1 / 51

Line-of-Sight Networks

Line-of-Sight Networks. Frieze, Kleinberg, Ravi, Debany SODA 2007. Cheng-Chung Li 2006/12/06. Outline . Introduction Connectivity The Existence of a Giant Component Finding Paths Between Nodes Relay Placement: An Approximation Algorithm Open Questions. Wireless Sensor Network.

trevor
Download Presentation

Line-of-Sight 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. Line-of-Sight Networks Frieze, Kleinberg, Ravi, DebanySODA 2007 Cheng-Chung Li2006/12/06

  2. Outline • Introduction • Connectivity • The Existence of a Giant Component • Finding Paths Between Nodes • Relay Placement: An Approximation Algorithm • Open Questions 52

  3. Wireless Sensor Network • Most of today’s approaches to wireless computing and communications are built on architecture where base stations connect to wireless devices to a supporting infrastructure • Such networks can be viewed as consisting of a collection of nodes, representing wireless devices, positioned at various points in some physical region • The wireless links of the network, joining pairs of nodes that can directly communicate with one another, are predominantly short-range and constrained by light-of-sight; this is an inevitable result of the scarcity of radio frequency spectrum and physical constraints on the propagation of RF and optical signals 52

  4. The new model for analysis • Given this framework, random geometric graphs have emerged as a dominant model for theoretical analysis for distributed wireless networks • One places n points uniformly at random in a geometric region, and then, for a range parameter r, one connects each pair of nodes that are within distance r of one another • However, there can generally be a large number of obstructions limiting communication between nearby nodes due to lack of line-of-sight contact • Here, the authors give a new light-of-sight model to analyze the related properties 52

  5. Modeling Wireless Networks • Sensors modeled as discs of a fixed size placed randomly in [0,1]2. Two discs can communicate if their range overlap 52

  6. Suppose there are obstacles • Sensors A,B can not communicate. Need another model B A 52

  7. Line of Sight Model • Sensors are at centres of crosses can can communicate with sensors lying on their armsA,B can communicate, but A,C cannot A B C 52

  8. Basic Definitions • T={0,1,…,n-1}2 is a toroidal grid • Distance: d((x,y),(x’,y’))=min(|x-x’|,n-|x-x’|)+min(|y-y’|,n-|y-y’|) • Two points are mutually visible if they are in the same row or column and within distance  of each other  n n placement probability p>0 52

  9. Preliminaries • We assume =O(n) for a value of <1 to be specified below • We now study the random graph G that results if, for some placement probability p>0, we locate a node at each point of T independently with probability p, and then connect those pairs of nodes that are mutually visible • Our main results states, roughly, that the smallest value of p at which G becomes k-connected whp is asymptotically the same as the smallest value of p at which the minimum degree in G is kwhp (here, whp is equal to with high probability) 52

  10. Connectivity • Theorem 1.1 Suppose that /lnninf where =n, <6/(8k+7)Let k1 be a fixed positive integer and let p=[(1-0.5)lnn+k(lnlnn)/2+cn]/2. Thenlimninf Pr(G is k-connected)= 0,cn-inf e-k, cnc 1,cninfwhere k=[2k-2(1-0.5)ke-2c]/(k-1)! 52

  11. Some point of the torus that sees nodes in both J and K Come lose to see one another K J Connectivity: The First Part • Here we consider the case when cnc. Let p=[(1-0.5)lnn+k(lnlnn)/2+c]/2 • The overall outline of the proof is as follows • Add nodes in two stages – most of the nodes in the first stage, and few final nodes in the second stage • Consider the graph H formed by the nodes added in the first stage |S|<k S 52 H

  12. The Two stages • We imagine placing nodes at random according to the following two-stage process • We place node at each point with probability p1=[(1-0.5)lnn+k(lnlnn)/2+c-(lnn)-1]/2 in the firststage • We then independently place a node at each point with probability p2~1/(2lnn) in the second stage • For ease of terminology, we say that a node is red if it was placed in the first stage, and we say that it is blue if it is placed in the second stage at a point not hit by the first stage. Let H denotes the subgraph of G consisting only of red nodes 52

  13. Some Definitions Arm: the set contains  points that are visible from it in a single direction  • A segment is said to be weak, otherwise strong, if it contains fewer than lnn/50 red nodes • An arm is said to be mighty if all its segments are strong 10 segment length: /10 2 1 52

  14. Not mighty 1000 Not mighty 2 Not mighty 1 First Event(1) • Lemma 2.2 WHP there does not exist a red node which has an arm  on which we can find 1000 red vertices, each having an arm orthogonal to  which is not mighty 52 x

  15. Proof of Lemma 2.2 • For a fixed x and arm , the probability that the arm contains a weak segment can be bounded by 10P(Bin(/10,p1)lnn/50)e-(lnn)/400=n-1/400 (at most 10 weak segments) • So the probability that there is a red node as described in the statement is bounded by 42n2(,1000)p11000n-1000/400=o(1) (x has four arms, and the nodes at  have two arms orthogonal to ) 52

  16. weak deg(v)<lnlnn v w Second Event(2) • Lemma 2.3 WHP H does not contain a vertex v of degree less than lnlnn that has a neighbor w such that w contains an arm orthogonal to vw which is not mighty 52

  17. Proof of Lemma 2.3 • The probability that H contains such a pair v,w is bounded by n2p1t=1 to lnlnn(4,t)p1t(1-p1)4-t(2n-1/400)=o(1) (There are two arms at  that are orthogonal to vw) v 52

  18. Third Event(3) • Lemma 2.4 WHP H does not contain a red vertex with at most k-1 red neighbors and at least one blue neighbor • Proof of Lemma 2.4 The probability that H contains such a vertex v is bounded by n2p1t=0 to k-1(4,t)p1t(1-p1)4-t(4p2)=o(1) (The red part only considers the red vertices) 52

  19. Fourth Event(4) • Lemma 2.5 WHP H does not contain a blue vertex with fewer than k red neighbors • Proof of Lemma 2.5 The probability that H contains such a vertex v is bounded by n2p2t=0 to k-1(4,t)p1t(1-p1)4-t=o(1) 52

  20. Additional Definition • Recall that H is the subgraph of G consisting only of the red nodes • Let S be an arbitrary set of k-1 red vertices, and let Hs=H-S. Our goal is to show that if Hs has multiple connected components, then whp they will all be linked up by the addition of the blue nodes • Let L be the set of points in T with coordinates (i,j), where each of i and j is a multiple of 3 • For each connected component K of Hs, and for each point xL, let vKx denote the node in K that is closet to x in L1 distance 52

  21. The relation between K and L L HS x3 12 K3 K1 vK1x3 x2 9 vK1x2 K2 x1 6 vK1x1 3 52 3 6 9 12

  22. Where is vKx ? • Lemma 2.6 vKx lies within the * box Bx centered at x x3 12 HS 9 K1 x1  6 vK1x1  3 3 6 52

  23. Proof of Lemma 2.6-1 • Let a red node be pink if it is not in S • We prove this lemma by contradiction v=vK0=(a,b) x=0 52

  24. Proof of Lemma 2.6-2 • By 3, v has at least one arm containing a pink node w w v=vK0=(a,b) x=0 52

  25. Proof of Lemma 2.6-3 • If the deg(v)<lnlnn, then we can use the non-occurrence of 2to argue that two arms of w orthogonal to vw are mighty mighty deg(v)<lnlnn v w  mighty 52

  26. Proof of Lemma 2.6-4 • If deg(v)≥lnlnn, then we can use the non-occurrence of 1to argue that there is a choice of lnlnn-4000 w’s such that the two arms of w orthogonal to vw are mighty w w mighty deg(v)≥lnlnn w w w v w  w mighty w 52

  27. Proof of Lemma 2.6-5 • Case 1: is the South arm of v • It follows that |a’|+|c|a+b+.1-.4, contradiction !  v=vK0=(a,b) |c-b|.1 z=(a’,c) x=0  y=(a,-b’’) w=(a’,-b’’)  ,: mighty a-a’[.4,.5] 52

  28. Proof of Lemma 2.6-5 • Case 2a:  is the North arm of v and a≥/2 • It follows that |a’|+|b’’|a+b+.1-.4, contradiction !  y=(a,b’)  w=(a’,b’) z=(a’,b’’) |b’’-b|.1 v  x=0 a-a’[.4,.5] ,: mighty 52

  29. Proof of Lemma 2.6-6 • Case 2b-1:  is the North arm of v and a</2 w=(a’,b’) y=(a,b’)  |b-b’|.7  z=(a’,b’’) v=(a,b)  |b’’-b’|[.9,] x=0 ,: mighty 52 |a-a’|.1

  30. Proof of Lemma 2.6-7 • Case 2b-2:  is the North arm of v and a</2 w=(a’,b’) y=(a,b’)  |b-b’|>.7  q=(a’,b’’) v=(a,b) z=(a’’,b’’)  |b’-b’’|≥.9  p=(a’’,b’’’) |b’’-b’’’|[.5,.6]  x=0 ,,,: mighty 52 |a-a’|.1 |a’’-a’|.1

  31. Proof of Lemma 2.6-8 • In case 2b-1, it follows that |a’|+|b’’|a+b+.1+.7-.9, contradiction • In case 2b-2, it follows that |a’’|+|b’’’|a+b++.1-.9+.1-.5, contradiction • The case  is the west arm is dealt with as in case 1 and the case where  is the east arm is dealt with as in case 2 52

  32. Derandomization • The proof of lemma 2.9 is the first example we have seen of derandomization – where we take a randomized algorithm or computation, and diminish or entirely remove the randomness in it • This is often a useful technique for the design of deterministic algorithms 52

  33. Final Lemma • Lemma 2.7 The points z(J,K,x) and z(J,K,y) are distinct, for distinct points x and y L HS K J 12 y vJy vKy z(J,K,y) vJx 9 x vKx z(J,K,x) 6 3 3 6 52

  34. Finishing the Proof-1 • Note that of a node is placed at z(J,K,x), then it will be a neighbor both of a point in J and K, and hence J and K will belong to the same component in G • In the second stage of node placement, a blue node will be placed at each point z(J,K,x) will probability p2 • By lemma 2.7, there are n2/92 such points for a fixed pair of components J,K, and so the probability that no blue point is placed at any of them is bounded by (1-p2)^(n2/92)  e^[-n2-3/(20lnn)] 52

  35. Finishing the Proof-2 • There are at most 2 components, since for any fixed point xL, each component has a node in the * box around x • Thus, the probability that there exists a set S of size at most k-1 and components J,K of Hs, which are not connected in G by a blue vertex is at most 4e^[-n2-3/(20lnn)]n2k-2=o(1) • Thus, conditional on there being no vertices of degree k-1 or less, if we remove any set S of k-1 vertices, then whp the graph Hs has a component containing all of the red vertices • It follows from 4 that G-S is connected and so G itself is k connected whp 52

  36. Connectivity: The Second&Third Part • If cn-inf then one uses the Chebyshev inequality to show that whp there are vertices of degree less than k • If cninf the whp there are no vertices of degree less than k (the expected number tends to zero) • And, the argument cnc implies that G will be k-connected whp 52

  37. Giant Component • G will whp contain ~np2 vertices. A giant component is therefore one with (n2p) vertices • Theorem 3.1 • If p=c/ where c>1 and inf the whp G contains a unique component with (1-o(1))(1-x2c)n2/ vertices, where xc is the unique solution in (0,1) of xe-x =ce-c • If p=c/ where c<1(4e) and inf then whp the largest component in G has size O(lnn) 52

  38. Finding Paths Between Nodes • Theorem Let p=Clnn/ for a constant C3. There is a decentralized algorithm that whp, given nodes s and t, constructs an s-t path with O(d(s,t)/  +lnn) edges while involving O(d(s,t)/  +  lnn) nodes in the computation • This bound is nearly optimal, since (d(s,t)/) is a simple lower bound on the number of edges and number of nodes involved in any s-t path 52

  39. Relay Placement • Relay Placement problem: given a set of nodes on a grid, we would like to add a small number of additional nodes so that the full set becomes connected 52

  40. Problem Model • As before, we are given an nn torus of points T. Let K=(T,E) be the graph defined on the points of T, in which we join two points by an edge if they can see each other • Also, we are given a cost cx for each point xT, and for a set XT we define c(X)=xXcx • Let X={x1,x2,…,xk} be a given set of points inT. We consider the problem of choosing a set of additional points Y={y1,y2,…,ys} such that K[XY] is connected • We call Y a Steiner set for X. Our goal is to find a Steiner set whose total cost as small as possible 52

  41. Relative to other problems • This is an instance of Node-Weighted Steiner tree problem in the graph K, with X as the set of given terminals and Y as the set of additional Steiner nodes whose total cost we want to minimize • In general, there is an (logn) hardness of approximation for this problem(Klein & Ravi, J. Algorithms, 1994 ) 52

  42. Results of This Paper • However, the special structure of the graph K allows us to efficiently find a Steiner set whose cost is within a constant factor of minimum • Theorem 5.1 There is a polynomial-time algorithm that produces a Steiner set whose total cost is within a factor of 6.2 of optimal 52

  43. The crucial combinatorial property • The crucial combinatorial property of K that we use is captured by the following definition • We say that a graph H is d-cohesive if every connected subset of H has a spanning tree of maximum degree d • That is, given any connected subset S of V(H), we can choose a set F of edges, each with both ends in S, such that (S,F) is a tree of maximum degree d 52

  44. Graph K is 4-cohesive • Lemma 5.3 The graph K is 4-cohesive • For each edge of K, define its length to be the number of rows or columns of T that separate its ends • Now, consider an arbitrary connected subset S of K, and let (S,F) be a spanning tree of S whose total edge length is minimum • We claim that the maximum degree of (S,F) is four. For suppose not; 52

  45. Transform node weight to edge weight • We first define weights on the edges of K as follows • First, let X-reduced cost cx,v of a node v • 0, if vX • cv, otherwise • Let cx(Y)=yYcx,y • For each edge e=(v,w) of K, we define its weight we to be max(cx,v, cx,w) • For a subgraph  of K, let w() denote its total edge weight 52

  46. Approximation Algorithm&Analysis • Now, let Y* be a Steiner set for X of minimum cost, and let * be a Steiner tree for X of minimum total edge weight (Note that the Steiner nodes of * may be different from Y*) 10 3 3 5 52

  47. Approximation Algorithm&Analysis • Lemma 5.4 w(*)4c(Y*) 52

  48. Approximation Algorithm&Analysis • A Steiner tree whose edge weight is within a constant 1.55 of optimal can be computed in polynomial time via an algorithm • Let ’ be a Steiner tree for X computed using this algorithm • Let Y’ be the Steiner nodes of ’ • By charging the costs of nodes in Y’ to the weights of distinct incident edges in ’, we have • Lemma 5.5 c(Y’)w(’) 52

  49. Approximation Algorithm&Analysis • Finally, we use Y’ as our Steiner set for X • Because c(Y’)w(’)w(*)4c(Y*) • We obtain a bound on c(Y’) relative to the optimum c(Y*) 52

  50. Open Questions • Find the exact threshold for the existence of a giant component • Remove the restrictions on  • Study problems associated with points of G moving (randomly) 52

More Related