The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Near-optimal sensor placements: maximizing information while minimizing communication cost
Abstract
When monitoring spatial phenomena with wireless sensor networks, selecting the best sensor placements is a fundamental task. Not only should the sensors be informative, but they should also be able to communicate efficiently. In this paper, we present a data-driven approach that addresses the three central aspects of this problem: measuring the predictive quality of a set of sensor locations (regardless of whether sensors were ever placed at these locations), predicting the communication cost involved with these placements, and designing an algorithm with provable quality guarantees that optimizes the NP-hard tradeoff. Specifically, we use data from a pilot deployment to build non-parametric probabilistic models called Gaussian Processes (GPs)both for the spatial phenomena of interest and for the spatial variability of link qualities, which allows us to estimate predictive power and communication cost of unsensed locations. Surprisingly, uncertainty in the representation of link qualities plays an important role in estimating communication costs. Using these models, we present a novel, polynomial-time, data-driven algorithm, pSPIEL, which selects Sensor Placements at Informative and cost-Effective Locations. Our approach exploits two important properties of this problem: submodularity, formalizing the intuition that adding a node to a small deployment can help more than adding a node to a large deployment; and locality, under which nodes that are far from each other provide almost independent information. Exploiting these properties, we prove strong approximation guarantees for our pSPIEL approach. We also provide extensive experimental validation of this practical approach on several real-world placement problems, and built a complete system implementation on 46 Tmote Sky motes, demonstrating significant advantages over existing methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cressie, N. (1992) · Terra Nova · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.1992.tb00605.x · Cited by 8,823
An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—I
Nemhauser, G. L., Wolsey, L. A., & Fisher, M. L. (1978) · Mathematical Programming · doi:10.1007/bf01588971 · Cited by 4,412
(2011) · SpringerReference · doi:10.1007/springerreference_57547 · Cited by 3,190
Model-Driven Data Acquisition in Sensor Networks
Deshpande, A., Guestrin, C., Madden, S. R., Hellerstein, J. M., & Hong, W. (2004) · Proceedings 2004 VLDB Conference · doi:10.1016/b978-012088469-8.50053-x · Cited by 1,036
Self-citationNear-optimal sensor placements in Gaussian processes
Guestrin, C., Krause, A., & Singh, A. P. (2005) · Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '05 · doi:10.1145/1102351.1102385 · Cited by 454
Self-citationDistributed regression: an efficient framework for modeling sensor network data
Guestrin, C., Bodik, P., Thibaux, R., Paskin, M., & Madden, S. (2004) · Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on Information processing in sensor networks · doi:10.1145/984622.984624 · Cited by 429
Self-citationConnected sensor cover: self-organization of sensor networks for efficient query execution
Gupta, H., Zhou, Z., Das, S. R., & Gu, Q. (2006) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking · doi:10.1109/tnet.2005.863478 · Cited by 423
Bounded geometries, fractals, and low-distortion embeddings
Gupta, A., Krauthgamer, R., & Lee, J. R. (2004) · 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings. · doi:10.1109/sfcs.2003.1238226 · Cited by 405
Self-citation
Cited by
Smart Cities: A Survey on Data Management, Security, and Enabling Technologies
Gharaibeh, A., Salahuddin, M. A., Hussini, S. J., Khreishah, A., Khalil, I., Guizani, M., & Al-Fuqaha, A. (2017) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2017.2736886 · Cited by 628
Bayesian Active Learning for Classification and Preference Learning
Houlsby, N., Huszár, F., Ghahramani, Z., & Lengyel, M. (2011) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1112.5745 · Cited by 507
“[Guestrin et al., 2005, Krause et al., 2006] also use mutual information.”
BackgroundSensor network data fault types
Ni, K., Ramanathan, N., Chehade, M. N. H., Balzano, L., Nair, S., Zahedi, S., Kohler, E., Pottie, G., Hansen, M., & Srivastava, M. (2009) · ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks · doi:10.1145/1525856.1525863 · Cited by 431
Parker, L. E., Rus, D., & Sukhatme, G. S. (2016) · Springer Handbooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_53 · Cited by 290
Adaptive Active Learning for Image Classification
Li, X., & Guo, Y. (2013) · 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2013.116 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Krause, A., Guestrin, C., Gupta, A., & Kleinberg, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Information processing in sensor networks - IPSN '06
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2006
- Pages
- 2
- OpenAlex
- W2148134592
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 8
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Near-optimal sensor placements: maximizing information while minimizing communication cost. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1127777.1127782
- The paper
- Krause, A., Guestrin, C., Gupta, A., & Kleinberg, J. (2006). Near-optimal sensor placements: maximizing information while minimizing communication cost. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Information processing in sensor networks - IPSN '06. https://doi.org/10.1145/1127777.1127782
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.