1: %\documentclass[10pt,twocolumn]{IEEEtran}

2: \documentclass{article}

3: \usepackage{spconf}

4: 

5: \def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em

6:     T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}

7: 

8: \newtheorem{theorem}{Algorithm}

9: \setcounter{page}{1}

10: \include{epsf}

11: \include{epsfrot}

12: \usepackage{times}

13: \usepackage{latexsym}

14: \usepackage{amsmath}

15: \usepackage{amsfonts}

16: \usepackage{pstricks}

17: \usepackage{amssymb}

18: \usepackage{amsxtra}

19: \usepackage{pstricks}

20: \usepackage{epsfig}

21: \usepackage{color}

22: \usepackage{graphics}

23: \usepackage{psfrag}

24: 

25: \title{Energy-Efficient Joint Estimation in Sensor Networks:\\ Analog vs. Digital}

26: 

27: \name{Shuguang Cui$^1$,\ \ Jin-Jun Xiao$^2$,\ \ Andrea J.

28: Goldsmith$^1$,\ \ Zhi-Quan Luo$^2$,\ \ and \ \ H. Vincent Poor$^3$

29: \thanks{This research is supported in part by funds from National Semiconductor and Toyota

30: Corporation, by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research

31: Council of Canada, Grant No.\ OPG0090391, %by the Canada Research Chair Program,

32: by the National Science Foundation, Grant No.\

33: DMS-0312416, by the Office of Naval Research under Grant

34: N00014-03-1-0102.}

35: \address{\small $^1$Wireless System

36: Lab, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University. %, Stanford, CA 94305.

37: %Email: {\textsf\{shuguang,andrea\}@systems.stanford.edu}. \\

38: \\ \small $^2$Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota. %, Minneapolis, MN 55455.

39: %Emails: {\textsf\{xiao,luozq\}@ece.umn.edu}.\\

40: \\ \small $^3$Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University. \vspace{-20pt}

41: %, Princeton, NJ 08544.

42: %Email: {poor@princeton.edu}.

43: }\vspace{-10pt} }

44: 

45: \newcommand{\s}[1]

46: {\ensuremath{\mathcal{#1}}}

47: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e.}

48: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.}

49: \newcommand{\nr}{\nonumber}

50: 

51: \begin{document}

52: \ninept

53: %\setlength{\baselineskip}{25pt}

54: 

55: %\centerfigcaptionstrue

56: \maketitle \thispagestyle{empty} \pagestyle{empty}

57: 

58: 

59: 

60: \begin{abstract}

61: %\setlength{\baselineskip}{25pt}

62: 

63: 

64: Sensor networks in which energy is a limited resource so that

65: energy consumption must be minimized for the intended application

66: are considered.  In this context, an energy-efficient method for

67: the joint estimation of an unknown analog source under a given

68: distortion constraint is proposed. The approach is purely analog,

69: in which each sensor simply amplifies and forwards the

70: noise-corrupted analog observation to the fusion center for joint

71: estimation. The total transmission power across all the sensor

72: nodes is minimized while satisfying a distortion requirement on

73: the joint estimate. The energy efficiency of this analog approach

74: is compared with previously proposed digital approaches with and

75: without coding. It is shown in our simulation that the analog

76: approach is more energy-efficient than the digital system without

77: coding, and in some cases outperforms the digital system with

78: optimal coding.

79: \end{abstract}

80: 

81: % keywords

82: %\begin{keywords}

83: %Energy efficiency, Joint Estimation, Sensor Networks, Amplify and

84: %Forward.

85: %\end{keywords}

86: 

87: 

88: 

89: \section{Introduction}

90: 

91: A typical Wireless Sensor Network (WSN), as shown in

92: Fig.~\ref{wsn_graph}, consists of a fusion center and a large

93: number of geographically distributed sensors. The sensors

94: typically have limited energy resources and communication

95: capability. Each sensor in the network makes an observation of the

96: target of interest, generates a local signal (either analog or

97: digital), and then sends it to the fusion center where the

98: received sensor signals are combined to produce a final estimate

99: of the observed signal. Sensor networks of this type are

100: well-suited for situation awareness applications such as

101: environmental monitoring and smart factory instrumentation.

102: 

103: \vspace{-5pt}

104: \begin{figure}[!h]

105: \centering

106:       \scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{sensor.eps}}

107:        \vspace{-10pt} \caption{Sensor network with a fusion center.}

108:     \label{wsn_graph} \vspace{-10pt}

109: \end{figure}

110: 

111: 

112: Decentralized estimation has been studied first in the context of

113: distributed control~\cite{castanon}, distributed

114: tracking~\cite{willsky}, and most recently in wireless sensor

115: networks~\cite{papadopoulos}. Among these studies, it is usually

116: assumed that the joint distribution of the sensor observations is

117: known. In practical systems, the probability density function

118: (pdf) of the observation noise is hard to characterize, especially

119: for a large scale sensor network. This motivates us to devise

120: signal processing algorithms that do not require the knowledge of

121: the sensor noise pdf. Recently, universal decentralized estimation

122: schemes (DES) without the knowledge of noise distribution have

123: been proposed in~\cite{luo1} and~\cite{luo3}. In~\cite{luo1}, the

124: author considered the universal DES in a homogeneous sensor

125: network where sensors have observations of the same quality, while

126: in~\cite{luo3}, the universal DES in an inhomogeneous sensing

127: environment was considered. These proposed DESs require each

128: sensor to send to the fusion center a short discrete message with

129: length decided by the local Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), while the

130: performance is guaranteed to be within a constant factor of that

131: achieved by the Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (BLUE). An

132: assumption in these proposed schemes is that the channels between

133: sensors and the fusion center are perfect, and all messages are

134: received by the fusion center without any distortion. However, due

135: to power limitations and channel noise, the signal sent by each

136: individual sensor to the fusion center will be corrupted.

137: Therefore, the goal of the transmission system design for the

138: joint estimation problem is to minimize the effect of the channel

139: corruption while consuming the minimum amount of power at each

140: node.

141: 

142: Historically, if the sensor observation is in analog form, we have

143: two main options to transmit the observation from the sensors to

144: the fusion center: analog or digital communication. For the analog

145: approach, we keep the observation signal analog and further use

146: analog modulation schemes to transmit the signal, which is also

147: called an amplify-and-forward approach. In the digital approach,

148: we digitize the observation into bits, possibly apply channel

149: coding, then use digital modulation schemes to transmit the data.

150: It is well known (\cite{Goblick},~\cite{Gastpar}) that for a

151: single Gaussian source with an AWGN channel, the

152: amplify-and-forward approach is optimal. However, for an arbitrary

153: source with multiple observations and multiple transmission

154: channels, it is unclear which approach will lead to a smaller

155: power consumption while meeting the distortion requirements at the

156: fusion center.

157: 

158: Another severe challenge facing sensor networks is the hard energy

159: constraint. Since each sensor is equipped with only a small-size

160: battery, for which replacement is very expensive if not impossible,

161: the power consumption must be minimized to increase the network

162: lifetime~\cite{Shuguang3}. Therefore, energy efficiency can be used

163: as a performance criterion to evaluate different sensor network

164: designs under the same distortion requirement.

165: In~\cite{Jinjun_Shuguang1}, a digital system is proposed to minimize

166: the total power consumption for the joint estimation problem, where

167: each sensor quantizes the analog observation into digital bits and

168: transmits the bits to the fusion center with uncoded MQAM. The

169: number of quantization bits for each sensor is optimized with the

170: target of minimizing the total transmission power across all the

171: sensor nodes to achieve a given distortion. In this paper, we

172: propose an analog counterpart for the same system and compare the

173: energy efficiency between the analog approach and the digital one.

174: As in~\cite{Jinjun_Shuguang1}, we assume that the observed signal is

175: analog and bounded, the fusion center deploys the best unbiased

176: linear estimator, the observation noise is uncorrelated across

177: different sensors, and only the variance of the observation noise is

178: known.

179: 

180: 

181: Our paper is organized as follows. Section II discusses the

182: problem formulation. Section III compares the energy efficiency

183: between the analog approach and the digital approach via some

184: numerical examples. Section IV summaries our conclusions.

185: 

186: \vspace{-5pt}

187: \section{Minimum Power Analog information collection}\vspace{-5pt}

188: 

189: We assume that there are $K$ sensors and the observation $x_k(t)$ at

190: sensor $k$ is represented as a random signal $\theta(t)$ corrupted

191: with the observation noise $n_k(t)$: $x_k(t)=\theta(t)+n_k(t)$. Each

192: sensor transmits the signal $x_k(t)$ to the fusion center where

193: $\theta(t)$ is estimated from the $x_k(t)$'s, $k=1,\cdots,K$. We

194: further assume that $n_k(t)$ is of unknown statistics and the

195: amplitude of $x(t)$ is bounded within $[-W,W]$, which is defined by

196: the sensing range of each sensor. For simplicity we assume $W=1$,

197: but our analysis can be easily extended to any values. We also

198: assume that the network is synchronized, which may be enabled by

199: utilizing beacon signals in a separate control channel.

200: 

201: We assume that $x_k(t)$ is also band-limited and the information

202: is contained within the frequency range $[-B/2,B/2]$. We consider

203: an analog Single Side-Band (SSB) system with a coherent

204: receiver~\cite{Haykin1}. The transmitted signal is given by

205: \begin{equation}

206: y_t(t)=2\sqrt{\alpha}\cos{(\omega_ct)}x(t)+2\sqrt{\alpha}\sin{(\omega_ct)}\hat{x}(t),

207: \end{equation}

208: for which the average transmission power is

209: \begin{equation}\label{Eq_power1}

210: P=4\alpha{P_x}\le4\alpha{W^2}

211: \end{equation}

212: where $4\alpha$ is the transmitter power gain and $P_x$ is the

213: peak power of $x(t)$.

214: 

215: The received signal at the fusion center is given by

216: \begin{equation}

217: y_r(t)=2\sqrt{\alpha}\sqrt{g}\cos{(\omega_ct)}x(t)+2\sqrt{\alpha}\sqrt{g}\sin{(\omega_ct)}\hat{x}(t)

218: +{n}_c(t)

219: \end{equation}

220: where $g$ is the channel power gain, $\hat{x}(t)$ is the Hilbert

221: transform of $x(t)$, and ${n}_c(t)$ is the channel AWGN. Hence, at

222: the output of the coherent detector the signal is

223: \begin{equation}

224: y(t)=\sqrt{\alpha}\sqrt{g}x(t)+\frac{1}{2}n_{c}^I(t)\cos(\pi{\frac{B}{2}t})

225: +\frac{1}{2}n_{c}^Q(t)\sin(\pi{\frac{B}{2}t}),

226: \end{equation}

227: where $n_{c}^I(t)+jn_{c}^Q(t)$ is the complex envelope of

228: $n_c(t)$. After passing $y(t)$ through a low-pass filter and

229: sampling the baseband signal at a sampling rate $B$, we can obtain

230: an equivalent discrete-time system. Since we have $K$ such

231: sensors, the overall system is shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig_sensor_fa}.

232: The $K$ transmitters share the channel via Frequency Division

233: Multiple Access (FDMA), which has the same spectral efficiency as

234: the Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) that is used

235: in~\cite{Jinjun_Shuguang1}.

236: 

237: \begin{figure}[!h]

238: \psfrag{theta}{$\theta$} \psfrag{b1}{$2\sqrt{\alpha_1}$}

239: \psfrag{b2}{$2\sqrt{\alpha_2}$}  \psfrag{bK}{$2\sqrt{\alpha_K}$}

240: \psfrag{a1}{$\sqrt{g_1}$} \psfrag{a2}{$\sqrt{g_2}$}

241: \psfrag{aK}{$\sqrt{g_K}$} \psfrag{n1}{$n_1$} \psfrag{n2}{$n_2$}

242: \psfrag{n3}{$n_K$} \psfrag{nc1}{$n_{c1}$} \psfrag{nc2}{$n_{c2}$}

243: \psfrag{ncK}{$n_{cK}$} \psfrag{yk}{$y_1, \cdots, y_K$}

244: \begin{center}

245: \hspace{-45pt}

246:  {\includegraphics[width=2.8in, height=1.0in]{f_and_a_dn.eps}}

247: \end{center}

248: \vspace{-15pt} \caption{Amplify and Forward}\label{Fig_sensor_fa}

249: \vspace{-15pt}

250: \end{figure}

251: 

252: The received signal vector at each time instance is given by

253: \begin{equation}

254: \mathbf{y}=\mathbf{h}\theta+\mathbf{v},

255: \end{equation}

256: where \vspace{-10pt}\begin{eqnarray} \mathbf{y}&=&\left[y_1,

257: y_2,\cdots,y_K\right]^{\dag}, \nonumber \\

258: \mathbf{h}&=&\left[{\sqrt{\alpha_1g_1}}, {\sqrt{\alpha_2g_1}},

259: \cdots, {\sqrt{\alpha_Kg_K}}\right]^{\dag}, \nonumber

260: \\ \mathbf{v}&=& \left[{\sqrt{\alpha_1g_1}}n_1+n_{c1},

261: %{\sqrt{\alpha_2g_2}}n_2+n_{c2},

262: \cdots,{\sqrt{\alpha_Kg_K}}n_k+n_{cK}\right]^{\dag}, \nonumber

263: \end{eqnarray}

264: and $\dag$ means transpose.

265: 

266: According to~\cite{Mendel1}, the best linear unbiased estimator

267: (BLUE) for $\theta$ is given by

268: \begin{eqnarray}

269: \hat{\theta}&=&[\mathbf{h}^{\dag}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{h}]^{-1}\mathbf{h}^{\dag}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{y}

270: \nonumber \\

271: &=&\left(\sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{{\alpha_kg_k}}{\sigma_k^2{\alpha_kg_k}+\xi_{k}^2}\right)^{-1}

272: \sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{{\sqrt{\alpha_kg_k}}y_k}{\sigma_k^2{\alpha_kg_k}+\xi_{k}^2},

273: \end{eqnarray}

274: where the noise variance matrix $\mathbf{R}$ is a diagonal matrix

275: with $R_{kk}={\sigma_k^2{\alpha_k}{g_k}+\xi_{k}^2}$ with

276: $\sigma_k^2$ the variance of the sensor observation noise

277: $n_k(t)$, $k=1,\cdots,K$. The channel noise variance $\xi_k^2$ is

278: defined by the noise power spectral density and the bandwidth $B$.

279: 

280: %is given by $\xi_k^2=N_fM_l\frac{BN_0}{8}$ where $N_f$ is the

281: %receiver noise figure and $M_l$ is the link margin that takes into

282: %account other possible interference signals. The values of $N_f$

283: %and $M_l$ are taken the same as

284: %in~\cite{Shuguang3}and~\cite{Jinjun_Shuguang1}.

285: 

286: The mean squared error of this estimator is given

287: as~\cite{Mendel1} \vspace{-5pt}\begin{eqnarray}

288: Var[\hat{\theta}]&=&[\mathbf{h}^{\dag}\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{h}]^{-1}

289: \nonumber \\ &=&

290: \left(\sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{{\alpha_kg_k}}{\sigma_k^2{\alpha_kg_k}+\xi_{k}^2}\right)^{-1}.

291: \end{eqnarray}

292: 

293: 

294: According to Eq.~(\ref{Eq_power1}), the transmit power for node

295: $k$ is bounded by $4W^2\alpha_k$. Therefore, the minimum power

296: analog information collection problem can be cast as \vspace{-8pt}

297: \begin{eqnarray} \min && \sum_{k=1}^{K}W^2\alpha_k

298: \nr

299: \\ \mbox{s.~t.} &&

300: \left(\sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{{\alpha_kg_k}}{\sigma_k^2{\alpha_kg_k}+\xi_{k}^2}\right)^{-1}\le{D_0}

301: \nonumber

302:  \\ && {\alpha_{k}}\ge0,

303: \hspace{0.3cm}k=1,\cdots,K\nr

304: \end{eqnarray}

305: where $D_0$ is the distortion target. However, this problem is not

306: convex over the $\alpha_k$'s.

307: 

308: Let us define

309: $$r_k=\frac{{\alpha_kg_k}}{\sigma_k^2{\alpha_kg_k}+\xi_{k}^2}=\frac{1}

310: {\sigma_k^2+\frac{\xi_{k}^2}{g_k\alpha_k}}.$$ Then the above

311: optimization problem is equivalent to

312: \vspace{-8pt}\begin{eqnarray} \min && \sum_{k=1}^{K}W^2\alpha_k

313: \nr

314: \\ \mbox{s.~t.} &&

315: \sum_{k=1}^{K}r_k\ge\frac{1}{D_0} \nr

316: \\ && r_k=\frac{1}

317: {\sigma_k^2+\frac{\xi_{k}^2}{g_k\alpha_k}},

318: \hspace{0.3cm}{\alpha_{k}}\ge0, \hspace{0.3cm}\forall{k}, \nr

319: \end{eqnarray}

320: where we see that the variable $\alpha_k$ can be completely

321: replaced by a function of $r_k$. Therefore, the problem can be

322: transformed into a problem with variables $\{r_1, r_2,\dots,

323: r_K\}$ shown as follows:

324: \begin{eqnarray}\label{final_prob0}

325: \min &&

326: \sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{W^2\xi_{k}^2}{g_k}\left(\frac{r_k}{1-r_k\sigma_k^2}\right)\nr

327: \\ \mbox{s.~t.} &&

328: \sum_{k=1}^Kr_k\ge\frac{1}{D_0};\hspace{0.3cm}

329: 0\le{r_{k}}<{\frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}},\hspace{0.3cm}\forall{k}

330:  %\\ && 0\le{r_{k}}<{\frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}},\hspace{0.3cm}k=1,\cdots,K\nr

331: \end{eqnarray}

332: which is convex over $r_k$. The upper limit on $r_k$ in the second

333: constraint is due to the fact that $r_k=1/

334: {\left(\sigma_k^2+\frac{\xi_{k}^2}{g_k\alpha_k}\right)}$ and

335: $\frac{\xi_{k}^2}{g_k\alpha_k}\ge0$.

336: 

337: %Please note that as long as $r_k\le\frac{1}{\sigma_K^2}$, there

338: %exists $(1-r_k\sigma_k^2)\ge0$ which is a sufficient condition for

339: %the objective function to be convex over $r_k$.

340: 

341: Now we solve Eq.~(\ref{final_prob0}). Its Lagrangian $G$ is given

342: as

343: \begin{eqnarray}

344: G(L,\lambda_0)&=&\sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{W^2\xi_{k}^2}{g_k}\left(\frac{r_k}{1-r_k\sigma_k^2}\right)

345: \nr\\&&+\lambda_0\left(\frac{1}{D_0}- \sum_{k=1}^Kr_k\right)

346: %-\sum_{k=1}^{K}\mu_kr_k\nr

347: \end{eqnarray}

348: for $0\le{r_{k}}\le{\frac{1}{\sigma_K^2}}, \forall{k}$, which leads

349: to the following Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions~\cite{Boyd1}:

350: \begin{eqnarray}

351: \frac{W^2\xi_{k}^2}{g_k}\frac{1}{(1-r_k\sigma_k^2)^2}-\lambda_0=0,

352: && \forall{k}\nr \\ \sum_{k=1}^Kr_k-\frac{1}{D_0}=0 &&\nr

353: \end{eqnarray}

354: for $0\le{r_{k}}\le{\frac{1}{\sigma_K^2}}, \forall{k}$. Without

355: loss of generality, we rank the channel quality such that

356: $\frac{\xi_1^2}{g_1}\le \frac{\xi_2^2}{g_2}\le\ldots\le

357: \frac{\xi_K^2}{g_K}$ where we call the quantity

358: $\frac{g_k}{\xi_k^2}$ the channel SNR, and we define

359: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Eq_threshold1}

360: f(M)=\frac{\sqrt{\frac{\xi_{M}^2}{g_M}}A(M)} {B(M)},\quad

361: \mbox{for\ }1\le{M}\le{K},

362: \end{eqnarray}

363: where $A(M)=\displaystyle\sum_{m=1}^{M}

364: \frac{\sqrt{\frac{\xi_{m}^2}{g_m}}}{\sigma_m^2}$ and

365: $B(M)=\displaystyle\sum_{m=1}^{M}\frac{1}

366: {\sigma_m^2}-\frac{1}{D_0}$.

367: 

368: Let us find $K_1$ such that $f(K_1)<1$ and $f(K_1+1)\ge1$. Using

369: the same techniques as in~\cite{Jinjun_Shuguang1}, we can show

370: that this $K_1$ is unique unless $f(M)<1$ for all $1\le M\le K$,

371: in which case we take $K_1=K$. Then the KKT conditions give

372: $\lambda_0=\left(\frac{WA(K_1)}{B(K_1)}\right)^2$ and

373: \begin{equation}\label{Eq_result}

374: r_k^{opt}=\frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}\left(1-W\frac{\sqrt{\frac{\xi_{k}^2}{g_k}}}{\sqrt{\lambda_0}}\right)^+,

375: \hspace{0.3cm}\forall\ {k}

376: \end{equation}

377: where $(x)^+$ equals $0$ when $x<0$, and otherwise is equal to

378: $x$.

379: 

380: Hence, by definition, we have

381: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Eq_powerallocation1}

382: \alpha^{opt}_k&=&\frac{\xi_{k}^2}{g_k}\frac{r^{opt}_k}{1-\sigma_k^2r^{opt}_k}

383: \nonumber

384: \\

385: &=&\frac{\xi_{k}^2}{g_k\sigma_k^2}\left(\sqrt{\frac{g_k}{\xi_{k}^2}}\eta_0-1\right)

386: \hspace{0.3cm}k=1,\cdots,K_1,

387: \end{eqnarray}

388: and $\alpha_k=0$ otherwise, where $\eta_0=A(K_1)/B(K_1)$.

389: 

390: Therefore, the optimal power allocation strategy is divided into

391: two steps. In the first step, a threshold for $k$ is obtained

392: according to Eq.~(\ref{Eq_threshold1}). For channels with SNR

393: worse than this threshold, the corresponding sensor is shut off

394: and no power is wasted. For the remaining active sensors, power

395: should be assigned according to Eq.~(\ref{Eq_powerallocation1}).

396: From Eq.~(\ref{Eq_powerallocation1}) we see that when the channel

397: is fairly good, \ie, $\sqrt{\frac{g_k}{\xi_{k}^2}}\eta_0\gg1$, we

398: have

399: $\alpha^{opt}_k\propto{\sqrt{\frac{\xi_{k}^2}{g_k}}\frac{\eta_0}{\sigma_k^2}}$,

400: which means the optimal solution is inversely proportional to the

401: square root of the channel SNR. When

402: $\sqrt{\frac{g_k}{\xi_{k}^2}}\eta_0$ is close to one, the optimal

403: solution may no longer have such properties. For all channel

404: conditions, the power is scaled by the factor

405: $\frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}$, which means that more power is used to

406: transmit the signals from the sensors with better observation

407: quality.

408: 

409: We now solve the optimization problem for some specific examples.

410: We assume that the channel power gain $g_k=\frac{G_0}{d_k^{3.5}}$

411: where $d_k$ is the transmission distance from sensor $k$ to the

412: fusion center and $G_0=-30$~dB is the gain at $d=1$~m. As

413: in~\cite{Jinjun_Shuguang1}, we generate $\sigma_k^2$ uniformly

414: within the range $[0.01, 0.08]$. We take $B=10$~KHz and

415: $\xi_k^2=-90$~dBm, $k=1,\cdots,K$. For an example with $100$

416: sensors, Fig.~\ref{Fig_power_saving}~(a) shows the relative power

417: savings compared with the uniform transmission strategy where all

418: the sensors use the same transmission power to achieve the given

419: distortion target. The relative power savings is plotted as a

420: function of $R=\frac{\sqrt{\mathbf{Var}(d)}}{\mathbf{E}(d)}$, the

421: distance deviation normalized by the mean distance. For each value

422: of $R$, we average the relative power savings over $100$ random

423: runs where in each run the $d_k$'s are randomly generated

424: according to the given $R$. As expected, a larger variation of

425: distance and corresponding channel quality leads to a higher power

426: savings when this variation is exploited with optimal power

427: allocation.

428: 

429: In Fig.~\ref{Fig_power_saving}~(b), the number of active sensors

430: over $R$ is shown for an example with $10$ sensors. We see that

431: when the transmission distances for different sensors span a wide

432: range of values (\ie, $R$ is large), more sensors can be shut off

433: to save energy, since the remaining sensors have very good

434: channels.

435: 

436: \begin{figure}[!h]

437: \begin{center}

438:   {\includegraphics[width=1.6in, height=1.5in]{power_saving.eps}}

439:   {\includegraphics[width=1.6in, height=1.4in]{ms_active_10.eps}}

440: \end{center}

441: \vspace{-15pt} \caption{(a) Power savings of optimal power

442: allocation vs. uniform power; (b) Number of active sensors versus

443: distance deviation}\label{Fig_power_saving}\vspace{-5pt}

444: \end{figure}

445: 

446: 

447: %\begin{figure}[!h]

448: %\begin{center}

449: %  \scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{ms_active_10.eps}}

450: %\end{center}

451: %\vspace{-15pt} \caption{Number of active sensors versus distance

452: %deviation }\label{Fig_mc_active} \vspace{-10pt}

453: %\end{figure}

454: 

455: 

456: In our model we minimize the power sum $\sum_k{P_k}$, \ie, the

457: $L^1$-norm of the transmission power vector $\mathbf{P}=(P_1, P_2,

458: \ldots, P_K)$. If the channel gain and the variance of the

459: observation noise for each sensor are ergodically time-varying on

460: a block-by-block basis, minimizing the $L^1$-norm of $\mathbf{P}$

461: in each time block minimizes $E\{\sum_k{P_k}\}$ with $E\{ \}$ the

462: expectation operation. In other words, it maximizes the average

463: node lifetime, which is defined as\\

464: $\frac{1}{K}\sum_k\frac{E_0}{E\{P_k\}}$ with $E_0$ the battery

465: energy available to each sensor (we assume that $E_0$ is the same

466: for all the sensors). This can be proved by the fact that

467: $\frac{1}{K}\sum_k\frac{E_0}{E\{P_k\}}\ge\frac{E_0}{E\{\frac{1}{K}\sum_k{P_k}\}}$.

468: However, when the channel is static and the variance of the

469: observation noise is time-invariant, minimizing the $L^1$-norm may

470: lead some individual sensors to consume too much power and die out

471: quickly. In this case minimizing the $L^\infty$-norm, \ie,

472: minimizing the maximum of the individual power values, is the most

473: fair for all sensors, but the total power consumption can be high.

474: As in~\cite{Jinjun_Shuguang1}, we can make a compromise to

475: minimize the $L^2$-norm of $\mathbf{P}$. In this way, we can

476: penalize the large terms in the power vector while still keeping

477: the total power consumption reasonably low. For the $L^2$-norm

478: minimization, the problem formulation becomes

479: \vspace{-5pt}\begin{eqnarray}\label{final_prob_norm2} \min &&

480: \sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{W^4\xi_{k}^4}{g_k^2}\left(\frac{r_k}{1-r_k\sigma_k^2}\right)^2\nr

481: \\ \mbox{s.~t.} &&

482: \sum_{k=1}^Kr_k\ge\frac{1}{D_0};\hspace{0.3cm}

483: 0\le{r_{k}}<{\frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}},\hspace{0.3cm}\forall{k},

484:  %\\ && 0\le{r_{k}}<{\frac{1}{\sigma_k^2}},\hspace{0.3cm}k=1,\cdots,K,\nr

485: \end{eqnarray}

486: which we can solve using interior point methods~\cite{Boyd1}. In

487: the next section, we compare the power efficiency of the analog

488: and the digital approaches previously discussed, where we minimize

489: the $L^2$-norm of $\mathbf{P}$. We use the $L^2$-norm since it

490: simplifies the comparison, but the comparison can be made for any

491: power norms.

492: 

493: \vspace{-10pt}

494: \section{Analog vs. Digital}\vspace{-5pt}

495: 

496: In order to transmit the observed analog signal with frequency

497: range $[-B/2,B/2]$ to the fusion center, each sensor in the

498: digital system proposed in~\cite{Jinjun_Shuguang1} first samples

499: the signal at a sampling rate $B$, then quantizes each sample into

500: $b_k$ bits, and finally uses uncoded MQAM to transmit the $b_k$

501: bits with a symbol rate $B$ and constellation size $M=2^{b_k}$.

502: Therefore, the total transmission bandwidth in the passband is

503: approximately equal to $KB$ for the digital system where TDMA is

504: used for the multiple access. For the SSB scheme used in our

505: analog system, each sensor only occupies $B/2$ in the passband

506: such that the total bandwidth requirement is $KB/2$ when FDMA is

507: used for the multiple access. Therefore, under the assumption of

508: orthogonal channel usage, the analog system can support double the

509: number of sensors that the digital system supports in the same

510: amount of bandwidth. This is mainly caused by the fact that the

511: digital approach proposed in~\cite{Jinjun_Shuguang1} forces the

512: transmission symbol rate to be equal to the sampling rate in the

513: source coding part.

514: 

515: The power efficiency comparison between the analog approach and

516: the digital approach is shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig_power_2norm_2N},

517: where we deploy $10$ sensors for the digital system and we plot

518: the power curves for both the case where uncoded MQAM is used (the

519: dotted line) and the case where single-user capacity-achieving

520: channel codes are applied to each transmitter, which gives the

521: fundamental Shannon limit (the dashed line) for the digital system

522: with orthogonal channel usage. From the figure we see that the

523: analog approach with $10$ nodes, which have the same observation

524: quality and transmission distances as in the digital system, is

525: more energy efficient than the digital approach with uncoded MQAM,

526: but not necessarily more energy efficient than the fundamental

527: limit curve. However, since we can support $20$ nodes in the

528: analog system with the same bandwidth requirement, with the $20$

529: analog nodes we can achieve a better power efficiency (the solid

530: line) than the digital system with $10$ nodes under the optimal

531: single-user channel coding. This is true even when the extra ten

532: nodes in the analog system have worse observation quality and

533: larger transmission distances than the first ten nodes.

534: 

535: %For the last $10$ sensors in the analog system, we assign

536: %$\sigma_i^2=\max_k{\sigma_k^2}$, $i=11,\cdots,20$ and

537: %$k=1,\cdots,10$. The channel noise $\xi_k^2=-90$~dBm is the same

538: %for all $k$'s. For the distance, we take $d_{k+10}=2d_{k}$,

539: %$k=1,\cdots,10$. These special arrangements for $\sigma_k^2$'s and

540: %$d_k$'s guarantee that the extra gain we obtain by doubling the

541: %number of sensors is not caused by assuming higher observation

542: %quality for the extra sensors.

543: 

544: 

545: 

546: 

547: \vspace{-15pt}

548: \section{Conclusions}\vspace{-5pt}

549: In this paper, we have shown that for a bounded source with

550: unknown statistics and a fusion center equipped with the best

551: linear unbiased estimator, we can minimize the total power

552: consumption across all the sensor nodes under a certain distortion

553: requirement. The information collection can be implemented with an

554: analog approach, which may be more energy efficient than the

555: digital approach when only orthogonal multiple access schemes such

556: as TDMA and FDMA are used.

557: 

558: \begin{figure}[!h]

559: \begin{center}

560:  {\includegraphics[width=2.8in, height=1.6in]{power_2norm_2N_worst.eps}}

561: \end{center}

562: \vspace{-15pt} \caption{Comparison of the $L^2$-norm of the power

563: vector }\label{Fig_power_2norm_2N} \vspace{-15pt}

564: \end{figure}

565: \vspace{-10pt}

566: \begin{thebibliography}{1}\vspace{-5pt}

567: \bibitem{castanon} D.A.\ Castanon and D.\ Teneketzis,

568: ``Distributed Estimation Algorithms for Nonlinear Systems,"

569: \emph{IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control}, Vol.\ AC-30, pp.\

570: 418--425, 1985.

571: 

572: \bibitem{willsky}

573: A.S.\ Willsky, M.\ Bello, D.A.\ Castanon, B.C.\ Levy, and G.\

574: Verghese, ``Combining and Updating of Local Estimates and Regional

575: Maps Along Sets of One-dimensional Tracks," \emph{IEEE

576: Transactions on Automatic Control,} Vol.\ AC-27, pp.\ 799--813,

577: 1982.

578: 

579: %\bibitem {varshney}

580: %Z.\ Chair and P.K.\ Varshney, ``Distributed Bayesian Hypothesis

581: %Testing with Distributed Data Fusion," \emph{IEEE Transactions on

582: %Systems, Man and Cybernetics,} Vol.\ 18, pp.\ 695--699, 1988.

583: 

584: \bibitem {papadopoulos} H.C.\ Papadopoulos, G.W.\ Wornell, and

585: A.V.\ Oppenheim, ``Sequential Signal Encoding from Noisy

586: Measurements Using Quantizers with Dynamic Bias Control,"

587: \emph{IEEE Trans. on Information Theory}, Vol.\ 47, pp.\

588: 978--1002, 2001.

589: 

590: \bibitem {Goblick} T.\ J.\ Goblick, ``Theoretical Limitations on the Transmission of

591: Data from Analog Sources,'' \emph{IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory},

592: vol. IT-11, pp. 558–567, Oct. 1965.

593: 

594: \bibitem{Gastpar} M.\ Gastpar, B.\ Rimoldi and M.\ Vetterli, ``To Code, or Not To

595: Code: Lossy Source-channel Communication Revisited," \emph{IEEE

596: Trans. on Information Theory}, Vol.\ 49 pp.\ 1147-1158, May 2003.

597: 

598: %\bibitem{Goldsmith1}A.\ J.\ Goldsmith and S.\ B.\ Wicker, ``Design

599: %challenges for energy-constrained Ad Hoc wireless networks,''

600: %\emph{IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine}, pp.\ 8-27 Aug.\

601: %2002.

602: 

603: \bibitem{Shuguang3}S.\ Cui, A.\ J.\ Goldsmith, and A.\

604: Bahai, ``Energy-constrained Modulation Optimization,'' to appear

605: at \emph{IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications}, 2003. Also

606: available at http://wsl.stanford.edu/Publications.html.

607: 

608: %\bibitem{Shuguang4}S.\ Cui, A.\ J.\ Goldsmith, and A.\

609: %Bahai, ``Joint modulation and multiple access optimization under

610: %energy constarints,'' submitted to \emph{Globecom'04}, 2004. Also

611: %available at http://wsl.stanford.edu/Publications.html.

612: 

613: 

614: 

615: \bibitem{luo1} Z.-Q.\ Luo,

616: ``Universal Decentralized Estimation in a Bandwidth Constrained

617: Sensor Network,'' submitted to \emph{IEEE Transactions on

618: Information Theory}. Also available at

619: http://www.ece.umn.edu/users/luozq/.

620: 

621: %\bibitem{luo2} Z.-Q.\ Luo,

622: %``An Isotropic Universal Decentralized Estimation Scheme for a

623: %Bandwidth Constrained Ad Hoc Sensor Network,'' submitted to

624: %\emph{IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}. Also

625: %available at {http://www.ece.umn.edu/users/luozq/}.

626: 

627: \bibitem{luo3} Z.-Q.\ Luo, J.-J., Xiao,

628: ``Decentralized Estimation in an Inhomogeneous Sensing

629: Environment,'' at \emph{International Syposium on Information

630: Theory}, Chicago, 2004. Also available at

631: {http://www.ece.umn.edu/users/luozq/}.

632: 

633: \bibitem{Jinjun_Shuguang1} J.\ Xiao, S.\ Cui, Z.\ Q.\ Luo, and A.\ J.\

634: Goldsmith, ``Joint Estimation in Sensor Networks under Energy

635: Constraint,'' to appear at the \emph{IEEE first conference on

636: Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks}, Santa Clara, CA,

637: October, 2004.

638: 

639: \bibitem{Mendel1}J.\ M.\ Mendel, \emph{Lessons in Estimation Theory for

640: Signal Processing, Communications, and Control}, Prentice Hall,

641: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995.

642: 

643: \bibitem{Haykin1}S.\ Haykin, \emph{Communication Systems}, 3rd edition, John

644: Wiley $\&$ Sons, New York, 1994.

645: 

646: \bibitem{Boyd1}S.\ Boyd, L.\ Vandenberghe, \emph{Convex

647: Optimization}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2003.

648: 

649: 

650: 

651: \end{thebibliography}

652: 

653: % that's all folks

654: \end{document}

655: