1 / 12

Cooperative Strategies in Multi-Domain Sensor Networks

This study explores cooperation among sensors in multi-domain networks to increase network lifetime. The non-cooperative game dynamics and benefits of cooperation are analyzed, with pre-defined strategies for data gathering and feedback mechanisms. Simulation results compare cooperative and defective strategies, highlighting the advantages of cooperation in separate and common sink scenarios and under varying path loss conditions.

lowell
Download Presentation

Cooperative Strategies in Multi-Domain Sensor Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cooperation in Multi-Domain Sensor Networks Márk Félegyházi Jean-Pierre Hubaux Levente Buttyán buttyan@hit.bme.hu {mark.felegyhazi, jean-pierre.hubaux}@epfl.ch Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary EPFL, Switzerland TERMINODES Project (NCCR-MICS) http://www.terminodes.org PerSeNS 2005.03.08

  2. Multi-domain sensor networks • co-located sensor networks • sensors are compatible • sinks can be either separate or common

  3. Non-cooperative game • assumption: paths to the sink exist in both own and common network • the game unfolds in discrete time steps t • lifetime of sensor networks: until the first sensor dies • finite routing game: ends when one subnetwork dies

  4. Benefits of cooperation • operators as players • two decisions: • ask (or not) the other player to cooperate • cooperate (or not) if asked • reduce complexity: strategy is pre-defined in the sensors

  5. where: is the gathered number of measurements is the requirement for success • pre-programmed strategy in the sensors • feedback in one bit from the sink (successful or not) Strategies • success of data gathering: if • moves: • strategy: • DD - don't ask/drop • DF - don't ask/forward • AD - ask/drop • AF - ask/forward

  6. Utilities • gain, gi(t): if the step was successful, then gi(t) = Gi otherwise gi(t) = 0 • cost, ci(t): sum of the transmission cost of all sensors (cunit ~ dα) • payoff, • utility: where: T is the lifetime of the sensor network

  7. Simulation parameters

  8. Best strategies • Three types: • Cooperative: (AF, AF) • Defective: (DD, DD) • Other: for example (AF, DD)

  9. Simulations: Separate sinks

  10. Simulations: Common sinks

  11. Simulations: Path loss exponent

  12. Conclusion Cooperation is beneficial, because it can increase the lifetime of sensor networks. • For separate sinks, operators can use the sinks of each other • For common sinks, cooperation is beneficial: • if sensor networks are sparse – overhearing of packets is less significant • if path loss is high - transmission is expensive

More Related