1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
3: % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4:
5: \documentclass[11pt,journal,draftcls,letterpaper,onecolumn,oneside]{IEEEtran}
6: %\documentclass[10pt,journal,final,letterpaper,twocolumn,twoside]{IEEEtran}
7:
8: \IEEEoverridecommandlockouts % This command is only
9: % needed if you want to
10: % use the \thanks command
11: \overrideIEEEmargins
12: % See the \addtolength command later in the file to balance the column lengths
13: % on the last page of the document
14:
15: \usepackage{epsfig,latexsym,amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb,verbatim,cite,mathrsfs}
16: \usepackage{graphicx}
17: \usepackage[dvips]{color}
18:
19: \bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
20:
21: \def\nN{{\mathbb N}}
22: \def\zZ{{\mathbb Z}}
23: \def\rR{{\mathbb R}}
24: \def\eE{{\mathbb E}}
25: \def\pP{{\mathbb P}}
26: \def\cC{{\mathbb C}}
27:
28: \def\QED{\mbox{\rule[0pt]{1.5ex}{1.5ex}}}
29: \def\proof{\noindent\hspace{2em}{\it Proof: }}
30: \def\endproof{\hspace*{\fill}~\QED\par\endtrivlist\unskip}
31:
32: \def\@begintheorem#1#2{\tmpitemindent\itemindent\topsep 0pt\rm\trivlist
33: \item[\hskip \labelsep{\indent\it #1\ #2:}]\itemindent\tmpitemindent}
34: \def\@opargbegintheorem#1#2#3{\tmpitemindent\itemindent\topsep 0pt\rm \trivlist
35: \item[\hskip\labelsep{\indent\it #1\ #2\
36: \rm(#3):}]\itemindent\tmpitemindent}
37: \def\@endtheorem{\endtrivlist\unskip}
38:
39: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[section]
40: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[section]
41: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
42: \newtheorem{fact}{Fact}[section]
43: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}[section]
44: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}[section]
45: %\newtheorem{fact}[theorem]{Fact}
46: %\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
47: %\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
48: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
49: \newcommand{\Section}[1]{\section{#1}
50: \setcounter{equation}{0}}
51: \newcommand{\proofover}{\hfill\vrule height8pt width8pt depth 0pt}
52:
53: %% I would rather use the label command since it is recognized by WinEdt
54: %% and makes it easier to call up a label ~YW
55: % \newcommand{\seclbl}[1]{\label{sec:#1}}
56: \newcommand{\secref}[1]{Section~\ref{#1}}
57: \newcommand{\appref}[1]{Appendix~\ref{#1}}
58: % \newcommand{\eqnlbl}[1]{\label{eq:#1}}
59: \newcommand{\eqnref}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
60: % \newcommand{\figlbl}[1]{\label{fig:#1}}
61: \newcommand{\figref}[1]{Figure~\ref{#1}}
62: \newcommand{\thmref}[1]{Theorem~\ref{#1}}
63: \newcommand{\defref}[1]{Definition~\ref{#1}}
64: \newcommand{\remref}[1]{Remark~\ref{#1}}
65: \newcommand{\corref}[1]{Corollary~\ref{#1}}
66:
67: \setcounter{page}{1}
68:
69: \title{One--bit Distributed Sensing and Coding for \\Field Estimation in
70: Sensor Networks
71: %$^*$\thanks{$^*$ This material is based upon work supported by the US
72: %National Science Foundation (NSF) under award (CAREER)
73: %CCF--0546598. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
74: %recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors
75: %and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.}
76: }
77:
78: \author{Ye Wang, Prakash Ishwar, and Venkatesh
79: Saligrama$^\dagger$
80: \thanks{$^\dagger$ Y.~Wang, P.~Ishwar, and V.~Saligrama are with the
81: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
82: Boston University, Boston, MA 02215. Email:
83: {\tt\small \{yw,pi,srv\}@bu.edu}.}
84: }
85:
86:
87: \begin{document}
88:
89: \maketitle
90: %\thispagestyle{empty}
91: %\pagestyle{empty}
92: \thispagestyle{plain}
93: \pagestyle{plain}
94:
95: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
96: \begin{abstract}
97: This paper formulates and studies a general distributed field
98: reconstruction problem using a dense network of noisy one--bit
99: randomized scalar quantizers in the presence of additive observation
100: noise of unknown distribution. A constructive quantization, coding,
101: and field reconstruction scheme is developed and an upper--bound to
102: the associated mean squared error (MSE) at any point and any snapshot
103: is derived in terms of the local spatio--temporal smoothness
104: properties of the underlying field. It is shown that when the noise,
105: sensor placement pattern, and the sensor schedule satisfy certain weak
106: technical requirements, it is possible to drive the MSE to zero with
107: increasing sensor density at points of field continuity while ensuring
108: that the per--sensor bitrate and sensing--related network overhead
109: rate simultaneously go to zero. The proposed scheme achieves the
110: order--optimal MSE versus sensor density scaling behavior for the
111: class of spatially constant spatio--temporal fields.
112: \end{abstract}
113:
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: \Section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction and Overview} We study the
116: problem of reconstructing, at a data fusion center, a temporal
117: sequence of spatial data fields, in a bounded geographical region of
118: interest, from finite bit--rate messages generated by a dense
119: noncooperative network of sensors. The data--gathering sensor network
120: is made up of noisy low--resolution sensors at known locations that
121: are statistically identical (exchangeable) with respect to the sensing
122: operation. The exchangeability
123: % interchangeability
124: assumption reflects the property of an unsorted collection of
125: inexpensive mass--produced sensors that behave in a statistically
126: identical fashion. We view each data field as an unknown deterministic
127: function over the geographical space of interest and make only the
128: weak assumption that they have a known bounded maximum dynamic
129: range. The sensor observations are corrupted by bounded, zero--mean,
130: additive noise which is independent across sensors with arbitrary
131: dependencies across field snapshots. This {\em noise has an arbitrary,
132: unknown distribution} but a known maximum dynamic range. The sensors
133: are equipped with binary analog--to--digital converters (ADCs) in the
134: form of comparators with random thresholds which are uniformly
135: distributed over the (known) sensor dynamic range. These thresholds
136: are assumed to be independent across sensors with arbitrary
137: dependencies across snapshots. These modeling assumptions partially
138: account for certain real--world scenarios that include (i) the
139: unavailability of good initial statistical models for data fields in
140: yet to be well studied natural phenomena, (ii) unknown additive
141: sensing/observation noise sources, (iii) additive model perturbation
142: errors, (iv) substantial variation of preset comparator thresholds
143: accompanying the mass--manufacture of low--precision sensors, (v)
144: significant temperature fluctuations across snapshots affecting
145: hardware characteristics, and (vi) the use of intentional dither
146: signals for randomized scalar quantization.
147:
148: Building upon prior results in
149: \cite{MasryC-IT1981-BPCNT,Masry-IT1981-RASFS}, and
150: \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN}, we develop a simple coding and field
151: reconstruction scheme based on one--bit scalar quantized samples of
152: noisy observations. We characterize the associated scaling behavior of
153: the MSE of field reconstruction with sensor density in terms of the
154: local and global moduli of continuity of the underlying sequence of
155: fields. This MSE characterization is for fixed, positive, and equal
156: sensor coding rates (bits per sensor per snapshot). These achievable
157: results reveal that for bounded, zero--mean, additive observation
158: noise of unknown distribution, the MSE at every point of continuity of
159: every field snapshot can be made to go to zero as sensor density
160: increases while simultaneously sending the per--sensor bitrate and any
161: sensing--related network rate overheads (e.g., sensor addresses) to
162: zero. This is possible if the sensor placement and sampling schedule
163: satisfy a certain uniformity property. This property ensures that the
164: field estimate at any given spatial location is formed using the
165: observations from increasingly many sensors that are located within a
166: vanishingly smaller neighborhood of the location.
167:
168: The MSE results of this work pertain to uniform pointwise convergence
169: to zero, that is, for every spatial location of every field, unlike
170: results pertaining to spatially and temporally averaged MSE which are
171: more commonly encountered. The rate of decay of field reconstruction
172: MSE at a given location is related to the local modulus of continuity
173: of the field at the given location and time. Specializing these
174: results to the case of spatially constant fields yields an achievable
175: MSE decay rate of $O(1/N)$ where $N$ is the sensor network
176: size.\footnote{Landau's asymptotic notation: $f(N) = O(g(N))
177: \Leftrightarrow \lim\sup_{N\rightarrow \infty}|f(N)/g(N)| < \infty$;
178: $f(N) = \Omega(g(N)) \Leftrightarrow g(N) = O(f(N))$; $f(N) =
179: \Theta(g(N)) \Leftrightarrow f(N) = O(g(N))\ \text{and}\ g(N) =
180: O(f(N))$.} A Cram\'{e}r--Rao lower--bound on the MSE for parameter
181: estimation establishes that the $O(1/N)$ MSE scaling behavior is
182: order--optimal in a minimax sense. Since in our problem formulation,
183: the per--sensor bitrate is held fixed and equal across sensors, in a
184: scaling sense, the MSE decreases inversely with the total network
185: rate.
186:
187: Previous estimation--theoretic studies of one--bit distributed field
188: reconstruction have focused on reconstructing a single field snapshot
189: and have either (i) assumed zero observation noise
190: \cite{MasryC-IT1981-BPCNT,Masry-IT1981-RASFS}, or (ii) assumed a
191: spatially constant field (equivalent to scalar parameter estimation)
192: with a one--bit communication as opposed to a one--bit sensing
193: constraint \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN}. The system proposed in this work
194: integrates the desirable field sensing and reconstruction properties
195: of these apparently different one--bit field estimation schemes and
196: establishes the statistical and performance equivalence of these
197: approaches. An important hardware implication of this paper is that
198: noisy op--amps (noisy threshold comparators) are adequate for
199: high--resolution distributed field reconstruction. This should be be
200: contrasted with the framework in \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN} which
201: implicitly requires sensors to have the ability to quantize their
202: observations to an arbitrarily high bit resolution. A side
203: contribution of this paper is the holistic treatment of the general
204: distributed field--reconstruction problem in terms of (i) the field
205: characteristics, (ii) sensor placement characteristics, (iii) sensor
206: observation, quantization, and coding constraints with associated
207: sensing hardware implications, (iv) transmission and sensing--related
208: network overhead rates, and (v) reconstruction and performance
209: criteria. We have attempted to explicitly indicate and keep track of
210: what information is known, available, and used where and what is not.
211:
212: The randomized scalar quantization model for the sensor comparators
213: not only captures poor sensing capabilities but is also an enabling
214: factor in the high--fidelity reconstruction of signals from quantized
215: noisy observations. As shown in \cite{MarcoDLN-IPSN2003-MTCDWSN} in an
216: information--theoretic setting, and alluded to in
217: \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS}, the use of {\em identical} deterministic
218: scalar--quantization (SQ) in all sensors will result in the MSE
219: performance being fundamentally limited by the precision of SQ, {\em
220: irrespective of increasing sensor density}, even in the absence of
221: sensor observation noise.\footnote{The problem will persist even for
222: identical block vector--quantization (VQ) with identical binning
223: (hashing) operations.} However, our results further clarify that
224: having ``diversity'' in the scalar quantizers, achieved, for example,
225: through the means of an intentional random dither, noisy threshold, or
226: other mechanisms, can achieve MSE performance that tends to zero as
227: the density of sensors goes to infinity (\secref{sec:MSEanalysis},
228: Implications). Randomization enables high--precision signal
229: reconstruction because zero--mean positive and negative fluctuations
230: around a signal value can be reliably ``averaged out'' when there are
231: enough independent noisy observations of the signal value. This
232: observation is also corroborated by the findings reported in the
233: following related studies \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS,
234: MasryC-IT1981-BPCNT,
235: Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN,zorands2000,zorandli2002,IshwarKR-2003-DSDSNBCP,KumarIR-2004-DSSNBLF}.
236:
237: The results of this work are also aligned with the
238: information--theoretic, total network rate versus MSE scaling results
239: for the CEO problem which was first introduced in
240: \cite{BergerZV-IT1996-TCP} and thereafter studied extensively in the
241: information theory literature (see
242: \cite{ViswanathanB-IT1997-QGCP,PrabhakaranTR-ISIT04-RQGCP} and
243: references therein). However, it should be noted that
244: information--theoretic rate--distortion studies of this and related
245: distributed field reconstruction (multiterminal source coding)
246: problems typically consider stationary ergodic stochastic fields with
247: complete knowledge of the field and observation--noise statistics,
248: block--VQ and binning operations, and time and space--averaged (as
249: opposed to worst--case) expected distortion criteria. In VQ, sensors
250: are allowed to collect long blocks of real--valued field samples (of
251: infinite resolution) from multiple field snapshots before a discrete,
252: finite bit--rate VQ operation. The fields are often assumed to be
253: spatially constant and independent and identically distributed (iid)
254: across time (frequently Gaussian) and the observation noise is often
255: assumed to be additive with a known distribution (frequently Gaussian)
256: as in the CEO problem. It should also be noted that the MSE scaling
257: results for the CEO problem in \cite{ViswanathanB-IT1997-QGCP} are
258: with respect to the total network rate where the number of agents (or
259: sensors) has already been sent to infinity while maintaining the total
260: network rate a finite value. Recent information--theoretic results for
261: stationary fields under zero observation noise have been developed in
262: \cite{KashyapLXL-2005-DSCDSN,NeuhoffP-2006-UPRIDLSC}. There is also a
263: large body of work on centralized oversampled A--D conversion, e.g.,
264: see \cite{Cvetkovic-IT2003-RPREUANQ} and references therein. Our work
265: does not explicitly address physical--layer network data transport
266: issues. In particular, we do not consider joint source--channel coding
267: strategies (however see remark before
268: Section~\ref{sec:deploymentStrats}). For certain types of joint
269: source--channel coding aspects of this and related problems, we refer
270: the reader to the following references
271: \cite{GastparV-2003-SCCSN,GastparRV-2003-TCNCLSCCR,NowakMW-2004-EIFWSN,LiuES-2005-OPFESN,BajwaSN-2005-MSCCFEWSN,LiuU-2006-ODPTGSN}.
272: Networking issues such as sensor scheduling, quality of service, and
273: energy efficiency may be found in \cite{ZhaoST-2006-IBSPNSN} and
274: references therein.
275:
276: The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The main problem
277: description with all the associated technical modeling assumptions is
278: presented in \secref{sec:problemsetup}. The main technical results of
279: this paper are then crisply summarized and their implications are
280: discussed in \secref{sec:results}. \secref{sec:ourscheme} describes
281: the proposed constructive distributed coding and field reconstruction
282: scheme and the analysis of MSE performance which leads to the
283: technical results of \secref{sec:results}. For completeness, in
284: Section~\ref{sec:deploymentStrats} we also briefly discuss sensor
285: deployment issues but this is not the focus of this work. In
286: \secref{sec:prevresults}, we discuss the close connections between the
287: work in \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS}, \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN}, and the
288: present work, and establish the fundamental statistical and
289: performance equivalence of the core techniques in these studies. We
290: also discuss how the scenario of arbitrary unbounded noise and
291: threshold distributions can be accommodated when the statistics are
292: known. We conclude in \secref{sec:conclusions} by summarizing the
293: main findings of this work. The proofs of two main results are
294: presented in the appendices.
295: % and comment on ongoing work and future research directions.
296:
297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
298: \Section{\label{sec:problemsetup}Distributed Field Reconstruction
299: Sensor--network (DFRS) Setup}
300:
301: \begin{figure*}
302: \centering
303: \includegraphics[width=7.0in]{Figs/MainFig.eps}
304: \caption{\label{fig:probSetup} {\bf Block diagram of a distributed
305: field reconstruction sensor--network using randomized $1$--bit SQ
306: with block--coding.} Sensor $i$ quantizes its noisy observations,
307: $Y_{i1}, \ldots, Y_{iT}$, to the binary values $B_{i1}, \ldots,
308: B_{iT}$. The sensor then generates the message $M_i \in \{1, \ldots,
309: 2^{rT}\}$ based on these quantized values. These messages $\{M_i\}$
310: are then relayed to the fusion center where the field estimates
311: $\widehat{S}_t$ are produced.}
312: \end{figure*}
313:
314: \subsection{\label{sec:fieldModel}Field Model}
315:
316: We consider a sequence of $T$ discrete--time snapshots of a
317: spatio--temporal field.\footnote{If the spatio--temporal field is
318: temporally bandlimited then the field values at intermediate time
319: points can be interpolated from the estimates at discrete time
320: snapshots if the temporal sampling rate is (strictly) higher than
321: the temporal Nyquist rate of the field. The associated MSE will be
322: no larger than the maximum MSE of the estimates across the
323: discrete--time snapshots times a proportionality constant.} Each
324: snapshot is modeled as a continuous\footnote{More generally, our
325: results can be extended to arbitrary, amplitude--bounded, measurable
326: functions. For such functions the pointwise MSE bounds given in
327: \secref{sec:MSEanalysis} still hold. The estimates at the points of
328: continuity will have MSE tending to 0 as the network size scales.
329: However, the points of discontinuity may have a finite, but
330: non--zero MSE floor.} bounded function,
331: \[
332: s_t:G \rightarrow \rR:\ \forall x \in G,\ \forall t \in
333: \{1,\ldots,T\},\ |s_t(x)| \leq a < +\infty,
334: \]
335: where $G \subseteq \rR^d$ is a known geographical region of interest
336: in $d$--dimensional real space and $a$ is a known bound on the
337: maximum field dynamic range. Although the results of this paper hold
338: for any $G$ which is bounded and is the closure of its nonempty
339: interior, for simplicity and clarity of exposition, we will assume
340: $G = [0,1]^d$, the $d$--dimensional unit--hypercube, in the sequel.
341: Distances are measured with respect to a norm\footnote{For
342: asymptotic results in which distance $\longrightarrow 0$, any norm
343: on $\rR^d$ would suffice since all norms on any finite--dimensional
344: Banach space are equivalent \cite[Theorem~23.6,
345: p.~177]{AliprantisB-AP90-PRA}.} $\|\cdot\|$, which for this work
346: will be assumed to be the Euclidean $2$--norm. Since the fields are
347: continuous functions on the compact set $G$, they are in fact
348: uniformly continuous on $G$ \cite{AliprantisB-AP90-PRA}.
349:
350: Results on the fidelity of the field reconstruction will be
351: described in terms of the local and global moduli of continuity
352: associated with the field:
353:
354: \begin{definition}\label{def:localMod}\emph{(Local modulus of
355: continuity)} The local modulus of continuity $\omega_t:[0,\infty)
356: \times G \rightarrow [0,\infty)$ of the function $s_t(x)$ at the
357: point $x \in G$ is defined as
358: \[
359: \omega_t(\delta,x) \triangleq \sup_{\{x^\prime \in G:\|x-x^\prime\|
360: \leq \delta\}} |s_t(x) - s_t(x^\prime)|.
361: \]
362: Note that for all $x \in G$, $\omega_t(\delta,x)$ is a nondecreasing
363: function of $\delta$ and that it $\longrightarrow 0$ as $\delta
364: \longrightarrow 0$ since $s_t(x)$ is continuous at each point $x$ in
365: $G$.
366: \end{definition}
367:
368: \begin{definition}\label{def:globalMod} \emph{(Global modulus of continuity)}
369: The global modulus of continuity $\widetilde{\omega}_t: [0,\infty)
370: \rightarrow [0,\infty)$ of the function $s_t(x)$ is defined as
371: \[
372: \widetilde{\omega}_t(\delta) \triangleq \sup_{x \in G}
373: \omega_t(\delta,x).
374: \]
375: Again note that $\widetilde{\omega}_t(\delta)$ is a nondecreasing
376: function of $\delta$ and that it $\longrightarrow 0$ as $\delta
377: \longrightarrow 0$ since $s_t(x)$ is uniformly continuous over $G$.
378: \end{definition}
379:
380: The global and local moduli of continuity of a spatial field
381: respectively reflect the degree of global and local spatial
382: smoothness of the field with smaller values, for a fixed value of
383: $\delta$, corresponding to greater smoothness. For example, for a
384: spatially constant field, that is, for all $x\in G$, $s_t(x) = s_t
385: \text{ (a constant)}$, we have $\widetilde{\omega}_t(\delta) = 0$
386: for all $\delta \geq 0$. For $d=1$ and fields with a uniformly
387: bounded derivative, that is, for all $x \in G$, $\sup_{x\in
388: G}|d(s_t(x))/dx| = \Delta < +\infty$, $\widetilde{\omega}_t(\delta)
389: \leq \Delta \cdot \delta$. More generally, for a Lipschitz--$\gamma$
390: spatial function (see \cite{MasryC-IT1981-BPCNT}) $s_t(x)$, we have
391: $\widetilde{\omega}_t(\delta) \propto \delta^\gamma$. Closed--form
392: analytical expressions of moduli of continuity may not be available
393: for arbitrary fields but bounds often are. Sometimes bounds that are
394: tight in the limit as $\delta \longrightarrow 0$ are also available.
395: From Definitions~\ref{def:localMod}, \ref{def:globalMod}, and the
396: boundedness of the field dynamic range, it also follows that for all
397: $\delta \geq 0$, for all $x \in G$, and for all $t \in
398: \{1,\ldots,T\}$, we have
399: \begin{eqnarray*}
400: %% The following label has not been referenced anywhere!
401: %\label{eqn:modulusBounds}
402: 0 \leq \omega_t(\delta,x) \leq \widetilde{\omega}_t(\delta) \leq 2a
403: < +\infty.
404: \end{eqnarray*}
405:
406: \subsection{\label{sec:sensePlace}Sensor Placement}
407:
408: We assume that we have a dense, noncooperative network of $N$ sensors
409: distributed uniformly over a hypercube partitioning of $G =
410: [0,1]^d$. The space $G = [0,1]^d$ is uniformly partitioned into $L =
411: l^d$ (where $l$ is an integer) disjoint, hypercube supercells of
412: side--length $(1/l)$. Each supercell is then further uniformly
413: partitioned into $M = m^d$ (where $m$ is an integer) hypercube
414: subcells of side--length $(1/(lm))$, giving a total of $LM$
415: subcells. In our distributed field coding and reconstruction scheme,
416: described in \secref{sec:ourscheme}, the field estimate for each
417: snapshot is constant over each supercell and is formed by averaging
418: the measurements from a partial set of the sensors determined by the
419: subcells. This field reconstruction scheme requires knowledge of the
420: sensor locations only up to supercell (not subcell)
421: membership. Therefore, it has some natural robustness against sensor
422: location uncertainty or error. The significance of the super and
423: subcells will become clear in the sequel (Sections~\ref{sec:results}
424: and \ref{sec:ourscheme}).
425: %Issues related to randomness in sensor deployment are discussed in
426: %\secref{sec:deploymentStrats}.
427:
428: We assume that the sensor deployment mechanism is able to uniformly
429: distribute the sensors over the subcells. We define this uniform
430: sensor deployment condition with:
431:
432: \begin{definition}\label{def:UnifPlacement} \emph{(Uniform sensor deployment)}
433: We say that a sensor deployment method is uniform if exactly $n
434: \triangleq (N/(LM))$ sensors are located in each subcell.
435: \end{definition}
436:
437: \defref{def:UnifPlacement} describes ideal sensor deployment
438: conditions and can be achieved by locating the sensors over a uniform
439: grid. However, precise control of sensor locations may not be possible
440: in practice.
441: %Since incorporating uncertainty in the deployment models will not
442: %drastically change performance results and
443: Since we are not primarily concerned about the details of deployment,
444: we defer discussion of such issues to \secref{sec:deploymentStrats},
445: where we introduce a stochastic deployment model in order to capture
446: the uncertainty of realistic deployment mechanisms. In
447: \secref{sec:deploymentStrats}, we show that this deployment method
448: satisfies a relaxed version of \defref{def:UnifPlacement}, the
449: asymptotic nearly uniform deployment condition given by
450: \defref{def:NearUnifPlacement}, which does not significantly change
451: the estimator performance.
452:
453: For clarity of presentation, we will assume that the deployment scheme
454: being used satisfies the uniform sensor deployment condition given in
455: \defref{def:UnifPlacement}. We also assume that each sensor is aware
456: of which subcell it is in. \figref{fig:deployment} illustrates the
457: cell hierarchy and an example sensor deployment for the $d = 2$
458: dimensional case.
459:
460: \begin{figure}
461: \centering
462: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Figs/SensorPlace.eps}
463: \caption{{\bf Example uniform sensor deployment and cell hierarchy
464: over $[0,1]^2$ ($d = 2$).} Here, $N = 864$ sensors are deployed over
465: $L = 4^2$ supercells of side--length $(1/4)$ and $M = 3^2$ subcells
466: per supercell of side--length $(1/(3 \cdot 4))$, resulting in $6$
467: sensors per subcell.} \label{fig:deployment}
468: \end{figure}
469:
470: \subsection{Sensor Observation and Coding Models}
471:
472: \subsubsection{\label{sec:obsModel}Sensor Observation Noise}
473:
474: The sensor observations are corrupted by bounded, zero--mean
475: additive noise which is independent across sensors, but can be
476: arbitrarily correlated across field snapshots\footnote{The
477: measurement snapshot timers of all the participating sensors are
478: assumed to be synchronized.}. Let $Z_{it}$ denote the noise
479: affecting the observation of the $t^{\mathrm{th}}$ snapshot by the
480: $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ sensor, and define the $\mathbf{Z} \triangleq
481: \{Z_{it}\}_{i=1,t=1}^{N,T}$ (the collection of all of the noise
482: random variables) and $\mathbf{Z}_i \triangleq \{Z_{it}\}_{t=1}^{T}$
483: (the collection of all of the noise random variables for a given
484: sensor $i$). The noise $\mathbf{Z}$ has an unknown joint cumulative
485: distribution function (cdf) $F_{\mathbf{Z}}(\mathbf{z})$ that can be
486: arbitrary within the zero--mean, boundedness and independence
487: constraints already stated. The maximum dynamic range of the noise
488: $b \in [0,+\infty)$ is known. The noisy observation of field
489: snapshot $t \in \{1, \ldots, T \}$ made by sensor $i \in \{1,
490: \ldots, N\}$ is given by
491: \[
492: Y_{it} = s_t(x_i) + Z_{it},
493: \]
494: where $x_i$ is the location of the $i^\mathrm{th}$ sensor and
495: $\mathbf{Z} \sim \mbox{cdf } F_{\mathbf{Z}}(\mathbf{z})$. We use
496: $\mathcal{F}$ to denote the set of all joint cdfs that are
497: factorizable into $N$ zero--mean joint cdfs on $\rR^T$ with support
498: within $[-b,+b]^T$, that is, $F_{\mathbf{Z}}(\mathbf{z}) =
499: \prod_{i=1}^N F_{\mathbf{Z_i}}(\mathbf{z_i})$ where
500: $F_{\mathbf{Z_i}}(\mathbf{z_i})$ is a zero--mean joint cdf
501: (corresponding to the noise random variables for sensor $i$) with
502: support within $[-b,+b]^T$. Note that $\mathcal{F}$ captures the
503: feasible set of joint noise cdfs for the bounded--amplitude,
504: zero--mean, and independence assumptions. Also note that $|Y_{it}|
505: \leq |s_t(x_i)| + |Z_{it}| \leq c \triangleq (a+b)$.
506:
507: \subsubsection{\label{sec:1bitSQ}Randomized $1$--bit SQ with Block Coding}
508:
509: Due to severe precision and reliability limitations, each sensor $i
510: \in \{1, \ldots, N\}$, has access to only to a vector of unreliable
511: binary quantized samples $\mathbf{B}_i \triangleq (B_{i1}, \ldots,
512: B_{iT})$ for processing and coding and not direct access to the
513: real--valued noisy observations $Y_{i1}, \ldots, Y_{iT}$. The
514: quantized binary sample $B_{it}$ is generated from the corresponding
515: noisy observation $Y_{it}$ through a randomized mapping $Q_{it}:
516: [-c,c] \rightarrow \{0,1\}$: for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, N\}$ and
517: each $t \in \{1, \ldots, T \}$,
518: \[
519: B_{it} = Q_{it}(Y_{it}),
520: \]
521: where we assume that the mappings $Q_{it}$ are independent across
522: sensors $i$, but can be arbitrarily correlated across snapshots $t$.
523: We denote the conditional marginal statistics of the quantized
524: samples by $p_{B_{it}|Y_{it}}(y) \triangleq \pP(B_{it} = 1|Y_{it} =
525: y)$. We are specifically interested in cases where
526: $p_{B_{it}|Y_{it}}(y)$ is an affine function of $y$ since it allows
527: estimates of the fields to be made from the $B_{it}$'s without
528: knowledge of the noise distribution (see \appref{app:MSEperfProof}).
529: Specifically we consider the conditional distribution
530: \[
531: p_{B_{it}|Y_{it}}(y) = \left(\frac{y + c}{2c}\right).
532: \]
533:
534: This conditional distribution can be achieved by a quantization
535: method which is based on comparing the noisy observation with a
536: random uniformly distributed threshold given by
537: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:ourQFunc}
538: B_{it} = Q_{it}^{Th}(Y_{it}) \triangleq \mathbf{1}(Y_{it} > R_{it}),
539: \end{equation}
540: where the $R_{it}$'s are $\mathrm{Unif}[-c,c]$ random thresholds
541: which are independent across sensors $i$, but arbitrarily correlated
542: across snapshots $t$, and $\mathbf{1}(\cdot)$ denotes the indicator
543: function:
544: \[
545: \mathbf{1}(Y_{it} > R_{it}) =
546: \begin{cases} 1 & \mbox{if } Y_{it} > R_{it}, \\
547: 0 & \mbox{otherwise}.
548: \end{cases}
549: \]
550:
551: This uniform random--threshold $1$--bit SQ model partially accounts
552: for some practical scenarios that include (i) comparators with a
553: floating threshold voltage, (ii) substantial variation of preset
554: comparator thresholds accompanying the mass--manufacture of
555: low--precision sensors, (iii) significant environmental fluctuations
556: that affect the precision of the comparator hardware, or generally
557: (iv) unreliable comparators with considerable sensing noise and
558: jitter. An alternative justification is that the random thresholds
559: are intentionally inserted as a random dither. Scenario (i) can be
560: accommodated by independence across snapshots, scenario (ii) can be
561: accommodated by complete correlation (fixed) across snapshots, and
562: scenarios (iii) and (iv) can be accommodated by arbitrary
563: correlation across snapshots.
564:
565: \begin{figure}[!htb]
566: \centering
567: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Figs/quantizer.eps}
568: \caption{\label{fig:QthModel}{\bf Quantizer hardware example.} The
569: sensing model described by the $Q_{it}^{Th}(\cdot)$ function in
570: \eqnref{eqn:ourQFunc} can be implemented by a comparator with a
571: uniformly distributed threshold. These thresholds are independent
572: across sensors, but arbitrarily correlated across snapshots,
573: allowing many scenarios to be accommodated.}
574: \end{figure}
575:
576: Each sensor $i$ utilizes a block encoder to ``compress'' its vector
577: of $T$ quantized samples $\mathbf{B}_i$ to a message $M_i \in \{1,
578: 2, \ldots, 2^{rT}\}$ before transmitting to the fusion center. The
579: block encoder and message for sensor $i$ are given by
580: \[
581: f_i:\{0,1\}^T \rightarrow \{1, 2, \ldots, 2^{rT}\}, \quad M_i =
582: f_i(B_{i1}, \ldots, B_{iT}),
583: \]
584: where $r$ is the coding rate in bits per sensor per snapshot. For $r
585: \geq 1$ compression is trivial since $\mathbf{B}_i$ can assume no
586: more than $2^T$ distinct values which can be indexed using $T$~bits.
587:
588: \subsection{\label{sec:transModel}Transmission and Field Reconstruction}
589:
590: In this work, a data fusion center is any point of data aggregation
591: and/or processing in the sensor network and can be real or virtual.
592: For instance, sensors can be dynamically organized into clusters with
593: different sensors assuming the role of a fusion center at different
594: times \cite{ChouPR-Asilomar2002-TECDSN}. To conform with the existing
595: base of digital communication architectures, our problem setup
596: abstracts the underlying transmission network of sensors effectively
597: as a network of bit pipes. These bit pipes are capable of reliably
598: delivering these $N$ messages (the payloads) and the network addresses
599: of the message origination nodes (the headers) to the fusion
600: center. This enables the fusion center to correctly associate the
601: spatial location information with the corresponding sensor
602: field--measurement information for reliable field reconstruction. In
603: practice, sensor data can be moved to the fusion center through a
604: variety of physical--layer transport mechanisms, example, a stationary
605: base--station with directional antenna arrays, a mobile data
606: collector, and passive sensor querying mechanisms involving, for
607: instance, laser--beams and modulating mirrors
608: \cite{KahnKP-MOBICOM99-NCCMNSD}.
609:
610: Separating the distributed field reconstruction problem into efficient
611: data acquisition and efficient data transport parts through a
612: finite--rate reliable bit--pipe abstraction may be suboptimal
613: \cite[p.~449]{CoverJ-1991-EoIT}, \cite{GastparV-2003-SCCSN,
614: GastparRV-2003-TCNCLSCCR}. For instance, in some scenarios multihop
615: communication is not needed and the characteristics of the field, the
616: communication channel, and the distortion--metric are ``matched'' to
617: one another. In such a scenario, uncoded ``analog'' transmission can
618: offer huge performance gains if the synchronization of sensor
619: transmissions can be orchestrated at the physical layer to achieve
620: beamforming gains and the network channel state information is
621: available to the transmitting sensors \cite{GastparV-2003-SCCSN}.
622: Certain aspects of this analog transmission can be incorporated within
623: our field reconstruction framework and is briefly discussed in the
624: remark just before Section~\ref{sec:deploymentStrats}.
625:
626: For our reconstruction scheme, described in \secref{sec:ourscheme},
627: the fusion center only needs to be able to spatially localize the
628: origin of each message to within the supercell resolution.
629: % differentiate which supercell each message originated from.
630: This can be achieved by having each sensor append a $\log(LM)$ bits
631: long label to its message. This results in a total sensor--location
632: rate--overhead of $r_{ohd} = (N/T)\log(LM)$ bits per snapshot on the
633: network information transport costs. This overhead will be negligible
634: if $T \gg N\log(LM)$. If the underlying sequence of fields are
635: spatially constant, then, the sensor location information is not
636: needed at the fusion center (see \corref{cor:constFieldCase} and
637: \secref{sec:ourscheme}).
638:
639: The fusion center forms the estimates of the $T$ fields based on the
640: sensor messages using the reconstruction functions
641: \[
642: g_t: G \times \{1, 2, \ldots, 2^{rT}\}^N \rightarrow [-a,a], \
643: \forall t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}.
644: \]
645: The estimate of field $t$ at point $x \in G$ is denoted by
646: \[
647: \widehat{S}_t(x) = g_t(x, M_1, \ldots, M_N).
648: \]
649: \begin{definition}\emph{(Rate--$r$ DFRS)}
650: A rate--$r$ DFRS based on randomized $1$--bit SQ with block coding
651: is defined by the set of rate--$r$ encoder functions
652: $\{f_i(\cdot)\}_{i=1}^N$ and the set of reconstruction functions
653: $\{g_t(\cdot)\}_{t=1}^T$.
654: \end{definition}
655:
656: Figure~\ref{fig:probSetup} depicts a rate--$r$ DFRS using randomized
657: $1$--bit SQ with block coding.
658:
659: \subsubsection{\label{sec:perfCriteria}Performance Criterion}
660:
661: \begin{definition} \emph{(Pointwise MSE)}
662: The pointwise MSE of the estimate of field $t$ at location $x \in
663: G$, for a given rate--$r$ DFRS and a specific noise joint cdf
664: $F_\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{z}) \in \mathcal{F}$, is given by
665: \[
666: D_t(x;F_\mathbf{Z}) = \eE[(\widehat{S}_t(x) - s_t(x))^2].
667: \]
668: \end{definition}
669:
670: Since we are interested in schemes that will work for {\em any}
671: noise cdf in $\mathcal{F}$, we consider the worst--case
672: $D_t(x;F_\mathbf{Z})$ over all possible $F_\mathbf{Z} \in
673: \mathcal{F}$. We also consider the maximization over all fields and
674: all locations in $G$ since we want to reconstruct every point of
675: every field with high fidelity.
676: \begin{definition}\label{def:worsecaseMSE} \emph{(Worst--case MSE)}
677: The worst--case MSE $D$ is given by
678: \[
679: D = \max_{t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}} \sup_{x \in G} \sup_{F_\mathbf{Z}
680: \in \mathcal{F}} D_t(x;F_\mathbf{Z}).
681: \]
682: \end{definition}
683:
684: Our objective is to understand the scaling behavior of MSE with $N$,
685: $T$, and $r$. The next section summarizes our partial results in
686: this direction.
687:
688: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
689: \Section{\label{sec:results}Main Results}
690:
691: \subsection{\label{sec:MSEanalysis}Achievable MSE Performance}
692:
693: Our first result gives an upper bound on the MSE achievable through
694: a constructive DFRS based on randomized $1$--bit SQ with block
695: coding for rate $r = 1/M$, where $M$ is the number of subcells per
696: supercell. The actual scheme will be described in
697: \secref{sec:ourscheme}. The MSE analysis appears within the proof of
698: the theorem detailed in \appref{app:MSEperfProof}. This achievable
699: MSE upper bound can be made to decrease to zero as sensor--density
700: goes to infinity (see \eqnref{eqn:LNScaling}) without knowledge of
701: the local or global smoothness properties of the sequence of fields.
702: Furthermore, this scheme is universal in the sense that it does not
703: assume knowledge of $F_\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{z})$ beyond membership to
704: $\mathcal{F}$.
705:
706: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:MSEperf} \emph{(Achievable MSE performance:
707: Randomized $1$--bit SQ and $r = 1/M$)} There exists a rate--$r = 1/M$
708: DFRS based on randomized $1$--bit SQ with block coding (e.g., the
709: scheme of \secref{sec:ourscheme}) such that for all $x \in G$, $t \in
710: \{1, \ldots, T\}$, and $F_\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{z}) \in \mathcal{F}$,
711: \begin{eqnarray*}
712: D_t(x;F_\mathbf{Z}) &\leq&
713: \omega_t^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt[d]{L}} ,x\right) +
714: \left(\frac{LMc^2}{N}\right) \\
715: &\leq&
716: \widetilde{\omega}_t^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt[d]{L}}\right) +
717: \left(\frac{LMc^2}{N}\right).
718: \end{eqnarray*}
719: \end{theorem}
720:
721: \begin{proof}
722: See Section~\ref{sec:ourscheme} and \appref{app:MSEperfProof}.
723: \end{proof}
724:
725: Note that Theorem~\ref{thm:MSEperf} holds for arbitrary fields. The
726: modulus of continuity terms in the local (first) and global (second)
727: upper bounds of Theorem~\ref{thm:MSEperf} are due to the bias of the
728: field estimates and the $\left(\frac{LMc^2}{N}\right)$ term is due
729: to the variance of the field estimates (see \eqnref{eqn:1bitreconst}
730: in \secref{sec:ourscheme}). From \thmref{thm:MSEperf} and the
731: properties of moduli of continuity (see \secref{sec:fieldModel}), it
732: follows that for the coding and reconstruction scheme of
733: \secref{sec:ourscheme}, as $N \longrightarrow \infty$, the estimate
734: $\widehat{S}_t(x)$ uniformly converges, in a mean square sense, to
735: $s_t(x)$ for all $x \in G$, provided that
736: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:LNScaling}
737: \mbox{(i) }\left(\frac{N}{L}\right) \longrightarrow \infty, \mbox{
738: and (ii) } L \longrightarrow \infty.
739: \end{equation}
740: It also follows that the worst--case MSE scaling behavior (see
741: Definition~\ref{def:worsecaseMSE}) is bounded by
742: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:MSE-WC-Result}
743: D \leq \max_{t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}} \left\{
744: \widetilde{\omega}_t^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt[d]{L}}\right) +
745: \left(\frac{LMc^2}{N}\right)\right\}
746: \end{equation}
747: and that $D \longrightarrow 0$ as $N$ and $L$ scale as in
748: \eqnref{eqn:LNScaling}.
749:
750: \noindent {\bf Implications:} These results allow us to make the per
751: sensor per snapshot bit rate $r$, worst--case MSE $D$, and sensor
752: message ID overheads (given by $(N/T) \log(LM)$ bits) simultaneously
753: smaller than any arbitrarily small desired values $r^*, D^*, \epsilon
754: > 0$, respectively. First, we can choose a sufficiently large number
755: of subcells per supercell $M^*$ such that the rate $r = 1/M^* < r^*$.
756: Then we can choose a sufficiently large number of sensors $N^*$ and
757: number of supercells $L^*$ such that the bound on $D$ given by
758: \eqnref{eqn:MSE-WC-Result} is made less than $D^*$. Note that both
759: $N^*$ and $M^*$ can be further increased while keeping the ratio
760: $M^*/N^*$ fixed without changing the bound on $D$. This corresponds to
761: increasing the total number of sensors $N$, decreasing the per sensor
762: rate $r = 1/M$, but keeping the total network per snapshot rate $Nr =
763: N/M$ and distortion $D$ fixed. Finally, we can look at a sufficiently
764: large number of snapshots $T^*$ such that network message overheads
765: $(N^*/T^*) \log(L^*M^*) < \epsilon$.
766:
767: In the constructive coding and field reconstruction scheme of
768: \secref{sec:ourscheme}, the field estimates are piecewise constant
769: over the supercells. The estimate in each supercell is formed from
770: only $n = (N/(LM))$ of the $Mn = (N/L)$ quantized observed values
771: coming from the sensors located in that supercell. Since only
772: $(1/M)$ of the total available quantized observed values for each
773: snapshot are used, the transmission rate of $(1/M)$ is achievable by
774: indexing only the necessary values (see \secref{sec:ourscheme} for
775: details). As the number of supercells $L$ increases, the piecewise
776: constant estimate becomes finer and the bias is decreased. Also, as
777: the number of sensors per supercell is increased, more observations
778: are used thus decreasing the variance of the estimate.
779:
780: Since the variance term $\frac{LMc^2}{N}$ in the upper bound of
781: Theorem~\ref{thm:MSEperf} can decrease no faster than $O(1/N)$, the
782: decay of the global MSE upper bound, in the proposed constructive
783: scheme, can be no faster than $O(1/N)$. However, the decay rate of
784: $\frac{LMc^2}{N}$ is hindered by the fact that $L$ simultaneously
785: needs to approach infinity for the bias term
786: $\widetilde{\omega}_t^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt[d]{L}}\right)$ to
787: decay to $0$. When $\widetilde{\omega}_t(\cdot)$ is not identically
788: zero, a bias--variance tradeoff exists and the appropriate relative
789: growth rate for $L$ with $N$ that minimizes the decay rate of the
790: global MSE upper bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:MSEperf} is determined by
791: the following condition
792: \[
793: \widetilde{\omega}_t^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt[d]{L}}\right) =
794: \Theta\left(\frac{L}{N}\right).
795: \]
796: For certain classes of signals for which the global modulus of
797: continuity has a closed form, the optimum growth rate can be
798: explicitly determined. For instance, if $d=1$ and
799: $\widetilde{\omega}_t(\delta) = \Delta \cdot \delta$ (Lipschitz--$1$
800: fields), $L_{opt}(N) = \Theta(N^{1/3})$ for which $\mathrm{MSE} =
801: O(N^{-2/3})$.
802:
803: \begin{corollary}\label{cor:constFieldCase} \emph{(Achievable MSE
804: performance: Randomized $1$--bit SQ, $r = 1/M$, and constant
805: fields)} If for all $x \in G$ and all $t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}$, we
806: have $s_t(x) = s_t$, or equivalently, for all $\delta \geq 0$ and
807: all $t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}$, $\widetilde{\omega}_t(\delta) = 0$,
808: then the result given by \eqnref{eqn:MSE-WC-Result} reduces to
809: \[
810: D \leq \left(\frac{Mc^2}{N}\right),
811: \]
812: where we can set $L = 1$ to minimize the bound.
813: \end{corollary}
814: Only $L = 1$ supercell is needed for an accurate piecewise constant
815: reconstruction of a constant field. Furthermore, all
816: snapshot--estimates given by the scheme from \secref{sec:ourscheme}
817: are unbiased in this case. Also, the spatial locations of sensors are
818: irrelevant: the MSE behavior is governed purely by the number of
819: sensors $N$ regardless of how they are distributed over the
820: subcells. The $N$ sensors must still be uniformly assigned to one of
821: $M$ groups (for the purpose of transmission coordination to achieve
822: the compression factor of $1/M$), however these groups need not have
823: any geographical significance.
824:
825: The MSE results given by \thmref{thm:MSEperf} show that the field
826: snapshot estimates converge uniformly in MSE and upper bound the MSE
827: decay rate. Every point of every estimate, in fact, converges almost
828: surely to the true value. We also state a central limit theorem
829: (CLT) result regarding the estimation error.
830:
831: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:ASConv} \emph{(Almost--sure convergence of field
832: estimates)} There exists a rate--$r = 1/M$ DFRS based on randomized
833: $1$--bit SQ with block coding (described in \secref{sec:ourscheme})
834: such that for all $x \in G$, $t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}$, and
835: $F_\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{z}) \in \mathcal{F}$,
836: \begin{eqnarray*}
837: \widehat{S}_t(x) \xrightarrow{\mathrm{a.s.}} s_t(x),
838: \end{eqnarray*}
839: as $N$ and $L$ scale as given in \eqnref{eqn:LNScaling}.
840: \end{theorem}
841: \begin{proof}
842: See Section~\ref{sec:ourscheme} and \appref{app:ASConvProof}.
843: \end{proof}
844:
845: \begin{corollary}\label{cor:errorCLT} \emph{(Central limit theorem for
846: estimation errors)} For the rate $r = 1/M$ DFRS of
847: \secref{sec:ourscheme}, the normalized error at point $x \in G$ for
848: the estimate of field snapshot $t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}$, given by
849: \begin{eqnarray*}
850: \frac{\widehat{S}_t(x)-s_t(x)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{var}[\widehat{S}_t(x)-s_t(x)]}},
851: \end{eqnarray*}
852: is asymptotically zero--mean, unit--variance, normal as $N$ and $L$
853: scale as given in \eqnref{eqn:LNScaling}, for any
854: $F_\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{z}) \in \mathcal{F}$.
855: \end{corollary}
856: \begin{proof}
857: The proof is similar to and follows directly from the proof of
858: Theorem~2.4 in \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS}.
859: \end{proof}
860:
861: \subsection{Order--Optimal Minimax MSE for Constant Fields}
862: \label{sec:converse}
863:
864: The minimax reconstruction MSE over the class of constant fields is
865: given by
866: \begin{equation*}
867: \inf_{\{g_t\}_{t=1}^{t=T}} \sup_{F_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathcal{F}, s_t
868: \in \mathcal{S}} D,
869: \end{equation*}
870: where the infimum is taken over all possible estimators and the
871: supremum is taken over all noise distributions and fields from the
872: class of constant fields which is denoted by $\mathcal{S}$. The
873: achievable MSE result given by \corref{cor:constFieldCase}
874: establishes an upper bound on the minimax reconstruction MSE.
875: \thmref{thm:converse} lower bounds the minimax reconstruction MSE
876: for any rate $r$ DFRS that produces unbiased estimates for the case
877: of spatially constant fields.
878:
879: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:converse}
880: \emph{(Lower bound on MSE: Unbiased estimators for constant fields)}
881: For a sequence of spatially constant fields and any DFRS which
882: produces unbiased field estimates, there exists a joint cdf
883: $F_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathcal{F}$ such that for noise distributed
884: according to $F_{\mathbf{Z}}$ the MSE is lower bounded by
885: \[
886: \eE[(\widehat{S}_t - s_t)^2] \geq \left(\frac{C_t}{N}\right), \quad
887: \text{for all } t \in \{1, \ldots, T\},
888: \]
889: where $C_t$ is finite, non--zero, and does not depend on $N$.
890: Therefore,
891: \begin{equation*}
892: \inf_{\{g_t\}_{t=1}^{t=T}} \sup_{F_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathcal{F}, s_t
893: \in \mathcal{S}} D \geq \max_{t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}}
894: \left(\frac{C_t}{N}\right).
895: \end{equation*}
896: \end{theorem}
897:
898: \begin{proof}
899: Since $\{s_t\} \rightarrow \{Y_{it}\} \rightarrow \{B_{it}\}
900: \rightarrow \{M_i\}$ forms a Markov chain, the estimates based on
901: the sensor messages $\{M_1, \ldots, M_N\}$ cannot have a lower MSE
902: than estimates based on the noisy observations $\{Y_{it}\}$. Let
903: $F_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathcal{F}$ be any well--behaved, non--trivial,
904: joint cdf such that the $Z_{it}$ are iid and the conditional
905: probabilities of $Y_{it}$ given the fields satisfy the regularity
906: conditions necessary for the Cram\'{e}r--Rao bound
907: \cite{Kay-1993-FSSPET} to be applied. By the Cram\'{e}r--Rao bound,
908: the MSE of each field estimate based on $\{Y_{it}\}$ is lower
909: bounded by $\frac{C_t}{N}$ where $C_t$ is finite, non--zero, and
910: depends on $F_{\mathbf{Z}}$, but does not depend on $N$. Note that
911: the bound also applies to general randomized $1$--bit SQ functions
912: $Q_{it}(\cdot)$ including those based on uniform random thresholds
913: $Q_{it}^{Th}(\cdot)$ (see \eqnref{eqn:ourQFunc}).
914: \end{proof}
915:
916: Combining the results of \corref{cor:constFieldCase} and
917: \thmref{thm:converse} establishes that the order--optimal minimax
918: MSE for spatially constant fields is $\Theta(1/N)$ and that the
919: scheme of \secref{sec:ourscheme} achieves this order optimal
920: performance.
921:
922: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
923: \Section{\label{sec:ourscheme}Proposed Constructive Distributed
924: Coding and Field Reconstruction Scheme}
925:
926: In this section we present the proposed DFRS scheme that was alluded
927: to in \secref{sec:results}. In this scheme, sensors create the
928: quantized binary samples $\{B_{it}\}$ from their observations
929: $\{Y_{it}\}$ through comparisons with the random thresholds
930: $\{R_{it}\}$, as described in \eqnref{eqn:ourQFunc} of
931: \secref{sec:1bitSQ}. The field estimates are piecewise constant over
932: the supercells, where the estimate formed in each supercell is a
933: function of only $(N/(LM))$ of the $(N/L)$ quantized observed values
934: coming from the sensors located in that supercell. This allows
935: fractional transmission rates of $r = 1/M$ through a simple
936: time--sharing based compression method. Note that there can be
937: uncertainty in the sensor locations, within a degree given by the
938: size of a supercell, at the fusion center, since it is only
939: necessary for the fusion center to know which supercell each sensor
940: is located in.
941:
942: Each sensor $i$, instead of transmitting all of its $T$ bits (the
943: vector of its binary quantized observations $\mathbf{B}_i = (B_{i1},
944: \ldots, B_{iT})$), transmits only $rT = T/M$ of them and the remaining
945: observations are dropped. Or alternatively, the sensor may sleep and
946: not record the remaining measurements. The two--level hierarchy of
947: supercells and subcells described in \secref{sec:sensePlace} is used
948: in order to properly determine which bits sensors should drop or
949: keep. Within each supercell, each sensor $i$ from subcell $k \in \{1,
950: \ldots, M\}$ communicates only every $M^\mathrm{th}$ bit (offset by
951: $k$), that is $\{B_{i,k+Ml} \}_{l = 0}^{l = (T/M)-1}$. These $rT$
952: bits can be uniquely represented by the message $M_i \in \{1, \ldots,
953: 2^{rT}\}$ and losslessly communicated to the fusion center. Thus for
954: snapshot $t \in \{1,\ldots,T\}$, only the bits from senors in the
955: $[((t-1) \mbox{ mod } M) + 1]^{\mathrm{th}}$ subcell of each supercell
956: are communicated to the fusion center. The set of all sensor indices
957: corresponding to the $n = (N/(LM))$ sensors belonging to the $[((t-1)
958: \mbox{ mod } M) + 1]^{\mathrm{th}}$ subcell of supercell $j$ will be
959: denoted by $I(j,t)$. In other words, this set of indices corresponds
960: to all those sensors which are located in supercell $j$ and are
961: responsible for recording and encoding a bit in the $t$-th snapshot.
962:
963: For notational simplicity, the reconstruction function
964: $\widehat{S}_t(x) = g_t(x, M_1, \ldots, M_N)$ will be described
965: directly in terms of the available binary quantized observations
966: $B_{it}$\footnote{The set of binary quantized observations for
967: snapshot $t$ which are available at the fusion center is given by
968: $\{B_{it}\}_{\{i \in \cup_{j=1}^L I(j,t)\}}$} and not the encoded
969: messages $\{M_i\}$ which are information equivalent. The
970: reconstruction function $\widehat{S}_t(x)$ is piecewise constant and
971: is described as follows. The field $s_t(x)$ is reconstructed as a
972: constant over each supercell $j$. The constant estimate is given by
973: \begin{eqnarray}
974: \widehat{S}_{tj} &\triangleq& 2c \left[ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in
975: I(j,t)} B_{it} \right] - c, \label{eqn:simpleavg}
976: \end{eqnarray}
977: which is the simple average (shifted and scaled into $[-c,+c]$) of the
978: available quantized binary observations of snapshot $t$ from sensors
979: located in supercell $j$. The overall piecewise--constant estimate for
980: $s_t(x)$ can be then described as
981: \begin{eqnarray}
982: \widehat{S}_t(x) &=& g_t(x, M_1, \ldots, M_N) \nonumber \\
983: &\triangleq& \sum_{j=1}^L \widehat{S}_{tj} \mathbf{1}(x \in
984: \mathcal{X}_j), \label{eqn:1bitreconst}
985: \end{eqnarray}
986: where $\mathcal{X}_j \subseteq [0,1]^d$ is the set of points within
987: the $j^{\mathrm{th}}$ hypercube supercell and $\mathbf{1}(x \in
988: \mathcal{X}_j)$ given by
989: \[
990: \mathbf{1}(x \in \mathcal{X}_j) =
991: \begin{cases} 1 & \mbox{if } x \in \mathcal{X}_j, \\
992: 0 & \mbox{otherwise},
993: \end{cases}
994: \]
995: is the indicator function of the set $\mathcal{X}_j$. Other more
996: sophisticated reconstruction algorithms are possible. For instance,
997: instead of the simple average used in (\ref{eqn:simpleavg}), one may
998: use a weighted average with convex weights, and for the overall
999: reconstruction in (\ref{eqn:1bitreconst}), one may use a
1000: piecewise--linear or other higher--order interpolation algorithms such
1001: as those based on cubic B--splines (see
1002: \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS}). The resulting MSE will be of the same
1003: order. We use the former (simple average, piecewise--constant)
1004: reconstruction because its description and analysis is more compact.
1005: \appref{app:MSEperfProof} proves that the MSE of this constructive
1006: coding and reconstruction scheme is upper bounded by the result
1007: described in Theorem~\ref{thm:MSEperf}.
1008:
1009: \noindent{\bf Remark:} As discussed at the beginning of
1010: Section~\ref{sec:transModel}, physical--layer network data transport
1011: issues are not the focus of this work. However, if synchronized analog
1012: beamforming from the sensors within each subcell to the fusion center
1013: can be achieved, then the summation in the reconstruction given by
1014: equation (\ref{eqn:simpleavg}) can be realized directly in the analog
1015: physical layer, by ``adding signals in the air'', using a simple
1016: binary pulse amplitude modulation signaling scheme at each sensor. The
1017: additional estimation error variance due to the receiver amplifier
1018: noise at the fusion center will decrease as $1/n$ by scaling the
1019: sampled received waveform by $1/n$ as in (\ref{eqn:simpleavg}). This
1020: will lead to corresponding achievable power versus distortion
1021: tradeoffs (as opposed to bits versus MSE or sensors versus MSE) which
1022: can be quantified.
1023:
1024: \subsection{\label{sec:deploymentStrats}{Sensor Deployment Considerations}}
1025:
1026: The conditions given by \defref{def:UnifPlacement} correspond to
1027: exactly $(N/(LM))$ sensors uniformly falling into each subcell with
1028: probability one for all $N$, $L$, and $M$ (ignoring integer
1029: affects). In the regime of perfect sensor placement control (or when
1030: placement error is negligible compared to the width of the cells),
1031: this condition is trivially realized by locating the sensors on a
1032: uniform grid. However, such precise sensor placement control might not
1033: be achievable in practice. In order to address this issue we introduce
1034: a stochastic sensor deployment model, one that captures an extreme
1035: case of (uncontrollable) sensor placement uncertainty where each
1036: sensor is deployed according to a uniform distribution over
1037: $[0,1]^d$. We also relax the uniform sensor placement to an asymptotic
1038: nearly uniform sensor deployment given by
1039: \defref{def:NearUnifPlacement}.
1040:
1041: %Another deterministic approach would be to apply the theory of
1042: %low--discrepancy sampling sequences (LDSS) that has been used in
1043: %pseudo--random number generation, quasi--Monte Carlo simulation, and
1044: %computer graphics
1045: %\cite{Niederreiter-SIAM92-RNGQMCM,DrmotaT-Springer97-SDA}. This LDSS
1046: %approach has the benefit that number of sensors can be increased
1047: %without relocating previously deployed sensors, however this method
1048: %requires an over--provisioning of sensors in order to guarantee the
1049: %same number of sensors per cell.
1050:
1051: %In practical situations, it may not be possible to precisely control
1052: %the placement of the sensors unless the sensors have mobility. See
1053: %\cite{LeociniRS-2005-AWSDPWAEM} for a study of a simple
1054: %probabilistic sensor placement model. We assume that sensors have
1055: %been scattered in a manner that guarantees the nearly uniform
1056: %placement property, at least for all $L$ sufficiently large, and
1057: %that the fusion center has knowledge of the sensor locations. The
1058: %results of Sections~\ref{sec:MSEanalysis} and~\ref{sec:ourscheme}
1059: %will show how the design parameter $N$ can be picked in relation to
1060: %$L$ so that the field reconstruction MSE goes to zero as $L$
1061: %increases to infinity.
1062:
1063: \begin{definition}\label{def:NearUnifPlacement}
1064: \emph{(Asymptotic nearly uniform sensor deployment)} We say that a
1065: sensor deployment method is asymptotically nearly uniform with
1066: parameters $(\gamma,\epsilon,N^*)$ if at least $\gamma n \triangleq
1067: \gamma(N/(LM))$ are located in each subcell with probability at
1068: least $1-\epsilon$ for all $N > N^*$, where $\gamma \in (0,1]$
1069: represents the inverse of the ``over--provisioning'' factor for the
1070: number of sensors needed to be deployed.
1071: \end{definition}
1072:
1073: This relaxation does not significantly impact our results since we
1074: are interested in the asymptotic results (as $L$ and $N$ scale as in
1075: \eqnref{eqn:LNScaling}) where the $\gamma$ and $\epsilon$ parameters
1076: of \defref{def:NearUnifPlacement} can be made negligible. Our
1077: stochastic deployment scheme satisfies this asymptotic nearly
1078: uniform condition given in \defref{def:NearUnifPlacement}, and also
1079: almost surely satisfies the uniform deployment condition given by
1080: \defref{def:UnifPlacement} for $N \longrightarrow \infty$.
1081:
1082: Consider the scenario where $N$ sensors are deployed iid and uniformly
1083: over $G = [0,1]^d$. The corresponding indices of the subcells (the
1084: total $LM$ subcells can be indexed by an integer from $1$ to $LM$)
1085: that the $N$ sensors fall is denoted by the random sequence
1086: $\mathbf{J} = (J_1, \ldots, J_N)$.
1087: %\[
1088: %\mathbf{J} = (J_1, \ldots, J_N),
1089: %\]
1090: Here, $J_i \sim \mbox{iid } U$, where $U \triangleq (1/(LM), \ldots, 1/(LM))$
1091: %where
1092: %\[
1093: %U \triangleq \left(\frac{1}{LM}, \ldots, \frac{1}{LM}\right),
1094: %\]
1095: %is
1096: is the uniform probability mass function over $LM$ discrete values. We
1097: examine the $N$--type (empirical distribution) $P_{\bf J}^{(N)}$ of
1098: $\mathbf{J}$ in order to examine the level of uniformity in the sensor
1099: deployment. An empirical distribution equal to $U$ corresponds to the
1100: uniform deployment condition of \defref{def:UnifPlacement} being
1101: met. Since the indices are also distributed iid according to $U$, by
1102: the strong law of large numbers, the empirical distribution converges
1103: almost surely to $U$ as $N \longrightarrow \infty$, and thus almost
1104: surely the sensors will be deployed uniformly over the subcells
1105: according to \defref{def:UnifPlacement} as $N \longrightarrow
1106: \infty$.
1107:
1108: Also, a result from large deviations theory bounds the probability
1109: that the empirical distribution will not be in a
1110: $\delta$--neighborhood of the uniform distribution. This corresponds
1111: to the event where there exists a subcell that has more than
1112: $\frac{N(1+\delta)}{LM}$ or fewer than $\frac{N(1-\delta)}{LM}$
1113: sensors located within it.
1114: % Let $P_{\bf J}^{(N)}$ be the type of ${\bf J}$,
1115: Let $\mathscr{P}^N$ be the set of $N$--dimensional probability
1116: distributions, $U^\delta \triangleq [(1- \delta)/(LM), (1 +
1117: \delta)/(LM)]^N$
1118: %\[
1119: %U^\delta \triangleq \left[\frac{1- \delta}{LM}, \frac{1 +
1120: %\delta}{LM} \right]^N
1121: %\]
1122: be the $\delta$--neighborhood around the uniform probability mass
1123: function $U$, $D(\cdot \| \cdot)$ denote the Kullback--Leibler
1124: distance \cite{CoverJ-1991-EoIT}, and
1125: \[
1126: P^* = \arg \min_{P \in \mathscr{P}^N \setminus U^\delta} D(P \| U)
1127: \]
1128: denote the probability distribution not in $U^\delta$ that is closest
1129: to $U$ in Kullback--Leibler distance. It should be noted that
1130: $D(P^*\|U) > 0$ for all $\delta > 0$. Then by Sanov's theorem
1131: \cite[p.~292]{CoverJ-1991-EoIT},
1132: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:sanovBound}
1133: \pP(P_J^N \in \mathscr{P}^N \setminus U^\delta) \leq
1134: (N+1)^{LM}2^{-ND(P^*\|U)} \nonumber \\
1135: = 2^{-N\left(D(P^*\|U)-\frac{LM}{N}\log(N+1)\right)}.
1136: \end{eqnarray}
1137: This inequality bounds the probability that not all subcells have at
1138: least $\frac{N(1-\delta)}{LM}$ sensors within them. This shows that as
1139: long as the number of sensors deployed $N$ grows faster than the
1140: actual number of sensors needed $LM$, then the near uniform deployment
1141: condition will be eventually met. Thus, this determines how many total
1142: sensors $N^* > LM$ need to be deployed in order to satisfy the
1143: asymptotic nearly uniform sampling condition of
1144: \defref{def:NearUnifPlacement} for a given desired $\epsilon$ and for
1145: $\gamma = 1-\delta$.
1146:
1147: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1148: \Section{\label{sec:prevresults} Discussion of Related One--bit Estimation Problems and Extensions
1149: %Connections to Prior One--bit Estimation Approaches
1150: }
1151:
1152: \begin{figure*}
1153: \centering
1154: \includegraphics[width=6.0in]{Figs/LuoCompare.eps}
1155: \caption{\label{fig:compareImp} {\bf The $Q_{it}^{Th}(\cdot)$ function
1156: in \eqnref{eqn:ourQFunc} and the $Q(\cdot)$ function of
1157: \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN} suggest markedly different hardware
1158: implementations.} The former naturally suggests (a), where the binary
1159: quantized value is produced by a simple comparison to a random
1160: threshold $X$. The latter suggests (b), where an arbitrarily--precise
1161: ADC circuitry probabilistically selects an arbitrary bit of the
1162: observed value. Interestingly, these two implementations produce
1163: statistically equivalent quantized outputs $B$ given identical inputs
1164: $Y$.}
1165: \end{figure*}
1166:
1167: This section discusses the connections between the methods and results
1168: in \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS}, \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN}, and the
1169: present work. It is shown that the apparently different randomized
1170: $1$--bit field estimation schemes in these studies are in fact
1171: statistically and MSE performance equivalent. We also address how, in
1172: the scenario of known noise statistics, unbounded noise distributions
1173: and arbitrary threshold distributions can be accommodated. The general
1174: framework of the present work integrates the desirable field sensing
1175: and reconstruction properties and insights of the earlier studies and
1176: provides a unified view of the problem that simultaneously considers
1177: unreliable binary quantization, unknown arbitrary noise distributions,
1178: multiple snapshots of a temporally and spatially varying field, and
1179: communication rate issues. Since the work in both
1180: \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS} and \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN} deal with the
1181: reconstruction of only a single snapshot ($T = 1$), we will drop the
1182: snapshot indices $t$ in our discussion to aid comparison.
1183:
1184: \subsection{\label{sec:Masry}One--Bit Randomized--Dithering}
1185:
1186: %\footnote{The quantization in \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS} actually
1187: %uses the sign of the sum of the ``threshold'' and the sample, which
1188: %is operationally equivalent to making a direct comparison to the
1189: %negation of the threshold.}
1190:
1191: The problem setup of \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS} may be viewed as the
1192: reconstruction of a single snapshot ($T = 1$) of a bounded,
1193: one--dimensional field ($d = 1$) from noiseless samples ($Z_i = 0$) at
1194: uniformly spaced (deterministic) sampling locations ($x_i = i/N$). In
1195: \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS} the noiseless observations are binary
1196: quantized using random thresholds $R_i$s that have a known general
1197: distribution which satisfies certain technical conditions described in
1198: \cite[Section~II.A]{Masry-IT1981-RASFS}. These technical conditions
1199: include the uniform distribution (considered in this paper) as a
1200: special case. An important conceptual difference is that in
1201: \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS} the sensor quantization noise is viewed as a
1202: randomized dither signal which is intentionally added to the
1203: observations and that the dither cdf is known (it need not be
1204: uniform). The reconstruction explicitly exploits the knowledge of the
1205: dither statistics. Specifically, the noiseless observation $Y_i$, at
1206: sensor $i$, and the corresponding quantized binary sample $B_i$ become
1207: \begin{eqnarray*}
1208: Y_i &=& s(x_i), \\
1209: B_i &=& Q(Y_i) \triangleq \mathrm{sgn}(Y_i + X_i),
1210: \end{eqnarray*}
1211: where $X_i$ is iid dithering noise with a known distribution
1212: $p_X(\cdot)$ which satisfies certain technical assumptions as given
1213: in \cite[Section~II.A]{Masry-IT1981-RASFS}. Note that taking the
1214: sign of the sum of the observation and random dither $X_i$ is
1215: equivalent to comparing with the threshold $-X_i$. Thus the
1216: quantization function $Q(\cdot)$ of \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS} is
1217: equivalent\footnote{The sign function maps to $\{-1,+1\}$ whereas a
1218: threshold comparator maps to \{0,1\}. However, the replacement of
1219: the $-1$ symbol with the 0 symbol is unimportant from an estimation
1220: viewpoint.} to a comparator with a random threshold that is
1221: distributed according to $p_X(-x)$. The quantization function
1222: $Q_{it}^{Th}(\cdot)$ in \eqnref{eqn:ourQFunc} can be viewed as a
1223: special case of this where $p_X(-x)$ is the uniform distribution
1224: over $[-c,c]$. The constructive scheme of \secref{sec:ourscheme}
1225: and the analysis of this work shows that $Q_{it}^{Th}(\cdot)$ can in
1226: fact be used even on noisy field observations with an additive noise
1227: of {\em unknown} distribution.
1228:
1229: \subsection{\label{sec:LuoScheme}Parameter Estimation with One--Bit Messages}
1230:
1231: The parameter estimation problem in \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN}
1232: corresponds to the special case of a spatially constant field
1233: ($s(x_i) = s$ for all $i$ where the index $t$ is omitted since
1234: $T=1$) which is addressed by Corollary~\ref{cor:constFieldCase}. We
1235: summarize below the key features of the randomized binary quantizer
1236: proposed in \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN} and show that the randomized
1237: $1$--bit SQ function $Q(\cdot)$ of \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN} is
1238: statistically and MSE performance--wise equivalent to the uniform
1239: random threshold quantizer $Q_{it}^{Th}(\cdot)$ in
1240: \eqnref{eqn:ourQFunc}. However, the $Q(\cdot)$ function of
1241: \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN} implicitly requires sensors of arbitrarily
1242: high precision, a property that is undesirable for sensor hardware
1243: implementations.
1244:
1245: In \cite{Luo-IT2005-UDEBCSN}, each sensor $i$ first shifts and
1246: scales it observation $Y_i$ into interval $[0,1]$ creating the value
1247: $\widetilde{Y}_i \triangleq \left(\frac{Y_i + c}{2c}\right)$. Next,
1248: each sensor $i$ generates an auxiliary random variable $\alpha_i$,
1249: which is iid across sensors and is geometrically distributed over
1250: the set of all positive integers: $\pP(\alpha_i = j) = 2^{-j}$ for
1251: all $j \in \{1,2,3,\ldots,\infty\}$. The final quantized binary
1252: sample $B_i$ reported by sensor $i$ is given by the
1253: $\alpha_i^\text{th}$ bit in the binary expansion of
1254: $\widetilde{Y}_i$:
1255: \begin{eqnarray}
1256: B_i &=& Q(Y_i) \triangleq B(\widetilde{Y}_i,\alpha_i), \nonumber \\
1257: &&\mbox{where } \widetilde{Y}_i = \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}
1258: B(\widetilde{Y}_i,j) 2^{-j}. \label{eqn:LuoQFunc}
1259: \end{eqnarray}
1260: Here, $B(\widetilde{Y}_i,j)$ denotes the $j^\text{th}$ bit of
1261: $\widetilde{Y}_i$. For example, if $\widetilde{Y}_i = 0.375$, then
1262: the first four bits of its binary expansion are given by
1263: $B(\widetilde{Y}_i,1) = 0$, $B(\widetilde{Y}_i,2) = 1$,
1264: $B(\widetilde{Y}_i,3) = 1$, and $B(\widetilde{Y}_i,4) = 0$. If
1265: $\alpha_i = 3$, then sensor $i$ reports $B_i = 1$. This method for
1266: generating binary sensor messages requires sensors to have the
1267: operational ability to quantize an observed real number (the
1268: normalized values $\widetilde{Y}_{i}$) to an arbitrarily high
1269: bit--resolution. Note that the binary values $B_i$ are iid across
1270: all sensors and that its expected value is given by
1271: \begin{eqnarray} \eE[B_i] &=&
1272: \eE_{\widetilde{Y}_i}[\eE_{B_i}[B_i|\widetilde{Y}_i]] \nonumber \\
1273: &=& \eE_{\widetilde{Y}_i}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} B(\widetilde{Y}_i,j) 2^{-j}\right] \nonumber \\
1274: &=& \eE_{\widetilde{Y}_i}[\widetilde{Y}_i] \nonumber \\
1275: &=& \eE\left[\frac{Y_i + c}{2c}\right] \label{eqn:LuoMsgCondExp} \\
1276: &=& \frac{\eE[s + Z_i] + c}{2c} = \left(\frac{s + c}{2c}\right).
1277: \label{eqn:LuoMsgExp}
1278: \end{eqnarray}
1279:
1280: In sharp contrast to the $Q(\cdot)$ function described above, which
1281: requires sensors to have the operational ability to resolve any
1282: arbitrary bit in the binary expansion of their normalized
1283: observations, $Q_{it}^{Th}(\cdot)$ requires only a noisy comparator.
1284: Despite the markedly different operational implementations of
1285: $Q(\cdot)$ and $Q_{it}^{Th}(\cdot)$ (see \eqnref{eqn:LuoQFunc},
1286: \eqnref{eqn:ourQFunc}, and Fig.~\ref{fig:compareImp} which depicts
1287: hardware implementations) they are in fact statistically identical:
1288: the binary quantized values $B_i$ generated by the two schemes have
1289: the same $p_{B_{it}|Y_{it}}(\cdot)$ and $p_{B|s}(\cdot)$ functions
1290: where $p_{B_{it}|Y_{it}}(\cdot)$ is the conditional expectation of
1291: $B_i$ given $Y_i = y_i$ and $p_{B|s}(\cdot)$ is the unconditional
1292: expectation of $B_i$ parameterized by the underlying field value
1293: $s(x_i) = s$. These expectations have been evaluated in
1294: \eqnref{eqn:LuoMsgCondExp}, \eqnref{eqn:LuoMsgExp},
1295: \eqnref{eqn:condExpBinMsg} and \eqnref{eqn:expBinMsg}, and we see
1296: that for both functions
1297: \begin{eqnarray*}
1298: \eE[B_i | Y_i = y_i] = p_{B_{it}|Y_{it}}(y_i) = \left(\frac{y_i +
1299: c}{2c}\right), \text{ and} \\ \eE[B_i] = p_{B|s}(s(x_i)) =
1300: \left(\frac{s(x_i) + c}{2c}\right).
1301: \end{eqnarray*}
1302: This statistical equivalence allows the two quantization functions
1303: $Q(\cdot)$ and $Q_{it}^{Th}(\cdot)$ to be interchanged without
1304: affecting the estimation performance.
1305:
1306:
1307: \subsection{Extensions to Unbounded Noise and Arbitrary Thresholds with Known Distributions} In this work, we have made assumptions of
1308: zero--mean, amplitude--bounded, additive noise, which can have an
1309: arbitrary, unknown distribution, and uniformly distributed
1310: quantization thresholds. The results of this work can be extended to
1311: deal with noise that is not amplitude--bounded (i.e. Gaussian,
1312: Laplacian, etc.) and for thresholds with arbitrary distributions,
1313: however certain technical conditions must be met and the distributions
1314: for both the noise and the threshold must be known.
1315: %Requiring knowledge of the noise distribution is a sacrifice that must
1316: %be made in order for this extension to work, since in the prequel
1317: %amplitude--boundedness of the noise and uniformly distributed
1318: %thresholds were necessary in order to deal with unknown noise
1319: %distributions.
1320: A possible approach is to combine the noise and threshold random
1321: variables into an overall random dither variable $X_{it} \triangleq
1322: Z_{it} + R_{it}$ and applying the method and results used in
1323: \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS} (see \secref{sec:Masry}). The main MSE
1324: result of \thmref{thm:MSEperf} will still hold, however with new
1325: constants multiplying each term in the bound. The method is
1326: essentially the same as in \secref{sec:ourscheme}, however the value
1327: of the field estimate at every point is passed through a non--linear
1328: function, instead of a simple scaling and shifting, given by
1329: \begin{eqnarray*}
1330: g(s) =
1331: \begin{cases}
1332: \mu^{-1}(s) & |s| \leq \mu(a') \\
1333: 0 & \mbox{otherwise}
1334: \end{cases}
1335: \end{eqnarray*}
1336: with $\mu(s) \triangleq 1 - 2P_X(-s)$ where $P_X(\cdot)$ is the cdf of
1337: the dither random variable $X_{it}$. The technical requirement for
1338: this extension is that $P_X(\cdot)$ is absolutely continuous with a
1339: probability density function $p_X(\cdot)$ on $(-\infty,\infty)$ which
1340: is continuous and positive over an open interval $(-a',a')$ containing
1341: $[-a,a]$. This ensures that $P_X(\cdot)$ is strictly monotonically
1342: increasing over the signal dynamic range and that $\mu^{-1}(\cdot)$
1343: exists (see \cite{Masry-IT1981-RASFS}).
1344:
1345: If the sensor observation noise is unbounded (but the field $s_t(x)$
1346: is still bounded), has zero--mean, and has an {\em unknown} probability
1347: density function (pdf) whose tails decay to zero, it is still possible
1348: to make a weak statement about the achievable MSE as the number of
1349: sensors go to infinity. With unbounded noise, the sensor observations
1350: may exceed any finite dynamic range $[-c,c]$ of the one--bit
1351: sensors. This leads to the appearance of additional error bias terms
1352: (see equation (\ref{eqn:expBinMsg}) and (\ref{eqn:biasResult}) in
1353: Appendix~\ref{app:MSEperfProof}) which depend on the unknown signal
1354: value $s_t(x)$ to be estimated and the dynamic range limit $c$. It can
1355: be shown that these terms go to zero as $c \rightarrow \infty$. Thus
1356: one can assert that for a sufficiently large dynamic range limit $c$
1357: and a corresponding sufficiently large number of sensors $N(c)$, the
1358: MSE can be made smaller than some desired tolerance. The actual
1359: scaling behavior will now also depend on the tail decay rate of the
1360: unknown pdf of the observation noise.
1361:
1362:
1363: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1364: \Section{\label{sec:conclusions}Concluding Remarks}
1365: The results of this work show that for the distributed field
1366: reconstruction problem, for every point of continuity of every field
1367: snapshot, it is possible to drive the MSE to zero with increasing
1368: sensor density while ensuring that the per--sensor bitrate and
1369: sensing--related network overhead rate simultaneously go to zero.
1370: This can be achieved with noisy threshold (one--bit) comparators with
1371: the minimal knowledge of signal and noise dynamic ranges provided that
1372: the noise samples are zero--mean, and independent across sensors and
1373: the underlying field, and the sensor placement and sampling schedule
1374: satisfy a certain uniformity property. The rate of decay of MSE with
1375: increasing sensor density is related to the the local and global
1376: smoothness characteristics of the underlying fields and is
1377: order--optimal for the class of spatially constant fields. This work
1378: has further clarified the utility of randomization for signal
1379: acquisition to combat limited sensing precision and unknown noise
1380: statistics in a distributed sensor network context. This work has also
1381: attempted to systematically account for sensor placement and hardware
1382: issues in addition to the typical constraints encountered in related
1383: studies.
1384: \begin{comment}
1385: %Cram\'{e}r--Rao lower--bounds for general spatially--varying fields in
1386: %terms of local and global field smoothness characteristics as well as
1387: %randomized sensor deployment strategies with probabilistic guarantees
1388: %for near--uniform sensor deployment together with an analysis of
1389: %associated sensor over--provisioning costs are fruitful research
1390: %directions.
1391: \end{comment}
1392:
1393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1394: \section*{Acknowledgment} The authors would like to thank Nan Ma and
1395: Manqi Zhao from the ECE department of Boston University for helpful
1396: comments and suggestions during different stages of this work. This
1397: material is based upon work supported by the US National Science
1398: Foundation (NSF) under award (CAREER) CCF--0546598, (CAREER)
1399: ECS--0449194, CCF--0430983, and CNS--0435353, and ONR (PECASE) grant
1400: no.~N00014-02-100362. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
1401: recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors
1402: and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF and ONR.
1403:
1404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1405: %\useRomanappendicesfalse
1406: \appendices
1407: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
1408: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1409:
1410: \renewcommand{\thedefinition}{\Alph{section}.\arabic{definition}}
1411: \renewcommand{\theremark}{\Alph{section}.\arabic{remark}}
1412: \renewcommand{\thetheorem}{\Alph{section}.\arabic{theorem}}
1413:
1414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1415: \Section{\label{app:MSEperfProof}Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:MSEperf}}
1416:
1417: First, note that the expected value of the binary message $B_{it}$
1418: is given by
1419: \begin{eqnarray}
1420: \eE[B_{it}] &=& \eE[\mathbf{1}(Y_{it} > R_{it})] \nonumber \\
1421: &=& \eE_{Y_{it}}[\eE_{R_{it}}[\mathbf{1}(Y_{it} > R_{it}) | Y_{it} ]] \nonumber \\
1422: &=& \eE_{Y_{it}}[\pP\left(R_{it} < Y_{it} | Y_{it}\right)] \nonumber \\
1423: &\stackrel{(i)}{=}& \eE_{Y_{it}}\left[\frac{Y_{it} + c}{2c}\right] \label{eqn:condExpBinMsg} \\
1424: &=& \frac{\eE[s_t(x_i) + Z_{it}] + c}{2c} \nonumber \\
1425: &\stackrel{(ii)}{=}& \left(\frac{s_t(x_i) + c}{2c}\right) \label{eqn:expBinMsg},
1426: \end{eqnarray}
1427: which is the value of the field $s_t(\cdot)$ at location $x_i$ shifted
1428: and normalized to the interval $[0,1]$. Note that the key steps are
1429: step $(i)$ where we used the fact that $R_{it}$ is uniformly
1430: distributed over $[-c,c]$ and step $(ii)$ where we used the fact that
1431: $Z_{it}$ has zero mean. It should be noted that the final result
1432: (\ref{eqn:expBinMsg}) holds for any $F_\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{z}) \in
1433: \mathcal{F}$.
1434:
1435: Using \eqnref{eqn:expBinMsg} we can bound the bias and the variance
1436: of the estimator $\widehat{S}_t(x)$. The bound on the MSE follows
1437: from the bounds on these values since, for any estimator of a
1438: non--random parameter, we have
1439: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:MSEidentity}
1440: \mathrm{MSE}\left(\widehat{S}_t(x)\right) =
1441: \mathrm{bias}^2\left(\widehat{S}_t(x)\right) +
1442: \mathrm{var}\left(\widehat{S}_t(x)\right).
1443: \end{equation}
1444:
1445: Let $j \in \{1, \ldots, L\}$ denote the index of the supercell that
1446: $x$ falls in. We bound the magnitude of bias of the estimate
1447: $\widehat{S}_t(x)$ in the following way
1448: \begin{eqnarray}
1449: \left|\mathrm{bias}\left(\widehat{S}_t(x)\right)\right| &=&
1450: \left|\eE\left[\widehat{S}_t(x) - s_t(x)\right]\right| \nonumber \\
1451: &=& \Bigg| \eE \Bigg[2c \Bigg[\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in I(j,t)} B_{it} \Bigg] \nonumber \\
1452: && - c - s_t(x) \bigg] \bigg| \nonumber \\
1453: &=& \Bigg| 2c \Bigg[\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in I(j,t)} \eE\left[B_{it}\right] \Bigg] \nonumber \\
1454: &&- c - s_t(x) \bigg| \nonumber \\
1455: &\stackrel{(i)}{=}& \Bigg| 2c \Bigg[\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in I(j,t)}
1456: \Bigg(\frac{s_t(x_i) + c}{2c}\Bigg) \Bigg] \nonumber \\
1457: &&- c - s_t(x) \bigg| \nonumber \\
1458: &=& \Bigg| \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in I(j,t)} \left(s_t(x_i) -
1459: s_t(x)\right) \Bigg| \nonumber \\
1460: &\leq& \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in
1461: I(j,t)} \left|s_t(x_i) -
1462: s_t(x)\right| \nonumber \\
1463: &\stackrel{(ii)}{\leq}& \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in I(j,t)}
1464: \omega_t \left(\|x - x_i\|,x\right) \nonumber \\
1465: % The following equation label has not been referenced anywhere!
1466: % \label{eqn:biasOmegaTerm}
1467: &\stackrel{(iii)}{\leq}& \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in I(j,t)}
1468: \omega_t \left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt[d]{L}},x\right) \nonumber \\
1469: &=& \omega_t
1470: \left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt[d]{L}},x\right) \nonumber \\
1471: &\stackrel{(iv)}{\leq}& \widetilde{\omega}_t
1472: \left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt[d]{L}}\right), \label{eqn:biasResult}
1473: \end{eqnarray}
1474: where $(i)$ follows from (\ref{eqn:expBinMsg}), $(ii)$ and $(iv)$
1475: follow from Definitions~\ref{def:localMod} and~\ref{def:globalMod},
1476: and $(iii)$ follows because the local modulus of continuity is a
1477: nondecreasing function of its first argument for each fixed value of
1478: its second argument and since any sensor in the supercell containing
1479: $x$ is within distance $\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt[d]{L}}$ of $x$ (the
1480: length of the diagonal of a supercell).
1481:
1482: The variance of the estimate is bounded by
1483: \begin{eqnarray}
1484: \mathrm{var}[\widehat{S}_t(x)] &=& \mathrm{var}\left[2c
1485: \left[\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in I(j,t)} B_{it} \right] - c\right] \nonumber \\
1486: &=& \left(\frac{4c^2}{n^{2}}\right) \sum_{i \in I(j,t)}
1487: \mathrm{var}[B_{it}] \label{eqn:varBoundLine2} \\
1488: &\leq& \left(\frac{4c^2}{n^{2}}\right)\left(\frac{n}{4}\right) =
1489: \left(\frac{LMc^2}{N}\right), \label{eqn:varBoundLine3}
1490: \end{eqnarray}
1491: where we used standard properties of variance and the fact that
1492: $\{B_{it}\}$ are independent to obtain \eqnref{eqn:varBoundLine2},
1493: and we used the fact the variance of a Bernoulli$\{0,1\}$ random
1494: variable is bounded by $(1/4)$ and that $n = (N/(LM))$ to obtain
1495: \eqnref{eqn:varBoundLine3}.
1496:
1497: Combining these bounds for the bias and variance given in
1498: \eqnref{eqn:biasResult} and \eqnref{eqn:varBoundLine3} of the
1499: estimator and using the identity in \eqnref{eqn:MSEidentity}, we get
1500: the desired bound on the MSE for all $x \in G$, $t \in \{1, \ldots,
1501: T\}$, and $F_\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{z}) \in \mathcal{F}$. \proofover
1502:
1503: \Section{\label{app:ASConvProof}Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ASConv}}
1504:
1505: First, we note that
1506: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:ASequiv}
1507: \widehat{S}_t(x) \xrightarrow{\mathrm{a.s.}} s_t(x) \equiv
1508: \left|\widehat{S}_t(x) - s_t(x)\right| \xrightarrow{\mathrm{a.s.}}
1509: 0.
1510: \end{equation}
1511: Thus, we proceed with the triangle equality to bound
1512: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:TriangleBoundForAS}
1513: \left|\widehat{S}_t(x) - s_t(x)\right| &\leq& \left|\widehat{S}_t(x)
1514: - \eE\left[\widehat{S}_t(x)\right]\right| \nonumber \\
1515: &+& \left|\eE\left[\widehat{S}_t(x)\right] - s_t(x)\right|.
1516: \end{eqnarray}
1517: In the proof of \thmref{app:MSEperfProof} given in
1518: \appref{app:MSEperfProof} we have shown that the second term of
1519: \eqnref{eqn:TriangleBoundForAS}, which is the absolute value of the
1520: estimator bias, is bounded by \eqnref{eqn:biasResult} which shows
1521: that
1522: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:ASConvSecondTerm}
1523: \left|\eE\left[\widehat{S}_t(x)\right] - s_t(x)\right|
1524: \longrightarrow 0
1525: \end{equation}
1526: as $N$ and $L$ scale as in \eqnref{eqn:LNScaling}.
1527:
1528: Letting $j$ denote the supercell that $x$ falls in, the first term
1529: of \eqnref{eqn:TriangleBoundForAS} can be rewritten as
1530: \[
1531: \left|\widehat{S}_t(x) - \eE\left[\widehat{S}_t(x)\right]\right| =
1532: \left| 2c \left[\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in I(j,t)} B_{it} - \eE[B_{it}]
1533: \right] \right|.
1534: \]
1535: Recall that the cardinality of $I(j,t)$ is $n = (N/(LM))$. Since the
1536: $B_{it}$ random variables are independent across sensors and their
1537: fourth central moments are uniformly bounded by 1 (since they are
1538: binary~$\{0,1\}$ random variables), the strong law of large numbers
1539: \cite[pp.~206--207]{Durret-TLC-PTE} can be applied to obtain
1540: \[
1541: \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in I(j,t)} B_{it} - \eE[B_{it}]
1542: \xrightarrow{\mathrm{a.s.}} 0,
1543: \]
1544: as $N \longrightarrow \infty$ (since $n = (N/(LM))$) and thus the
1545: first term of \eqnref{eqn:TriangleBoundForAS}
1546: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:ASConvFirstTerm}
1547: \left|\widehat{S}_t(x) - \eE\left[\widehat{S}_t(x)\right]\right|
1548: \xrightarrow{\mathrm{a.s.}} 0.
1549: \end{equation}
1550: Combining \eqnref{eqn:ASConvSecondTerm} and
1551: \eqnref{eqn:ASConvFirstTerm} into \eqnref{eqn:ASequiv} and
1552: \eqnref{eqn:TriangleBoundForAS} finishes the proof. \proofover
1553:
1554: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1555:
1556: \bibliography{../LaTeX/biblio}
1557:
1558: % Use to balance out final columns
1559: %\addtolength{\textheight}{-3cm}
1560:
1561: \end{document}
1562: