationary GMRF defined by the SFCAR model, as $n\rightarrow

319: \infty$.  The signal power $P\defeq \Ebb\{X_{00}\}^2$

320: ($=\Ebb\{X_{ij}^2\} ~\forall~i,j$) is obtained using the inverse

321: Fourier transform, and is given by $P

322:  = \frac{2K(4\zeta)}{\pi \kappa}, ~\left(0 \le \zeta \le

323: \frac{1}{4} \right)$, where $K(\cdot)$ is the complete elliptic

324: integral of the first kind \cite{Besag:81JRSS}. Thus, the

325: measurement SNR is given by $\mbox{SNR} = \frac{P}{\sigma^2} =

326: \frac{2K(4\zeta)}{\pi \kappa \sigma^2}$.

327: 

328: \subsection{Large System Analysis: Per-Node Information}

329: 

330:  The key idea behind the large system analysis here is that, under the stationarity assumption,

331:   the amounts of information from the

332:  node become identical regardless of sensor location as the

333:  network size grows, and  the total amount of

334: information is given approximately by the product of the number of

335: sensor nodes and the (asymptotic) per-node information.  The

336: asymptotic per-node KLI and per-node MI are defined as

337: \[

338: \Kmsc_s = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{|\Ic_n|} \log

339: \frac{p_{0}}{p_{1}}(\{Y_{ij}, ij \in \Ic_n\}) ~\mbox{a.s.

340: under}~p_{0}, ~~\mbox{and}

341: \]

342: \[

343: \Imsc_s = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{|\Ic_n|}

344: I(\{X_{ij}, ij \in \Ic_n\};\{Y_{ij}, ij\in \Ic_n\}),~~~~~~~~~

345: \]

346: respectively. For the MI, the signal model (\ref{eq:hypothesis2d})

347: is  applicable directly, whereas for the KLI the probability

348: density functions of the null (noise-only) and alternative

349: (signal-plus-noise) distributions are those given under the respective

350: models

351: \begin{eqnarray}

352: p_0 (Y_{ij}) &:&  Y_{ij} = W_{ij} , ~~ij \in {\cal I}_n, \nonumber\\

353: p_1(Y_{ij})  &:& Y_{ij} = X_{ij}+ W_{ij}, ~~ij \in {\cal I}_n.

354: \label{eq:KLIp0p1}

355: \end{eqnarray}

356: The following closed-form expressions for the asymptotic per-node

357: information in the spectral domain have been obtained in

358: \cite{Sung&Poor&Yu:08ICASSP} by exploiting the spectral structure

359: of the CAR signal and the relationship between the eigenvalues of

360: block circulant and block Toeplitz matrices representing 2-D

361: correlation structure.

362: 

363: \begin{theorem}\label{theo:eeSFA}

364: Under the 2-D SFCAR signal model, the asymptotic per-node KLI

365: $\Kmsc_s$ and per-node MI $\Imsc_s$  are given by {\tiny

366: \begin{eqnarray}

367: \Kmsc_s &=& \frac{1}{4\pi^2} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}

368: \biggl( \frac{1}{2}\log \left(1+\frac{ \mbox{SNR}}{

369: (2/\pi)K(4\zeta) (1 - 2 \zeta \cos\omega_1 - 2 \zeta

370: \cos\omega_2)}\right) \nonumber\\

371: && ~~~~~~+\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{1+\frac{ \mbox{SNR}}{

372: (2/\pi)K(4\zeta) (1 - 2 \zeta \cos\omega_1 - 2 \zeta

373: \cos\omega_2)}} -\frac{1}{2} \biggl)d\omega_1d\omega_2.

374: \label{eq:aKLIR_SFA}

375: \end{eqnarray}

376: } and {\tiny

377: \begin{equation}

378: \Imsc_s = \frac{1}{4\pi^2} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}

379: \frac{1}{2}\log \left(1+\frac{ \mbox{SNR}}{ (2/\pi)K(4\zeta) (1 -

380: 2 \zeta \cos\omega_1 - 2 \zeta \cos\omega_2)}\right)

381: d\omega_1d\omega_2, \label{eq:aMLIR_SFA}

382: \end{equation}

383: } respectively.

384: \end{theorem}

385: 

386: \noindent Note that the SNR and correlation are separated in

387: (\ref{eq:aKLIR_SFA})-(\ref{eq:aMLIR_SFA}), which enables us to

388: investigate the effects of each term separately. With regard to

389: $\Kmsc_s$ and $\Imsc_s$ as functions of $\zeta$, it is readily

390: seen from Theorem \ref{theo:eeSFA} that $\Kmsc_s$ and $\Imsc_s$

391: are continuously differentiable $C^1$ functions of the edge

392: dependence factor $\zeta$ ($0 \le \zeta \le 1/4$) for a given SNR

393: since $f:x \rightarrow K(x)$ is a continuously differentiable

394: $C^\infty$ function for $0 \le x < 1$ \cite{Erdelyi:53book}. Fig.

395: \ref{fig:KcsVsZeta} shows $\Kmsc_s$ as a function of $\zeta$ for

396: several different SNR values.

397: \begin{figure}[htbp]

398: \centerline{ \SetLabels

399: \L(0.25*-0.1) (a) \\

400: \L(0.72*-0.1) (b) \\

401: \endSetLabels

402: \leavevmode

403: %\ShowGrid

404: \strut\AffixLabels{ \scalefig{0.235}\epsfbox{figures/fig2a.eps}

405: \scalefig{0.235}\epsfbox{figures/fig2b.eps} } } \vspace{0.5cm}

406: \centerline{ \SetLabels

407: \L(0.25*-0.1) (c) \\

408: \L(0.72*-0.1) (d) \\

409: \endSetLabels

410: \leavevmode

411: %\ShowGrid

412: \strut\AffixLabels{ \scalefig{0.235}\epsfbox{figures/fig2c.eps}

413: \scalefig{0.235}\epsfbox{figures/fig2d.eps} } } \vspace{0.5cm}

414: \caption{$\Kmsc_s$ as a function of $\zeta$: (a) SNR = 10 dB, (b)

415: SNR = 0 dB, (c) SNR = -3 dB, (d) SNR = -5 dB (from

416: \cite{Sung&Poor&Yu:08ICASSP})}

417:  \label{fig:KcsVsZeta}

418: \end{figure}

419: It is seen in the figure that at high SNR $\Kmsc_s$ decreases

420: monotonically as the correlation becomes strong, i.e., $\zeta

421: \rightarrow 1/4$. At low SNR, on the other hand, correlation is

422: beneficial to the performance. $\Imsc_s$ shows similar behaviors

423: even if it is not shown here.

424: 

425:  With regard to $\Kmsc_s$  and $I_s$ as functions of SNR, the

426:  behavior  is given by the following theorem from

427:  \cite{Sung&Poor&Yu:08ICASSP}.

428: 

429: \begin{theorem} \label{theo:KLIsvsSNR}

430: $\Kmsc_s$  and $\Imsc_s$ are continuous and monotonically

431: increasing as SNR increases for a given edge dependence factor $0

432: \le \zeta < 1/4$. Moreover, $\Kmsc_s$ and $\Imsc_s$ increase

433: linearly with respect to $\frac{1}{2}\log \mbox{SNR}$ as $\SNR

434: \rightarrow \infty$. As SNR decreases to zero, on the other hand,

435: $\Kmsc_s$ and $\Imsc_s$ decrease to zero with convergence rates

436: \begin{eqnarray}

437: \Kmsc_s(\SNR) &=& c\cdot \SNR^2 + o(\SNR^2),  \label{eq:SNR0K}\\

438: \Imsc_s(\SNR) &=& c^\prime \cdot \SNR + o(\SNR), \label{eq:SNR0I}

439: \end{eqnarray}

440: respectively, for some constants $c$ and $c^\prime$.

441: \end{theorem}

442: 

443: 

444: 

445: \section{Ad Hoc Sensor Networks: Optimal Density}

446: 

447: 

448: Based on the  results in the previous sections, we now address the

449: optimal density problem given in Section \ref{sec:intro}.

450: 

451: \subsection{Physical correlation model}

452: \label{subsec:physicalmodel}

453: 

454: As we vary the node density for a given area with size $2L\times

455: 2L$, the sensor spacing $d_n$ changes. In turn, the edge

456: dependence factor between two adjacent samples varies for given

457: physical diffusion parameters.  So, we first derive the

458: relationship between sensor spacing $d_n$ and the edge dependence

459: factor $\zeta$ for the SFCAR. The physical correlation for the

460: SFCAR model is obtained by solving the continuous-index equivalent

461: given by the 2-D stochastic Laplace equation

462: \cite{Whittle:54Biometrika} {\footnotesize

463: \begin{equation} \label{eq:laplaceSDE}

464: \left[ \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right)^2 +\left(

465: \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \right)^2 - \alpha^2 \right]X(x,y) =

466: u(x,y),

467: \end{equation}} where $u(x,y)$ is the 2-D white zero-mean

468: Gaussian perturbation and $\alpha > 0$ is the diffusion rate. By

469: solving this equation, the edge correlation factor $\rho$ is given,

470: as a function of the sensor spacing $d_n$, by

471: \cite{Whittle:54Biometrika}

472: \begin{equation} \label{eq:2DcorrelationFunc}

473: \rho \defeq \frac{\Ebb\{ X_{00}X_{10}

474:  \}}{\Ebb\{X_{00}^2  \}}= g(d_n) = \alpha

475: d_n K_1(\alpha d_n),

476: \end{equation}

477: where $K_1(\cdot)$ is the modified Bessel function of the second

478: kind. The correlation function (\ref{eq:2DcorrelationFunc}) can be

479: regarded as the representative  correlation in 2-D, similar to the

480: exponential correlation function $e^{-Ad_n}$ in 1-D. Both

481: functions decrease monotonically w.r.t. $d_n$. However, the 2-D

482: correlation function is flat at $d_n=0$

483: \cite{Whittle:54Biometrika}. Further, we have a mapping $g:\rho

484: \rightarrow \zeta$ from the edge correlation factor $\rho$ to the

485: edge dependence factor $\zeta$, given by

486: \cite{Sung&Poor&Yu:08ITsub}

487: \begin{equation} \label{eq:ZetaVsRho}

488: \rho =  \frac{(2/\pi)K(4\zeta)-1}{4 (2/\pi)\zeta K(4\zeta)} =:

489: h^{-1}(\zeta),

490: \end{equation}

491: which maps zero and one to zero and 1/4, respectively. Combining

492: (\ref{eq:2DcorrelationFunc}) and (\ref{eq:ZetaVsRho}), we have a

493: mapping $\zeta = h(g (d_n))$ from the sensor spacing $d_n$ to

494: $\zeta$ for the SFCAR model.

495: 

496: %\vspace{-1em}

497: \subsection{Density Analysis}

498: %\vspace{-0.5em}

499: 

500: 

501: The assumptions for the planar {\em ad hoc} sensor network that we

502: consider is summarized in the following.

503: \begin{itemize}

504: \item[(A.1)] $(2n+1)^2$ sensors are located on the lattice $\Ic_n

505: = [-n:1:n]^2$ with spacing $d_n$, as shown in Fig.

506: \ref{fig:2dHGMRF}, and a fusion center is located at the center

507: $(0,0)$. The observation samples $\{Y_{ij}\}$ at sensors form a

508: 2-D hidden SFCAR GMRF on the lattice, and the correlation

509: functions are given by (\ref{eq:2DcorrelationFunc}) - (\ref{eq:ZetaVsRho}).  %

510: 

511: 

512: 

513: \item[(A.2)] The fusion center collects the measurement from all

514: nodes using minimum hop routing. A hop count of $|i|+|j|$ is

515: required for minimum hop routing to deliver $Y_{ij}$ to the fusion

516: center.

517: 

518: \item[(A.3)] The communication  energy per edge is given by

519: $E_{c}(d_n) = E_0 d_n^{\nu}$, where  $\nu \ge 2$ is the

520:  attenuation  factor of wireless propagation in the physical layer.

521: 

522: \item[(A.4)] Sensing requires energy, and the sensing energy per

523: node is denoted by $E_{s}$.  Further, we assume that the {\em

524: measurement} SNR  increases linearly w.r.t. $E_{s}$, i.e., $\SNR =

525: \beta E_s$  for some constant $\beta$.\footnote{

526:  Suppose that $E_1$ joules are

527: required for one sensing to obtain one sample $Y_{ij}(m) =

528: X_{ij}(m) + W_{ij}(m)$ at sensor $ij$ and the measurement SNR of

529: this sample is $\SNR_1$. Now assume that we obtain $M$ samples

530: ($m=1,\cdots,M$) using $M$ subsensors at the same location $ij$

531: simultaneously, requiring $M\cdot E_1$ joules, and we take an

532: average  of these $M$ samples at sensor $ij$, yielding an

533: effective sample $Y_{ij}=(1/M)\sum_m Y_{ij}(m)$ of SNR of

534: $M\SNR_1$ assuming that the measurement noise is i.i.d. across the

535: subsensors.}

536: \end{itemize}

537: 

538: \noindent The density optimization under the energy constraint can

539: be solved using our large system analysis in the previous sections

540:  assuming the asymptotic result is still valid in low density

541: case. The total amount $I_t$ of information is given by

542: {\footnotesize

543: \begin{equation} \label{eq:adhocTotalInfo}

544: I_t = (2n+1)^2 \Kmsc_s(\mbox{SNR},d_n) ~~\mbox{or}~~ I_t =

545: (2n+1)^2 \Imsc_s(\mbox{SNR},d_n),

546: \end{equation}}

547: for KLI or MI, respectively.  The total energy $E$ required for

548: data collection  is given by {\footnotesize

549: \begin{eqnarray}

550: E &=& (2n+1)^2 E_s + E_c(d_n) \sum_{i=-n}^n\sum_{j=-n}^n

551: (|i|+|j|),\nonumber\\

552: &=& (2n+1)^2 E_s + 2n(n+1)(2n+1) E_{c}(d_n).

553: \label{eq:adhocTotalEnergy}

554: \end{eqnarray}}

555: Thus,  Problem 1 can be reformulated as {\scriptsize

556: \begin{eqnarray}

557: \mu_{n}^* &=& \mathop{\arg \max}_{\mu_n} ~(2L)^2 \mu_n \Kmsc_s

558: (\mbox{SNR}(E,\mu_n), d_n(\mu_n)),\label{eq:optimaldensityconstraint}\\

559: && \mbox{s.t.} ~ (2n+1)^2 E_s (\mu_n) + 2n(n+1)(2n+1)

560: E_c(d_n(\mu_n)) \le E, \nonumber

561: \end{eqnarray}}

562: where the sensing energy $E_s$ as well as $n$ and $d_n$ are

563: functions of the node density $\mu_n$.  From $\mu_n ~(=

564: (2n+1)^2/(2L)^2)$, we first calculate $n$ and then $d_n = L/n$.

565: When $d_n$ is determined, $E_c(d_n)$ is obtained from the

566: propagation parameters $E_0$ and $\nu$, and then $E_s(\mu_n)$ is

567: obtained from the constraint in

568: (\ref{eq:optimaldensityconstraint}). Once $E_s(\mu_n)$ is

569: determined, the measurement SNR is calculated using Assumption

570: {\em (A.5)}, i.e., SNR = $\beta E_s$ and finally we evaluate the

571: per-sensor information $\Kmsc_s(\SNR, \zeta(\rho(d_n)))$ and

572: $\Imsc_s(\SNR, \zeta(\rho(d_n)))$ from Theorem \ref{theo:eeSFA}.

573: 

574: \begin{figure}[htbp]

575: \centerline{ \SetLabels

576: \L(0.24*-0.1) (a) \\

577: \L(0.74*-0.1) (b) \\

578: \endSetLabels

579: \leavevmode

580: %\ShowGrid

581: \strut\AffixLabels{ \scalefig{0.25}\epsfbox{figures/fig3a.eps}

582: \scalefig{0.25}\epsfbox{figures/fig3b.eps} } } \vspace{0.3cm}

583:  \caption{(a) total KLI vs. density  and (b) total MI vs. density}

584: \label{fig:InformationVsDensity}

585: \end{figure}

586: 

587: 

588: Fig. \ref{fig:InformationVsDensity} shows the total information

589: obtainable from 2 $\times$ 2 square meter area as we vary the node

590: density $\mu_n$ with a fixed total energy budget of  $E$ joules. Other

591: parameters that we use are given by

592: \[

593: \alpha = 100 ~(\mbox{diffusion rate}), ~\beta=1, ~ E_0 = 0.1~

594: \mbox{and}~ \nu = 2.

595: \]

596: Here, the values of $E$, $E_0$ and $\beta$ are chosen so that the

597: minimum and maximum per-sensor sensing SNR's are roughly -10 to 10

598: dB for maximum and minimum densities, respectively.  The diffusion

599: rate $\alpha=100$ is selected for the edge correlation coefficient

600: $\rho$ to vary from almost zero to 0.6 as the node density

601: changes. It is seen in the figure that there is an optimal density

602: for each value of $E$ for both information measures.  It is also

603: seen that the total KLI is sensitive to the density change whereas

604: the total MI is less sensitive. The existence of the optimal

605: density is explained as follows. At low density, we have only a

606: few sensors in the area. So, the energy for communication is not

607: large due to the small number of communicating nodes  and most of

608: the energy is allocated to the sensing energy; the per-node

609: sensing energy is even higher due to the small number of sensors.

610: However, the per-node information increases only logarithmically

611: w.r.t. the sensing energy or SNR by Theorem \ref{theo:KLIsvsSNR},

612: and this logarithmic gain cannot compensate for the loss in the

613: number of sensors. Therefore, low density yields very poor

614: performance, and large gain is obtained initially as we increase

615: the density from very low values as seen in Fig.

616: \ref{fig:InformationVsDensity}. As we further increase the

617: density, on the other hand, and the per-node sensing energy or SNR

618: decreases due to the increase in the overall communication and the

619: increase in the number of sensor nodes, and the measurement SNR is

620: eventually at low SNR regime, where (\ref{eq:SNR0K}) and

621: (\ref{eq:SNR0I}) hold. From (\ref{eq:adhocTotalEnergy}), we have

622: \begin{equation}

623: E_s (\mu_n) =\beta^{-1}\SNR = O(n^{-2})

624: \end{equation}

625: for fixed $E$ and $E_c =E_0 (L/n)^2$, as $n \rightarrow \infty$.

626: By the low SNR behavior of $\Kmsc_s$ given by (\ref{eq:SNR0K}),

627: the behavior of the total Kullback-Leibler information is given by

628: \[

629: \mbox{Total KLI}= (2L)^2 \mu_n \Kmsc_s = O(n^2 n^{-4}) = O(n^{-2})

630: = O(\mu_n^{-1})

631: \]

632:  and by (\ref{eq:SNR0I})  the total mutual information is

633: given by

634: \[

635: \mbox{Total MI} = (2L)^2 \mu_n \Imsc_s = O(n^2 n^{-2}) = O(1).

636: \]

637: This explains the initial decay after the peak in Fig.

638: \ref{fig:InformationVsDensity} (a) and quite flat curve in Fig.

639: \ref{fig:InformationVsDensity} (b).  In the above equations,

640: however, the effect of $\zeta$  on $\Kmsc_s$ and $\Imsc_s$ is not

641: considered. As the node density increases, the sensor spacing

642: decreases and the edge dependence factor $\zeta$ increases for a

643: given diffusion rate $\alpha$. The behavior of the per-node

644: information as a function of $\zeta$ is shown in Fig.

645: \ref{fig:KcsVsZeta}. Note in Fig. \ref{fig:KcsVsZeta} that the

646: per-node information  has a second lobe at strong correlation at

647: low SNR while at high SNR it  decreases monotonically as the

648: correlation becomes strong. The benefit of sample correlation is

649: evident in the low energy case ($E=50 [\mbox{J}]$) in

650: \ref{fig:InformationVsDensity} (a); the second peak  around $\mu_n

651: = 95$ [nodes/$m^2$] is observed. Note that the second peak is not

652: so significant. Since the per-node  information decays to zero as

653: $\zeta \rightarrow 1/4$ eventually, the total amount of

654: information decreases eventually, as seen in the right corner of

655: the figure, as we increases the node density.

656: 

657: 

658: 

659: \section{Conclusions}

660: \label{sec:conclusion}

661: 

662: We have considered the design of 2-D arrays of networked sensors

663: for making   inferences about 2-D correlated random fields.

664: Under the SFCAR GMRF model, the  density maximizing the

665: total information obtainable from the network under an energy

666: constraint has been investigated. We have seen that  such an optimal

667:  density exists. At

668: low density, the amount of  information gathered is small because

669: the logarithmic increase in the per-node information w.r.t. energy

670: cannot compensate for the loss in the number of sensor nodes. At

671: high density, on the other hand, the performance degrades mainly

672: due to too much correlation between samples and low sensing

673: energy. The optimal node density effects a trade-off between these

674: two effects.

675: 

676: 

677: 

678: 

679: 

680: %%%%%%%%%% References %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

681: %{%\scriptsize

682: %\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}

683: %\bibliography{referenceBibs} %{IEEEabrv,referenceBibs}

684: %}

685: 

686: {%\scriptsize

687: \bibliographystyle{ieeetr}

688: \begin{thebibliography}{9}

689: 

690: 

691: \bibitem{Liese&Vajda:06IT}

692: F.~Liese and I.~Vajda, ``{On divergence and informations in

693: statistics and information theory,}'' {\em IEEE Trans. Inform.

694: Theory}, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 4394-4412, Oct. 2006.

695: 

696: \bibitem{Sung&Poor&Yu:08ICASSP}

697: Y. Sung, H. V. Poor and H. Yu, ``{Large deviations analysis for

698: the detection of 2D hidden Gauss-Markov random fields using sensor

699: networks,}'' in {\em Proc. 2008 ICASSP}, Las Vegas, NY, Mar. 2008.

700: 

701: 

702: \bibitem{Chamberland&Veeravalli:06IT}

703: J.-F. Chamberland and V. V. Veeravalli, ``{How dense should a

704: sensor network be for detection with correlated observations?,}''

705: {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 5099-5106,

706: Nov. 2006.

707: 

708: 

709: \bibitem{Anandkumar&Tong&Swami:07ICASSP}

710: A. Anandkumar, L. Tong and A. Swami, ``{Detection of Gauss-Markov

711: random field on nearest-neighbor graph,}'' in {\em Proc. 2007

712: ICASSP}, Hawaii, USA, Apr. 2007.

713: 

714: 

715: \bibitem{Rue&Held:book}

716: H. Rue and L. Held, {\em Gaussian Markov Random Fields: Theory and

717: Applicatons}, New York: Chapman \& Hall/CRC, 2005.

718: 

719: 

720: \bibitem{Besag:81JRSS}

721: J. Besag, ``{On a system of two-dimensional recurrence

722: equations,}'' {\em Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.

723: Series B}, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 302-309, 1981.

724: 

725: 

726: \bibitem{Erdelyi:53book}

727: A. Erd\'elyi, {\em Higher Transcendental Functions, Vol. II.}, New

728: York: McGraw-Hill, 1953.

729: 

730: 

731: \bibitem{Whittle:54Biometrika}

732: P. Whittle, ``{On stationary processes in the plane,}'' {\em

733: Biometrika}, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 434-449, Dec. 1954.

734: 

735: 

736: \bibitem{Sung&Poor&Yu:08ITsub}

737: Y. Sung, H. V. Poor and H. Yu, ``{How much information can one get

738: from a wireless {\em ad hoc} sensor network over a correlated

739: random field?,}'' submitted to {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory},

740: Apr. 2008.

741: 

742: 

743: 

744: \end{thebibliography}

745: }

746: 

747: 

748: 

749: \end{document}

750: