Accurate and low-cost sensor localization is a critical requirement for the deployment of wireless sensor networks in a wide variety of applications. In cooperative localization, sensors work together in a peer-to-peer manner to make measurements and then forms a map of the network. Various application requirements influence the design of sensor localization systems. In this article, the authors describe the measurement-based statistical models useful to describe time-of-arrival (TOA), angle-of-arrival (AOA), and received-signal-strength (RSS) measurements in wireless sensor networks. Wideband and ultra-wideband (UWB) measurements, and RF and acoustic media are also discussed. Using the models, the authors have shown the calculation of a Cramer-Rao bound (CRB) on the location estimation precision possible for a given set of measurements. The article briefly surveys a large and growing body of sensor localization algorithms. This article is intended to emphasize the basic statistical signal processing background necessary to understand the state-of-the-art and to make progress in the new and largely open areas of sensor network localization research.

Locating the nodes: cooperative localization in wireless sensor networks

https://deim.urv.cat/~alexandre.arenas/publicacions/pdf/review.pdf

Synchronization in complex networks

In the last years, wireless sensor networks (WSNs) have gained increasing attention from both the research community and actual users. As sensor nodes are generally battery-powered devices, the critical aspects to face concern how to reduce the energy consumption of nodes, so that the network lifetime can be extended to reasonable times. In this paper we first break down the energy consumption for the components of a typical sensor node, and discuss the main directions to energy conservation in WSNs. Then, we present a systematic and comprehensive taxonomy of the energy conservation schemes, which are subsequently discussed in depth. Special attention has been devoted to promising solutions which have not yet obtained a wide attention in the literature, such as techniques for energy efficient data acquisition. Finally we conclude the paper with insights for research directions about energy conservation in WSNs.

/pdf/energy-conservation-in-wireless-sensor-networks-a-survey-1bl7d2obnm.pdf

Energy conservation in wireless sensor networks: A survey

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Over the coming decades, high-definition situationally-aware networks have the potential to create revolutionary applications in the social, scientific, commercial, and military sectors Ultrawide bandwidth (UWB) technology is a viable candidate for enabling accurate localization capabilities through time-of-arrival (TOA)-based ranging techniques These techniques exploit the fine delay resolution property of UWB signals by estimating the TOA of the first signal path Exploiting the full capabilities of UWB TOA estimation can be challenging, especially when operating in harsh propagation environments, since the direct path may not exist or it may not be the strongest In this paper, we first give an overview of ranging techniques together with the primary sources of TOA error (including propagation effects, clock drift, and interference) We then describe fundamental TOA bounds (such as the Cramer-Rao bound and the tighter Ziv-Zakai bound) in both ideal and multipath environments These bounds serve as useful benchmarks in assessing the performance of TOA estimation techniques We also explore practical low-complexity TOA estimation techniques and analyze their performance in the presence of multipath and interference using IEEE 802154a channel models as well as experimental data measured in indoor residential environments

/pdf/ranging-with-ultrawide-bandwidth-signals-in-multipath-illizjdvoz.pdf

Ranging With Ultrawide Bandwidth Signals in Multipath Environments

Time synchronization is an important issue in multihop ad hoc wireless networks such as sensor networks. Many applications of sensor networks need local clocks of sensor nodes to be synchronized, requiring various degrees of precision. Some intrinsic properties of sensor networks, such as limited resources of energy, storage, computation, and bandwidth, combined with potentially high density of nodes make traditional synchronization methods unsuitable for these networks. Hence, there has been an increasing research focus on designing synchronization algorithms specifically for sensor networks. This article reviews the time synchronization problem and the need for synchronization in sensor networks, then presents in detail the basic synchronization methods explicitly designed and proposed for sensor networks.

/pdf/time-synchronization-in-sensor-networks-a-survey-3ui0q738fh.pdf

Time synchronization in sensor networks: a survey

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have a profound impact on the current state and envisioned future of automobiles. This paper presents an overview of research on ICT-based support and assistance services for the safety of future connected vehicles. A general classification and a brief description of the focus areas for research and development in this direction are given under the titles of vehicle detection, road detection, lane detection, pedestrian detection, drowsiness detection, and collision avoidance. Following an overview and taxonomy of the reviewed research articles, a categorized literature survey of safety critical applications is presented in detail. Future research directions are also highlighted.

Vehicles of the Future: A Survey of Research on Safety Issues

In this paper we define a new metric for quantifying the degree of anonymity collectively afforded to users of an anonymous communication system. We show how our metric, based on the permanent of a matrix, can be useful in evaluating the amount of information needed by an observer to reveal the communication pattern as a whole. We also show how our model can be extended to include probabilistic information learned by an attacker about possible sender-recipient relationships. Our work is intended to serve as a complementary tool to existing information-theoretic metrics, which typically consider the anonymity of the system from the perspective of a single user or message.

/pdf/a-combinatorial-approach-to-measuring-anonymity-artkdp6xhz.pdf

A Combinatorial Approach to Measuring Anonymity

A MAC protocol specifies how nodes in a sensor network access a shared communication channel. Desired properties of such MAC protocol are: it should be distributed and contention-free (avoid collisions); it should self-stabilize to changes in the network (such as arrival of new nodes), and these changes should be contained, i.e., affect only the nodes in the vicinity of the change; it should not assume that nodes have a global time reference, i.e., nodes may not be time-synchronized. We give the first MAC protocols that satisfy all of these requirements, i.e., we give distributed, contention-free, self-stabilizing MAC protocols which do not assume a global time reference. Our protocols self-stabilize from an arbitrary initial state, and if the network changes the changes are contained and the protocol adjusts to the local topology of the network. The communication complexity, number and size of messages, for the protocol to stabilize is small (logarithmic in network size).

/pdf/contention-free-mac-protocols-for-wireless-sensor-networks-rb64jh396a.pdf

Contention-free MAC protocols for wireless sensor networks

Attack graphs show possible paths that an attacker can use to intrude into a target network and gain privileges through series of vulnerability exploits. The computation of attack graphs suffers from the state explosion problem occurring most notably when the number of vulnerabilities in the target network grows large. Parallel computation of attack graphs can be utilized to attenuate this problem. When employed in online network security evaluation, the computation of attack graphs can be triggered with the correlated intrusion alerts received from sensors scattered throughout the target network. In such cases, distributed computation of attack graphs becomes valuable. This article introduces a parallel and distributed memory-based algorithm that builds vulnerability-based attack graphs on a distributed multi-agent platform. A virtual shared memory abstraction is proposed to be used over such a platform, whose memory pages are initialized by partitioning the network reachability information. We demonstrate the feasibility of parallel distributed computation of attack graphs and show that even a small degree of parallelism can effectively speed up the generation process as the problem size grows. We also introduce a rich attack template and network model in order to form chains of vulnerability exploits in attack graphs more precisely.

Fikret Sivrikaya

Papers

Time synchronization in sensor networks: a survey

Vehicles of the Future: A Survey of Research on Safety Issues

A Combinatorial Approach to Measuring Anonymity

Contention-free MAC protocols for wireless sensor networks

Distributed Attack Graph Generation