Localization for Mobile Sensor Networks.pptVIP

28 September 2004 /mcl Localization for Mobile Sensor Networks Location Matters Sensor Net Applications Mapping Environment monitoring Event tracking Geographic routing protocols Determining Location Direct approaches GPS Expensive (cost, size, energy) Only works outdoors, on Earth Configured manually Expensive Not possible for ad hoc, mobile networks Indirect approaches Small number of seed nodes Seeds are configured or have GPS Other nodes determine location based on messages received Hop-Count Techniques Local Techniques Our Goal (Reasonably) Accurate Localization in Mobile Networks Low Density, Arbitrarily Placed Seeds Range-free: no special hardware Low communication (limited addition to normal neighbor discovery) Scenarios Our Approach: Monte Carlo Localization Adapts an approach from robotics localization Take advantage of mobility: Moving makes things harder…but provides more information Properties of time and space limit possible locations; cooperation from neighbors MCL: Initialization MCL Step: Predict Prediction MCL Step: Predict Filtering Resampling Recap: Algorithm Results Summary Effect of network parameters: Speed of nodes and seeds Density of nodes and seeds Cost Tradeoffs: Memory v. Accuracy: Number of samples Communication v. Accuracy: Indirect seeds Radio Irregularity: fairly resilient Movement: control helps; group motion hurts Convergence Speed Helps and Hurts Seed Density Cost Tradeoff: Samples Maintained Cost Tradeoff: Impact of Indirect Seeds Radio Irregularity Motion Future Work: Security Attacks on localization: Bogus seed announcements Require authentication between seeds and nodes Bogus indirect announcements Retransmit tokens received from seeds Replay, wormhole attacks Filtering has advantages as long as you get one legitimate announcement Proving node location to others Summary Mobility can improve localization: Increases uncertainty, but more observations Monte Carlo Localization Maintain set of samples representing possible lo