Data-Driven Processing In Sensor Networks数据驱动的处理在传感器网络.pptVIP

* Energy cost vs. inference quality ACK is not worth the trouble! Sampling is okay in terms of cost, but has trouble with accuracy Suppression-aware inference with app-level redundancy is our best hope to get higher accuracy 30% message failure rate Roughly 60% suppression Cost: bytes transmitted (including any message overhead) Quality: size of 80% high-density region * BaySail discussion Suppression vs. redundancy Goal of suppression was to remove redundancy Now we are adding redundancy back—why? Without suppression, we have to rely on naturally occurring redundancy $ want to control where redundancy is needed, and how much Many interesting future directions Dynamic, local adjustments to ? and degree of redundancy In-network resolution of suppression/failure Failure modeling Provenance: is publishing received/interpolated values enough? * Concluding remarks Data-driven approach Use model to optimize, not to substitute for real data ! suppression Quantify uncertainty in models; use data to learn/refine ! Bayesian Conch: suppression by chaining simple spatiotemporal models BaySail: suppression-aware inference with app-level redundancy to cope with failure (suppression’s dirty little secret) This model-based stuff is not just for statisticians! Cost-based optimization Interplay between system design and statistical inference Representing and querying data with uncertainty All models are wrong, but some models are useful — George Box * Thanks! Duke Database Research Group /dbgroup/ * Related work Sensor data acquisition/collection BBQ [Deshpande et al. VLDB 2004], Snapshot [Kotidis ICDE 2005], Ken [Chu et al. ICDE 2006], PRESTO [Li et al. NSDI 2006], contour map [Xue et al. SIGMOD 2006] , … Sensor data cleaning ESP [Jeffery et al. Pervasive 2006], SMURF [Jeffery et al. VLDB 2006], StreamClean [Khoussainova et al. MobiDE 2006], … Uncertainty in databases MYSTIQ [Dalvi Suciu VLDB 2004], Trio/ULDB [Benjelloun et al. VLDB 2006], MauveDB [Deshpande Madden SI