1: 

2: %\documentclass[11pt,onecolumn,draftcls,dvips]{IEEEtran}

3: \documentclass[10pt,twocolumn,final,dvips]{IEEEtran}

4: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,epsfig,color}

5: \usepackage[breaklinks=true, colorlinks=true, linkcolor=dblue, urlcolor=dblue,

6: citecolor=dblue, pdfpagemode=None, pdfstartview=FitH]{hyperref}

7: 

8: 

9: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

10: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

11: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}

12: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

13: \definecolor{gray}{cmyk}{.2,0.2,.3,.1}

14: \definecolor{dred}{cmyk}{0,0.9,0.4,0.3}

15: \definecolor{dblue}{rgb}{0,0,0.5}

16: \definecolor{dgreen}{rgb}{0,0.3,0}

17: \definecolor{dgray}{rgb}{0.3,0.3,0}

18: 

19: 

20: \title{A Scalable Protocol for Cooperative Time Synchronization

21: Using Spatial Averaging

22:   \thanks{The authors are with the School of Electrical and Computer

23:   Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.  URL:

24:   {{\tt http://cn.ece.cornell.edu/}}.

25:   Work supported by the National

26:   Science Foundation, under awards CCR-0238271 (CAREER), CCR-0330059,

27:   and ANR-0325556.}}

28: \author{An-swol Hu \hspace{2cm} Sergio D.\ Servetto}

29: 

30: 

31: \begin{document}

32: \maketitle

33: 

34: \begin{picture}(0,0)

35: \put(0,55){\tt\small Submitted to the IEEE/ACM Transactions on

36:   Networking, October 2006.}

37: \end{picture} 

38: \vspace{-4mm}

39: 

40: \begin{abstract}

41: Time synchronization is an important aspect of sensor

42: network operation. However, it is well known that synchronization

43: error accumulates over multiple hops. This presents a challenge for

44: large-scale, multi-hop sensor networks with a large number of nodes

45: distributed over wide areas. In this work, we present a protocol

46: that uses spatial averaging to reduce error accumulation in

47: large-scale networks. We provide an analysis to quantify the

48: synchronization improvement achieved using spatial averaging and

49: find that in a basic cooperative network, the skew and offset

50: variance decrease approximately as $1/\bar{N}$ where $\bar{N}$ is

51: the number of cooperating nodes.  For general networks, simulation

52: results and a comparison to basic cooperative network results are

53: used to illustrate the improvement in synchronization performance.

54: 

55: \end{abstract}

56: 

57: \section{Introduction}

58: 

59: \subsection{Synchronization and the Scalability

60: Problem} \label{sec:scalability_problem}

61: 

62: Many synchronization techniques have been proposed for synchronizing

63: sensor networks~\cite{ElsonGE:02,SichitiuV:03,

64: GaneriwalKW:03,GreunenR:03,MarotiKSL:04}. These techniques all rely

65: on nodes exchanging packets with timing information.  Using the

66: exchanged timing information, each node can then estimate clock

67: offset and maybe clock skew. However, all of these traditional

68: synchronization techniques suffer from an inherent scalability

69: problem---synchronization error accumulates over multiple hops.  At

70: each hop, nodes will estimate synchronization parameters, but the

71: estimates will have errors.  Therefore, when these erroneous

72: parameters are used to communicate timing information to the next

73: hop, errors will further increase.

74: 

75: This accumulation of error over multiple hops poses a problem as

76: sensor networks are deployed over larger and larger areas. The

77: number of hops required to communicate across the network increases

78: and, thus, the synchronization error across the network increases as

79: well. One possible way to avoid the scalability problem is to use a

80: few nodes with powerful radios to limit the number of hops required

81: to communicate timing information across the network.  However, this

82: technique does not address the fundamental scalability problem of

83: errors accumulating over multiple hops.

84: 

85: In this work, we consider the use of high density networks to

86: mitigate the scalability problem.  Recent

87: developments~\cite{KellyEM:03}, \cite{WarnekLLP:01}, \cite{LiLBH:02}

88: suggest that future networks may have extremely large numbers of

89: nodes deployed over wide areas. The question we consider is whether

90: or not the density of future networks can be used to address

91: scalability issues that plague existing techniques.

92: 

93: \subsection{Motivation for Cooperation}

94: 

95: In order to reduce the scalability problem, we need to find ways to

96: reduce the synchronization error at each hop.  There are two primary

97: ways to accomplish this.  The first is to collect more timing

98: information. With more timing data, nodes can generally make a

99: better estimate of clock skew and clock offset.  For example, RBS

100: and FTSP both let nodes collect many timing data points before

101: estimating clock skew and clock offset. A timing data point provides

102: a node with the time at a reference clock at a specific time in its

103: local time scale. With more data points, synchronization error will

104: decrease. This idea is essentially doing a \emph{time} average to

105: estimate clock skew and clock offset. However, this is not

106: necessarily practical since it would significantly increase the time

107: to synchronize and the amount of network traffic.

108: 

109: The second primary approach is to improve the quality of the timing

110: data point.  For example, TPSN and FTSP use MAC layer time stamping

111: techniques that are more accurate. However, we believe that there is

112: a fundamentally new technique for improving data point quality that

113: has not been considered before.  This new idea is to use spatial

114: averaging to improve data point quality.  In a high density network,

115: we have a large number of surrounding nodes. Instead of only doing a

116: time average to estimate the clock skew and clock offset, perhaps we

117: can also do a \emph{spatial} average to improve these estimates.

118: 

119: \subsection{Approach to Cooperation} \label{sec:approach}

120: 

121: We assume the network is setup such that one node, called node $1$,

122: has the reference clock that all other nodes want to synchronize to.

123: Node $1$ will communicate timing information to the nodes in its

124: broadcast domain, the $R_{2}$ nodes.  The $R_{2}$ nodes will then

125: communicate timing information to the nodes that are another hop

126: out, the $R_{3}$ nodes. This process continues until all nodes are

127: synchronized (Fig.~\ref{fig:nodeSets}).

128: 

129: \begin{figure}[!ht]

130: \centerline{\psfig{file=setPropagation.eps,width=5.5cm}}

131: \caption{\small For increasing $i$, the $R_{i}$ nodes are

132: progressively farther and farther away from reference node $1$, the

133: $R_{0}$ node.  Each node in the set $R_{i}$ receives its timing

134: information from a group of nodes in $R_{i-1}$.}

135: \label{fig:nodeSets}

136: \end{figure}

137: 

138: Each node in $R_{i}$, $i\geq 1$, will use information from the

139: $R_{i-1}$ nodes to estimate its clock skew and clock offset.  With

140: these parameters, the node will be able to send a sequence of $m$

141: pulses that are approximately $d$ seconds apart in the reference

142: time scale, where $d$ and $m$ are pre-specified by the protocol. All

143: nodes in the $R_{i}$ set will be attempting to send pulses at the

144: same time. However, due to synchronization error, the pulses will

145: only be occurring at approximately the same time. Thus, any node in

146: the $R_{i+1}$ set of nodes will observe $m$ clusters of pulses

147: instead of just $m$ individual pulses.

148: 

149: Since each pulse in a cluster represents one $R_{i}$ node's attempt

150: to transmit at some appropriate time in the reference time scale,

151: taking the sample mean of the pulse arrival times in each cluster

152: allows us to average out some of the error made by any one node in

153: $R_{i}$.  The process of having each node in $R_{i+1}$ use the

154: sample mean of each cluster as a timing data point is the key to

155: spatial averaging.  Since each $R_{i+1}$ node can use timing

156: information from many surrounding neighbors in $R_{i}$, we call our

157: technique \emph{cooperative time synchronization}.  Using these

158: timing data points, and some additional information from the $R_{i}$

159: set, every node in $R_{i+1}$ can estimate its clock skew and offset.

160: Thus, this process can then repeat to synchronize the $R_{i+2}$

161: nodes.

162: 

163: The difficulty in studying this problem is that, generally, the $m$

164: clusters observed by any particular node in $R_{i+1}$ will be

165: different from the $m$ clusters observed by any other node in

166: $R_{i+1}$.  This is because the clusters observed by a node will

167: depend on where this node is located relative to the $R_{i}$ set of

168: nodes.  Therefore, to study how cooperation can improve

169: synchronization, we approach the problem in two steps.

170: 

171: First, we set up a basic cooperative network (Type I network) that

172: is a base case for cooperation.  The key assumption in a Type I

173: network is that all nodes in $R_{i+1}$ are in the broadcast domain

174: of all nodes in $R_{i}$.  Note that this is a generalization of the

175: non-cooperative situation where timing information is passed from

176: one node to the next. Fig.~\ref{fig:typeIcomparison} compares the

177: basic cooperative network to a non-cooperative network. With the

178: Type I network we analytically quantify how the variance of the skew

179: and offset estimates grow with increasing hop number.

180: 

181: \begin{figure}[!ht]

182: \centerline{\psfig{file=typeIcomparison.eps,width=7.5cm}}

183: \caption{\small Top: A basic cooperative network (Type I network)

184: where timing information is communicated from the $R_{i}$ set of

185: nodes to the $R_{i+1}$ set. This Type I deployment assumes many

186: nodes in each $R_{i}$ set. Bottom: Assuming each $R_{i}$ set has

187: only one node, we have the non-cooperative situation. }

188: \label{fig:typeIcomparison}

189: \end{figure}

190: 

191: Second, we use the theoretical results from the basic cooperative

192: network to understand the behavior of a general Type II network

193: where nodes are uniformly distributed over a circular area.

194: Simulation results are used to illustrate that increasing network

195: density improves synchronization performance.

196: 

197: \subsection{Other Related Work} \label{sec:relatedwork}

198: 

199: The traditional synchronization techniques describe

200: in~\cite{ElsonGE:02,SichitiuV:03,

201: GaneriwalKW:03,GreunenR:03,MarotiKSL:04} all operate fundamentally

202: on the idea of communicating timing information from one set of

203: nodes to the next.  One other approach to synchronization that has

204: recently received much attention is to apply mathematical models of

205: natural phenomena to engineered networks.  A model for the emergence

206: of synchrony in pulse-coupled oscillators was developed

207: in~\cite{MirolloS:90} for a fully-connected group of identical

208: oscillators. In~\cite{LucarelliW:04}, this convergence to synchrony

209: result was extended to networks that were not fully connected.

210: 

211: The convergence result is clearly desirable for synchronization in

212: networks and in~\cite{HongS:04} theoretical and simulation results

213: suggested that such a technique could be adapted to communication

214: and sensor networks.  Experimental validation for the ideas

215: of~\cite{MirolloS:90} was obtained in~\cite{Werner-AllenTPWN:05}

216: where the authors implemented the Reachback Firefly Algorithm (RFA)

217: on TinyOS-based motes.

218: 

219: The problem with these emergent synchronization results is that the

220: fundamental theory assumes all nodes have nearly the same firing

221: period. Results from~\cite{HongS:04} and~\cite{Werner-AllenTPWN:05}

222: show that the convergence results may hold when nodes have

223: approximately the same firing period, but the authors

224: of~\cite{Werner-AllenTPWN:05} explain that clock skew will degrade

225: synchronization performance. Since we are not aware of any results

226: that provide an extension to deal with networks of nodes with

227: arbitrary firing periods, our work focuses on synchronization

228: algorithms that explicitly estimate clock skew.

229: 

230: \subsection{Contributions and Paper Organization}

231: 

232: In this paper, we propose a protocol for time synchronization that

233: uses spatial averaging to improve synchronization performance. In

234: this work we make the following analysis:

235: \begin{enumerate}

236: \item Mathematically quantify the synchronization error for the Type

237: I basic cooperative network.

238: \item Through simulations, show that increasing node density can

239: decrease synchronization error in general networks.

240: \end{enumerate}

241: 

242: The results show that if each node can hear a large number of

243: neighboring nodes, then nodes can cooperatively generate signals

244: that are less noisy and allow for better synchronization performance

245: over multiple hops.  The fact that more cooperating nodes yields

246: better performance means that there exists a new trade-off between

247: network density and synchronization performance where more nodes

248: provide better synchronization.  Even though it is possible to

249: achieve better synchronization performance by introducing nodes with

250: powerful radios to synchronize a large-scale network, cooperative

251: time synchronization is an effective alternative technique to

252: reducing synchronization error across the network without requiring

253: special nodes.

254: 

255: The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.  In

256: Section~\ref{sec:systemModel} we set up the general network

257: assumptions and present the synchronization protocol in

258: Section~\ref{sec:synchronizationProtocol}. The analysis and

259: simulations of the protocol for a basic cooperative network are

260: presented in Section~\ref{sec:typeI} while a study of cooperation in

261: general networks is carried out in Section~\ref{sec:typeII}. We make

262: concluding remarks in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.

263: 

264: \section{System Model} \label{sec:systemModel}

265: 

266: \subsection{Clock Model}

267: 

268: The behavior of each node $i$ is governed by a clock $c_{i}$ that

269: counts up from $0$. The introduction of $c_{i}$ is important since

270: it provides a consistent timescale for node $i$. This is the

271: node's local time scale and in synchronization the node tries to

272: estimate how its local clock is related to the reference clock.

273: 

274: We assume that node $1$ contains the reference clock and every

275: node in the network is to be synchronized to this clock.  The

276: clock of node $1$, $c_{1}$, will be defined as $c_{1}(t)=t$ where

277: $t \in [0,\infty)$. We now define the clock of any other arbitrary

278: node $i$, $c_{i}$, as

279: \begin{equation} \label{eq:clock}

280: c_{i}(t)=\alpha_{i}(t-\bar{\Delta}_{i})+\Psi_{i}(t),

281: \end{equation}

282: where

283: \begin{itemize}

284: \item $\bar{\Delta}_{i}$ is an unknown offset between the start

285:   times of $c_{i}$ and $c_{1}$.

286: \item $\alpha_{i}>0$ is an unknown constant for each $i$. \item

287: $\Psi_{i}(t)$ is a stochastic process modelling random timing

288: jitter. $\Psi_{i}(t)$ is a zero mean Gaussian process with

289: independent and identically distributed Gaussian samples with mean

290: zero and variance $\sigma^2$, i.e. $\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)$. We

291: assume $\sigma^{2}<\infty$ and note that $\sigma^{2}$ is defined

292: in terms of the clock of node $i$.

293: \end{itemize}

294: Note that this linear relationship is valid for short periods of

295: time since we do not explicitly model clock drift.

296: 

297: \subsection{Transmission Model}

298: 

299: Each node $i$ in the network can transmit short pulses $p(t)$ for

300: time synchronization.  These are short duration pulses, i.e. ultra

301: wideband pulses, and for our purposes we consider them to be delta

302: functions $\delta(t)$.  The particular choice of $p(t)$ is not

303: important.  For the purposes of studying cooperative time

304: synchronization, we assume a node receiving the pulse can uniquely

305: determine a pulse arrival time, pulses sent from different nodes do

306: not overlap, and a node seeing multiple pulses can identify the

307: different pulse arrival times. Note that only minor modifications of

308: the protocol are needed to accommodate other types of pulse

309: shapes~\cite{HuS:05}.

310: 

311: We assume that each node has a transmission range of $R$.  This

312: means that a node $j$ must be within a distance $R$ from a

313: transmitting node $i$ in order to hear pulses from node $i$. Note

314: that the assumption of a circular transmission region is made only

315: to simplify the illustration of spatial averaging.  The

316: synchronization protocol proposed in

317: Section~\ref{sec:synchronizationProtocol} does not require this

318: assumption and most of the results in this work will hold under more

319: realistic conditions~\cite{GanesanKWCEW:02,ZhaoG:03}. Since we are

320: dealing with sensor nodes who have short transmission distances, we

321: further assume that propagation delay is negligible. We make this

322: assumption since from~\cite{MarotiKSL:04} we know that propagation

323: delay is less than $1\mu s$ for distances up to $300$ meters. Some

324: results on cooperation and propagation delay are available

325: in~\cite{HuS:05a}.

326: 

327: \section{Synchronization Protocol}

328: \label{sec:synchronizationProtocol}

329: 

330: To start synchronization, the reference node, node $1$, will send a

331: sequence of $m$ pulses that are $d$ seconds apart.  Since we assume

332: the nodes have impulse radio transmitters, each pulse is extremely

333: narrow in time. The values of $d$ and $m$ are parameters of the

334: protocol that are established before deploying the network so the

335: values are known by all nodes in the network. Therefore, in the time

336: scale of node $1$ the pulses are transmitted at times $\tau_{0},

337: \tau_{0}+d,\ldots,\tau_{0}+d(m-1)$, where $\tau_{0}$ is the time at

338: which the synchronization process started. Let node $1$ be the only

339: element of the $R_{0}$ nodes.

340: 

341: \begin{figure}[!ht]

342: \centerline{\psfig{file=pulseClustersWithd.eps,width=7.5cm}}

343: \caption{\small A node $2i$ in $R_{2}$ has clock $c_{2i}$. This node

344: will see clusters of pulse arrivals that are transmitted from a

345: group of nodes in the set $R_{1}$. These clusters arrive at node

346: $2i$ around times

347: $\tau_{0}+dm,\tau_{0}+d(m+1),\ldots,\tau_{0}+d(2m-1)$ in the time

348: scale of node $1$, $c_{1}$.} \label{fig:PulseClusters}

349: \end{figure}

350: 

351: The nodes that are in the broadcast domain of node $1$ will hear

352: this sequence of $m$ pulses.  We call these nodes the $R_{1}$ nodes

353: and each node $i\in R_{1}$, $i\geq 1$, will be denoted by node $1i$.

354: The vector of pulse arrival times observed by node $1i$ will be

355: denoted $\mathbf{Y}_{1i}$. Each node $1i$ will be able to estimate

356: its clock skew since it knows that node $1$ transmitted these pulses

357: $d$ seconds apart. Each node $1i$ will also predict, in its own time

358: scale, when times

359: $\tau_{0}+dm,\tau_{0}+d(m+1),\ldots,\tau_{0}+d(2m-1)$ will occur in

360: the time scale of node $1$ and transmit $m$ pulses, one at each

361: predicted time. This means that each node $1i$ will transmit a pulse

362: approximately at times $\tau_{0}+dm, \tau_{0}+d(m+1),\ldots,

363: \tau_{0}+d(2m-1)$ in the time scale of node $1$. When the $R_{1}$

364: nodes each transmit their sequence of $m$ pulses, the nodes that can

365: hear a subset of the $R_{1}$ nodes, the $R_{2}$ nodes, will observe

366: clusters of pulses around the times $\tau_{0}+dm,

367: \tau_{0}+d(m+1),\ldots, \tau_{0}+d(2m-1)$ since each node $2i$ can

368: hear many $R_{1}$ nodes (Fig.~\ref{fig:PulseClusters}). In fact, we

369: make sure each node $2i$ can hear a cluster by requiring the node to

370: observe at least $\bar{N}$ pulses in each cluster.  If a node $2i$

371: sees less than $\bar{N}$ pulses in a cluster, then it will not make

372: observations.  Each node $2i$, a node $i\in R_{2}$, will note the

373: arrival time of each pulse in the $k$th cluster, $k=1,\ldots,m$, and

374: take the sample mean of these times to be its $k$th observation.

375: Node $2i$'s vector of observations will be denoted as

376: $\mathbf{Y}_{2i}$. Using these $m$ observations, any node $2i$ will

377: be able to estimate its clock skew since it knows that these

378: observations should be occurring $d$ seconds apart.  As well, it

379: will be able to predict in its local time scale when times

380: $\tau_{0}+d(2m), \tau_{0}+d(2m+1),\ldots,\tau_{0}+d(3m-1)$ will

381: occur in the time scale of the reference time.  Node $2i$ will then

382: transmit a pulse at each of those predicted times.  This processes

383: will repeat until all nodes in the network have an estimate of their

384: clock skew.  Notice that the $R_{1}$ nodes are not required to

385: observe $\bar{N}$ pulses in each cluster since they will always only

386: receive a sequence of $m$ pulses from node $1$.  Node $1$ can simply

387: broadcast a special packet to its surrounding nodes to identify the

388: $R_{1}$ nodes. An illustration of the process can be found in

389: Fig.~\ref{fig:nodeSets} and note that nodes will remain silent for

390: the remainder of the synchronization process after transmitting

391: their $m$ pulses. The cooperation occurs when a node $ki$ in

392: $R_{k}$, $k>1$, can take a sample mean of a cluster of pulse

393: arrivals.

394: 

395: To obtain the clock offset, the $R_{k}$ nodes will broadcast a

396: packet of information to the $R_{k+1}$ nodes, $k\geq 0$.  This

397: packet will contain the value of $\tau_{0}$ and a number $q$

398: denoting the number of hops out from node $1$.  For example, node

399: $1$ will transmit the value of $\tau_{0}$ and $q=0$ to the $R_{1}$

400: nodes.  The $R_{1}$ nodes will then send $\tau_{0}$ and $q=1$ to the

401: $R_{2}$ nodes.  In general, the $R_{k}$ nodes will send $\tau_{0}$

402: and $q=k$ to the $R_{k+1}$ nodes.  Any node $ki$ will then know that

403: its first observation approximately occurred at time $\tau_{0}+dmq$

404: in the time scale of the reference time, where the value of $q$ is

405: the one received from set $R_{k-1}$.

406: 

407: We now describe how any node $ki$ can estimate its clock skew,

408: clock offset, and its $m$ pulse transmission times. From

409: (\ref{eq:clock}), we know that there is a linear relationship

410: between the reference clock $c_{1}$ and the clock of node $ki$,

411: $c_{ki}$.  Node $ki$ will have a set of $m$ observations denoted

412: by the $m\times 1$ vector $\mathbf{Y}_{ki}$, where the elements of

413: the vector are ordered from the earliest observation time to the

414: latest observation time. Node $ki$ will estimate its clock skew as

415: \begin{equation} \label{eq:alphahat}

416: \hat{\alpha}_{ki} =

417: \bar{\mathbf{C}}(\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{Y}_{ki}

418: \end{equation}

419: and clock offset as

420: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Deltahat}

421: \hat{\Delta}_{ki} =

422: \tilde{\mathbf{C}}(\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{Y}_{ki}-(\tau_{0}+dm(k-1)),

423: \end{equation}

424: where $\bar{\mathbf{C}}=[0 \quad 1]$, $\tilde{\mathbf{C}}=[1 \quad

425: 0]$ and

426: \begin{equation}  \label{eq:H}

427: {\mathbf H} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccccc}

428: 1 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1\\

429: 0 & d & 2d & \ldots & (m-1)d

430: \end{array} \right]^T

431: \end{equation}

432: Note that in the calculation of the clock offset

433: $\hat{\Delta}_{ki}$, the term $\tau_{0}+dm(k-1)$ is the time in

434: the time scale of $c_{1}$ that node $ki$ should receive its first

435: pulse.  Node $ki$ has used the $\tau_{0}$ and $q=k-1$ parameters

436: sent to it from the $R_{k-1}$ nodes.  Node $ki$ will also estimate

437: its own $m$ pulse transmission times using

438: \begin{equation} \label{eq:pulsetimeestimate}

439: X_{ki}(l) =

440: \mathbf{C}_{l}(\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{Y}_{ki},

441: \end{equation}

442: where $\mathbf{C}_{l} = [1 \quad d(m+l)]$, for $l=0,1,\ldots,m-1$.

443: $X_{ki}(l)$ is the transmission time of node $ki$'s $(l+1)$th pulse.

444: A pseudo-code description is given in Table~\ref{tab:protocol}. Note

445: that the protocol described above is a completely new approach to

446: the asymptotic spatial averaging ideas we studied in~\cite{HuS:03b}.

447: 

448: \begin{table}[!h]

449: \caption{\rm The synchronization protocol for each node $ki$, $k >

450: 1$.}

451: \begin{center}

452: \fbox{\tt\begin{minipage}{70truemm}\small

453: \begin{tabbing}

454: \hspace{2mm} \= {\normalsize Cooperative Time Sync}

455:   \hspace{1cm} \\ \\

456:   \> wa\=it for pulse arrivals, at least $\bar{N}$ \\

457:   \> \>per cluster; \\

458:   \> while\mbox{ }(number of arrival clusters < $m$) \{ \\

459:   \> \> record arrival time of all pulses; \\

460:   \> \> listen for packet with $\tau_{0}$ and $q$ values; \\

461:   \> \}; \\

462:   \> for each (pulse arrival cluster $j$) \{\\

463:   \> \> $\mathbf{Y}_{ki}[j]=$ sample mean of cluster; \\

464:   \> \}; \\

465:   \> skew $\hat{\alpha}_{ki} =

466: \bar{\mathbf{C}}(\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{Y}_{ki}$;

467: \\

468: \> offset $\hat{\Delta}_{ki} =

469: \tilde{\mathbf{C}}(\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{Y}_{ki}-(\tau_{0}+dmq)$

470: \\

471: \> for (l from $0$ to $m-1$) \{ \\

472: \> \> transmission time $X_{ki}(l) =

473: \mathbf{C}_{l}(\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{Y}_{ki}$;

474: \\

475: \> \> transmit pulse at $X_{ki}(l)$; \\

476: \> \}; \\

477: \> while (transmitting pulses) \{ \\

478: \> \> send a packet with values $\tau_{0}$ and $q+1$; \\

479: \> \}; \\

480: \end{tabbing}

481: \end{minipage}}

482: \label{tab:protocol}

483: \end{center}

484: \end{table}

485: 

486: \section{Type I: Basic Cooperative Networks} \label{sec:typeI}

487: 

488: \subsection{Network Setup}

489: 

490: The most basic and fundamental deployment of nodes that effectively

491: employs cooperative time synchronization is the case where

492: \emph{all} $\bar{N}$ nodes at any given hop contribute to the

493: signals observed at the next hop.  This Type I deployment is

494: illustrated in the top of Fig.~\ref{fig:typeIcomparison} where each

495: set of nodes $R_{i}$, $i\geq 1$, have $\bar{N}$ nodes.  We see that

496: every node in $R_{i}$ is in the broadcast domain of every node in

497: $R_{i-1}$.

498: 

499: \subsection{Analysis} \label{sec:typeIanalysis}

500: 

501: Due to the scalability problem, we would expect synchronization

502: error to grow as timing information from node $1$ (the $R_{0}$ node)

503: is communicated to a node in the $R_{k}$ set of nodes, $k>0$.

504: Therefore, it is of particular interest to quantify how the variance

505: of the skew and offset estimates change as a function of the hop

506: number $k$.  Looking at the structure of the basic cooperative

507: network in Fig.~\ref{fig:typeIcomparison}, we notice that the skew

508: and offset estimates at a node $ki$ must be dependent only on the

509: estimates made by the nodes in $R_{k-1}$ since all the information

510: at $R_{k}$ comes from the $R_{k-1}$ set of nodes.  Therefore, to

511: understand the synchronization error growth over multiple hops, we

512: need the distribution of the estimates made by the nodes in $R_{k}$

513: as a function of the distribution of the estimates made by the nodes

514: in $R_{k-1}$.  Theorem~\ref{theorem:main}, below, provides us with

515: this characterization.

516: 

517: In the statement of the theorem we use $e_{l}$ to be the column

518: vector of all zeros except for a one in the $l$th position and

519: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:barH}

520: \bar{{\mathbf H}} = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} {\mathbf H} & 0 &

521: \ldots & 0 \\

522: 0 & {\mathbf H} & \ldots & 0 \\

523: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\

524: 0 & 0 & \ldots & {\mathbf H}

525: \end{array} \right],

526: \end{eqnarray}

527: where ${\mathbf H}$ is from (\ref{eq:H}).  Also, $\alpha_{ki}$ and

528: $\bar{\Delta}_{ki}$ are the clock model parameters from

529: (\ref{eq:clock}) for node $ki$.

530: 

531: \begin{theorem} \label{theorem:main}

532: Assume a Type I basic cooperative network.

533: 

534: (1) Given the distribution of the $2\bar{N}\times 1$ vector of

535: estimates made by the $R_{k-1}$ nodes,

536: \begin{equation*}

537: \hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k-1} \sim {\mathcal

538: N}(\bar{\mu}_{k-1}, \bar{\Sigma}_{k-1}),

539: \end{equation*}

540: the distribution of the $2\bar{N}\times 1$ vector of estimates made

541: by the $R_{k}$ nodes,

542: \begin{equation*}

543: \hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k} \sim {\mathcal N}(\bar{\mu}_{k},

544: \bar{\Sigma}_{k}),

545: \end{equation*}

546: is found as follows: $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}$ has mean

547: vector

548: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:muk}

549: \bar{\mu}_{k} &=& E(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}) \nonumber \\

550: &=& E(\mathbf{A}_{k}\hat{\bar{\mathbf{\theta}}}_{k-1} +

551: \mathbf{B}_{k}) \nonumber \\

552: &=& \mathbf{A}_{k}\bar{\mu}_{k-1} +

553: \mathbf{B}_{k} \nonumber \\

554: &=& \left[ \begin{array}{c}

555: \alpha_{k1}(\tau_{0}+(k-1)md-\bar{\Delta}_{k1}) \\

556: \alpha_{k1} \\

557: \vdots \\

558: \alpha_{k\bar{N}}(\tau_{0}+(k-1)md-\bar{\Delta}_{k\bar{N}}) \\

559: \alpha_{k\bar{N}} \\

560: \end{array} \right]

561: \end{eqnarray}

562: and covariance matrix

563: \begin{equation} \label{eq:sigmak}

564: \bar{\Sigma}_{k} = \textrm{Cov}(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}) =

565: \Sigma_{m_{k}}+\mathbf{A}_{k}\bar{\Sigma}_{k-1}\mathbf{A}_{k}^{T}

566: \end{equation}

567: for

568: \begin{eqnarray*}

569: \Sigma_{m_{k}} & = &

570: (\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{\mathbf{H}})^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\Sigma_{\bar{{\mathbf

571: W}}_{k}}((\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{\mathbf{H}})^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T})^{T}

572: \end{eqnarray*}

573: \begin{eqnarray*}

574: \Sigma_{\bar{{\mathbf W}}_{k}} = {\mathbf

575: Q}_{k}\Sigma_{\tilde{\Psi}_{k-1}}{\mathbf Q}_{k}^{T} + \sigma^2

576: {\mathbf I}_{\bar{N}m}

577: \end{eqnarray*}

578: \begin{displaymath}

579: {\mathbf Q}_{k} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} \alpha_{k1}{\mathbf I}_{m} \\

580: \vdots \\

581: \alpha_{k\bar{N}}{\mathbf I}_{m}

582: \end{array} \right]

583: \end{displaymath}

584: \begin{displaymath}

585: \Sigma_{\tilde{\Psi}_{k-1}} =

586: \frac{\sigma^{2}}{\bar{N}^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\frac{1}{\alpha_{(k-1)i}^{2}}{\mathbf

587: I}_{m}

588: \end{displaymath}

589: where

590: \begin{eqnarray*}

591: \mathbf{A}_{k} = \mathbf{D}_{k}\left[

592: \begin{array}{ccccc} \frac{1}{\alpha_{(k-1)1}} &

593: \frac{dm}{\alpha_{(k-1)1}} & \ldots & 0

594: & 0 \\

595: 0 & \frac{1}{\alpha_{(k-1)1}} & \ldots & 0 & 0 \\

596: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\

597: 0 & 0 & \ldots & \frac{1}{\alpha_{(k-1)\bar{N}}} &

598: \frac{dm}{\alpha_{(k-1)\bar{N}}} \\

599: 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & \frac{1}{\alpha_{(k-1)\bar{N}}}

600: \end{array}\right]

601: \end{eqnarray*}

602: \begin{eqnarray*}

603: \mathbf{D}_{k} = \frac{1}{\bar{N}}\left[

604: \begin{array}{ccccc} \alpha_{k1} & 0  & \ldots &

605: \alpha_{k1}

606: & 0 \\

607: 0 & \alpha_{k1} & \ldots & 0 & \alpha_{k1} \\

608: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\

609: \alpha_{k\bar{N}} & 0 & \ldots & \alpha_{k\bar{N}}

610: & 0 \\

611: 0 & \alpha_{k\bar{N}} & \ldots & 0 & \alpha_{k\bar{N}}

612: \end{array}\right]

613: \end{eqnarray*}

614: \begin{eqnarray*}

615: \mathbf{B}_{k} = \mathbf{D}_{k}\left[ \begin{array}{c}

616: \bar{\Delta}_{(k-1)1} \\ 0 \\ \vdots \\

617: \bar{\Delta}_{(k-1)\bar{N}} \\ 0

618: \end{array}\right] - \left[ \begin{array}{c}

619: \alpha_{k1}\bar{\Delta}_{k1} \\ 0 \\ \vdots \\

620: \alpha_{k\bar{N}}\bar{\Delta}_{k\bar{N}} \\ 0

621: \end{array}\right].

622: \end{eqnarray*}

623: The initial conditions are

624: \begin{eqnarray*}

625: \bar{\mu}_{1} &=& \left[ \begin{array}{c}

626: \alpha_{11}(\tau_{0}-\bar{\Delta}_{11}) \\

627: \alpha_{11} \\

628: \vdots \\

629: \alpha_{1\bar{N}}(\tau_{0}-\bar{\Delta}_{1\bar{N}}) \\

630: \alpha_{1\bar{N}} \\

631: \end{array} \right]

632: \end{eqnarray*}

633: and

634: %\begin{displaymath}

635: $\bar{\Sigma}_{1} = \sigma^2(\bar{{\mathbf H}}^{T}\bar{{\mathbf

636: H}})^{-1}$.

637: %\end{displaymath}

638: 

639: (2) The skew estimate and offset estimate for node $ki$ can be found

640: as

641: \begin{equation} \label{eq:alphahatki}

642: \hat{\alpha}_{ki} = e_{2(i-1)+2}^{T}\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}

643: \end{equation}

644: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Deltahatki}

645: \hat{\Delta}_{ki} = e_{2(i-1)+1}^{T}\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}

646: - (\tau_{0}+dm(k-1))

647: \end{equation}

648: for $i=1,2,\ldots,\bar{N}$ and $k\geq 1$. \qquad $\bigtriangleup$

649: \end{theorem}

650: 

651: The proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:main} is found in the appendix.

652: Since the distribution of $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}$ is

653: available, the distribution of $\hat{\alpha}_{ki}$ and

654: $\hat{\Delta}_{ki}$ can be found.  In fact, the variance of

655: $\hat{\alpha}_{ki}$ can be found in element ($2(i-1)+2$, $2(i-1)+2$)

656: of $\bar{\Sigma}_{k}$ in (\ref{eq:sigmak}) and the variance of

657: $\hat{\Delta}_{ki}$ can be found in element ($2(i-1)+1$,

658: $2(i-1)+1$).  The mean of $\hat{\alpha}_{ki}$ is the $(2(i-1)+2)$th

659: element of $\bar{\mu}_{k}$ in (\ref{eq:muk}) and the mean of

660: $\hat{\Delta}_{ki}$ can be found from the $(2(i-1)+1)$th element

661: shifted by $\tau_{0}+dm(k-1)$.

662: 

663: From the statement of Theorem~\ref{theorem:main}, we see that the

664: distribution of the estimates made by the $R_{k}$ nodes,

665: $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}$, is completely determined from

666: the distribution of $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k-1}$.  This

667: recursive nature comes from the fact that the parameters estimated

668: by the $R_{k}$ nodes is only dependent on the estimates made by the

669: $R_{k-1}$ nodes.  The relationship between $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

670: \theta}}}_{k-1}$ and $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}$ can be

671: intuitively understood in two steps. First, $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

672: \theta}}}_{k-1}$ is the vector of synchronization parameters

673: estimated by the nodes in $R_{k-1}$. Therefore, these estimates will

674: establish the synchronization parameters for the $R_{k}$ nodes since

675: the $R_{k-1}$ nodes communicate timing information to the $R_{k}$

676: nodes.  The synchronization parameters for $R_{k}$ are found as

677: \begin{displaymath}

678: \bar{\mathbf{\theta}}_{k} =

679: \mathbf{A}_{k}\hat{\bar{\mathbf{\theta}}}_{k-1} + \mathbf{B}_{k}.

680: \end{displaymath}

681: Second, the $R_{k}$ nodes will use the timing information from the

682: $R_{k-1}$ nodes to make an unbiased estimate of the parameters

683: $\bar{\mathbf{\theta}}_{k}$, which gives us $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

684: \theta}}}_{k}$.

685: 

686: Since any node $ki$'s skew and offset estimates are found as affine

687: transforms of $\hat{\bar{\theta}}_{k}$ in (\ref{eq:alphahatki}) and

688: (\ref{eq:Deltahatki}), respectively, we see that any estimation

689: errors made by the $R_{k-1}$ nodes will be propagated to the $R_{k}$

690: nodes' estimates of clock skew and clock offset.  However, the

691: intuitive understanding of cooperative time synchronization comes

692: from realizing that the matrix $\mathbf{A}_{k}$ takes an ``average''

693: over $\hat{\bar{\mathbf{\theta}}}_{k-1}$ thus mitigating the errors

694: made by any particular node $(k-1)i$.  As a result, the

695: synchronization parameters communicated to the $R_{k}$ nodes will be

696: less noisy and, therefore, the skew and offset estimates made by a

697: node $ki$ will have less error. We would, thus, expect the variance

698: of the estimates to decrease with increasing $\bar{N}$. Notice that

699: our Type I network analysis does not explicitly utilize the circular

700: transmission region with radius $R$.

701: 

702: \subsection{Simulation Results} \label{sec:typeIsimulation}

703: 

704: In Fig.~\ref{fig:typeI_alphaIncluded} we illustrate the MATLAB

705: simulation results for two $20$ hop networks, one with $\bar{N}=2$

706: and the other with $\bar{N}=4$. The following parameters were used:

707: \begin{eqnarray*}

708: R = 1 \qquad d = 5 \qquad m = 4 \qquad \sigma = 0.01

709: \end{eqnarray*}

710: For each network, a set of $N=20\bar{N}+1$ nodes were first placed

711: in a Type I network deployment.  Each node's skew parameter was then

712: generated using $\alpha_{i} = |X_i|$ for $X_i\sim{\mathcal

713: N}(1,0.005)$, independently for each node $i$.  Node $1$ was assumed

714: to have $\alpha_1=1$.  The cooperative time synchronization protocol

715: was then run $5000$ times using the deployed network.  At each hop,

716: the $5000$ skew and offset estimates of one chosen node were used to

717: generate the simulated skew and offset estimate variance curves

718: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:typeI_alphaIncluded}.  The theoretical

719: variance value of the chosen node at each hop was computed using the

720: recursive expression found in (\ref{eq:sigmak}).

721: 

722: \begin{figure}[!ht]

723: \centerline{\psfig{file=typeIskew_alpha.eps,width=8.25cm}}

724: \centerline{\psfig{file=typeIoffset_alpha.eps,width=8.25cm}}

725: \caption{\small $\textrm{Var}(\hat{\alpha}_{k1})$ is plotted in the

726: top figure and $\textrm{Var}(\hat{\Delta}_{k1})$ is plotted in the

727: bottom figure as a function of $k$. }

728: \label{fig:typeI_alphaIncluded}

729: \end{figure}

730: % simulation1b

731: 

732: In Fig.~\ref{fig:typeI_alphaIncluded}, we first clearly see that the

733: simulated skew and offset variance values nicely match the predicted

734: theoretical variance values.  As well, the expected decrease in skew

735: and offset variance as $\bar{N}$ increases from $2$ to $4$ is

736: immediately noticeable. In fact, in both the skew variance and

737: offset variance curves, we have an approximate halving of the

738: variance values as we double $\bar{N}$ from $2$ to $4$.  Also

739: expected, is that the variance values at each hop depend on the

740: particular values of $\alpha_{i}$, $i=1,\ldots,N$. This dependence

741: on the $\alpha_{i}$ values result in the jagged skew and offset

742: variance curves seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:typeI_alphaIncluded}. The

743: $\bar{N}=2$ network had $\alpha_{i}$ values ranging from $0.9073$ to

744: $1.1342$, while the $\bar{N}=4$ network had skew values ranging from

745: $0.8339$ to $1.1669$.

746: 

747: The problem with having the variance curves depend on the actual

748: skew values is that the exact performance of cooperative time

749: synchronization is dependent on the network realization. However, we

750: find that for $\alpha_{i}$ values that are close to and centered

751: around $1$, the variance curves follow the trend established by the

752: theoretical variance curves for $\alpha_{i}=1$, all $i$. This can be

753: seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:typeI_alphaIncluded} where we have also

754: plotted the theoretical curves using $\alpha_{i}=1$ for all $i$ for

755: $\bar{N}=2$ and $\bar{N}=4$. As a result, the situation where

756: $\alpha_{i}=1$, all $i$, can be used to study the the performance

757: improvement of cooperative time synchronization without dealing

758: specifically with the skew values of individual nodes.

759: 

760: Therefore, to get a better understanding of how cooperative time

761: synchronization improves synchronization performance, let us

762: simplify the recursive expression in (\ref{eq:sigmak}) for the

763: special case where $\alpha_{i}=1$ for all $i$ and find a

764: non-recursive expression for skew and offset variance.  The first

765: thing to note is that under the assumption of $\alpha_{i}=1$ for all

766: $i$, $\mathbf{A}_{k}=\mathbf{A}$ and $\Sigma_{m_{k}} = \Sigma_{m}$

767: are no longer dependent on $k$. Therefore, writing out the recursive

768: expression for $\bar{\Sigma}_{k}$ (\ref{eq:sigmak}), we have

769: \begin{equation} \label{eq:noalphaExpression}

770: \bar{\Sigma}_{k} =

771: \sum_{i=0}^{k-2}\mathbf{A}^{i}\Sigma_{m}(\mathbf{A}^{T})^{i} +

772: \mathbf{A}^{k-1}\bar{\Sigma}_{1}(\mathbf{A}^{T})^{k-1}.

773: \end{equation}

774: Using (\ref{eq:noalphaExpression}), Corollary~\ref{corollary:main}

775: gives us the non-recursive expression for skew and offset variance.

776: 

777: \begin{corollary} \label{corollary:main}

778: For a basic cooperative network with $\alpha_{i}=1$, all $i$,

779: $\hat{\alpha}_{ki}$ and $\hat{\Delta}_{ki}$ have the following mean

780: and variance:

781: \begin{equation}

782: E(\hat{\alpha}_{ki}) = 1 \nonumber

783: \end{equation}

784: \begin{equation}

785: E(\hat{\Delta}_{ki}) = -\bar{\Delta}_{ki} \nonumber

786: \end{equation}

787: \begin{equation} \label{eq:alphahatki_alphaEq1}

788: \textrm{Var}(\hat{\alpha}_{ki}) =

789: \frac{12\sigma^2}{d^2(m-1)m(m+1)}\left(

790: 1+\frac{2(k-1)}{\bar{N}}\right)

791: \end{equation}

792: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:Deltahatki_alphaEq1}

793: \lefteqn{\textrm{Var}(\hat{\Delta}_{ki}) =

794: \frac{2\sigma^2(2m-1)}{m(m+1)} +

795: \frac{\sigma^2}{\bar{N}}\bigg[\frac{4(k-1)(2m-1)}{m(m+1)} }

796: \nonumber

797: \\

798: &&+ (k-1)^2\bigg(-\frac{12}{(m+1)}+\frac{12m}{(m-1)(m+1)}\bigg)

799: \nonumber \\

800: &&+ \frac{1}{3}(k-2)(k-1)(2k-3)\frac{12m}{(m-1)(m+1)}\bigg]

801: \end{eqnarray}

802: where $k$ is a positive integer. \qquad $\bigtriangleup$

803: \end{corollary}

804: 

805: The proof of Corollary~\ref{corollary:main} is omitted since it is a

806: direct simplification of (\ref{eq:noalphaExpression}). Note that the

807: skew and offset variance expressions are only a function of $k$ and

808: not $i$. The theoretical skew and offset variance of the $i$th node

809: at the $k$th hop (node $ki$) can be found in elements ($2(i-1)+2$,

810: $2(i-1)+2$) and ($2(i-1)+1$, $2(i-1)+1$), respectively, of

811: $\bar{\Sigma}_{k}$ in (\ref{eq:noalphaExpression}). However, the

812: skew variance values in elements ($2(i-1)+2$, $2(i-1)+2$),

813: $i=1,\ldots,\bar{N}$, are all equal and the offset variance values

814: in elements ($2(i-1)+1$, $2(i-1)+1$), $i=1,\ldots,\bar{N}$, are also

815: equal when we assume that $\alpha_{i}=1$ for all $i$.  As a result,

816: we can consider the skew and offset variance at a hop $k$ without

817: specifying a particular node.  Notice also that, besides the sign

818: change in the mean of the offset estimate, the skew and offset

819: estimates are unbiased estimates of the clock parameters of node

820: $ki$.

821: 

822: Looking at the skew and offset variance curves in

823: (\ref{eq:alphahatki_alphaEq1}) and (\ref{eq:Deltahatki_alphaEq1}),

824: respectively, we see that the variance growth decreases like

825: $1/\bar{N}$.  This $1/\bar{N}$ factor in both

826: (\ref{eq:alphahatki_alphaEq1}) and (\ref{eq:Deltahatki_alphaEq1}) is

827: expected since every node takes the sample mean of $\bar{N}$ pulses

828: to be an observation.  The variance of the observation decreases

829: like $1/\bar{N}$ because it is a sample mean and, thus, it is not

830: surprising that the skew and offset variance values also

831: approximately decrease like $1/\bar{N}$.

832: 

833: \section{Type II: General Networks} \label{sec:typeII}

834: 

835: \subsection{Network Setup}

836: 

837: Nodes will not generally be clustered together as in a basic

838: cooperative network, but be deployed in a more random manner. As a

839: result, to study general network deployments, we will consider a

840: Type II situation where nodes are uniformly deployed with density

841: $\rho$ over a circular region of radius $LR$ with node $1$ at the

842: center. In such a setup, at any hop $k$, $k\geq 2$, a node $ki$ in

843: the $R_{k}$ nodes will see \emph{at least} $\bar{N}$ nodes from the

844: $R_{k-1}$ set of nodes. However, the exact number of observed nodes

845: will depend on node $ki$'s location in the region occupied by the

846: $R_{k}$ nodes.

847: 

848: An illustration of a Type II deployment is shown in

849: Fig.~\ref{fig:type2setup}.  We note that the $R_{0}$ node (node $1$)

850: is placed at the center of the disk and the $R_{1}$ nodes occupy a

851: circular region of radius $R$.  However, the region occupied by the

852: $R_{k}$ nodes for $k\geq 2$ is a ring centered around node $1$ with

853: a ring thickness of $d_{max,k}$.  For increasing $k$, the distance

854: from node $1$ to the inner circular boundary of the region occupied

855: by the $R_{k}$ set of nodes increases.

856: 

857: \begin{figure}[!ht]

858: \centerline{\psfig{file=type3setup.eps,width=5cm}} \caption{\small A

859: Type II network deployment. Nodes are deployed with uniform density

860: $\rho$ and node $1$ is at the center of the network.}

861: \label{fig:type2setup}

862: \end{figure}

863: 

864: \subsection{Analysis} \label{sec:typeII-analysis}

865: 

866: To study a Type II network, we could carry out an analysis similar

867: to the one we did for the Type I basic cooperative network. Assuming

868: we know the location of all nodes for a given network deployment

869: over the circular region of radius $LR$, we would be able to

870: determine the neighbors of each node and then readily extend the

871: Type I analysis to this Type II network.  The primary change that

872: would occur in the analysis is the determination of the affine

873: transform

874: \begin{displaymath}

875: \hat{\bar{\theta}}_{k} \mapsto

876: \bar{\theta}_{k+1}=\mathbf{A}_{k+1}\hat{\bar{\theta}}_{k}+\mathbf{B}_{k+1}.

877: \end{displaymath}

878: However, there are two issues that arise in determining the

879: transform matrix $\mathbf{A}_{k+1}$ and vector $\mathbf{B}_{k+1}$.

880: 

881: First, since $R_{k}$ and $R_{k+1}$ will most likely have different

882: numbers of nodes, we immediately see that $\mathbf{A}_{k+1}$ will be

883: a $2|R_{k+1}|\times 2|R_{k}|$ matrix and $\mathbf{B}_{k+1}$ will be

884: a $2|R_{k+1}|\times 1$ vector, where $|R_{k}|$ is the cardinality of

885: set $R_{k}$.  This means that the length of vector

886: $\hat{\bar{\theta}}_{k}$ will change with every hop.

887: 

888: Second, for any node $(k+1)i$ in $R_{k+1}$, the set of cooperating

889: nodes in $R_{k}$ will be different.  Thus, $\mathbf{A}_{k}$ will

890: also reflect this difference.  Therefore, every time we move from

891: hop $k$ to $k+1$, the correlation structure of

892: $\hat{\bar{\theta}}_{k}$ will change.

893: 

894: Together, these two points suggest that even though it is possible

895: to carry out the full analysis, the complexity would make the

896: resulting expressions depend on the particular network realization

897: and not provide significant insight into the problem.  In fact, it

898: would be nearly impossible to visualize the result without carrying

899: out a numerical evaluation.  Since our goal is to comprehend the

900: impact of spatial averaging on general networks, we choose to

901: proceed directly with simulations and compare the results with our

902: analytical expressions for Type I networks.

903: 

904: In the following analysis, we develop a basic understanding of what

905: we would expect to see in the simulation results that are presented

906: in Section~\ref{sec:typeIIIsimulation}. We assume that the number of

907: nodes in any given area of the Type II network is proportional to

908: the area. The reason is that for uniformly deployed nodes with

909: density $\rho$, the average number of nodes in an area ${\mathcal

910: A}$ is ${\mathcal A}\rho$.  Note that even though the analysis and

911: simulation results for Type II networks use the assumption of a

912: circular transmission range of $R$, the simulation results in

913: Section~\ref{sec:typeIIIsimulation} still provide valid insight when

914: realistic transmission regions~\cite{GanesanKWCEW:02,ZhaoG:03} are

915: assumed since the figures illustrate synchronization error as a

916: function of \emph{hop} number.  Therefore, regardless of the shape

917: of the transmission region, a node at hop $k$ will have received the

918: appropriate synchronization information and, thus, our simulation

919: results reflect its synchronization performance.

920: 

921: \subsubsection{Estimation of $\bar{L}$} \label{sec:estimatebarL}

922: 

923: Our first consideration is to estimate the number of hops,

924: $\bar{L}$, required to communicate timing information from node $1$

925: to the edge of the network a distance $LR$ away. In order to do

926: this, we need a way to quantify $d_{max,k}$. In

927: Fig.~\ref{fig:type2dmax}, we illustrate $d_{max,2}$ and see that

928: $d_{max,2}$ is determined by having the intersection of the two

929: radius $R$ circles contain an average of $\bar{N}$ nodes. This is

930: because if we increase $d_{max,2}$, then nodes at this increased

931: distance will not see $\bar{N}$ nodes on average and, thus, not be

932: considered an $R_{2}$ node.  However, $d_{max,k}>d_{max,2}$, for

933: $k>2$, because the ring occupied by the $R_{k}$ nodes increases in

934: size for increasing $k$.  As a result, we choose to be conservative

935: and let $d_{max}\stackrel{\Delta}{=}d_{max,2}$ approximate

936: $d_{max,k}$ for all $k$. This means that our estimate of $\bar{L}$

937: using $d_{max}$ will be greater than or equal to the number of hops

938: required to reach a distance of $LR$ when the differences in

939: $d_{max,k}$ are considered.

940: 

941: \begin{figure}[!ht]

942: \centerline{\psfig{file=type3dmax.eps,width=6cm}} \caption{\small An

943: illustration of $d_{max,2}$.} \label{fig:type2dmax}

944: \end{figure}

945: 

946: Let $A$ be the area of the intersection of the two radius $R$

947: circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:type2dmax} and we have

948: from~\cite{Weisstein:03} that

949: \begin{equation} \label{eq:circsegarea}

950: A =

951: 2\left(R^2\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{R-h}{R}\right)-(R-h)\sqrt{2Rh-h^2}\right).

952: \end{equation}

953: Since $A$ contains $\bar{N}$ nodes, we have that

954: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Aexpression}

955: A = \bar{N}/\rho.

956: \end{equation}

957: From (\ref{eq:circsegarea}) and (\ref{eq:Aexpression}) we can

958: numerically determine $h$ thus giving us

959: \begin{equation} \label{eq:dmax2}

960: d_{max} = R-2h.

961: \end{equation}

962: As a result, we need $\bar{L}$ to satisfy

963: \begin{displaymath}

964: R+(\bar{L}-1)d_{max}\geq LR

965: \end{displaymath}

966: which means that

967: \begin{equation} \label{eq:barL2}

968: \bar{L} = \left\lceil\frac{R(L-1)}{R-2h}+1 \right\rceil.

969: \end{equation}

970: 

971: \subsubsection{Comparison to Type I Networks} \label{sec:uplowbounds}

972: 

973: We will compare the Type II network simulation results to the Type I

974: analytical results.  This comparison will allow us to carry over the

975: intuition regarding spatial averaging that we have developed for the

976: basic cooperative network.  However, Type I and Type II networks

977: differ primarily in that Type I networks assume that all nodes will

978: observe $\bar{N}$ neighbors from the previous hop while any node in

979: a Type II network will only see \emph{at least} $\bar{N}$ nodes.

980: Thus, if we want to compare Type I and Type II plots, we need to

981: establish some meaningful choices of the number of cooperating nodes

982: for use with expressions (\ref{eq:alphahatki_alphaEq1}) and

983: (\ref{eq:Deltahatki_alphaEq1}).

984: 

985: \begin{figure}[!ht]

986: \centerline{\psfig{file=type3Nbark.eps,width=7cm}} \caption{\small

987: (a) Node $ki$ at the outer circular boundary of the $R_{k}$ set of

988: nodes.  (b) Node $ki$ at the inner circular boundary of the $R_{k}$

989: set.} \label{fig:type2Nbark}

990: \end{figure}

991: 

992: Looking at (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:type2Nbark}, we see that if a node

993: $ki$ in the region occupied by the $R_{k}$ nodes is at the circular

994: boundary farthest from node $1$ (outer circular boundary), then it

995: will likely hear only $\bar{N}$ nodes from $R_{k-1}$. That is, there

996: are $\bar{N}=A_{1}\rho$ nodes in area $A_{1}$. Recall that $\bar{N}$

997: is the minimum number of $R_{k-1}$ nodes any node $ki$ will hear.

998: However, looking at (b) in Fig.~\ref{fig:type2Nbark}, a node $ki$ at

999: the circular boundary closest to node $1$ (inner circular boundary)

1000: in the $R_{k}$ region will hear many more nodes. In fact, a node

1001: $ki$ at the boundary between $R_{k-1}$ and $R_{k}$ will hear the

1002: largest average number of nodes $\bar{N}_{max}(k)=A_{2}\rho$. Since

1003: $\bar{N}$ and $\bar{N}_{max}(k)$ is the range of the number of

1004: cooperating nodes seen by a node in $R_{k}$, it would make sense to

1005: plot Type I expressions (\ref{eq:alphahatki_alphaEq1}) and

1006: (\ref{eq:Deltahatki_alphaEq1}) using these two values. However,

1007: $\bar{N}_{max}(k)$ varies with $k$.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:type2Nmax} we

1008: illustrate the regions occupied by the $R_{k}$ nodes for $k=1$,

1009: $k>1$, and $k>>1$ overlayed on top of each other and in each

1010: situation, we see that the set of nodes in $R_{k}$ seen by a node at

1011: the boundary between the $R_{k}$ nodes and the $R_{k+1}$ nodes is

1012: different for changing values of $k$. However, it is clear that the

1013: area of intersection always falls inside a semicircle of radius $R$.

1014: As a result, we will approximate $\bar{N}_{max}=\max_{k:k\geq

1015: 2}\bar{N}_{max}(k)$, by upper bounding the maximum area of

1016: intersection with the area of the semicircle. This means that

1017: \begin{equation} \label{eq:nbarmax2}

1018: \bar{N}_{max} \approx \rho\frac{\pi R^{2}}{2}.

1019: \end{equation}

1020: Thus, in comparing Type II and Type I results, we will use $\bar{N}$

1021: and $\bar{N}_{max}$ in (\ref{eq:nbarmax2}) with both

1022: (\ref{eq:alphahatki_alphaEq1}) and (\ref{eq:Deltahatki_alphaEq1})

1023: 

1024: \begin{figure}[!ht]

1025: \centerline{\psfig{file=type3Nmax.eps,width=5cm}} \caption{The

1026: regions occupied by the $R_{k}$ nodes for $k=1$, $k>1$, and $k>>1$

1027: overlayed on top of each other. The region of nodes seen by a node

1028: at the inner circular boundary of $R_{k+1}$ changes with $k$. \small

1029: } \label{fig:type2Nmax}

1030: \end{figure}

1031: 

1032: Using $\bar{N}$ with (\ref{eq:alphahatki_alphaEq1}) and

1033: (\ref{eq:Deltahatki_alphaEq1}) will provide a curve that tends to be

1034: higher than the Type II simulated curves for two main reasons.

1035: First, since $\bar{N}$ is the minimum number of nodes in $R_{k-1}$

1036: that a node $ki$ in $R_{k}$ will hear and we know that a larger

1037: number of cooperating nodes will result in decreased estimation

1038: variance, the variance values computed using $\bar{N}$ will tend to

1039: be higher. Second, even if a node $ki$ in $R_{k}$ hears $\bar{N}$

1040: nodes from $R_{k-1}$, each of those $\bar{N}$ nodes did not

1041: necessarily only hear $\bar{N}$ nodes from $R_{k-2}$. Thus, the skew

1042: and offset estimates made by each of those $\bar{N}$ nodes in

1043: $R_{k-1}$ whose transmissions are being heard by node $ki$ may have

1044: a variance that is less than predicted by

1045: (\ref{eq:alphahatki_alphaEq1}) and (\ref{eq:Deltahatki_alphaEq1})

1046: using $\bar{N}$. The improved skew and offset estimates made by the

1047: nodes in $R_{k-1}$ will thus lead to a lower estimation variance for

1048: node $ki$ even though node $ki$ hears only $\bar{N}$ from $R_{k-1}$.

1049: 

1050: Using $\bar{N}_{max}$ with (\ref{eq:alphahatki_alphaEq1}) and

1051: (\ref{eq:Deltahatki_alphaEq1}) will provide a curve that tends to be

1052: lower than the Type II simulated curves for two similar reasons.

1053: First, since $\bar{N}_{max}$ is the average number of nodes heard by

1054: a node at the inner circular boundary of $R_{k}$, $k\geq2$, and all

1055: other nodes in $R_{k}$ will on average hear fewer nodes, a Type I

1056: curve using $\bar{N}_{max}$ will tend to yield lower values. Second,

1057: not all nodes in $R_{k-1}$ make their estimates using a signal

1058: cooperatively generated by $\bar{N}_{max}$ nodes.  In fact, most

1059: nodes in $R_{k-1}$ observe fewer than $\bar{N}_{max}$ nodes. As a

1060: result, the lower quality estimates made by some of the $R_{k-1}$

1061: nodes will cause the estimation variance of the $R_{k}$ nodes that

1062: hear $\bar{N}_{max}$ from $R_{k-1}$ to be greater than predicted by

1063: (\ref{eq:alphahatki_alphaEq1}) and (\ref{eq:Deltahatki_alphaEq1})

1064: using $\bar{N}_{max}$.

1065: 

1066: \subsubsection{Synchronization Performance and Node Density}

1067: \label{sec:perfandnodedensity}

1068: 

1069: The third issue we want to address in analyzing a Type II network

1070: deployment is how to decrease synchronization error when we know

1071: from Section \ref{sec:estimatebarL} that the number of hops

1072: $\bar{L}$ required to communicate timing information from node $1$

1073: to the edge of the network a distance $LR$ away is determined by

1074: $\bar{N}$. Given a fixed $R$, we can start with some $\bar{N}$ and

1075: $\rho$. Using (\ref{eq:circsegarea}), (\ref{eq:Aexpression}), and

1076: (\ref{eq:dmax2}), we can determine the value of $d_{max}$ and,

1077: hence, from (\ref{eq:barL2}) the number of hops $\bar{L}$ required

1078: to send timing information from node $1$ to the edge of the network.

1079: In order to decrease synchronization error at a distance $LR$ from

1080: node $1$, we need to increase $\bar{N}$. However, only increasing

1081: $\bar{N}$ will decrease $d_{max}$ and increase $\bar{L}$. Therefore,

1082: we need to increase both $\bar{N}$ and $\rho$. From

1083: (\ref{eq:circsegarea}) and (\ref{eq:Aexpression}), we see that if

1084: $\bar{N}/\rho$ is kept constant, then $h$ will be constant.  If $h$

1085: is constant, then so is $d_{max}$. As a result, by increasing node

1086: density, we can increase the minimum number of cooperating nodes

1087: $\bar{N}$ and therefore decrease synchronization error.

1088: 

1089: \subsection{Simulation Results} \label{sec:typeIIIsimulation}

1090: 

1091: In the following simulation results, we have assumed that all nodes

1092: in the network have no clock skew, i.e. $\alpha_{i}=1$ for all $i$.

1093: From Section~\ref{sec:typeIsimulation} we know that general

1094: $\alpha_{i}$ values result in variance curves that follow the trends

1095: established by curves generated using $\alpha_{i}=1$. As a result,

1096: using $\alpha_{i}=1$ for all $i$ allows us to study the benefits of

1097: spatial averaging without considering effects that are dependent on

1098: the particular network realization.

1099: 

1100: \subsubsection{Comparison to Type I Results}

1101: \label{sec:typeIIIsimulation-bounds}

1102: 

1103: To being the study of cooperative time synchronization in general

1104: networks, we deploy a network for Simulation $1$ with the parameters

1105: in Table~\ref{tab:simulation1}.

1106: \begin{table}[!ht]

1107: \caption{\rm Simulation 1 Parameters}

1108: \begin{center}

1109: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

1110: \hline

1111: $\rho$ & 19.10 \\

1112: $\bar{N}$ & 4 \\

1113: $R$ & 1 \\

1114: $L$ & 5 \\

1115: $d$ & 2 \\

1116: $m$ & 4 \\

1117: $\sigma$ & 0.01 \\

1118: Number of Runs & 5000 \\

1119: \hline

1120: \end{tabular}

1121: \end{center}

1122: \label{tab:simulation1}

1123: \end{table}

1124: %\begin{eqnarray*}

1125: %\bar{N} &=& 4 \\

1126: %R &=& 1 \\

1127: %L &=& 5 \\

1128: %d &=& 2 \\

1129: %m &=& 4 \\

1130: %\sigma &=& 0.01 \\

1131: %\rho &=& 19.10

1132: %\end{eqnarray*}

1133: The simulation results are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound}.

1134: In each run, a new network of nodes was uniformly deployed over a

1135: circular area of radius $LR=5$ and the MATLAB simulator implemented

1136: the cooperative time synchronization protocol. Besides plotting the

1137: Type I comparison curves described in Section~\ref{sec:uplowbounds},

1138: we also plot the sample variance of the best performing node and the

1139: worse performing node. In each run, the node in $R_{k}$ that sees

1140: the fewest number of nodes from $R_{k-1}$ is considered the worse

1141: performing node while the node in $R_{k}$ that sees the largest

1142: number of nodes from $R_{k-1}$ is the best performing node. For the

1143: $l$th run, the fewest number of nodes seen by a node in $R_{k}$ is

1144: denoted $X_{min}^{(l)}(k)$ while the largest number of nodes seen by

1145: a node in $R_{k}$ is denoted $X_{max}^{(l)}(k)$.  The skew and

1146: offset estimate of the best and worst performing node at each hop is

1147: recorded and the sample variance over the $5000$ runs is plotted.

1148: 

1149: The top figure in Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound} illustrates the sample

1150: skew variance curves of the worst and best synchronized node along

1151: with the Type I curves for comparison. The bottom figure in

1152: Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound} illustrates the clock offset estimate

1153: sample variance. Note that using equation (\ref{eq:barL2}) and the

1154: parameters in Table~\ref{tab:simulation1}, we find that $\bar{L}=7$.

1155: From the simulations, we also see that $7$ hops are required to

1156: traverse the network. In fact, only $7.32\%$ of the networks

1157: required more than $7$ hops to reach all nodes in the network.

1158: 

1159: \begin{figure}[!ht]

1160: \centerline{\psfig{file=type3skewbound.eps,width=8.25cm}}

1161: \centerline{\psfig{file=type3offsetbound.eps,width=8.25cm}}

1162: \caption{\small Simulation $1$. Top: Sample variance for the skew

1163: estimate of a Type II network along with Type I comparison curves.

1164: Bottom: Sample variance of the offset estimate along with Type I

1165: comparison curves.} \label{fig:type2bound}

1166: \end{figure}

1167: % simulation3 (mainRun3new_5000_V6.mat)

1168: 

1169: As predicted in Section~\ref{sec:uplowbounds}, we clearly see in

1170: Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound} that the worst case variance and the best

1171: case variance are sandwiched between the Type I comparison curves.

1172: Also, as expected, the skew and offset variances do not closely

1173: follow the upper and lower Type I comparison curves.  The worst case

1174: skew and offset variance follow the upper comparison cruve for the

1175: first $2$ hops and then begin do deviate from the curve.  As

1176: mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:uplowbounds}, this is because the

1177: nodes contributing to the worst performing node may have received

1178: signals from more than $\bar{N}$ nodes. Similarly, the best case

1179: skew and offset variance follow the lower comparison curve for the

1180: first $2$ hops before deviating. This is because many of the nodes

1181: contributing signals to the best performing node made their

1182: estimates using a signal cooperatively generated by less than

1183: $\bar{N}_{max}$ nodes. Also of interest is the steep decrease in the

1184: worst case skew and offset variance at hop $k=7$.  This is due to

1185: the fact that on average, the distance from the outer circular

1186: boundary of the $R_{6}$ region to the network boundary is much less

1187: than $d_{max}$. As a result, the $R_{7}$ region is smaller and

1188: $X_{min}(7)$ will be larger than $\bar{N}$.

1189: Table~\ref{tab:type2_nbarvalues1} shows the

1190: $X_{min}(k)=\frac{1}{5000}\sum_{l=1}^{5000}X_{min}^{(l)}(k)$ and

1191: $X_{max}(k)=\frac{1}{5000}\sum_{l=1}^{5000}X_{max}^{(l)}(k)$ values

1192: and we see that $X_{min}(6)=\bar{N}=4$, but $X_{min}(7)$ is nearly

1193: twice $X_{min}(6)$.

1194: 

1195: \begin{table}[!ht]

1196: \caption{\rm $X_{min}(k)$ and $X_{max}(k)$ for

1197: Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound}}

1198: \begin{center}

1199: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}

1200: \hline

1201: $k$& $X_{min}(k)$ & $X_{max}(k)$\\

1202: \hline

1203: 1&1&1\\

1204: 2&4.00&27.56\\

1205: 3&4.00&29.36\\

1206: 4&4.00&31.86\\

1207: 5&4.00&33.50\\

1208: 6&4.00&34.60\\

1209: 7&7.77&35.32\\

1210: \hline

1211: \end{tabular}

1212: \end{center}

1213: \label{tab:type2_nbarvalues1}

1214: \end{table}

1215: 

1216: We also note that $X_{max}(k)$ increases from $27.56$ for $k=2$ to

1217: $35.32$ for $k=7$.  Using (\ref{eq:nbarmax2}), however, we find that

1218: $\bar{N}_{max}=30$.  The reason $X_{max}(k)$ increases with each hop

1219: and does not equal $\bar{N}_{max}$ is because $X_{max}(k)$ is a

1220: different statistic.  $\bar{N}_{max}$ approximates the average

1221: number of $R_{k-1}$ nodes seen by a node $ki$ at the inner circular

1222: boundary of $R_{k}$. However, $X_{max}^{(l)}(k)$ is \emph{the}

1223: largest number of nodes seen by any node $ki$ in $R_{k}$ for the

1224: $l$th network realization. Therefore, $X_{max}^{(l)}(k)$ is actually

1225: an ordered statistic since it takes the largest number of nodes seen

1226: by a node at hop $k$. $X_{max}(k)$ is thus the mean of the ordered

1227: statistic. Therefore, we would not expect $\bar{N}_{max}$ and

1228: $X_{max}(k)$ to be the same. Also, $X_{max}(k)$ increases with $k$

1229: since as the circumference of the circular ring occupied by $R_{k}$

1230: increases, there are more nodes at the boundary between $R_{k}$ and

1231: $R_{k-1}$.  Since there are more nodes at the boundary, there are

1232: also more opportunities to find the largest number of nodes seen by

1233: a node $ki$.  Thus, the maximum number of nodes would tend to be

1234: larger. Note that, not considering the effects at the network

1235: boundary, $X_{min}(k)=\bar{N}$ because the definition of the

1236: protocol specifies the minimum to be $\bar{N}$ and there is little

1237: randomness in determining $X_{min}(k)$.

1238: 

1239: \subsubsection{Synchronization Performance and Node Density}

1240: \label{sec:typeIIIsimulation-densityincrease}

1241: 

1242: \begin{figure}[!ht]

1243: \centerline{\psfig{file=type3skewbound_lower.eps,width=8.25cm}}

1244: \centerline{\psfig{file=type3offsetbound_lower.eps,width=8.25cm}}

1245: \caption{\small Simulation $1$b. The Type I comparison curves and

1246: the Type II sample skew and offset variance curves are lower as

1247: compared to Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound} when $\bar{N}$ and $\rho$ are

1248: increased. More cooperation yields improved synchronization

1249: performance.} \label{fig:type2bound_lower}

1250: \end{figure}

1251: % simulation3 (mainRun4new_5000_V6.mat)

1252: 

1253: \begin{table}[!ht]

1254: \caption{\rm Simulation 1b Parameters}

1255: \begin{center}

1256: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

1257: \hline

1258: $\rho$ & 23.87 \\

1259: $\bar{N}$ & 6 \\

1260: $R$ & 1 \\

1261: $L$ & 5 \\

1262: $d$ & 2 \\

1263: $m$ & 4 \\

1264: $\sigma$ & 0.01 \\

1265: Number of Runs & 5000 \\

1266: \hline

1267: \end{tabular}

1268: \end{center}

1269: \label{tab:simulation1b}

1270: \end{table}

1271: 

1272: Next, we want to improve synchronization performance by increasing

1273: node density.  Starting with the parameters for Simulation $1$, we

1274: increase the minimum number of cooperating nodes to $\bar{N}=6$

1275: while keeping $\bar{N}/\rho=0.25$ constant.  Therefore, for

1276: Simulation $1$b (Table~\ref{tab:simulation1b}), $\rho=23.87$ and we

1277: plot the simulation results in Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound_lower}.

1278: Comparing Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound} and

1279: Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound_lower}, it is clear that

1280: Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound_lower} yields improved skew and offset

1281: variances, thus showing that increased node density and larger

1282: $\bar{N}$ values indeed improve synchronization performance in Type

1283: II networks. In Table~\ref{tab:type2_nbarvalues2} we show

1284: $X_{min}(k)$ and $X_{max}(k)$ for Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound_lower}.

1285: Note that there is only a slight decrease in the worst case skew and

1286: offset variance curves at hop $k=7$ since in this simulation, we

1287: have that $X_{min}(7)=6.57$ is only slightly larger than

1288: $X_{min}(6)=\bar{N}=6$.

1289: 

1290: \begin{table}[!ht]

1291: \caption{\rm $X_{min}(k)$ and $X_{max}(k)$ for

1292: Fig.~\ref{fig:type2bound_lower}}

1293: \begin{center}

1294: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}

1295: \hline

1296: $k$& $X_{min}(k)$ & $X_{max}(k)$\\

1297: \hline

1298: 1&1&1\\

1299: 2&6.00&34.01\\

1300: 3&6.00&34.64\\

1301: 4&6.00&37.64\\

1302: 5&6.00&39.50\\

1303: 6&6.00&40.80\\

1304: 7&6.57&41.70\\

1305: \hline

1306: \end{tabular}

1307: \end{center}

1308: \label{tab:type2_nbarvalues2}

1309: \end{table}

1310: 

1311: Another very effective way to visualize how increasing $\rho$ and

1312: $\bar{N}$ can decrease skew and offset variance is to choose one

1313: \emph{test node} in the network and consider how its skew and offset

1314: variance decreases as the network density and number of cooperating

1315: nodes are increased. In Simulation 2 (Table~\ref{tab:simulation3}),

1316: we placed a test node at distance $LR=2.2$ from node $1$ and

1317: simulated its skew and offset variance as we increased $\rho$ and

1318: $\bar{N}$.  $\bar{N}$ took on values ranging from $1$ to $10$ and we

1319: adjusted $\rho$ accordingly to keep $\bar{N}/\rho=0.15$ fixed.  The

1320: results are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:type2variancedecrease} and we

1321: clearly see that as $\bar{N}$ increases along with $\rho$, the skew

1322: and offset variance of this test node decreases.  Also, from

1323: Section~\ref{sec:perfandnodedensity}, we know that since we keep

1324: $\bar{N}/\rho$ constant, the number of hops required to reach the

1325: test node stays the same as we increase $\bar{N}$.  Therefore, since

1326: the test node is at $\bar{L}=3$ for every value of $\bar{N}$, we

1327: have also plotted the upper and lower Type I comparison curves for

1328: the skew and offset variance at hop $k=3$ to illustrate how the

1329: comparison curves change in relation to the simulated variance

1330: curves.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:type2variancedecrease}, the simulated skew

1331: and offset variance curves of the test node fall between the Type I

1332: upper and lower comparison curves.

1333: 

1334: \begin{table}[!ht]

1335: \caption{\rm Simulation 2 Parameters}

1336: \begin{center}

1337: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

1338: \hline

1339: $\bar{N}/\rho$ & 0.15 \\

1340: $\bar{N}$ & [1 2 4 6 8 10] \\

1341: $R$ & 1 \\

1342: $L$ & 2.2 \\

1343: $d$ & 1 \\

1344: $m$ & 2 \\

1345: $\sigma$ & 0.01 \\

1346: Number of Runs & 5000 \\

1347: \hline

1348: \end{tabular}

1349: \end{center}

1350: \label{tab:simulation3}

1351: \end{table}

1352: 

1353: \begin{figure}[!ht]

1354: \centerline{\psfig{file=type3_skewVarianceDecrease.eps,width=8.25cm}}

1355: \centerline{\psfig{file=type3_offsetVarianceDecrease.eps,width=8.25cm}}

1356: \caption{\small Simulation $2$.  Variance of the skew and offset

1357: estimates of the test node fall between the Type I comparison curves

1358: and decrease with increasing $\bar{N}$ and $\rho$.}

1359: \label{fig:type2variancedecrease}

1360: \end{figure}

1361: % simulation3c (MergeDataAndPlot.m  mainRunXnew_1000_V6.mat)

1362: 

1363: It is clear that by keeping the ratio $\bar{N}/\rho$ constant while

1364: increasing $\bar{N}$ and $\rho$ allows us to reduce the

1365: synchronization error at each hop while keeping the number of hops

1366: required to synchronize the network, $\bar{L}$, constant.  The

1367: variance of the skew and offset estimates is decreased by increasing

1368: the minimum number of cooperating nodes.

1369: 

1370: Furthermore, from the simulations in this section, we find that the

1371: upper and lower Type I comparison curves provide a good reference to

1372: the performance of Type II networks.  We have established that the

1373: best and worst case variance values for the Type II skew and offset

1374: estimates fall between the upper and lower Type I comparison curves.

1375: As the density of the network and $\bar{N}$ are both increased, the

1376: comparison curves will shift downwards and become closer together.

1377: Thus, we would expect the variance of the Type II network estimates

1378: to change similarly with increasing $\bar{N}$ and $\rho$.

1379: 

1380: \section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}

1381: 

1382: In this paper we have proposed one technique that uses spatial

1383: averaging in dense networks as a means to improving global time

1384: synchronization. Spatial averaging is used to improve the timing

1385: data points that are used to estimate clock skew and clock offset.

1386: By decreasing the error in the timing data points, improved clock

1387: skew and clock offset estimates can be made. Our analysis of the

1388: technique in a basic cooperative network revealed that the error

1389: variance in both the clock skew and clock offset estimates can be

1390: significantly decreased as the number of cooperating nodes

1391: increases.  Simulation results also show that synchronization over

1392: large, multi-hop networks can be improved by increasing node

1393: density.  Further analysis and a comparison between cooperative and

1394: non-cooperative techniques can be found in~\cite{Hu:07}.

1395: 

1396: This scalable protocol provides an alternate way to combat the

1397: scalability problem. It allows us to simply increase the number of

1398: nodes in the network to obtain improved synchronization performance.

1399: The new trade-off between network density and synchronization

1400: performance provided by spatial averaging will allow for added

1401: flexibility in designing future networks.

1402: 

1403: It is important to note that the concept of spatial averaging is

1404: very general and our proposed cooperative technique is but one

1405: manner in which to take advantage of it.  Our protocol shows that

1406: techniques using spatial averaging can be designed.  Even though the

1407: proposed protocol has certain limitations, such as requiring access

1408: to the physical layer, it allows us to successfully illustrate the

1409: performance improvement achievable using spatial averaging.  Future

1410: work will focus on other approaches to spatial averaging. For

1411: example, it would be desirable to develop a cooperative technique

1412: using spatial averaging that achieves performance gains while

1413: needing only access to the data link or network layer.

1414: 

1415: \appendix

1416: 

1417: {\bf Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:main}} \hspace{0.5cm} Node $1$

1418: begins the synchronization processes by transmitting a sequence of

1419: pulses at times $\tau_{0}+ld$, for $l=0,\ldots,m-1$. For simplicity,

1420: assume that $\tau_{0}$ and $d$ are integer values. Note that since

1421: node $1$ transmits these pulses in its own time scale $c_{1}$ (the

1422: reference time), the pulses will occur at integer values of $t$.

1423: Using the clock model in (\ref{eq:clock}), any node $1i$,

1424: $i=1,\ldots,\bar{N}$, in the $R_{1}$ set of nodes will get a vector

1425: of observations ${\mathbf Y}_{1i}$, where ${\mathbf Y}_{1i}[1] =

1426: \alpha_{1i}(\tau_{0}-\bar{\Delta}_{1i})+\Psi_{1i,1}$ and the

1427: $(l+1)$th element of ${\mathbf Y}_{1i}$ is ${\mathbf

1428: Y}_{1i}[l+1]=\alpha_{1i}(\tau_{0}-\bar{\Delta}_{1i})+ld\alpha_{1i}+\Psi_{1i,l+1}$.

1429: This can also be written as

1430: \begin{equation} \label{eq:linearFormCoop}

1431: {\mathbf Y}_{1i}={\mathbf H}\theta_{1i} + {\mathbf W}_{1i},

1432: \end{equation}

1433: where

1434: \begin{displaymath}

1435: {\mathbf \theta}_{1i} = \left[ \begin{array}{c}

1436: \theta_{1i,1}\\

1437: \theta_{1i,2}

1438: \end{array} \right] =

1439: \left[ \begin{array}{c}

1440: \alpha_{1i}(\tau_{0}-\bar{\Delta}_{1i})\\

1441: \alpha_{1i}

1442: \end{array} \right]

1443: \end{displaymath}

1444: with ${\mathbf H}$ as in (\ref{eq:H}) and ${\mathbf W}_{1i} =

1445: [W_{1i,1},\dots, W_{1i,m}]^{T}$. Since $\Psi_{1i,l+1}$ is an

1446: independent Gaussian random variable for each $l$, ${\mathbf W}_{1i}

1447: \sim {\mathcal N}(0,\Sigma_{1i})$ with $\Sigma_{1i} =

1448: \sigma^{2}{\mathbf I}_{m}$. As mentioned, this set of observations

1449: is for any node $1i$ in the set of $R_{1}$ nodes.

1450: 

1451: Since we have $\bar{N}$ $R_{1}$ nodes, we can write the vector of

1452: observations made by all $R_{1}$ nodes as

1453: \begin{equation} \label{eq:R1bigYvec}

1454: \bar{{\mathbf Y}}_{1} = \bar{{\mathbf H}}\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}_{1}

1455: + \bar{{\mathbf W}}_{1}

1456: \end{equation}

1457: where

1458: \begin{eqnarray*}

1459: \bar{{\mathbf Y}}_{1} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} {\mathbf Y}_{11} \\

1460: \vdots \\

1461: {\mathbf Y}_{1\bar{N}}

1462: \end{array} \right], \quad \bar{{\mathbf \theta}}_{1} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} {\mathbf \theta}_{11} \\

1463: \vdots \\

1464: {\mathbf \theta}_{1\bar{N}}

1465: \end{array} \right], \quad \bar{{\mathbf W}}_{1}=\left[ \begin{array}{c} {\mathbf W}_{11} \\

1466: \vdots \\

1467: {\mathbf W}_{1\bar{N}}

1468: \end{array} \right]

1469: \end{eqnarray*}

1470: and $\bar{{\mathbf H}}$ is as in (\ref{eq:barH}). Note that

1471: $\bar{{\mathbf W}}_{1}\sim {\mathcal N}(0,\sigma^{2}{\mathbf

1472: I}_{\bar{N}m})$. This way we have $\bar{{\mathbf Y}}_{1}$ as the

1473: vector of observations made by all $R_{1}$ nodes and we can make a

1474: UMVU (uniformly minimum variance unbiased) estimate of

1475: $\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}_{1}$ by taking

1476: \begin{eqnarray*}

1477: \hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{1} =

1478: (\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{\mathbf{H}})^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{{\mathbf

1479: Y}}_{1} \sim {\mathcal N}\left(\bar{\mu}_{1},\bar{\Sigma}_{1}

1480: \right),

1481: \end{eqnarray*}

1482: where

1483: \begin{equation*} %\label{eq:sigma1_alphaEq1}

1484: \bar{\mu}_{1} = \bar{{\mathbf \theta}}_{1}, \quad \bar{\Sigma}_{1} =

1485: \sigma^{2}(\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{\mathbf{H}})^{-1}.

1486: \end{equation*}

1487: It is easy to see that

1488: \begin{eqnarray*}  %\label{eq:pseudoinvbarH}

1489: \lefteqn{(\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{\mathbf{H}})^{-1}} \nonumber \\

1490: && = \left[

1491: \begin{array}{ccc} (\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1}  &

1492: \ldots & 0 \\

1493: \vdots  & \ddots & \vdots \\

1494: 0 &  \ldots & (\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1}

1495: \end{array} \right]

1496: \end{eqnarray*}

1497: and

1498: \begin{eqnarray*} %\label{eq:pseudoinvH}

1499: (\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1} = \left[ \begin{array}{cc}

1500: \frac{2(2m-1)}{m(m+1)} & \frac{-6}{dm(m+1)} \\

1501: \frac{-6}{dm(m+1)} & \frac{12}{d^2(m-1)m(m+1)}

1502: \end{array} \right].

1503: \end{eqnarray*}

1504: This establishes the initial conditions for the theorem.

1505: $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{1}$ is a $2\bar{N}\times 1$ column

1506: vector where the subvector made up of the ($2(i-1)+1$)th and

1507: ($2(i-1)+2$)th elements, $i=1,\ldots,\bar{N}$, is $\hat{{\mathbf

1508: \theta}}_{1i}=(\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{Y}_{1i}$.

1509: Therefore, any node $1i$'s skew estimate (\ref{eq:alphahat}) and

1510: offset estimate (\ref{eq:Deltahat}) can be found from

1511: $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{1}$ as

1512: \begin{equation} \label{eq:alphahat1i}

1513: \hat{\alpha}_{1i} = e_{2(i-1)+2}^{T}\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{1}

1514: \end{equation}

1515: and

1516: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Deltahat1i}

1517: \hat{\Delta}_{1i} = e_{2(i-1)+1}^{T}\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{1}

1518: - \tau_{0}

1519: \end{equation}

1520: where $e_{l}$ is the column vector of all zeros except for a one in

1521: the $l$th position.

1522: 

1523: Each node $1i$ can now make an estimate of the next appropriate

1524: integer value of $t$, in this case $t=\tau_{0}+md$, by making a

1525: minimum variance unbiased estimate of

1526: $\theta_{1i,1}+md\theta_{1i,2}=\alpha_{1i}(\tau_{0}-\bar{\Delta}_{1i})+md\alpha_{1i}$.

1527: This can be done with the estimator

1528: \begin{eqnarray*}

1529: \hat{\tau}_{1i}=\hat{\theta}_{1i,1}+md\hat{\theta}_{1i,2} = {\mathbf

1530: C}_{0}\hat{{\mathbf \theta}}_{1i}

1531: \end{eqnarray*}

1532: where ${\mathbf C}_{0}=[1 \quad md]$.  This will then be node $1i$'s

1533: estimate of the next appropriate integer value of $t$ in its own

1534: time scale $c_{1i}$.

1535: 

1536: From (\ref{eq:pulsetimeestimate}), every node $1i$ will then

1537: transmit a sequence of $m$ pulses occurring, in the time scale of

1538: $c_{1i}$, at $X_{1i}(l)=\hat{\tau}_{1i}+ld\hat{\theta}_{1i,2}$, for

1539: $l=0,\ldots,m-1$. Using the clock model (\ref{eq:clock}), we find

1540: that in the time scale of $c_{1}$ these pules occur at

1541: \begin{eqnarray*}

1542: (\hat{\tau}_{1i}+ld\hat{\theta}_{1i,2})_{c_{1}} &=&

1543: \frac{\hat{\tau}_{1i}+ld\hat{\theta}_{1i,2}-\Psi_{1i,l+1}}{\alpha_{1i}}+\bar{\Delta}_{1i}

1544: \\ &=& \frac{\hat{\tau}_{1i}}{\alpha_{1i}}+ \bar{\Delta}_{1i} +

1545: ld\frac{\hat{\theta}_{1i,2}}{\alpha_{1i}}-

1546: \frac{\Psi_{1i,l+1}}{\alpha_{1i}}.

1547: \end{eqnarray*}

1548: Any node $2j$ in the $R_{2}$ set of nodes that can hear node $1i$

1549: will thus get a sequence of pulses

1550: \begin{eqnarray*}

1551: \lefteqn{\tilde{{\mathbf Y}}_{2j}[l+1]} \\ &=&

1552: \alpha_{2j}\bigg(\bigg(\frac{\hat{\tau}_{1i}}{\alpha_{1i}}+

1553: \bar{\Delta}_{1i} + ld\frac{\hat{\theta}_{1i,2}}{\alpha_{1i}}-

1554: \frac{\Psi_{1i,l+1}}{\alpha_{1i}}\bigg)-\bar{\Delta}_{2j}\bigg)

1555: \\

1556: && \hspace{2.5cm}+\Psi_{2j,l+1},

1557: \end{eqnarray*}

1558: where $l=0,\ldots,m-1$.

1559: 

1560: In this Type I network deployment every node $2j$ hears the same set

1561: of $\bar{N}$ nodes and takes the sample mean of each cluster of

1562: pulses for its observation, we can express the actual vector of

1563: observations made by node $2j$ as

1564: \begin{eqnarray*}

1565: \lefteqn{{\mathbf Y}_{2j}[l+1]} \\

1566: &=&\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}

1567: \frac{\alpha_{2j}}{\bar{N}}\bigg(\bigg(\frac{\hat{\tau}_{1i}}{\alpha_{1i}}+

1568: \bar{\Delta}_{1i} + ld\frac{\hat{\theta}_{1i,2}}{\alpha_{1i}}-

1569: \frac{\Psi_{1i,l+1}}{\alpha_{1i}}\bigg)-\bar{\Delta}_{2j}\bigg)\\

1570: && \hspace{2.5cm}+\Psi_{2j,l+1},

1571: \end{eqnarray*}

1572: where $l=0,\ldots,m-1$. Note that since these pulse arrivals are

1573: clustered, we assume that for a given cluster, each pulse arrival is

1574: corrupted by the same jitter.  Thus, receiver side jitter

1575: $\Psi_{2j,l+1}$ is an independent sample for every $l$, but takes

1576: the same value for each $i$.  This models the fact that clock errors

1577: occurring in a small time window are highly correlated while errors

1578: farther apart in time are independent.  We can rewrite this simply

1579: as ${\mathbf Y}_{2j}[l+1] =

1580: \alpha_{2j}((\tau_{1}+ld\tilde{\alpha}_{1}-\tilde{\Psi}_{1,l+1})-\bar{\Delta}_{2j})+\Psi_{2j,l+1}$,

1581: where

1582: \begin{eqnarray*}

1583: \tau_{1} &\stackrel{\Delta}{=}&

1584: \frac{1}{\bar{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\frac{\hat{\tau}_{1i}}{\alpha_{1i}}+

1585: \bar{\Delta}_{1i} \qquad \tilde{\alpha}_{1} \stackrel{\Delta}{=}

1586: \frac{1}{\bar{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\frac{\hat{\theta}_{1i,2}}{\alpha_{1i}}

1587: \\

1588: \tilde{\Psi}_{1,l+1} &\stackrel{\Delta}{=}&

1589: \frac{1}{\bar{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\frac{\Psi_{1i,l+1}}{\alpha_{1i}}.

1590: \end{eqnarray*}

1591: Since every node $2j$ will see the same $\bar{N}$, this means that

1592: every node $2j$ will have the same $\tau_{1}$ and

1593: $\tilde{\alpha}_{1}$. Therefore, $\tau_{1}$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_{1}$

1594: are now fixed, and it can be easily found that

1595: \begin{displaymath}

1596: \left[ \begin{array}{c} \tilde{\Psi}_{1,1} \\ \vdots \\

1597: \tilde{\Psi}_{1,m}

1598: \end{array}\right] \sim {\mathcal

1599: N}\bigg(0,\Sigma_{\tilde{\Psi}_{1}}\bigg)

1600: \end{displaymath}

1601: where

1602: \begin{displaymath}

1603: \Sigma_{\tilde{\Psi}_{1}} =

1604: \frac{\sigma^{2}}{\bar{N}^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\frac{1}{\alpha_{1i}^{2}}{\mathbf

1605: I}_{m}.

1606: \end{displaymath}

1607: 

1608: Node $2j$'s vector of observations can also be written in a linear

1609: form similar to (\ref{eq:linearFormCoop}), ${\mathbf

1610: Y}_{2j}={\mathbf H}\theta_{2j} + {\mathbf W}_{2j}$, where

1611: \begin{displaymath}

1612: {\mathbf \theta}_{2j} = \left[ \begin{array}{c}

1613: \theta_{2j,1}\\

1614: \theta_{2j,2}

1615: \end{array} \right] =

1616: \left[ \begin{array}{c}

1617: \alpha_{2j}(\tau_{1}-\bar{\Delta}_{2j})\\

1618: \alpha_{2j}\tilde{\alpha}_{1}

1619: \end{array} \right]

1620: \end{displaymath}

1621: with ${\mathbf H}$ as in (\ref{eq:H}) and ${\mathbf W}_{2j} =

1622: [W_{2j,1}\dots W_{2j,m}]^{T}$.

1623: \begin{displaymath}

1624: {\mathbf W}_{2j} = \alpha_{2j}\left[ \begin{array}{c}

1625: \tilde{\Psi}_{1,1}

1626: \\ \vdots \\ \tilde{\Psi}_{1,m}

1627: \end{array}\right]+\left[ \begin{array}{c} \Psi_{2j,1} \\ \vdots \\ \Psi_{2j,m}

1628: \end{array}\right]\sim {\mathcal N}(0,\Sigma_{2j})

1629: \end{displaymath}

1630: with

1631: \begin{displaymath}

1632: \Sigma_{2j} =

1633: \sigma^{2}\big(1+\frac{\alpha_{2j}^{2}}{\bar{N}^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\frac{1}{\alpha_{1i}^{2}}\big){\mathbf

1634: I}_{m}.

1635: \end{displaymath}

1636: The vector of observations made by all $R_{2}$ nodes can be written

1637: in a manner similar to (\ref{eq:R1bigYvec}),

1638: \begin{equation*} %\label{eq:R2bigYvec}

1639: \bar{{\mathbf Y}}_{2} = \bar{{\mathbf H}}\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}_{2}

1640: + \bar{{\mathbf W}}_{2}

1641: \end{equation*}

1642: where

1643: \begin{eqnarray*}

1644: \bar{{\mathbf Y}}_{2} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} {\mathbf Y}_{21} \\

1645: \vdots \\

1646: {\mathbf Y}_{2\bar{N}}

1647: \end{array} \right], \quad \bar{{\mathbf \theta}}_{2} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} {\mathbf \theta}_{21} \\

1648: \vdots \\

1649: {\mathbf \theta}_{2\bar{N}}

1650: \end{array} \right], \quad {\mathbf Q}_{2} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} \alpha_{21}{\mathbf I}_{m} \\

1651: \vdots \\

1652: \alpha_{2\bar{N}}{\mathbf I}_{m}

1653: \end{array} \right]

1654: \end{eqnarray*}

1655: \begin{displaymath}

1656: \bar{{\mathbf W}}_{2} = \left[ \begin{array}{c} {\mathbf W}_{21} \\

1657: {\mathbf W}_{22} \\

1658: \vdots \\

1659: {\mathbf W}_{2\bar{N}}

1660: \end{array} \right]={\mathbf Q}_{2}\left[ \begin{array}{c}

1661: \tilde{\Psi}_{1,1}

1662: \\ \vdots \\ \tilde{\Psi}_{1,m}

1663: \end{array}\right]+\left[ \begin{array}{c} \Psi_{21,1} \\ \vdots \\

1664: \Psi_{21,m} \\ \vdots \\ \Psi_{2\bar{N},1} \\ \vdots \\

1665: \Psi_{2\bar{N},m}

1666: \end{array}\right]

1667: \end{displaymath}

1668: This means that $\bar{{\mathbf W}}_{2}\sim{\mathcal

1669: N}(0,\Sigma_{\bar{{\mathbf W}}_{2}})$, where

1670: \begin{eqnarray*}

1671: \Sigma_{\bar{{\mathbf W}}_{2}} = {\mathbf

1672: Q}_{2}\Sigma_{\tilde{\Psi}_{1}}{\mathbf Q}_{2}^{T} + \sigma^2

1673: {\mathbf I}_{\bar{N}m}.

1674: \end{eqnarray*}

1675: 

1676: The $R_{2}$ nodes will estimate $\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}_{2}$ as

1677: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:theta2barhat}

1678: \hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2} &=&

1679: (\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{\mathbf{H}})^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{{\mathbf

1680: Y}}_{2} \\

1681: &\sim& {\mathcal

1682: N}\left(\bar{\mathbf{\theta}}_{2},(\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{\mathbf{H}})^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\Sigma_{\bar{{\mathbf

1683: W}}_{2}}((\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{\mathbf{H}})^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T})^{T}

1684: \right) \nonumber .

1685: \end{eqnarray}

1686: However, for analysis, this does not give us the complete

1687: distribution of $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2}$ since

1688: $\bar{\mathbf{\theta}}_{2}$ is a function of

1689: $\hat{\bar{\mathbf{\theta}}}_{1}$.  Therefore, we first consider how

1690: $\mathbf{\theta}_{2j}$ is a function of

1691: $\hat{\bar{\mathbf{\theta}}}_{1}$.  We find that

1692: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:theta2iasfxnoftheta1hat}

1693: \mathbf{\theta}_{2j} & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c}

1694: \alpha_{2j}(\tau_{1}-\bar{\Delta}_{2j})\\

1695: \alpha_{2j}\tilde{\alpha}_{1}

1696: \end{array} \right] \nonumber \\

1697: & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c}

1698: \alpha_{2j}(\frac{1}{\bar{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\frac{\hat{\tau}_{1i}}{\alpha_{1i}}+

1699: \bar{\Delta}_{1i}-\bar{\Delta}_{2j})\\

1700: \alpha_{2j}\frac{1}{\bar{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\frac{\hat{\theta}_{1i,2}}{\alpha_{1i}}

1701: \end{array} \right] \nonumber \\

1702: & = & \left[ \begin{array}{c}

1703: \alpha_{2j}(\frac{1}{\bar{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\frac{\hat{\theta}_{1i,1}+md\hat{\theta}_{1i,2}}{\alpha_{1i}}+

1704: \bar{\Delta}_{1i}-\bar{\Delta}_{2j})\\

1705: \alpha_{2j}\frac{1}{\bar{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\frac{\hat{\theta}_{1i,2}}{\alpha_{1i}}

1706: \end{array} \right] \nonumber \\

1707: & = & \frac{\alpha_{2j}}{\bar{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\bar{N}}\bigg(\left[

1708: \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{\alpha_{1i}} & \frac{dm}{\alpha_{1i}} \\

1709: 0 & \frac{1}{\alpha_{1i}} \end{array} \right] \left[

1710: \begin{array}{c} \hat{\theta}_{1i,1} \\ \hat{\theta}_{1i,2} \end{array} \right] \nonumber \\

1711: && \hspace{1.5cm} + \left[ \begin{array}{c} \bar{\Delta}_{1i} \\ 0

1712: \end{array} \right] \bigg) - \alpha_{2j}\left[ \begin{array}{c}

1713: \bar{\Delta}_{2j} \\ 0

1714: \end{array} \right]

1715: \end{eqnarray}

1716: Using (\ref{eq:theta2iasfxnoftheta1hat}) we have

1717: \begin{equation} \label{eq:theta2asfxnoftheta1hat}

1718: \bar{\mathbf{\theta}}_{2} =

1719: \mathbf{A}_{2}\hat{\bar{\mathbf{\theta}}}_{1} + \mathbf{B}_{2},

1720: \end{equation}

1721: where

1722: \begin{eqnarray*}

1723: \mathbf{A}_{2} = \mathbf{D}_{2}\left[ \begin{array}{ccccc}

1724: \frac{1}{\alpha_{11}} & \frac{dm}{\alpha_{11}} & \ldots & 0

1725: & 0 \\

1726: 0 & \frac{1}{\alpha_{11}}  & \ldots & 0 & 0 \\

1727: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\

1728: 0 & 0 & \ldots & \frac{1}{\alpha_{1\bar{N}}} &

1729: \frac{dm}{\alpha_{1\bar{N}}} \\

1730: 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & \frac{1}{\alpha_{1\bar{N}}}

1731: \end{array}\right],

1732: \end{eqnarray*}

1733: \begin{eqnarray*}

1734: \mathbf{B}_{2} = \mathbf{D}_{2}\left[ \begin{array}{c}

1735: \bar{\Delta}_{11} \\ 0  \\ \vdots \\

1736: \bar{\Delta}_{1\bar{N}} \\ 0

1737: \end{array}\right] - \left[ \begin{array}{c}

1738: \alpha_{21}\bar{\Delta}_{21} \\ 0 \\ \vdots \\

1739: \alpha_{2\bar{N}}\bar{\Delta}_{2\bar{N}} \\ 0

1740: \end{array}\right],

1741: \end{eqnarray*}

1742: for

1743: \begin{eqnarray*}

1744: \mathbf{D}_{2} = \frac{1}{\bar{N}}\left[ \begin{array}{ccccc}

1745: \alpha_{21} & 0 &  \ldots & \alpha_{21}

1746: & 0 \\

1747: 0 & \alpha_{21} & \ldots & 0 & \alpha_{21} \\

1748: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\

1749: \alpha_{2\bar{N}} & 0  & \ldots & \alpha_{2\bar{N}}

1750: & 0 \\

1751: 0 & \alpha_{2\bar{N}} & \ldots & 0 & \alpha_{2\bar{N}}

1752: \end{array}\right].

1753: \end{eqnarray*}

1754: 

1755: Using (\ref{eq:theta2barhat}) and (\ref{eq:theta2asfxnoftheta1hat}),

1756: the distribution of $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2}$ can now be

1757: found.

1758: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:mu2}

1759: \bar{\mu}_{2} &=& E(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2}) \nonumber \\

1760: &=& E(E(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2}|\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

1761: \theta}}}_{1})) \nonumber \\

1762: &=& E(\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}_{2}) \nonumber \\

1763: &=& E(\mathbf{A}_{2}\hat{\bar{\mathbf{\theta}}}_{1} +

1764: \mathbf{B}_{2}) \nonumber \\

1765: &=& \left[ \begin{array}{c}

1766: \alpha_{21}(\tau_{0}+md-\bar{\Delta}_{21}) \\

1767: \alpha_{21} \\

1768: \vdots \\

1769: \alpha_{2\bar{N}}(\tau_{0}+md-\bar{\Delta}_{2\bar{N}}) \\

1770: \alpha_{2\bar{N}} \\

1771: \end{array} \right]

1772: \end{eqnarray}

1773: Using the decomposition

1774: \begin{displaymath}

1775: \textrm{Cov}(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

1776: \theta}}}_{2})=E(\textrm{Cov}(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

1777: \theta}}}_{2}|\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

1778: \theta}}}_{1}))+\textrm{Cov}(E(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

1779: \theta}}}_{2}|\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{1})),

1780: \end{displaymath}

1781: we have from (\ref{eq:theta2barhat}) and

1782: (\ref{eq:theta2asfxnoftheta1hat})

1783: \begin{eqnarray*}

1784: \Sigma_{m_{2}} & = & E(\textrm{Cov}(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

1785: \theta}}}_{2}|\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{1})) \\

1786: & = &

1787: (\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{\mathbf{H}})^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\Sigma_{\bar{{\mathbf

1788: W}}_{2}}((\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T}\bar{\mathbf{H}})^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{H}}^{T})^{T}

1789: \end{eqnarray*}

1790: \begin{eqnarray*}

1791: \textrm{Cov}(E(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2}|\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

1792: \theta}}}_{1})) & = & \textrm{Cov}(\bar{\theta}_{2}) \\

1793: & = & \mathbf{A}_{2}\bar{\Sigma}_{1}\mathbf{A}_{2}^{T},

1794: \end{eqnarray*}

1795: giving us

1796: \begin{equation} \label{eq:sigma2}

1797: \bar{\Sigma}_{2} = \textrm{Cov}(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2}) =

1798: \Sigma_{m_{2}}+\mathbf{A}_{2}\bar{\Sigma}_{1}\mathbf{A}_{2}^{T}.

1799: \end{equation}

1800: Thus, the distribution of $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2}$ is

1801: \begin{equation*} %\label{eq:theta2dist}

1802: \hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2} \sim {\mathcal N}(\bar{\mu}_{2},

1803: \bar{\Sigma}_{2}).

1804: \end{equation*}

1805: $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2}$ is again a $2\bar{N}\times 1$

1806: column vector where the subvector made up of the ($2(i-1)+1$)th and

1807: ($2(i-1)+2$)th elements, $i=1,\ldots,\bar{N}$, is $\hat{{\mathbf

1808: \theta}}_{2i}=(\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{H})^{-1}\mathbf{H}^{T}\mathbf{Y}_{2i}$.

1809: Therefore, as in (\ref{eq:alphahat1i}) and (\ref{eq:Deltahat1i}),

1810: any node $2i$'s skew estimate (\ref{eq:alphahat}) and offset

1811: estimate (\ref{eq:Deltahat}) can be found from $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

1812: \theta}}}_{2}$ as

1813: \begin{equation} \label{eq:alphahat2i}

1814: \hat{\alpha}_{2i} = e_{2(i-1)+2}^{T}\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2}

1815: \end{equation}

1816: and

1817: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Deltahat2i}

1818: \hat{\Delta}_{2i} = e_{2(i-1)+1}^{T}\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{2}

1819: - (\tau_{0}+dm).

1820: \end{equation}

1821: 

1822: Each node $2i$ will now be able to transmit a sequence of $m$ pulses

1823: occurring, in the time scale of $c_{2i}$, at

1824: $X_{2i}(l)=\hat{\tau}_{2i}+ld\hat{\theta}_{2i,2}$, for

1825: $l=0,\ldots,m-1$, where

1826: $\hat{\tau}_{2i}=\hat{\theta}_{2i,1}+md\hat{\theta}_{2i,2}$.

1827: Repeating the same process we carried out for the observations of

1828: any node $2j$ with any node $3j$, we can find $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

1829: \theta}}}_{3} \sim {\mathcal N}(\bar{\mu}_{3}, \bar{\Sigma}_{3})$.

1830: In fact, continuing this procedure, we can find the distribution of

1831: $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}$ for the $R_{k}$ nodes as

1832: \begin{equation*} %\label{eq:thetakdist}

1833: \hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k} \sim {\mathcal N}(\bar{\mu}_{k},

1834: \bar{\Sigma}_{k})

1835: \end{equation*}

1836: where similar to (\ref{eq:mu2}) we have $\bar{\mu}_{k} =

1837: E(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k})$ which is found in

1838: (\ref{eq:muk}) and similar to (\ref{eq:sigma2}) we have

1839: \begin{equation*} %\label{eq:sigmak}

1840: \bar{\Sigma}_{k} = \textrm{Cov}(\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}) =

1841: \Sigma_{m_{k}}+\mathbf{A}_{k}\bar{\Sigma}_{k-1}\mathbf{A}_{k}^{T},

1842: \end{equation*}

1843: which is found in (\ref{eq:sigmak}). $\Sigma_{m_{k}}$,

1844: $\mathbf{A}_{k}$, $\mathbf{B}_{k}$, and $\Sigma_{\bar{{\mathbf

1845: W}}_{k}}$ are as in the theorem statement. As in

1846: (\ref{eq:alphahat2i}) and (\ref{eq:Deltahat2i}), any node $ki$'s

1847: skew estimate (\ref{eq:alphahat}) and offset estimate

1848: (\ref{eq:Deltahat}) can be found from $\hat{\bar{{\mathbf

1849: \theta}}}_{k}$ as

1850: \begin{equation*}

1851: \hat{\alpha}_{ki} = e_{2(i-1)+2}^{T}\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}

1852: \end{equation*}

1853: and

1854: \begin{equation*}

1855: \hat{\Delta}_{ki} = e_{2(i-1)+1}^{T}\hat{\bar{{\mathbf \theta}}}_{k}

1856: - (\tau_{0}+dm(k-1)).

1857: \end{equation*}

1858: This concludes the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:main}. \qquad

1859: $\bigtriangleup$

1860: 

1861: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1862: 

1863: %\bibitem{LedecziVMSBNK:05}

1864: %A.~Ledeczi, P.~Volgyesi, M.~Maroti, G.~Simon, G.~Balogh, A.~Nadas,

1865: %B.~Kusy, S.~Dora and G.~Pap.

1866: %\newblock{Multiple Simultaneous Acoustic Source Localization in Urban

1867: %Terrain}.

1868: %\newblock In {\em Proc. Information Processing in Sensor Networs

1869: %(IPSN'05)}, Los Angeles, CA, 2005.

1870: 

1871: %\bibitem{BarriacMM:04}

1872: %B.~Barriac, R.~Mudumbai and U.~Madhow.

1873: %\newblock{Distributed Beamforming for Information Transfer in

1874: %Sensor Networks}.

1875: %\newblock In {\em Proc. International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks

1876: %(IPSN)}, Berkeley, CA, 2004.

1877: 

1878: %\bibitem{OchiaiMPT:05}

1879: %H.~Ochiai, P.Mitran, H.~V. Poor and V.~Tarokh.

1880: %\newblock{Collaborative Beamforming for Distributed Wireless Ad

1881: %Hoc Sensor Networks}.

1882: %\newblock{\em IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing},

1883: %53(11):4110-4124, 2005.

1884: 

1885: %\bibitem{HuS:03c}

1886: %A.~Hu and S.~D. Servetto.

1887: %\newblock{dFSK: Distributed Frequency Shift Keying Modulation in

1888: %Dense Sensor Networks}

1889: %\newblock In {Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Communications (ICC)}, Paris,

1890: %France, 2004.

1891: 

1892: \bibitem{ElsonGE:02}

1893: J.~Elson, L.~Girod, and D.~Estrin.

1894: \newblock {Fine-Grained Network Time Syncrhonization using Reference

1895:   Broadcasts}.

1896: \newblock In {\em Proc. 5th Symp. Op. Syst. Design Implementation (OSDI)},

1897:   Boston, MA, 2002.

1898: 

1899: \bibitem{SichitiuV:03}

1900: M.~L. Sichitiu and C.~Veerarittiphan.

1901: \newblock{Simple, Accurate Time Synchronization for Wireless

1902: Sensor Networks}.

1903: \newblock In {\em Proc. IEEE Wireless Communication and Networking

1904: Conference (WCNC 2003)}, New Orleans, LA, March 2003.

1905: 

1906: \bibitem{GaneriwalKW:03}

1907: S.~Ganeriwal, R.~Kumar and M.~B. Srivastava.

1908: \newblock{Timing-Sync Protocol for Sensor Networks}.

1909: \newblock In {\em Proc. First ACM Conference on Embedded Networked

1910: Sensor Systems (SenSys)}, Los Angeles, CA, November 2003.

1911: 

1912: \bibitem{GreunenR:03}

1913: J.~van Greunen and J.~Rabaey.

1914: \newblock{Lightweight Time Synchronization for Sensor Networks}.

1915: \newblock In {\em Proc. 2nd ACM International Workshop on Wireless

1916: Sensor Networks and Applications (WSNA 2003)}, San Diego, CA,

1917: September 2003.

1918: 

1919: \bibitem{MarotiKSL:04}

1920: M.~Maroti, B.~Kusy, G.~Simon and A.~Ledeczi.

1921: \newblock {The Flooding Time Synchronization Protocol}.

1922: \newblock In {\em Proc. 2nd International Conference on Embedded

1923: Neteworked Sensor Systems}, Baltimore, MD, November 2004.

1924: 

1925: \bibitem{KellyEM:03}

1926: C.~Kelly IV, V.~Ekanayake, and R.~Manohar.

1927: \newblock {SNAP: A Sensor Network Asynchronous Processor}.

1928: \newblock In {\em Proc. 9th Int. Symp. Async. Circ. Syst.}, Vancouver, BC,

1929:   2003.

1930: 

1931: \bibitem{WarnekLLP:01}

1932: B.~Warneke, M.~Last, B.~Liebowitz, and K.~S.~J. Pister.

1933: \newblock {Smart Dust: Communicating with a Cubic-Millimeter Computer}.

1934: \newblock {\em IEEE Computer Mag.}, 34(1):44--51, 2001.

1935: 

1936: \bibitem{LiLBH:02}

1937: H.~Li, A.~Lal, J.~Blanchard, and D.~Henderson.

1938: \newblock {Self-Reciprocating Radioisotope-Powered Cantilever}.

1939: \newblock {\em J. Applied Phys.}, 92(2):1122--1127, 2002.

1940: 

1941: %\bibitem{GaneriwalKAS:03}

1942: %S.~Ganeriwal, R.~Kumar, S.~Adlakha and M.~B. Srivastava.

1943: %\newblock{Network-wide Time Synchronization in Sensor Networks}.

1944: %\newblock NESL Technical Report, 2003.

1945: 

1946: \bibitem{MirolloS:90}

1947: R.~E. Mirollo and S.~H. Strogatz.

1948: \newblock {Synchronization of Pulse-Coupled Biological Oscillators}.

1949: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Appl. Math.}, 50(6):1645--1662, 1990.

1950: 

1951: \bibitem{LucarelliW:04}

1952: D.~Lucarelli and I.~Wang.

1953: \newblock{Decentralized Synchroniztion Protocols with Nearest

1954: Neighbor Communication}.

1955: \newblock In {\em Proc. SenSys'04}, Baltimore, Maryland, 2004.

1956: 

1957: \bibitem{HongS:04}

1958: Y.~Hong and A.~Scaglione.

1959: \newblock{A Scalable Synchronization Protocol for Large Scale

1960: Sensor Networks and its Applications}.

1961: \newblock {\em IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC)},

1962: 23(5):1085-1099, May 2005.

1963: 

1964: \bibitem{Werner-AllenTPWN:05}

1965: G.~Werner-Allen, G.~Tewari, A.~Patel, M.~Welsh, and R.~Nagpal.

1966: \newblock{Firefly-Inspired Sensor Network Synchronicity with Realistic Radio

1967: Effects}.

1968: \newblock In {\em Proc. SenSys'05}, San Diego, CA, November 2005.

1969: 

1970: \bibitem{HuS:05a}

1971: A.~Hu and S.~D. Servetto.

1972: \newblock{Cooperative Time Synchronization with Propagation Delay: Model and

1973: Analysis}.

1974: \newblock In {\em Proc. 43rd Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing},

1975: Monticello, IL, October 2005.

1976: 

1977: \bibitem{HuS:05}

1978: A.~Hu and S.~D. Servetto.

1979: \newblock{On the Scalability of Cooperative Time Synchronization in

1980: Pulse-Connected Networks}.

1981: \newblock {\em IEEE Transactions on Information Theory}, 52(6):2725--2748, 2006.

1982: 

1983: \bibitem{GanesanKWCEW:02}

1984: D.~Ganesan, B.~Krishnamachari, A.~Woo, D.~Culler, D.~Estrin  and

1985: S.~Wicker.

1986: \newblock{Complex Behavior at Scale: An Experimental Study of Low-Power Wireless Sensor

1987: Neteworks}.

1988: \newblock In {\em Technical Report UCLA/CSD-TR 02-0013}, Computer Science Department, UCLA,

1989: July 2002.

1990: 

1991: \bibitem{ZhaoG:03}

1992: J.~Zhao and R.~Govindan.

1993: \newblock{Understanding Packet Delivery Performance in Dense Wireless Sensor

1994: Networks}.

1995: \newblock In {\em Proc. 1st International Conf. on Embedded Networked Sensor

1996: Systems}, Los Angeles, CA, 2003.

1997: 

1998: \bibitem{HuS:03b}

1999: A.~Hu and S.~D. Servetto.

2000: \newblock {Algorithmic Aspects of the Time Synchronization Problem in

2001:   Large-Scale Sensor Networks}.

2002: \newblock ACM/Kluwer Mobile Networks and Applications. Special Issue on Wireless Sensor

2003: Networks. 10:491-503, 2005.

2004: 

2005: \bibitem{Weisstein:03}

2006: E.~W. Weisstein.

2007: \newblock{Circular Segment. From \emph{MathWorld}--A Wolfram Web Resource.}

2008: \newblock {{\tt http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ CircularSegment.html}}

2009: 

2010: \bibitem{Hu:07}

2011: A.~Hu.

2012: \newblock{Cooperative Time Synchronization Using Spatial Averaging}

2013: \newblock Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, January 2007.

2014: 

2015: %\bibitem{VasudevanDIKT:03}

2016: %S.~Vasudevan, B.~DeCleene, N.~Immerman, J.~Kurose, and D.~Towsley.

2017: %\newblock{Leader Election Algorithms for Wireless Ad Hoc

2018: %Networks}.

2019: %\newblock In {\em Proc. DARPA Information Survivability Conference

2020: %and Exposition (DISCEX'03)}, 2003.

2021: 

2022: \end{thebibliography}

2023: 

2024: 

2025: \end{document}

2026: