The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The cougar approach to in-network query processing in sensor networks
Abstract
The widespread distribution and availability of small-scale sensors, actuators, and embedded processors is transforming the physical world into a computing platform. One such example is a sensor network consisting of a large number of sensor nodes that combine physical sensing capabilities such as temperature, light, or seismic sensors with networking and computation capabilities. Applications range from environmental control, warehouse inventory, and health care to military environments. Existing sensor networks assume that the sensors are preprogrammed and send data to a central frontend where the data is aggregated and stored for offline querying and analysis. This approach has two major drawbacks. First, the user cannot change the behavior of the system on the fly. Second, conservation of battery power is a major design factor, but a central system cannot make use of in-network programming, which trades costly communication for cheap local computation.In this paper, we introduce the Cougar approach to tasking sensor networks through declarative queries. Given a user query, a query optimizer generates an efficient query plan for in-network query processing, which can vastly reduce resource usage and thus extend the lifetime of a sensor network. In addition, since queries are asked in a declarative language, the user is shielded from the physical characteristics of the network. We give a short overview of sensor networks, propose a natural architecture for a data management system for sensor networks, and describe open research problems in this area.
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
(2001) · doi:10.1201/9781420038545 · Cited by 397
Cited by
TinyDB: an acquisitional query processing system for sensor networks
Madden, S. R., Franklin, M. J., Hellerstein, J. M., & Hong, W. (2005) · ACM Transactions on Database Systems · doi:10.1145/1061318.1061322 · Cited by 1,899
Gossip-based computation of aggregate information
Kempe, D., Dobra, A., & Gehrke, J. (2004) · 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings. · doi:10.1109/sfcs.2003.1238221 · Cited by 1,480
Self-citationIn-network aggregation techniques for wireless sensor networks: a survey
Fasolo, E., Rossi, M., Widmer, J., & Zorzi, M. (2007) · IEEE Wireless Communications · doi:10.1109/mwc.2007.358967 · Cited by 734
Sensor networks for medical care
Shnayder, V., Chen, B.-R., Lorincz, K., Jones, T. R. F. F., & Welsh, M. (2005) · Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems · doi:10.1145/1098918.1098979 · Cited by 720
Information fusion for wireless sensor networks: Methods, models, and classifications
Nakamura, E. F., Loureiro, A. A. F., & Frery, A. C. (2007) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/1267070.1267073 · Cited by 537
Metadata
- Authors
- Yao, Y., & Gehrke, J.
- Venue
- ACM SIGMOD Record
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 9-18
- ISSN
- 0163-5808 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2125572812
- Cited by
- 1,328
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 55.89
- Type
- journal article
- 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: The cougar approach to in-network query processing in sensor networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/601858.601861
- The paper
- Yao, Y., & Gehrke, J. (2002). The cougar approach to in-network query processing in sensor networks. ACM SIGMOD Record. https://doi.org/10.1145/601858.601861
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.