1: \documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
2:
3: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath,epsfig,graphicx,theorem,threeparttable}
4: \usepackage{amsfonts}
5: \usepackage{bm}
6: \usepackage{cite}
7:
8: \newtheorem{Theo}{Theorem}
9: \newtheorem{Lem}{Lemma}
10: \newtheorem{Cor}{Corollary}
11: \newtheorem{Def}{Definition}
12: \newcommand{\pv}{\mathbf{p}}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15: \IEEEoverridecommandlockouts
16: \title{Optimal Distortion-Power Tradeoffs in Sensor Networks: Gauss-Markov Random Processes
17: \thanks{This work was supported by NSF Grants CCR $03$-$11311$, CCF $04$-$47613$ and CCF $05$-$14846$;
18: and ARL/CTA Grant DAAD $19$-$01$-$2$-$0011$.}}
19:
20: \author{Nan Liu \qquad Sennur Ulukus \\
21: \normalsize Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering \\
22: \normalsize University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 \\
23: \normalsize {\it nkancy@umd.edu} \qquad {\it ulukus@umd.edu} }
24:
25: \maketitle
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: We investigate the optimal performance of dense sensor networks by
29: studying the joint source-channel coding problem. The overall goal
30: of the sensor network is to take measurements from an underlying
31: random process, code and transmit those measurement samples to a
32: collector node in a cooperative multiple access channel with
33: feedback, and reconstruct the entire random process at the
34: collector node. We provide lower and upper bounds for the minimum
35: achievable expected distortion when the underlying random process
36: is stationary and Gaussian. In the case where the random process
37: is also Markovian, we evaluate the lower and upper bounds
38: explicitly and show that they are of the same order for a wide
39: range of sum power constraints. Thus, for a Gauss-Markov random process,
40: under these sum power constraints, we determine
41: the achievability scheme that is order-optimal, and express the
42: minimum achievable expected distortion as a function of the sum
43: power constraint.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46:
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49: With the recent advances in the hardware technology, small cheap
50: nodes with sensing, computing and communication capabilities have
51: become available. In practical applications, it is possible to
52: deploy a large number of these nodes to sense the environment.
53: %These nodes take samples from the environment, and transmit the
54: %sampled data to a collector node which then reconstructs the
55: %environment upon receiving the information. Efficient design of
56: %sensor networks would increase the accuracy of the reconstruction
57: %at the collector node, and reduce the power consumed by the
58: %sensors.
59: In this paper, we investigate the optimal performance of a dense
60: sensor network by studying the joint source-channel coding
61: problem. The sensor network is composed of $N$ sensors, where $N$
62: is very large, and a single collector node. The overall goal of
63: the sensor network is to take measurements from an underlying
64: random process $S(t)$, $0 \leq t \leq T_0$, code and transmit
65: those measured samples to a collector node in a cooperative
66: multiple access channel with feedback, and reconstruct the entire
67: random process at the collector node. We investigate the minimum
68: achievable expected
69: distortion and the corresponding achievability scheme when the underlying random process is
70: Gaussian and the communication channel is a cooperative Gaussian
71: multiple access channel with feedback.
72:
73: Following the seminal paper of Gupta and Kumar \cite{Gupta:2000},
74: which showed that multi-hop wireless ad-hoc networks, where users
75: transmit independent data and utilize single-user coding, decoding
76: and forwarding techniques, do not scale up, Scaglione and Servetto
77: \cite{Servetto:2002} investigated the scalability of the sensor
78: networks. Sensor networks, where the observed data is correlated,
79: may scale up for two reasons: first, the correlation among the
80: sampled data increases with the increasing number of nodes and
81: hence, the amount of information the network needs to carry does
82: not increase as fast
83: as in ad-hoc
84: wireless networks; and second, correlated data facilitates
85: cooperation, and may increase the information carrying capacity of
86: the network. The goal of the sensor network in
87: \cite{Servetto:2002} was that each sensor reconstructs the data
88: measured by all of the sensors using sensor broadcasting. In this
89: paper, we focus on the case where the reconstruction is required
90: only at the collector node. Also, in this paper, the task is not
91: the reconstruction of the data the sensors measured, but the
92: reconstruction of the underlying random process.
93:
94: Gastpar and Vetterli \cite{Gastpar:sensor2005} studied the case
95: where the sensors observe a noisy version of a linear combination
96: of $L$ Gaussian random variables with equal variances, code and
97: transmit those observations to a collector node, and the collector
98: node reconstructs the $L$ random variables. In
99: \cite{Gastpar:sensor2005}, the expected distortion achieved by
100: applying separation-based approaches was shown to be exponentially
101: worse than the lower bound on the minimum expected distortion. In
102: this paper, we study the case where the data of interest at the
103: collector node is not a finite number of random variables, but a
104: random process, which, using Karhunen-Loeve expansion, can be
105: shown to be equivalent to a set of infinitely many random
106: variables with varying variances. We assume that the sensors are
107: able to take noiseless samples, but that each sensor observes only
108: its own sample.
109: Our upper bound is also developed by
110: using a separation-based approach, but it is shown to be of the
111: same order as the lower bound, for a wide range of power
112: constraints for a Gauss-Markov random process.
113:
114: El Gamal \cite{ElGamal:2005} studied the capacity of dense
115: sensor networks and found that all spatially band-limited Gaussian
116: processes can be estimated at the collector node, subject to any
117: non-zero constraint on the mean squared distortion. In this paper,
118: we study the minimum achievable expected distortion for
119: space-limited, and thus, not band-limited, random processes, and
120: we show that the minimum achievable expected distortion decreases
121: to zero as the number of nodes increases, unless the sum power
122: constraint is unusually small.
123:
124: We first provide lower and upper bounds for the minimum achievable
125: expected distortion for arbitrary stationary Gaussian random
126: processes. Then, we focus on the case where the Gaussian random
127: process is also Markovian, evaluate the lower and upper bounds
128: explicitly, and show that they are of the same order, for a wide
129: range of power constraints. Thus, for a Gauss-Markov random
130: process, under a wide range of power constraints, we determine an
131: order-optimal achievability scheme, and identify the minimum
132: achievable expected distortion. Our order-optimal achievability
133: scheme is separation-based. It is well-known \cite
134: %[Sec. 8.13]
135: {cover:book},\cite{Cover:1980}
136: that in multi-user channels with correlated sources, the
137: source-channel separation principle does not hold in general, and separation-based
138: achievability schemes may be strictly suboptimal. However, in this
139: instance, where we have a multi-user channel with correlated
140: sources, for a wide range of power constraints, we show that a
141: separation-based achievability scheme is order-optimal, when the
142: number of nodes goes to infinity.
143:
144: The results of this paper provide insights for the design of large
145: sensor networks that aim at reconstructing the underlying random
146: process at a collector node. Our results provide the order-optimal
147: scheme for the operation of the sensor nodes, the number of nodes
148: needed to be deployed and the power constraint needed to be
149: employed, in order to achieve a certain overall distortion.
150:
151: Although, we constrain ourselves
152: to Gauss-Markov processes in this paper, we believe that our
153: methods can be extended to more general Gaussian random processes.
154:
155:
156: \section{System Model} \label{systemmodel}
157: The collector node wishes to reconstruct a random process $S(t)$,
158: for $0 \leq t \leq T_0$, where $t$ denotes the spatial position;
159: $S(t)$ is assumed to be Gaussian and stationary with
160: autocorrelation function $C(\tau)$. The $N$ sensor nodes are
161: placed at positions $0=t_1 \leq t_2 \leq \cdots \leq t_N=T_0$, and
162: observe samples $\mathbf{S}_N=(S(t_1),S(t_2),\cdots,S(t_N))$. For
163: simplicity and to avoid irregular cases, we assume that the
164: sensors are equally spaced.
165: %\begin{align}
166: %t_i=\frac{i-1}{N-1}T_0, \qquad i=1,2, \cdots, N
167: %\end{align}
168: The distortion measure is the squared error,
169: \begin{align}
170: d(s(t),\hat{s}(t)) = \frac{1}{T_0}\int_{0}^{T_0}
171: (s(t)-\hat{s}(t))^2 dt
172: \end{align}
173:
174: Each sensor node and the collector node, denoted as node 0, is
175: equipped with one transmit and one receive antenna. At any time
176: instant, let $X_i$ and $Y_i$ denote the signals transmitted by and
177: received at, node $i$, and let $h_{ji}$ denote the channel gain
178: from node $j$ to node $i$. Then, the received signal at node $i$
179: can be written as,
180: \begin{align}
181: Y_i=\sum_{j=0,j \neq i}^N h_{ji} X_j+Z_i, \qquad i=0,1,2,\cdots,N
182: \end{align}
183: where $\{Z_i\}_{i=0}^N$ is a vector of $N+1$ independent and
184: identically distributed, zero-mean, unit-variance Gaussian random
185: variables. Therefore, the channel model of the network is such
186: that all nodes hear a linear combination of the signals
187: transmitted by all other nodes at that time instant. We assume
188: that $h_{ij}$ is determined by the distance between nodes $i$ and
189: $j$, denoted as $d_{ij}$, as $ h_{ij}=d_{ij}^{-\alpha/2} $ for
190: $i,j=0,1,2,\cdots,N$, and $\alpha$ is the path-loss exponent,
191: which is typically between 2 and 6 \cite{Rappaport:book}. For
192: simplicity, we assume that the collector node is at an equal
193: distance away from all of the sensor nodes, i.e., $h_{i0}=h$, for
194: $i=1,2,\cdots,N$, where $h$ is some constant, independent of $N$.
195: The results can be generalized straightforwardly to the case where
196: $h_{i0}$ are non-identical constants.
197:
198: %We first develop results that are valid for arbitrary stationary
199: %Gaussian random processes, and then, explicitly evaluate our
200: %results for Gauss-Markov processes.
201: We assume that all sensors share a sum power constraint of $P(N)$
202: which is a function of $N$. For the discussion of distortion-power
203: tradeoffs of the Gauss-Markov processes, we divide $P(N)$ into
204: five regions.
205: \begin{itemize}
206: \item \emph{Very large}: $P(N)$ is larger than $\frac{e^N}{N}$.
207: \item \emph{Large}: $P(N)$ is between $\frac{e^{N^{1/3}}}{N}$ and
208: $\frac{e^N}{N}$. \item \emph{Medium}: $P(N)$ is between
209: $N^{-\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{\alpha}}}$ and $\frac{e^{N^{1/3}}}{N}$.
210: \item \emph{Small}: $P(N)$ is between $N^{-1}$ and
211: $N^{-\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{\alpha}}}$. \item \emph{Very small}:
212: $P(N)$ is no larger than $N^{-1}$.
213: \end{itemize}
214: The reason why we divide $P(N)$ into these five regions will be
215: apparent in Sections \ref{seclowerbound} and \ref{secupperbound}.
216: The two most interesting cases for the sum power constraint are
217: $P(N)=N P_{\text{ind}}$ where each sensor has its individual power
218: constraint $P_{\text{ind}}$, and $P(N)=P_{\text{tot}}$ where all
219: sensors share a constant total power constraint $P_{\text{tot}}$.
220: Both of these two cases lie in the \emph{medium} sum power
221: constraint region.
222: %In
223: %a sensor network, $P(N)=P_{\text{tot}}$
224: % would mean that by putting more and more sensors into the
225: %network, we reduce the power consumed by each sensor, therefore,
226: %prolonging its battery life.
227: Our goal is to determine the scheme that achieves the minimum
228: expected distortion $D^N$ at the collector node for a given total
229: transmit power constraint $P(N)$, and also to determine the rate
230: at which this distortion goes to zero as a function of the number
231: of sensor nodes and the power constraint.
232:
233: In this paper, we seek to understand the behavior of the minimum
234: achievable expected
235: distortion when the number of sensor nodes is very
236: large. We introduce the big-O and big-$\Theta$ notations. We say
237: that $f$ is O($g$), if there exist constants $c$ and $k$, such
238: that $|f(N)| \leq c|g(N)|$ for all $N>k$; we say that $f$ is
239: $\Theta(g)$, if there exist constants $c_1$, $c_2$ and $k$ such
240: that $c_1|g(N)| \leq |f(N)| \leq c_2|g(N)|$ for all $N>k$. All
241: logarithms are base $e$. Due to space limitations, all proofs are
242: omitted here and can be found in \cite{Liu_Ulukus:2005}.
243:
244: \section{The Gauss-Markov process}
245: A Gauss-Markov process, also known as the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck
246: process \cite{Uhlenbeck:1930,Wang:1945}, is defined as a random
247: process that is stationary, Gaussian, Markovian, and continuous in
248: probability. It is known that
249: %this process satisfies the following
250: %linear stochastic equation
251: %\cite{Doob:1942,Breiman:book},
252: %\begin{align}
253: %d S(t)=-\eta (S(t)-\mu) dt + \sigma dW(t)
254: %\end{align}
255: %where $\{W(t):t \geq 0\}$ is a Brownian motion with unit-variance
256: %and $\mu, \eta, \sigma$ are constants. The mean of the process is
257: %$\mu$, which we assume to be zero, and
258: the autocorrelation function of this process is
259: \cite{Doob:1942,Breiman:book,Karatzas:book}
260: \begin{align}
261: C(\tau)=\frac{\sigma^2}{2 \eta} e^{-\eta |\tau|} \label{nine}
262: \end{align}
263: The Karhunen-Loeve expansion \cite{Papoulis:book} of the
264: Gauss-Markov process yields the eigenfunctions
265: $\{\phi_k(t)\}_{k=0}^\infty$
266: \begin{align}
267: \phi_k(t)=b_k \left(\cos \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda_k}-\eta^2}
268: t+ \frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda_k}-\eta^2}} \sin
269: \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda_k}-\eta^2} t \right)
270: \end{align}
271: where $\{\lambda_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ are the corresponding
272: eigenvalues and $b_k$ are positive constants chosen such that the
273: eigenfunctions $\phi_k(t)$ have unit energy. Even though it is not
274: possible to express $\{\lambda_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ in closed form,
275: they can be bounded as
276: \begin{align}
277: \lambda_k' \leq \lambda_k \leq \lambda_k'' \label{bound}
278: \end{align}
279: where $\{\lambda_k'\}_{k=1}^\infty$ is defined as
280: \begin{align}
281: \lambda_k'=\left\{
282: \begin{array}{ll}
283: \frac{\sigma^2 T_0^2}{\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 \pi^2+\eta^2 T_0^2}, & k \leq K_0 \\
284: \frac{\sigma^2 T_0^2}{\left(k+1\right)^2 \pi^2}, & k > K_0
285: \label{definelambdak1}
286: \end{array}
287: \right.
288: \end{align}
289: with $K_0=\left\lfloor \frac{\eta^2
290: T_0^2}{\pi^2}-\frac{3}{4}\right\rfloor$ and $\left\lfloor x
291: \right\rfloor$ is the largest integer smaller than or equal to
292: $x$; also, $K_0$ may be negative, in which case, the first line in
293: (\ref{definelambdak1}) should be disregarded.
294: $\{\lambda_k''\}_{k=1}^\infty$ is defined as
295: \begin{align}
296: \lambda_k''=\left\{
297: \begin{array}{ll}
298: \frac{\sigma^2}{\eta^2}, & k \leq 1 \\
299: \frac{\sigma^2T_0^2}{\left(k-1\right)^2 \pi^2}, & k > 1
300: \end{array}
301: \right.
302: \end{align}
303:
304: Rate-distortion functions are easier to calculate with
305: $\{\lambda_k'\}_{k=0}^\infty$ and $\{\lambda_k''\}_{k=0}^\infty$,
306: and the two sequences will be used in place of
307: $\{\lambda_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ to develop lower and upper bounds on
308: the minimum achievable expected distortion.
309:
310: \section{A Lower Bound on the Minimum Achievable Expected Distortion} \label{seclowerbound}
311: \subsection{Arbitrary Stationary Gaussian Random Processes}
312: Let $D^N$ be the minimum achievable expected distortion at the
313: collector node for a given total transmit power constraint $P(N)$.
314: In this section, we will develop two lower bounds on $D^N$. We
315: obtain our first lower bound by assuming that the communication
316: links from the sensor nodes to the collector node are noise and
317: interference free. Let $D^{N}_s$ be the MMSE (minimum mean squared
318: error) when the collector node estimates the underlying random
319: process by using the exact values of all of the samples taken by
320: the sensors. Then, it is straightforward to see that,
321: \begin{align}
322: D^N \geq D_s^N \label{firstlowerbound}
323: \end{align}
324: %since this approach assumes that the communication links from the
325: %sensor nodes to the collector node are noise and interference
326: %free.
327: Since the random process is Gaussian, calculating $D_s^N$ is a
328: Gaussian MMSE estimation problem. It suffices to consider the
329: linear MMSE estimator and the resulting expected distortion is
330: \begin{align}
331: D_s^N= \frac{1}{T_0}\int_{0}^{T_0} \left(C(0)-\bm{\rho}_N^T(t)
332: \Sigma_N^{-1} \bm{\rho}_N(t) \right) dt
333: \end{align}
334: where
335: \begin{align}
336: \bm{\rho}_N(t)=\begin{bmatrix} C(t-t_1) & C(t-t_2) & \cdots &
337: C(t-t_N)
338: \end{bmatrix}^T
339: \end{align}
340: and
341: \begin{align}
342: \Sigma_N & =E[\mathbf{S}_N \mathbf{S}_N^T] \nonumber \\
343: &= \left[
344: \begin{array}{cccc}
345: C(0) & C(t_2-t_1) & \cdots & C(t_N-t_1)\\
346: C(t_2-t_1) & C(0) & \cdots & C(t_N-t_2)\\
347: \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
348: C(t_N-t_1)& C(t_N-t_2) & \cdots & C(0)
349: \end{array} \right]
350: \end{align}
351:
352: %The lower bound in (\ref{firstlowerbound}) is obtained by assuming
353: %that we have a system that has perfect communication channels
354: %between the sensors and the collector node, whereby the collector
355: %node obtains the samples from the sensors without error and forms
356: %an estimate of the random process using the samples.
357: We obtain our second lower bound by assuming
358: that all of the sensors know the random process exactly, and,
359: the sensor network forms an $N$-transmit 1-receive antenna
360: point-to-point system to transmit the random process to the
361: collector node. Let $C_u^N$ be the capacity of this point-to-point
362: system and $D_p(R)$ be the distortion-rate function of the random
363: process $S(t)$ \cite{Berger:book}. In this point-to-point system,
364: the
365: separation principle holds and feedback does not increase the capacity, and therefore
366: \begin{align}
367: D^N \geq D_p(C_u^N)
368: \end{align}
369: To evaluate $D_p(C_u^N)$, we first find the rate distortion
370: function, $R(D)$, of $S(t)$ \cite[Section 4.5]{Berger:book} as,
371: \begin{align}
372: R(\theta)= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \max \left(0, \frac{1}{2} \log
373: \left(\frac{\lambda_k}{\theta} \right) \right) \label{rate}
374: \end{align}
375: and
376: \begin{align}
377: D(\theta)=T_0^{-1} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \min (\theta,
378: \lambda_k)\label{distortion}
379: \end{align}
380: %where $\lambda_k$, $k=0,1,2,\cdots$, are the eigenvalues of the
381: %autocorrelation function $C(\tau)$ in the Karhunen-Loeve expansion
382: %of $S(t)$.
383: It can be seen that the function $R(\theta)$ is a strictly decreasing
384: function of $\theta$ when $\theta \leq \lambda_0$. Hence, in this
385: region, the inverse function of $R(\theta)$ exists, which we will
386: call $\theta(R), R \geq 0$. Next, we find $C_u^N$, the capacity of
387: the $N$-transmit 1-receive antenna point-to-point system
388: \cite{Telatar:1999} as,
389: \begin{align}
390: C_u^N=\frac{1}{2} \log \left(1+h^2 N P(N) \right) \label{Cupper}
391: \end{align}
392: Then, we have
393: \begin{align}
394: D_p(C_u^N)=D\left(\theta\left(C_u^N\right)\right) \label{eqn}
395: \end{align}
396:
397: By combining the two lower bounds described above, we see that,
398: for arbitrary stationary Gaussian random processes, a lower bound
399: on the minimum achievable expected distortion is
400: \begin{align}
401: D_l^N=\max \left(D_s^N,D_p(C_u^N)\right) \label{ulukus1}
402: \end{align}
403:
404: \subsection{The Gauss-Markov Process}
405:
406: We note that $D_s^N$ and $D_p(C_u^N)$ in (\ref{ulukus1}) both
407: depend on the autocorrelation function $C(\tau)$. Unless we put
408: more structure on $C(\tau)$, it seems difficult to continue with
409: an exact evaluation. Hence, we constrain ourselves to a special
410: class of Gaussian random processes, the Gauss-Markov random
411: processes, whose autocorrelation function is given in (\ref{nine}), in order to continue with our analysis of the distortion.
412:
413: First, we evaluate $D_s^N$. %Since the random process is Markovian,
414: %it suffices to use only two samples, $S\left(\frac{i-1}{N-1}T_0
415: %\right)$ and $S\left(\frac{i}{N-1}T_0 \right)$, in order to
416: %estimate $S(t)$, for any $t$ in $\frac{i-1}{N-1}T_0 \leq t \leq
417: %\frac{i}{N-1}T_0$.
418: %The MMSE in this case is,
419: %\begin{align}
420: %C(0)&-\bm{\rho}_N^T(t) \Sigma_N^{-1} \bm{\rho}_N(t) \nonumber \\
421: %&= C(0)-\begin{bmatrix} C\left(t- \frac{i-1}{N-1}T_0\right) \\
422: %C\left(t- \frac{i}{N-1}T_0\right) \end{bmatrix}^T \nonumber \\
423: %&\begin{bmatrix}C(0) & C\left(\frac{1}{N-1}T_0 \right) \\
424: %C\left(\frac{1}{N-1}T_0 \right) & C(0)\end{bmatrix}^{-1}
425: %\begin{bmatrix} C\left(t- \frac{i-1}{N-1}T_0\right) \\ C\left(t- \frac{i}{N-1}T_0\right) \end{bmatrix}
426: %\end{align}
427: Using (\ref{nine}) and the Markovian property of $S(t)$, it is
428: straightforward to show that \cite{Liu_Ulukus:2005},
429: \begin{align}
430: D_s^N%&= \frac{1}{T_0}\int_{0}^{T_0} \left(C(0)-\bm{\rho}_N^T(t) \Sigma_N^{-1} \bm{\rho}_N(t) \right) dt\\
431: %&=\frac{1}{T_0}\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}
432: %\int_{\frac{i-1}{N-1}T_0}^{\frac{i}{N-1}T_0}
433: %\left(C(0)-\bm{\rho}_N^T(t) \Sigma_N^{-1} \bm{\rho}_N(t) \right) dt\\
434: %&= \frac{\sigma^2}{2 \eta} -\frac{1}{T_0} (N-1)
435: %\frac{\sigma^2}{2\eta} \left(\frac{1}{\eta}-\frac{2T_0 e^{-\frac{2
436: %\eta T_0}{N-1}}}{(N-1)
437: %\left(1-e^{-\frac{2 \eta T_0}{N-1}} \right)} \right)\\
438: & = \Theta \left( N^{-1}\right) \label{DsN}
439: \end{align}
440: Hence, for the Gauss-Markov process when the random process is
441: estimated from its samples, the estimation error decays as
442: $N^{-1}$.
443:
444: Next, we evaluate $D_p(C_u^N)$ for the Gauss-Markov process. Let
445: $D'_p(C_u^N)$ be the distortion obtained from (\ref{eqn}) when
446: $\{\lambda_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ in (\ref{rate}) and
447: (\ref{distortion}) are replaced by $\{\lambda_k'\}_{k=0}^\infty$
448: which we defined in (\ref{bound}) and (\ref{definelambdak1}).
449: Then,
450: \begin{align}
451: D'_p(C_u^N) \leq D_p(C_u^N) \label{Tunis}
452: \end{align}
453: because $\lambda_k' \leq \lambda_k$ for all $k$, and it is more
454: difficult to estimate a sequence of random variables each with a
455: larger variance. Since we seek a lower bound on the minimum
456: achievable expected distortion, the evaluation of $D'_p(C_u^N)$
457: suffices. Hence, for the rest of this section, we concentrate on
458: the evaluation of $R(\theta)$ and $D(\theta)$ given in
459: (\ref{rate}) and (\ref{distortion}), respectively, for
460: $\{\lambda_k'\}_{k=0}^\infty$.
461:
462: We will divide our discussion into two separate cases based on the
463: sum power constraint. For the first case, $P(N)$ is such that
464: \begin{align}
465: \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \left( NP(N)\right)^{-1}=0
466: \label{powerconstraint}
467: \end{align}
468: is satisfied. This includes all sum power constraint regions
469: defined in Section \ref{systemmodel} except the \emph{very small}
470: sum power constraint. The cases where $P(N)=N P_{\text{ind}}$ and
471: $P(N)=P_{\text{tot}}$ are included in $P(N)$ satisfying
472: (\ref{powerconstraint}). Note from (\ref{Cupper}) that, in this
473: case, $C_u^N$ increases monotonically in $N$. Since we are
474: interested in the number $\theta(C_u^N)$, we consider the region
475: when $R$ is very large for the function $\theta(R)$.
476: \begin{Lem} \label{cut1}
477: For large enough $R$, we have
478: \begin{align}
479: \theta(R) \geq \left(\frac{\sigma T_0}{2 \pi R} \right)^2
480: \label{thetastar}
481: \end{align}
482: \end{Lem}
483: %Hence, when $\theta$ is small enough, or equivalently, when $R$ is
484: %large enough, we have
485: %\begin{align}
486: %\theta(R) \geq \left(\frac{\sigma T_0}{2 \pi R} \right)^2
487: %\end{align}
488: %Thus, for large enough $N$,
489: %\begin{align}
490: %\theta(C_u^N) \geq \left(\frac{\sigma T_0}{\pi} \right)^2
491: %\left(\frac{1}{\log \left( 1+ h^2 N P(N) \right)}\right)^2
492: %\label{thetastar}
493: %\end{align}
494: We bound $D(\theta)$ for small enough $\theta$ in the next lemma.
495: \begin{Lem}
496: For small enough $\theta$, we have
497: \begin{align}
498: D(\theta)%& = T_0^{-1} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \min (\theta, \lambda_k')\\
499: %&= T_0^{-1} \sum_{k=0}^{\left\lfloor \frac{\sigma T_0}{\pi
500: %\sqrt{\theta}}-1 \right\rfloor} \theta
501: %+T_0^{-1} \sum_{\left\lfloor \frac{\sigma T_0}{\pi \sqrt{\theta}} \right\rfloor}^\infty \lambda_k'\\
502: %&\geq T_0^{-1} \left\lfloor \frac{\sigma T_0}{\pi \sqrt{\theta}}
503: %\right\rfloor \theta +\frac{\sigma }{\pi} \sqrt{\theta} \label{uselemma2}\\
504: %& \geq T_0^{-1} \left(\frac{\sigma T_0}{\pi
505: %\sqrt{\theta}}-1\right)
506: %\theta + \frac{\sigma }{\pi} \sqrt{\theta} \\
507: & \geq \frac{ \sigma}{ \pi} \sqrt{\theta} \label{largeN2}
508: \end{align}
509: %where (\ref{uselemma2}) follows from (\ref{needlower1}) in Lemma
510: %\ref{lambdak1},
511: % (\ref{largeN2}) is true for small enough $\theta$.
512: \end{Lem}
513:
514: We are now ready to calculate the distortion. When $N$ is large
515: enough, using (\ref{Cupper}), (\ref{thetastar}) and
516: (\ref{largeN2}), we have
517: \begin{align}
518: D'_p(C_u^N)
519: %&= D\left(\theta\left(C_u^N\right)\right)\\
520: %& \geq \frac{ \sigma}{ \pi} \sqrt{\theta(C_u^N)}\\
521: %& \geq \frac{ \sigma^2 T_0}{ \pi^2} \frac{1}{\log \left( 1+ h^2 N
522: %P(N) \right)}
523: \geq \Theta \left(\left(\log(NP(N))\right)^{-1}
524: \right)\label{lower2}
525: \end{align}
526: We conclude, based on (\ref{ulukus1}), (\ref{DsN}), (\ref{Tunis}) and
527: (\ref{lower2}), that when the sum power constraint $P(N)$
528: satisfies (\ref{powerconstraint}), a lower bound on the minimum
529: achievable expected distortion is
530: \begin{align}
531: D^N \geq \Theta \left(\max \left(N^{-1},
532: \left(\log(NP(N))\right)^{-1} \right) \right)
533: \end{align}
534:
535: For the second case, $P(N)$ is such that (\ref{powerconstraint})
536: is not satisfied.
537: $C_u^N$ is either a constant independent of
538: $N$ or goes to zero as $N$ goes to infinity. Examining (\ref{rate}), we see that $\theta(C_u^N)$ is bounded
539: below by a constant independent of $N$, and hence, $D'_p\left(C_u^N\right)$ is a constant and does not
540: go to zero as $N$ increases.
541:
542: Therefore, for all possible power constraints $P(N)$, a lower
543: bound on the minimum achievable expected distortion is
544: \begin{align}
545: D^N \geq \Theta \left(\max \left(N^{-1}, \min
546: \left(\left(\log(NP(N))\right)^{-1}, 1 \right) \right) \right)
547: \end{align}
548: which can also be expressed ``order-wise'' as
549: \begin{align}
550: %D^N \geq
551: \left\{
552: \begin{array}{ll}
553: N^{-1} & \text{ if } \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{e^N}{NP(N)} =0\\
554: 1 & \text { if } \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} NP(N) =0 \\
555: \left(\log(NP(N))\right)^{-1} & \text { otherwise }
556: \end{array}
557: \right. \label{finallowerbound}
558: \end{align}
559:
560: The first case in (\ref{finallowerbound}) corresponds to the
561: \emph{very large} sum power constraint defined in Section
562: \ref{systemmodel}. This is the scenario where the sum power
563: constraint grows almost exponentially with the number of nodes.
564: The transmission power is so large that the communication channels
565: between the sensors and the collector node are as if they are
566: perfect, and we are left with the ``unavoidable'' distortion of
567: $N^{-1}$ which we have in reconstructing the random process from
568: the ``perfect'' knowledge of its samples. Even though this
569: provides the best performance among all three cases, it is
570: impractical since sensor nodes are low energy devices and it is
571: often difficult, if not impossible, to replenish their batteries.
572:
573: The second case in (\ref{finallowerbound}) corresponds to the
574: \emph{very small} sum power constraint defined in Section
575: \ref{systemmodel}. The transmission power is so low that the
576: communication channels between the sensors and the collector node
577: are as if they do not exist. The estimation error is on the order
578: of 1, which is equivalent to the collector node blindly estimating
579: $S(t)=0$ for all $t \in [0, T_0]$. Even though the consumed power
580: $P(N)$ is very low in this case, the performance of the sensor
581: network is unacceptable; even the lower bound on the minimum
582: achievable expected distortion does not decrease to zero with the
583: increasing number of nodes.
584:
585: Hence, the meaningful sum power constraints for the sensor nodes
586: should be in the ``otherwise'' case in (\ref{finallowerbound}),
587: which includes the \emph{large}, \emph{medium} and \emph{small}
588: sum power constraints defined in Section \ref{systemmodel}. The
589: corresponding lower bound on the minimum achievable expected
590: distortion as a function of the power constraint is
591: \begin{align}
592: D^N \geq \Theta \left(\left(\log(NP(N))\right)^{-1} \right)
593: \end{align}
594: The two practically meaningful cases of $P(N)=N P_{\text{ind}}$ and
595: $P(N)=P_{\text{tot}}$ are in this ``otherwise'' case. In both of
596: these cases, the lower bound on the minimum achievable expected
597: distortion decays to zero at the rate of $\left(\log
598: N\right)^{-1}$.
599:
600: \section{An Upper Bound on the Minimum Achievable Expected Distortion} \label{secupperbound}
601: \subsection{Arbitrary Stationary Gaussian Random Processes}
602: Any distortion found by using any achievability scheme will serve
603: as an upper bound for the minimum achievable expected distortion.
604: We consider the following separation-based achievable scheme:
605: First, we perform distributed rate-distortion coding at all sensor
606: nodes using \cite[Theorem 1]{Flynn:1987}. After obtaining the
607: indices of the rate-distortion codes, we transmit the indices as
608: independent messages using the antenna sharing method introduced
609: in \cite{ElGamal:2005}. The distortion obtained using this scheme
610: will be denoted as $D_u^N$.
611:
612: We apply \cite[Theorem 1]{Flynn:1987}, generalized to $N$ sensor
613: nodes in \cite[Theorem 1]{Chen:2004}, to obtain an achievable
614: rate-distortion point. We will consider the case when all sensor
615: nodes transmit their data at identical rates, and this rate is
616: determined by the ratio of the sum rate and $N$. We have the
617: following theorem.
618: \begin{Theo}
619: The following sum rate and distortion are achievable,
620: \begin{align}
621: D_a^N(\theta')& = C(0)-\frac{1}{N-1}\int_{0}^{T_0}
622: \bm{\rho}_N^T(t) \left(\Sigma_N'+\theta' I\right)^{-1}
623: \bm{\rho}_N(t) dt \\
624: R_a^N(\theta') & =\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{1}{2} \log
625: \left(1+\frac{\mu_k^{(N)'}}{\theta'} \right)
626: \end{align}
627: where $\Sigma_N'=\frac{T_0}{N-1}\Sigma_N$ and
628: $\mu_0^{(N)'},\mu_1^{(N)'},\cdots,\mu_{N-1}^{(N)'}$ are the
629: eigenvalues of $\Sigma_N'$.
630: \end{Theo}
631: We further evaluate $D_a^N(\theta')$ in the next lemma.
632: \begin{Lem} \label{whatnoname}
633: For all stationary Gaussian random processes whose autocorrelation
634: functions satisfy the Lipschitz condition in the interval
635: $[-T_0,T_0]$, and have finite right derivatives at $\tau=0$, we have
636: \begin{align}
637: D_a^N(\theta') = O \left(\max \left(N^{-1}, \frac{1}{T_0}
638: \sum_{k=1}^N \left(\frac{1}{\theta'}+\frac{1}{\mu_k^{(N)'}}
639: \right)^{-1} \right) \right) \label{expand}
640: \end{align}
641: \end{Lem}
642: Lemma \ref{whatnoname} tells us that the expected distortion
643: achieved by using the separation-based scheme is upper bounded by
644: the maximum of two types of distortion. The first distortion is of
645: size $N^{-1}$ and the size of the second distortion depends on the
646: achievable rate of the channel through $\theta'$. We define the
647: second distortion as
648: \begin{align}
649: D_b^N(\theta') = \frac{1}{T_0} \sum_{k=1}^N
650: \left(\frac{1}{\theta'}+\frac{1}{\mu_k^{(N)'}} \right)^{-1}
651: \end{align}
652: %and denote the inverse function of $R_a^N(\theta')$ be $\theta_b^N
653: %(R)$. Then, based on (\ref{sigmaDeqn2}),
654: %the achievable expected distortion
655: %\begin{align}
656: %D_u^N=\max \left(\frac{1}{N},D_b\left(\theta_b^N\left(C_a^N
657: %\right)\right) \right)
658: %\end{align}
659: %For arbitrary
660: %stationary Gaussian random processes which satisfies the
661: %conditions of Lemma \ref{lemma1}, we have (\ref{lemmause}) and
662: %thus,
663: %\begin{align}
664: %D_a^N(\sigma_D^2) = O \left(\max \left( \frac{1}{N}, \frac{1}{N-1}
665: %\sum_{k=1}^N \left(\frac{1}{\sigma_D^{2}}+\frac{1}{\mu_k^{(N)}}
666: %\right)^{-1} \right) \right)
667: %\end{align}
668:
669: Now, we determine an achievable rate for the communication channel
670: from the sensor nodes to the collector node. The channel in its
671: nature is a multiple access channel with potential cooperation
672: between the transmitters and feedback from the collector node. The
673: capacity region for this channel is not known. We get an
674: achievable sum rate for this channel by using the idea presented
675: in \cite{ElGamal:2005}. The following theorem is a generalization
676: of \cite[Theorem 1]{ElGamal:2005} from a constant power constraint
677: to a more general power constraint.
678: \begin{Theo} \label{generalelgamal}
679: When the sum power constraint $P(N)$ and the path-loss exponent
680: $\alpha$ satisfy
681: \begin{align}
682: \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{N
683: P(N)^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha}}}=0 \label{powersad1}
684: \end{align}
685: the following rate is achievable
686: \begin{align}
687: C_a^N=\beta \log (NP(N))
688: \end{align}
689: where $\beta$ is a positive constant
690: defined as
691: \begin{align}
692: \beta = \frac{1+ \frac{1}{\alpha} \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty}
693: \frac{ \log P(N)}{\log (NP(N))}} {4 \left(1+\frac{1}{\alpha}
694: \right)}
695: \end{align}
696: otherwise, $C_a^N$ approaches a non-negative constant as $N
697: \rightarrow \infty$.
698: \end{Theo}
699: Theorem \ref{generalelgamal} shows that when the sum power
700: constraint is \emph{very large}, \emph{large} or
701: \emph{medium}, as defined in Section
702: \ref{systemmodel}, the achievable rate increases with $N$.
703: Otherwise, the achievable rate is either a positive constant or
704: decreases to zero, which will result in poor estimation
705: performance at the collector node.
706:
707: The function $R_a^N\left(\theta'\right)$ is a strictly decreasing
708: function of $\theta'$, thus, the inverse function exists, which we
709: will denote as $\theta_a^N(R)$. Hence, to find $D_u^N$, we first
710: find $ \theta_a^N\left(C_a^N\right)$, and then,
711: \begin{align}
712: D_u^N & = D_a^N \left(\theta_a^N \left(C_a^N\right) \right)
713: \label{sigmaDeqn2}
714: %& = O \left(\max \left(\frac{1}{N}, \frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{k=1}^N
715: %\left(\frac{1}{\sigma_D^N\left(C_a^N\right)}+\frac{1}{\mu_k^{(N)}}
716: %\right)^{-1} \right) \right) \label{expand2}
717: \end{align}
718: %Comparing (\ref{sigmaDeqn2}) with (\ref{ulukus1}), we see that the
719: %two bounds may meet if $D_b^N\left(\theta(C_a^N) \right)$ is of
720: %the same order as $D(C_u^N)$ found in Section \ref{seclowerbound}.
721: We will perform this calculation when the underlying random
722: process is Gauss-Markov.
723:
724: \subsection{The Gauss-Markov Process}
725:
726: The autocorrelation function of the Gauss-Markov process given in
727: (\ref{nine}) satisfies the conditions of Lemma \ref{whatnoname}.
728: Hence, (\ref{expand}) is valid, and
729: \begin{align}
730: D_u^N= O \left(\max \left(N^{-1}, D_b\left(\theta_a^N
731: \left(C_a^N\right) \right) \right) \right) \label{markovvalid}
732: \end{align}
733: %It is difficult to find $\mu_k^{(N)'}$ explicitly, but
734: %$\mu_k^{(N)'}$ converges to $\lambda_k$ when $N$ is large
735: %\cite{Servetto:2002}. However, the convergence is not uniform in
736: %$k$
737: %and the approximation of $\mu_k^{(N)'}$
738: %using $\lambda_k$ is accurate only when $k <<N$.
739:
740: It remains to evaluate $D_b^N \left(\theta_a^N \left(C_a^N\right)
741: \right)$. We first define two sequences $\vartheta_L^N$ and
742: $\vartheta_U^N$ which satisfy
743: \begin{align}
744: \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{\vartheta_L^N N^{2/3}} =0,
745: \qquad \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \vartheta_U^N = 0
746: \label{increasing}
747: \end{align}
748: \begin{Lem} \label{nothingleft}
749: For large enough $N$ and $R$ in the interval of
750: \begin{align}
751: \left[\frac{8 \sigma T_0}{\pi \sqrt{\vartheta_U^N}}, \frac{\sigma
752: T_0}{4 \pi \sqrt{\vartheta_L^N}}\right] \label{partialinterval}
753: \end{align}
754: we have
755: \begin{align}
756: \left(\frac{\sigma T_0}{4 \pi R}\right)^2 \leq \theta_a^N(R) \leq
757: \left(\frac{8\sigma T_0}{ \pi R}\right)^2 \label{partial}
758: \end{align}
759: \end{Lem}
760: Hence, for all $P(N)$ that satisfy
761: \begin{align}
762: \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{NP(N)}{e^{N^{1/3}}} =0 \label{onlycase}
763: \end{align}
764: and (\ref{powersad1}), we have $C_a^N$ in the interval of
765: (\ref{partialinterval}) and our result of (\ref{partial}) is
766: applicable.
767:
768: Now we upper bound $D_b^N(\theta')$.
769: \begin{Lem} \label{Quinn}
770: For $\theta' \in \left[\vartheta_L^N, \vartheta_U^N \right]$ for
771: large enough $N$, we may upper bound $D_b^N(\theta')$ as
772: \begin{align}
773: D_b^N(\theta') \leq \frac{12 \sigma}{\pi} \sqrt{\theta'}
774: \label{nuoconclude1}
775: \end{align}
776: \end{Lem}
777: The proofs of Lemma \ref{nothingleft} and \ref{Quinn} use the fact
778: that $\mu_k^{(N)'}$ converges to $\lambda_k$ when $N$ is large
779: \cite{Servetto:2002}. Since the convergence of
780: $\mu_k^{(N)'}$ to $\lambda_k$ is not uniform in $k$, the results of Lemma \ref{nothingleft} and \ref{Quinn} are valid only when $P(N)$ satisfies
781: (\ref{onlycase}).
782: %Then, $\lambda_k'$ and $\lambda_k''$ are used in the evaluation in place of $\lambda_k$.
783:
784:
785: Hence, when $P(N)$ is such that (\ref{onlycase}) and
786: (\ref{powersad1}) are satisfied, using (\ref{partial}),
787: (\ref{nuoconclude1}) and the fact that when $R$ is in the interval
788: of (\ref{partialinterval}), $\theta_a^N(R)$ is in
789: $\left[\vartheta_L^N, \vartheta_U^N \right]$,
790: we have
791: \begin{align}
792: D_b^N\left(\theta_a^N \left(C_a^N \right) \right)
793: %& \leq \frac{10\sigma}{\pi} \sqrt{\theta_b^N \left(C_a^N \right)} \label{weiexplain1}\\
794: %& \leq \frac{10 \sigma}{\pi} \frac{6 \sigma T_0}{\pi} \frac{1}{C_a^N} \label{weiexplain2}\\
795: \leq \Theta \left( \left( \log (NP(N)) \right)^{-1} \right)
796: \end{align}
797: Therefore, from (\ref{markovvalid}), an upper bound on the minimum achievable
798: expected distortion is
799: \begin{align}
800: D_u^N \leq \Theta \left( \left( \log (NP(N)) \right)^{-1} \right)
801: \label{upperboundrepeat}
802: \end{align}
803: This upper bound on the minimum achievable expected distortion
804: coincides with the lower bound described in the ``otherwise''
805: case in (\ref{finallowerbound}). However, it should be noted that,
806: the ``otherwise'' case in (\ref{finallowerbound}) corresponds to
807: the \emph{large}, \emph{medium} and \emph{small} sum power
808: constraints defined in Section \ref{systemmodel}, whereas
809: (\ref{onlycase}) and (\ref{powersad1}) are satisfied only for the
810: \emph{medium} sum power constraint.
811:
812: \section{Comparison of Lower and Upper Bounds for Gauss-Markov
813: Processes}
814:
815: Now, we compare the upper bound in (\ref{upperboundrepeat}) and
816: the lower bound in (\ref{finallowerbound}). In the \emph{very
817: large} and \emph{large} sum power constraint regions, our methods
818: do not apply, e.g. (\ref{upperboundrepeat}) is not valid, and we have not shown whether the lower and upper
819: bounds meet. However, in this region $P(N)$ is larger than
820: $\frac{e^{N^{1/3}}}{N}$, and this region is not of practical
821: interest.
822:
823: In the \emph{medium} sum power constraint region, $P(N)$ is in the
824: wide range of $N^{-\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{\alpha}}}$ to
825: $\frac{e^{N^{1/3}}}{N}$, and our lower and upper bounds do meet
826: and the minimum achievable expected distortion is
827: \begin{align}
828: D^N=\Theta \left(\left(\log (NP(N)) \right)^{-1} \right)
829: \end{align}
830: The order-optimal achievability scheme is a separation-based
831: scheme, which uses distributed rate-distortion coding as described
832: in \cite{Flynn:1987} and optimal single-user channel coding with
833: antenna sharing method as described in \cite{ElGamal:2005}.
834: %The
835: %rate of decrease for the minimum achievable expected distortion is
836: %rather slow, i.e., it is only on the order of $\left(\log N
837: %\right)^{-1}$, unless we use power exponential to the number of
838: %nodes. Hence, we conclude that it is difficult to estimate
839: %Gauss-Markov random processes accurately using a sensor network.
840: %Since the power of the sensors can not be exponentially large, we
841: %need exponentially many sensors to achieve a very small
842: %distortion.
843: The practically interesting cases of $P(N)=N P_{\text{ind}}$ and
844: $P(N)=P_{\text{tot}}$ fall into this region. In both of these
845: cases, the minimum achievable expected distortion decreases to
846: zero at the rate of
847: \begin{align}
848: \left(\log N \right)^{-1}
849: \end{align}
850: Hence, the power constraint $P(N)=P_{\text{tot}}$ performs as well
851: as $P(N)=N P_{\text{ind}}$ ``order-wise'', and therefore, in
852: practice we may prefer to choose $P(N)=P_{\text{tot}}$.
853:
854: In the \emph{small} sum power constraint region where $P(N)$
855: ranges from $N^{-1}$ to $N^{-\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{\alpha}}}$, our
856: lower and upper bounds do not meet. The lower bound decreases to
857: zero as $ \left(\log N\right)^{-1} $ but the upper bound is a
858: non-zero constant. The main discrepancy between the lower and
859: upper bounds comes from the gap between the lower and upper bounds
860: on the sum capacity, $C_a^N$ and $C_u^N$, for a cooperative
861: multiple access channel with feedback. This region should be of
862: practical interest because in this region, the sum power
863: constraint is quite low, and yet the lower bound on the distortion
864: is of the same order as any $P(N)$ which increases polynomially
865: with $N$. Hence, from the results of the lower bound, it seems
866: that this region potentially has good performance. However, our
867: separation-based upper bound does not meet the lower bound, and
868: whether the lower bound can be achieved remains an open problem.
869:
870: In the \emph{very small} sum power constraint region, $P(N)$ is
871: less than $N^{-1}$, and our lower and upper bounds meet and the
872: minimum achievable expected distortion is a constant that does not
873: decrease to zero with increasing $N$. This case is not of
874: practical interest because of the unacceptable distortion.
875:
876:
877:
878:
879: \section{Conclusion}
880: We investigate the performance of dense sensor networks by
881: studying the joint source-channel coding problem. We provide lower
882: and upper bounds for the minimum achievable expected distortion
883: when the underlying random process is stationary and Gaussian.
884: When the random process is also Markovian, we evaluate the lower
885: and upper bounds, and show that they are both of order $\left(\log
886: (NP(N)) \right)^{-1}$ for a wide range of sum power constraints
887: ranging from $N^{-\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{\alpha}}}$ to
888: $\frac{e^{N^{1/3}}}{N}$. In the most interesting cases when the
889: sum power grows linearly with $N$ or is a constant, the minimum
890: achievable expected distortion decreases to zero at the rate of
891: $\left( \log N\right)^{-1}$. For a Gauss-Markov process, under
892: these power constraints, we have found that an order-optimal
893: scheme is a separation-based scheme, that is composed of
894: distributed rate-distortion coding \cite{Flynn:1987} and antenna
895: sharing method for cooperative multiple access channels
896: \cite{ElGamal:2005}. We expect our results to be generalizable to
897: more general classes of Gaussian random processes.
898:
899:
900:
901:
902:
903:
904:
905:
906:
907:
908:
909: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
910: \bibliography{ref}
911:
912:
913: \end{document}
914: