skip to main content
research-article

Performance evaluation of sensor networks by statistical modeling and euclidean model checking

Published:23 July 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Modeling and evaluating the performance of large-scale wireless sensor networks (WSNs) is a challenging problem. The traditional method for representing the global state of a system as a cross product of the states of individual nodes in the system results in a state space whose size is exponential in the number of nodes. We propose an alternative way of representing the global state of a system: namely, as a probability mass function (pmf) which represents the fraction of nodes in different states. A pmf corresponds to a point in a Euclidean space of possible pmf values, and the evolution of the state of a system is represented by trajectories in this Euclidean space. We propose a novel performance evaluation method that examines all pmf trajectories in a dense Euclidean space by exploring only finite relevant portions of the space. We call our method Euclidean model checking. Euclidean model checking is useful both in the design phase—where it can help determine system parameters based on a specification—and in the evaluation phase—where it can help verify performance properties of a system. We illustrate the utility of Euclidean model checking by using it to design a time difference of arrival (TDoA) distance measurement protocol and to evaluate the protocol's implementation on a 90-node WSN. To facilitate such performance evaluations, we provide a Markov model estimation method based on applying a standard statistical estimation technique to samples resulting from the execution of a system.

References

  1. Agha, G., Gunter, C., Greenwald, M., Khanna, S., Meseguer, J., Sen, K., and Thati, P. 2005. Formal modeling and analysis of DoS using probabilistic rewrite theories. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Foundations of Computer Security (FCS'05).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Aslam, J., Butler, Z., Constantin, F., Crepsi, V., Cybenko, G., and Rus, D. 2003. Tracking a moving object with a binary sensor network. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys). 150--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Aziz, A., Singhal, V., and Balarin, F. 1995. It usually works: The temporal logic of stochastic systems. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 939, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 155--165. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Baier, C., Katoen, J., and Hermanns, H. 1999. Approximate symbolic model checking of continuous-time Markov chains. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR). vol. 1664, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 146--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bucholz, P. 1994. Exact and ordinary lumpability in finite Markov chains. J. Appl. Probab. 31, 59--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Calder, M., Duguid, A., Gilmore, S., and Hillston, J. 2006. Stronger computational modelling of signalling pathways using both continuous and discrete-state methods. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Methods in System Biology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4210, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 63--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Carrasco, R. C. and Oncina, J. 1994. Learning stochastic regular grammars by means of a state merging method. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference and Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 862, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 139--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ciardo, G., Marie, R. A., Sericola, B., and Trivedi, K. S. 1990. Performability analysis using semi-Markov reward processes. IEEE Trans. Comput. 39, 1251--1264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ciardo, G. and Miner, A. S. 1999. A data structure for the efficient Kronecker solution of GSPNs. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models. 22--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Clarke, E., Faeder, J., Langmead, C., Harris, L., Jha, S., and Legay, A. 2008. Statistical model checking in BioLab: Applications to the automated analysis of T-cell receptor signaling pathway. In Proceedings of the 6th International Confernece on Computational Methods in Systems Biology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5307, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 231--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., and Peled, D. 2000. Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke, E. M. and Emerson, E. A. 1981. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In Proceedings of the International Conference on 25 Years of Model Checking. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5000, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 196--215. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Clarke, E. M., Emerson, E. A., and Sistla, A. P. 1983. Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications: A practical approach. In Proceedings of the 10th International ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. 117--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Entezari-Maleki, R. and Movaghar, A. 2012. A probabilistic task scheduling method for grid environments. Future Gen. Comput. Syst. 28, 3, 513--524. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Franklin, G. F., Powell, J. D., and Emami-Naeini, A. 1994. Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems 3rd Ed. Addison Wesley, Boston, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Grosu, R., Bartocci, E., Corradini, F., Entcheva, E., Smolka, S. A., and Wasilewska, A. 2008. Learning and detecting emergent behavior in networks of cardiac myocytes. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4981, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 229--243. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Hansson, H. and Jonsson, B. 1994. A logic for reasoning about time and reliability. Formal Aspects Comput. 6, 5, 512--535.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hasan, O. and Tahar, S. 2009. Probabilistic analysis of wireless systems using theorem proving. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 242, 43--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Henzinger, T. A., Ho, P.-H., and Wong-Toi, H. 1997. HyTech: A model checker for hybrid systems. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 1, 1--2, 110--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Holzmann, G. J. 1997. The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 23, 279--295. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Hughes, G. and Creswell, M. 1997. Introduction to Modal Logic. Methuen, Methuen, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Karmarkar, N. 1984. A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming. Combinatorica 4, 373--395. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Katelman, M., Meseguer, J., and Hou, J. 2008. Redesign of the LMST wireless sensor protocol through formal modeling and statistical model checking. In Proceedings of the 10th IFIP International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5051, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 150--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Kemeny, J. G. and Snell, J. L. 1976. Finite Markov Chains. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kermorvant, C. and Dupont, P. 2002. Stochastic grammatical inference with multinomial tests. In Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2484, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 149--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Khachiyan, L. G. 1979. A polynomial algorithm in linear programming. Doklady Akademiia Nauk SSSR 244, 1093--1096.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Korthikanti, V. A., Viswanathan, M., Kwon, Y., and Agha, G. 2010. Reasoning about MDPs as transformers of probability distributions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of SysTems (QEST). IEEE Computer Society, 199--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., and Parker, D. 2004. PRISM 2.0: A tool for probabilistic model checking. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST). IEEE Computer Society, 322--323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Kwon, Y. and Agha, G. 2005. iLTLChecker: A probabilistic model checker for multiple DTMCs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST). IEEE Computer Society, 245--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Kwon, Y. and Agha, G. 2006. Scalable modeling and performance evaluation of wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium. IEEE, 49--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Kwon, Y. and Agha, G. 2007. A Markov reward model for software reliability. In Proceedings of the Next Generation Software (NGS) Workshop at International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kwon, Y. and Agha, G. 2008. LTLC: Linear temporal logic for control. In Proceedings of the 11the International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4981, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 316--329. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Kwon, Y. and Agha, G. 2011. Verifying the evolution of probability distributions governed by a DTMC. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engi. 37, 1, 126--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Kwon, Y. and Kim, E. 2010. Specification and verification of pharmacokinetic models. In Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology (AEMB). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 680, Springer, 463--472.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Kwon, Y., Mechitov, K., Sundresh, S., Kim, W., and Agha, G. 2010. Resilient localization for sensor networks in outdoor environments. ACM Trans. Sen. Netw. 7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Lam, V. V., Buchholz, P., and Sanders, W. H. 2004. A structured path-based approach for computing transient rewards for large CTMCs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST). IEEE Computer Society, 136--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Langville, A. N. and Stewart, W. J. 2004. The Kronecker product and stochastic automata networks. J. Comput. Appl. Mathe. 429--447. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Lichtenstein, O. and Pnueli, A. 1985. Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. 97--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Luenberger, D. G. 1989. Linear and Nonlinear Programming 2nd Ed., Addison Wesley, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Mechitov, K., Sundresh, S., Kwon, Y., and Agha, G. 2003. Cooperative tracking with binary-detection sensor networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys). ACM Press, 332--333. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Miner, A. S. and Ciardo, G. 1999. Efficient reachability set generation and storage using decision diagrams. In Proceedings of the International Conference Application and Theory of Petri Nets. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1639, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 6--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Ölveczky, C. and Meseguer, J. 2002. Specification of real-time and hybrid systems in rewriting logic. J. Theor. Comput. Sci. 285, 2, 359--405. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Ölveczky, C. and Meseguer, J. 2007. Semantics and pragmatics of real-time maude. Higher-Order Symbo. Comput. 20, 1--2, 161--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Ölveczky, P. C. and Thorvaldsen, S. 2009. Formal modeling, performance estimation, and model checking of wireless sensor network algorithms in Real-Time Maude. J. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410. 2--3, 254--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Papoulis, A. 1991. Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Pardalos, P. M. and Vavasis, S. A. 1991. Quadratic programming with one negative eigenvalue is NP-hard. J. Global Optimi. 1, 15--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Plateau, B. and Atif, K. 1991. Stochastic automata network for modeling parallel systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17, 1093--1108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Rice, J., Mechitov, K., Shim, S.-H., Nagayama, T., Jang, S., Kim, R., Spencer, B., Agha, G., and Fujino, Y. 2010. Flexible smart sensor framework for autonomous structural health monitoring. Smart Struct. Syst. 6, 5--6, 423--438.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Ron, D., Singer, Y., and Tishby, N. 1995. On the learnability and usage of acyclic probabilistic finite automata. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory (COLT'95). ACM Press, 31--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Sedgewick, R. 1990. Algorithms in C. Addison Wesley, Boston, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Sen, K., Viswanathan, M., and Agha, G. 2004. Learning continuous time Markov chains from sample executions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST). IEEE, 146--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Sen, K., Viswanathan, M., and Agha, G. 2005. On statistical model checking of stochastic systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3576. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 311--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Strang, G. 1988. Linear Algebra and Its Applications 3rd Ed. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Szewczyk, R., Mainwaring, A., Polastre, J., Anderson, J., and Culler, D. 2004. An analysis of a large scale habitat monitoring application. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys). 214--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Xu, N., Rangwala, S., Chintalapudi, K. K., Ganesan, D., Broad, A., Govindan, R., and Estrin, D. 2004. A wireless sensor-network for structural monitoring. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys). 13--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Performance evaluation of sensor networks by statistical modeling and euclidean model checking

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks
      ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks  Volume 9, Issue 4
      July 2013
      523 pages
      ISSN:1550-4859
      EISSN:1550-4867
      DOI:10.1145/2489253
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 July 2013
      • Accepted: 1 September 2012
      • Revised: 1 May 2011
      • Received: 1 August 2010
      Published in tosn Volume 9, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader