1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%%%% ANALYSIS %%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4:
5: \bsection{Analysis}
6: \label{s.Analysis}
7:
8: In this section we will analyze and optimize the performance of the
9: sensors-to-cluster-heads information transport in
10: transmit only sensor network, whose system assumptions are described
11: in Section~\ref{s.Assumptions}.
12: %We will use the Poisson rain
13: %model of events subjected to the Erlang's loss model with interference
14: %developed in Section~\ref{ss.SpatialErlang}.
15: %Our analysis is focused first on the one cluster-head scenario, and
16: %then we consider many cluster-head networks.
17: We assume that the density of sensors
18: $\lambda_s$ is large enough and the sensing regions are small
19: so as to guarantee a good sensing-coverage of the domain with a sufficient
20: resolution.
21:
22: \bsubsection{Density of information}
23: First, we study the density of information
24: received by a single cluster
25: head $\rho(x)$.
26: Remind that we define it as as the mean number of packets received by
27: the cluster-head per unit of time from the area $\md x$. We will
28: model the traffic described in Section~\ref{ss.EnT} by a
29: spatio-temporal Poisson point process of events\footnote{We explain in
30: Section~\ref{sss.Poisson-Rain} that this model, called there the
31: {\em Poisson rain of events}, is a reasonable approximation of the
32: process of packets transmitted be an arbitrary pattern of sensors
33: (not necessarily Poisson) densely distributed on the plane.} (packet
34: transmissions) with intensity $\Lambda_s(\md x)\times\lambda_e\md t$,
35: where $\Lambda_s(\md x)=\lambda_s(x)\md x$ and $\lambda_e$ are,
36: respectively, the mean number of sensors placed at $\md x$, and the
37: temporal intensity of packet traffic sent by each sensor.
38: This Poisson rain of events (packets) is supposed to be received by
39: one cluster-head, whose behavior is described in
40: Sections~\ref{ss.Rec}--\ref{ss.Dec}. Specifically, the cluster head
41: applies some admission policy $d(x)$, which is the probability that it
42: tries, given it is idle, to receive a given packet emitted from $\md
43: x$~%
44: \footnote{The cluster-head does not need to know the location of the
45: receiver; it can apply some admission policy depending on the
46: received power.}.
47: We assume that the admission decisions are taken independently of each
48: other and of anything else, and
49: thus the spatio-temporal process of {\em admissible} packets
50: is the Poisson process with intensity $d(x)\lambda_s(x)\md
51: x\times\lambda_e\md t$.
52:
53: Inspired be the channel description of Section~\ref{ss.channel},
54: we assume that a given admissible packet, arriving when the
55: cluster-head is idle, is correctly received if some
56: SINR, empirically averaged over the reception period $B$,
57: is higher than some threshold $\gamma$; cf.~(\ref{e.SIR}).
58: The interference is created by all other
59: emissions taking place at this time period and by some external
60: noise $W$.
61: A detailed mathematical analysis of the performance of the cluster-head
62: modeled by some {\em Erlang's loss system with interference} and SINR
63: condition~(\ref{e.reception_OK}) is done
64: in Section~\ref{ss.SpatialErlang} under the assumption of {\em Rayleigh
65: fading}. In what follows we summarize
66: the results of this analysis.
67: First, we remind a general fact that follows from the Campbell
68: formula.
69: \begin{Prop}\label{p.rho}
70: The density of received information is equal to
71: $\rho(x)=\lambda_e\lambda_s(x) d(x)p_{free}\,p_{rec}(x)$,
72: where
73: $p_{free}$ is the probability that a typical admissible packet finds the
74: cluster head idle when it arrives
75: and $p_{rec}(x)$ is the conditional probability that the typical
76: admissible packet arriving from $\md x$ can be correctly received,
77: given the cluster head stars receiving it.
78: \end{Prop}
79:
80: Suppose that the cluster-head is located at the origin.
81: Denote by $\bar P$ is the emission power used be all sensors,
82: by $L(x)$ the power attenuation
83: function (path-loss) of the distance from $x$ to 0, and by $\calL_W$
84: the Laplace transform
85: of the power $W$ of the external (white) noise;
86: $\calL_W(\xi)=e^{-\xi W}$ if this power is constant.
87:
88: For a given admissible packet received by the cluster-head, let
89: $\calL_1,\calL_2,\calL_{J_B}$ be the {\em Laplace transforms
90: of the interference averaged over the reception period}, generated
91: respectively, by:
92: {\em admissible packets arriving when it is being received},
93: {\em admissible packets that are being sent at its arrival
94: epoch}, {\em all non-admissible packets};
95: cf. Figure~\ref{f.interference}.
96: These Laplace transforms are explicitly given
97: by formulas~(\ref{e.L1_rain}), (\ref{e.L2_rain}),
98: (\ref{e.JLT_rain})
99: with
100: %$\Lambda_s(\md x)= \lambda_s(|x|)\mcd |x|$.
101: $\lambda=\lambda_e \int d(r)\,\lambda_s(x)\mcd x$
102: begin the total intensity of the admissible packets
103: (the integral is taken over the whole domain of the network
104: deployment).
105: Denote $\gamma_x=\gamma /(\bar P L(x))$.
106: By Corollary~\ref{c.Erlang_rain}, we have the following result.
107: \begin{Prop} The Erlang acceptance probability is equal to
108: $p_{free}=1/(1+\lambda B)$ and
109: the conditional reception probability is equal to
110: $p_{rec}(x)=\calL_W(\gamma_x)\calL_1(\gamma_x)
111: \calL_2(\gamma_x)\calL_{J_B}(\gamma_x)$.
112: \end{Prop}
113:
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: \begin{figure}[t]
116: \centerline{
117: \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{interference.eps}}
118: \vspace{-2ex}
119: \caption{\label{f.interference}
120: Three terms of interference $\calL_1,\calL_2,\calL_{J_B}$.}
121: \vspace{-3ex}
122: \end{figure}
123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
124:
125:
126: Lets denote
127: \begin{equation}\label{e.calL}
128: \calL(\xi)=
129: \exp\biggl(\!\!\!-\lambda_eB\!\!\!
130: \int\!\!\Bigl(1-\frac{1}{\xi \bar P L(x)}
131: \log(1+\xi \bar P L(x))\,\Lambda_s(\md x)\Bigr)\!\!\biggr)\,.
132: \end{equation}
133: Corollary~\ref{c.bounds} gives two more explicit bounds on $p_{rec}(x)$.
134: \begin{Prop}\label{p.upop-rec}
135: We have $\up_{rec}(x)\!\le\! p_{rec}(x)\!\le\! \op_{rec}(x)$,
136: where
137: %\begin{qeqnarray}\label{e.up-rec}
138: $\up_{rec}(x)=\calL_W(\gamma_x)\calL^2(\gamma_x)$,
139: $\op_{rec}(x)=\calL_W(\gamma_x)\calL(\gamma_x)$
140: and $\calL$ is given by~(\ref{e.calL}).
141: \end{Prop}
142: %Note that $\uprec(\cdot), \oprec(\cdot)$ do not depend on the
143: %admission policy $\d(\cdot)$.
144: Denote by $\urho(x), \orho(x)$, respectively, the lower and the upper
145: bound of $\rho(x)$
146: obtained when $p_{rec}(x)$ in Proposition~\ref{p.rho}
147: is replaced by, respectively, $\op_{rec}(x)$ and $\up_{rec}(x)$.
148: Note that the both $\op_{rec}(x)$ and $\up_{rec}(x)$ {\em do
149: not} depend on $d(\cdot)$ which makes the analysis of $\urho(x), \orho(x)$
150: easier (for the quality of the bounds see Figure~\ref{f.bounds}, (left)).
151:
152:
153: %\bsubsubsection{Naive and proportional fair policy}
154: %\label{sss.naive}
155: Before describing some optimal policies, we define a {\em naive
156: policy} $d_{naive}(x)=\ind(x\in\bbD_0)$, where the set $\bbD_0$ is
157: fixed such that mean received power is large enough to receive
158: correctly the packet, given only external noise $W$ (no
159: interference)~\footnote{This may correspond to the
160: successful synchronization to the packet}; i.e., $\bbD_0=\{x: \bar
161: PL(x)/W\ge \gamma\}$.
162:
163:
164:
165:
166: \bsubsection{Optimizing the transport-aware coverage}
167: \label{ss.coverage}
168: Knowing that the attenuation function $L(x)$ (and thus $p_{rec}(x)$)
169: typically decreases with the distance $|x|$ to the cluster-head, one
170: has to compensate it with an increasing density of sensors
171: $\lambda_s(\cdot)$ and/or a spatial admission policy $d(x)$.%
172: %\footnote{ An ideal situation consists is deploying the sensors
173: % according to a density $\lambda_s(x)$ which will meet
174: % condition~$\rho(x)\ge D(x)$. In this case the network will not
175: % waste the energy and there will be no noise created by ignored
176: % packets implying $\calL_{J_B}\equiv1$.
177: %This problem is mathematically equivalent to finding the measure
178: %$\lambda_s(x)$ solving the following fix-point
179: %equation
180: %\begin{equation}\label{e.coverage-fix-point}
181: %\lambda_s(x)=\frac{D(x)}{\lambda_e p_{free}\,p_{rec}(x)}\,,
182: %\end{equation}
183: %where the right hand side depends on $\lambda_s(x)$.
184: %This is a difficult, nonlinear, problem;
185: %its feasibility is not an easy question and we leave
186: %it for a future research.
187: %Moreover, note that, even if we find the density $\lambda_s(x)$
188: %that solves the
189: %above inequality, it might not be possible to deploy the sensors
190: %exactly according to it. Then, the question of a right admission policy
191: %arises.}
192:
193: %\paragraph{Max-min fair admission policy}
194: In this paper we suppose now that the sensors are already deployed
195: ~\footnote{leving the the optimal deployment problem for future
196: work} with
197: some given with density $\lambda_s(x)>0$ on some sensing domain
198: $\bbD$.
199: We look for an admission policy $d(x)$, such that {\em any increase of
200: the ratio $\rho(x)/D(x)$ on some set $\md x$ of positive Lebesgue's
201: measure would be at the expense of decreasing of some already
202: smaller ratio $\rho(y)/D(y)$} on some non-null set $\md
203: y\in\bbD$. The policy $\dmaxmin(x,D)$ realizing the above principle is
204: called {\em weighted max-min fair policy}, with weights $1/D(x)$. It is
205: known that if $\dmaxmin(\cdot,D)$ exists then it is unique. For brevity
206: we will denote by $\dmaxmin(x)$ the max-min policy with
207: equal weights ($D(x)=D$) (the policy does not depend on the value of $D$).
208:
209: We cannot exactly characterize the max-min fair policy for $\rho(x)$,
210: however, we can do this for some bounds.
211: %the upper and lower bounds
212: %$\urho(x),\orho(x)$.
213: %%%%% here notation for lower bound only
214: Denote
215: %$\urho(x)=\lambda_e\lambda_s(x)d(x)\up_{free}(x)$ and
216: $\uI=\int_{\bbD} D(x)/\up_{rec}(x)\mcd x$.
217: Assume that the sensing domain $\bbD$ is compact, $D(x)$ continuous on $\bbD$
218: and denote
219: $\uM=\max_{x\in\bbD}D(x)/(\lambda_s(x)\op_{rec}(x))$.
220: We define in the similar manner $\oI, \oM$ replacing
221: $\uprec(x)$ in the above formulas by $\oprec(x)$.
222:
223: %%%% here notation for lower and upper bound
224: %Denote
225: %$\urho(x)=\lambda_e\lambda_s(x)d(x)\up_{free}(x)$,\
226: %$\orho(x)=\lambda_e\lambda_s(x)d(x)\op_{free}(x)$ and
227: %$$\uI=\int_{\bbD} \frac{D(x)}{\up_{rec}(x)}\mcd x\,,\quad
228: %\oI=\int_{\bbD} \frac{D(x)}{\op_{rec}(x)}\mcd x\,.\quad
229: %$$
230: %Assume that the domain $\bbD$ is compact, $D(x)$ continuous on $\bbD$
231: %and denote
232: %$$\oM=\max_{x\in\bbD}\frac{D(x)}{\lambda_s(x)\op_{rec}(x)}\,,\quad
233: %\uM=\max_{x\in\bbD}\frac{D(x)}{\lambda_s(x)\up_{rec}(x)}\,.$$
234: %%%% end of notation for lower and upper bound
235:
236: For a given policy $d(\cdot)$ denote by
237: $||d||_{\lambda_s}=\int_{\bbD} d(x)\lambda_s(x)\mcd x$
238: the total spatial intensity of admissible packets under $d(\cdot)$.
239:
240: \begin{Prop}\label{p.maxmin}
241: \begin{itemize}
242: \item
243: The max-min fair policy $\udmaxmin(\cdot,D)$ for $\urho(x)$ on $\bbD$
244: exists if and only if $\uM<\infty$, it is equal to
245: \begin{equation}\label{e.udmaxmin}
246: \udmaxmin(x,D)=\frac{D(x)}{\uM\lambda_s(x)\uprec(x)}\,
247: \end{equation}
248: and realizes $\urhomaxmin(x,D)=D(x)/(B\uI+\uM/\lambda_e)$.
249: %\begin{equation}\label{e.urhomaxmin}
250: %\frac{\urhomaxmin(x)}{D(x)}=\frac{1}{B\uI+\uM/\lambda_e}\,.
251: %\end{equation}
252: Moreover, under $\udmaxmin(\cdot,D)$ we have $\rho(x)\ge\urhomaxmin(x,D)$.
253: \item The max-min fair policy $\odmaxmin(\cdot,D)$ for $\orho(x)/D(x)$
254: on $\bbD$
255: exist if and only if $\oM<\infty$, it is given by~(\ref{e.udmaxmin})
256: with $\uM,\uprec$ replaced, respectively, by $\oM,\oprec$,
257: %\begin{equation}\label{e.odmaxmin}
258: %\odmaxmin(x)=\frac{D(x)}{\oM\lambda_s(x)\oprec(x)}\,
259: %\end{equation}
260: and realizes $\orhomaxmin(x,D)=D(x)/(B\oI+\oM/\lambda_e)$.
261: %\begin{equation}\label{e.orhomaxmin}
262: %\frac{\orhomaxmin(x)}{D(x)}=\frac1{B\oI+M/\lambda_e}\,.
263: %\end{equation}
264: Moreover, there is no policy $d(\cdot)$ for which
265: $\rho(x)\ge\orhomaxmin(x,D)$, with
266: the strict inequality on some non-null set $\md x$.
267: \end{itemize}
268: \end{Prop}
269: \begin{proof}
270: We consider the lower bound. The proof for the upper bound is analogous.
271: %We are looking first for a function $d(\cdot)$ such that
272: %$\lambda_e\lambda_s(x)d(x)\up_{free}(x)/D(x)=1/\theta$
273: %for some given constant $\theta>0$.
274: %The solution is equal to
275: %\begin{equation}\label{e.theta}
276: %d(x)=\frac{D(x)}{(\theta-B\uI)\lambda_e\lambda_s(x)\uprec(x)}\,.
277: %\end{equation}
278: %For $d(x)\ge0$ to be positive we need $\theta>B\uI$, and for $d(x)\le1$
279: %we need $\theta\ge B\uI+\uM$.
280: Suppose that $\uM<\infty$. Note that the function given by the
281: right-hand-side of~(\ref{e.udmaxmin}) in positive and not larger
282: than~1. Thus $\udmaxmin(\cdot,D)$ is a policy.
283: %Note that $||\udmaxmin||_{\lambda_s}=I/(\lambda_e\uM)$
284: %and this policy realizes the constant weighted lower
285: %bound of the density~(\ref{e.urhomaxmin}).
286: Note also that for
287: $x_0=\maxarg_{x\in\bbD}D(x)/(\lambda_s(x)\up_{rec}(x))$ we have
288: $\udmaxmin(x_0,D)=1$.
289: Assume now that for some
290: policy $d'(x)$ the respective ratio $\urho'(x)\ge D(x)
291: 1/(B\uI+M/\lambda_e)$ and that the inequality is strict on some non-null
292: set $\md x$. It easy to show that then
293: $||d'||_{\lambda_s}>||\udmaxmin||_{\lambda_s}$ and thus
294: $\urho'(x_0)<\urho(x_0)$. This shows that $\udmaxmin$ is max-min fair.
295:
296: Suppose now that $M=\infty$. Take any policy $d(\cdot)$. Note that
297: $\urho(x)/D(x)$ cannot be constant under this policy (there is no
298: such policy).
299: Thus, there exist $x_1,x_2$ such that $\urho(x_1)>\urho(x_2)$.
300: Note that we can slightly increase $d(x_1)$ and decrease $d(x_2)$ is such a
301: manner that $||d||_{\lambda_s}$ remains constant. This increases
302: $\urho(x_2)$ without changing $\urho(x)$ for $x\not=x_1,x_2$. Thus,
303: $d(\cdot)$ is not a max-min fair. The remaining part of the result
304: follows from Proposition~\ref{p.upop-rec}.
305: \end{proof}
306:
307: \rem Suppose the cluster-head is to collect information
308: sent by sensors in a given compact domain $\bbD$ with some minimal
309: density $\rho(x)\ge D(x)$. The problem might be infeasible. However,
310: if it is, policy $\dmaxmin(x,D)$ satisfies the
311: constraint.
312:
313:
314: \begin{ex}
315: \label{ex.1}
316: Consider a {\em uniform coverage}
317: $D(x)=D\times\ind(x\in\bbD)$ witght function. We might be interested in
318: maximizing the constant density $D$ given the domain $\bbD$. This is
319: achieved using $\dmaxmin$.
320: Alternatively, we might be interested in maximizing the area of domain
321: $\bbD$ while providing some minimal density $D$.
322: For example, for a homogeneous repartition of
323: sensor~$\lambda_s(x)=\lambda_s$ and distance-dependent path-loss
324: $L(x)=L(|x|)$ model,
325: we maximize the radius $R$ of the disk $\bbD=B(0,R)$ centered at 0, under
326: the contranit $\rho(x)\ge D$ for $x\in\bbD$.
327: Using Proposition~\ref{p.maxmin} one can find the
328: solution $R=\uRmaxmin$ such that policy $\udmaxmin$ on
329: $\bbD = B(0,\uRmaxmin)$ satisfies $\rho(x) \geq \urho(x)
330: =D$ for all $x \in \bbD$. We illustrate this problem in
331: Section~\ref{s.results}.
332: \end{ex}
333:
334:
335:
336:
337: \bsubsection{Optimizing the total throughput}
338: \label{ss.throughput}
339: Consider now the problem of the maximization of the total weighted
340: intensity of received information $U=\int_{\bbD} \rho(x)/D(x)\mcd
341: x\,,$ where $D(x)>0$ are some arbitrary weights.
342:
343: %In order to illustrate the above result on an example, let us consider
344: %a simple linear utility function $u(\rho,r)=\rho$ and to maximize the
345: %total density of received packets. Assume also for simplicity the
346: %uniform density of sensors $\lambda_s(r)=\lambda_s$. Then,
347: %equation~(\ref{e.Lagrangian-nonlinear}) becomes
348: Denote by $\uU,\oU$, respectively, the lower and the upper bound of
349: the total weighted intensity of information
350: obtained when $\rho(x)$ is replaced by
351: $\urho(x)$ and $\orho(x)$.
352: As previously, we can solve this global optimization problem for the
353: bounds $\urho(x)$ and $\orho(x)$, and in this way approximate the
354: solution of the original problem.
355:
356: Denote the following water-filling region
357: %%%% here notation for lower bound only
358: $\ubbD(\theta)=\{x\in\bbD: \lambda_s(x)\uprec(x)/D(x)>\theta\}$ and
359: the constant
360: $$\uthetas=\maxarg_\theta
361: \frac{\int_{\ubbD(\theta)}\lambda_s(x)\uprec(x)/D(x)\mcd x}%
362: {1+\lambda_eB\int_{\ubbD(\theta)}\lambda_s(x)\mcd x}\,.$$
363: We define in the similar manner $\obbD, \othetas$ replacing
364: $\uprec(x)$ in the above formulas by $\oprec(x)$.
365:
366:
367: %%%% here notation for lower and upper bound
368: %\begin{eqnarray*}
369: %\ubbD(\theta)&=\{x\in\bbD: \lambda_s(x)\uprec(x)/D(x)>\theta\}\,,\quad
370: %\uthetas=&\maxarg_\theta
371: %\frac{\int_{\ubbD(\theta)}\lambda_s(x)\uprec(x)/D(x)\mcd x}%
372: %{1+\lambda_eB\int_{\ubbD(\theta)}\lambda_s(x)\mcd x}\,,\\
373: %\obbD(\theta)&=\{x\in\bbD: \lambda_s(x)\oprec(x)/D(x)>\theta\}\,,\quad
374: %\othetas=&\maxarg_\theta
375: %\frac{\int_{\obbD(\theta)}\lambda_s(x)\oprec(x)/D(x)\mcd x}%
376: %{1+\lambda_eB\int_{\obbD(\theta)}\lambda_s(x)\mcd x}\,.
377: %\end{eqnarray*}
378: %%%% end of notation for lower and upper bound
379:
380:
381: \begin{Prop}\label{p.totalthr}
382: \begin{itemize}
383: \item The policy $\uds(x)=\ind(x\in\ubbD(\uthetas)$ maximizes $\uU$.
384: Under this policy
385: \begin{equation}\label{e.totalthr}
386: \uU=\uU^*=\frac{\lambda_e\int_{\ubbD(\uthetas)}
387: \lambda_s(x)\uprec(x)/D(x)\mcd x}%
388: {1+\lambda_eB\int_{\ubbD(\uthetas)}\lambda_s(x)\mcd x}\,.
389: \end{equation}
390: Moreover, under $\uds(\cdot)$ we have $U\ge \uU^*$.
391: \item The policy $\ods(x)=\ind(x\in\obbD(\othetas)$ maximizes $\uU$.
392: Under this policy $\oU=\oU^*$
393: it is given by~(\ref{e.totalthr})
394: with $\ubbD,\uthetas$ replaced, respectively, by $\obbD,\othetas$,
395: Moreover, there is no policy $\d(\cdot)$ under which
396: $U> \oU^*$.
397: \end{itemize}
398: \end{Prop}
399: \begin{proof}
400: We consider the lower bound problem (proof for the upper bound is
401: analogous):
402: maximize $\int_\bbD\lambda_sd(x)\uprec(x)/D(x)\mcd
403: x/(1-\lambda_eBA)$ under the constraints:
404: $A=\int_{\bbD}\lambda_s(x)d(x)\mcd x$, $0\le d(x)\le 0$.
405: We write the Lagrangian
406: \begin{eqnarray*}
407: \lefteqn{L(d,\theta,\mu_0,\mu_1)=\theta A+\int_{\bbD}\mu_1(x)\mcd x}\\
408: &&\hspace{-0.1\linewidth}+
409: \int_{\bbD} d(x)\Bigl(\frac{\lambda_s(x) \uprec(x)/D(x)}%
410: {1+\lambda_e BA}-\theta+\mu_0(x)-\mu_1(x)\Bigr)\mcd x\,.
411: \end{eqnarray*}
412: By the strong duality and the KKT conditions
413: the optimal policy has the form of the indicator function
414: $\uds(x)=\ind\bigl(\lambda_s(x)\uprec(x)/(D(x)(1+\lambda_e BA^*))
415: \le \theta^*\bigr)$ for some
416: $\theta^*,A^*$. The values of these constants are found by the
417: standard watter-filling policy. The remaining part of the result
418: follows from Proposition~\ref{p.upop-rec}.
419: \end{proof}
420:
421: \begin{ex} Consider equal weights $D(x) = D$, homogeneous
422: repartition of sensors and and distance-dependent path-loss model. Then
423: $\bbD(\uthetas) = B(0, \uRs)$ is a dics of radius $\uRs$~\footnote{In other
424: words, to maximize the total capacity it is optimal to receive only
425: packets whose received power is larger than some threshold.} We
426: illustrate this finding numerically in Section~\ref{s.results}.
427: \end{ex}
428:
429: %In Section~\ref{s.results}
430: %we consider some particular example of the total throughput optimization.
431:
432:
433:
434: \bsubsection{Optimizing the network cost}
435: \label{ss.cost}
436: Suppose that one transmit-only sensor costs $C_s$, while a
437: transport-reliable
438: sensor (with the same sensing functionality) costs $C_c$.
439: Consider an architecture where the
440: transport-reliable sensors act as cluster-heads considered previously in
441: this paper; call them cluster-heads.
442: Assume that information obtained (sensed) directly by cluster-heads
443: sensors is delivered to the central unit with probability one, while the
444: information obtained by a transmit-only sensor located at $x$
445: is delivered there with
446: probability $p_{rec}(x-Z^*(x))$ where $Z^*$ is the location of the
447: cluster-head nearest to $x$.
448:
449: In order to formalize the problem of the economic optimization of the
450: proportion of the two types of devices, let us assume a regular
451: repartition of cluster heads on the plane. A simple model consists in
452: taking them to be repartitioned on a regular, say, triangular grid
453: with %$\Xi=\{Z_i\}_i$.
454: some density $\lambda_c$. This means that $\lambda_c=4/(L^2\sqrt3)$,
455: where $L$ is the distance between two adjacent cluster-heads. Note
456: that maximal distance to a nearest cluster head is equal to
457: $R_{\max}(\lambda_c)=4/\sqrt{\lambda_c3\sqrt{3}}$. As as in the
458: previous section we model the traffic of packets sent be the sensors
459: to the cluster-heads (who act independently) by Poisson rain model of
460: events that is assumed to be stationary both in time and on the whole
461: plane $\ir^2$. To further simplify the model, we assume that at each
462: point $x$ in space at least one cluster-head has to achieve $\rho(x)
463: \geq D$. This is an upper bound on $\lambda_c$; in reality, a packete
464: that is lost by a cluster-head, may still be captured by another
465: cluster-head. However, this upper-bound is sufficient to numerically
466: demonstrate large savings of the hybrid approach.
467:
468: Consider the following problem:
469: {\em minimize the cost of the network by unit area}
470: $C=\lambda_sC_s+\lambda_cC_c$
471: %\text{given sensing coverage:}&& \lambda_s+\lambda_c\ge\lambda\,,\\
472: {\em given some minimal intensity of received information}
473: $\lambda_e\lambda_c+\rho(R_{\max})\ge D$, where $\lambda_e\lambda_c$
474: is the density of information captured directly by the cluster-heads
475: and $\rho(R_{\max})$ is the lowest density of information that can by
476: obtained from the sensors given max-min (maximizing coverage)
477: admission policy.
478:
479: In order to solve this problem, given $D$ and $\lambda_e,\lambda_s$,
480: we take the max-min policy $\udmaxmin$~(\ref{e.udmaxmin}) with
481: $D(x)=\ind(|x|\le R)$ and find the maximal radius $\uRmaxmin$, such
482: that the constant $\urhomaxmin$ obtained by the policy
483: $D(x)=\ind(|x|\le\uRmaxmin)$ on $B(0,\uRmaxmin)$ is equal to
484: $D-\lambda_e\lambda_c$ (cf. Example~\ref{ex.1}).
485: Note by Proposition~\ref{p.maxmin} that for all $x$,
486: $\rho(x)\ge\urho(x)\ge\urhomaxmin(\uRmaxmin)=D-\lambda_e\lambda_c$.
487: This means that
488: taking $R_{\max}=\uRmaxmin$; i.e., $\lambda_c=4/(\uRmaxmin^23\sqrt3)$
489: is sufficient for
490: $\lambda_e\lambda_c+\rho(R_{\max}(\lambda_c))\ge D$. Having
491: calculated $\lambda_c=\lambda_c(\lambda_s)$ we express the cost of the
492: network $C=C(\lambda_c/\lambda_s)$ as the function the proportion
493: between the intensity of cluster-heads and the sensors. Finally, we
494: look for its maximal value.
495: %In the next section show some numerical examples of such optimization.
496:
497: