skip to main content
10.1145/2739480.2754751acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Genetic Programming Approach to Cost-Sensitive Control in Resource Constrained Sensor Systems

Published:11 July 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Resource constrained sensor systems are an increasingly attractive option in a variety of environmental monitoring domains, due to continued improvements in sensor technology. However, sensors for the same measurement application can differ in terms of cost and accuracy, while fluctuations in environmental conditions can impact both application requirements and available energy. This raises the problem of automatically controlling heterogeneous sensor suites in resource constrained sensor system applications, in a manner that balances cost and accuracy of available sensors. We present a method that employs a hierarchy of model ensembles trained by genetic programming (GP): if model ensembles that poll low-cost sensors exhibit too much prediction uncertainty, they automatically transfer the burden of prediction to other GP-trained model ensembles that poll more expensive and accurate sensors. We show that, for increasingly challenging datasets, this hierarchical approach makes predictions with equivalent accuracy yet lower cost than a similar yet non-hierarchical method in which a single GP-generated model determines which sensors to poll at any given time. Our results thus show that a hierarchy of GP-trained ensembles can serve as a control algorithm for heterogeneous sensor suites in resource constrained sensor system applications that balances cost and accuracy.

References

  1. github code public repository. http://git.io/vfmGB. Accessed: 2015-04--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. UCI machine learning repository. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets.html. Accessed: 2015-02-03.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. C. Alippi, G. Anastasi, C. Galperti, F. Mancini, and M. Roveri. Adaptive sampling for energy conservation in wireless sensor networks for snow monitoring applications. In IEEE 4th International Conference on Mobile Adhoc and Sensor Systems, MASS 2007, 8-11 October 2007, Pisa, Italy, pages 1--6, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. E. H. Bair, R. E. Davis, D. C. Finnegan, A. L. LeWinter, E. Guttmann, and J. Dozier. Can we estimate precipitation rate during snowfall using a scanning terrestrial lidar? In International Snow Science Workshop, pages 923--929, Anchorage, AK, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockhoff, Dimo, Zitzler, and Eckart. Are all objectives necessary? On dimensionality reduction in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature-PPSN IX, pages 533--542. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. Buckingham, C. Skalka, and J. Bongard. Inductive learning of snowpack distribution models for improved estimation of areal snow water equivalent. Journal of Hydrology, 2015. Accepted for Publication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. E. D. de Jong and J. B. Pollack. Multi-objective methods for tree size control. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 4(3):211--233, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. L. Donoho. Compressed sensing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52(4):1289--1306, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. D. Hall and J. Llinas. Multisensor data fusion. CRC press, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. G. Hornby. ALPS: the age-layered population structure for reducing the problem of premature convergence. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO 2006, Proceedings, Seattle, Washington, USA, July 8-12, 2006, pages 815--822, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. Kim. Structural risk minimization on decision trees using an evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In Genetic Programming, pages 338--348. Springer, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. F. Koushanfar, S. Slijepcevic, M. Potkonjak, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. Error-tolerant multimodal sensor fusion. In IEEE CAS Workshop on Wireless Communication and Networking, pages 5--6, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. A. Krause, C. Guestrin, A. Gupta, and J. Kleinberg. Near-optimal sensor placements: Maximizing information while minimizing communication cost. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Information processing in sensor networks, pages 2--10. ACM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. Maleki, A. Pandharipande, and G. Leus. Two-stage spectrum sensing for cognitive radios. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2010, 14-19 March 2010, Sheraton Dallas Hotel, Dallas, Texas, USA, pages 2946--2949, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. M. L. Malloy and R. D. Nowak. Near-optimal adaptive compressed sensing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(7):4001--4012, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. A. Martinelli. Vision and IMU data fusion: Closed-form solutions for attitude, speed, absolute scale, and bias determination. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 28(1):44--60, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. C. Papadimitriou, J. L. Beck, and S.-K. Au. Entropy-based optimal sensor location for structural model updating. Journal of Vibration and Control, 6(5):781--800, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. C. Pohl and J. V. Genderen. Review article multisensor image fusion in remote sensing: concepts, methods and applications. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 19(5):823--854, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. H. Ren, D. Rank, M. Merdes, J. Stallkamp, and P. Kazanzides. Multisensor data fusion in an integrated tracking system for endoscopic surgery. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 16(1):106--111, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Schmidt and H. Lipson. Age-fitness pareto optimization. In R. Riolo, T. McConaghy, and E. Vladislavleva, editors, Genetic Programming Theory and Practice VIII, volume 8 of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pages 129--146. Springer New York, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. H. S. Seung, M. Opper, and H. Sompolinsky. Query by committee. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, COLT '92, pages 287--294, New York, NY, USA, 1992. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C. Skalka and J. Frolik. Snowcloud: A complete data gathering system for snow hydrology research. In Real-World Wireless Sensor Networks, pages 3--14. Springer, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. D. Smith and S. Singh. Approaches to multisensor data fusion in target tracking: A survey. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 18(12):1696--1710, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. H. Tabari, S. Marofi, H. Z. Abyaneh, and M. R. Sharifi. Comparison of artificial neural network and combined models in estimating spatial distribution of snow depth and snow water equivalent in Samsami basin of Iran. Neural Comput. Appl., 19(4):625--635, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. U. Tappeiner, G. Tappeiner, J. Aschenwald, E. Tasser, and B. Ostendorf. GIS-based modelling of spatial pattern of snow cover duration in an alpine area. Ecol. Model., 138:265--275, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. E. L. Waltz and D. M. Buede. Data fusion and decision support for command and control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 16(6):865--879, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. D. Wang, H. Ahmadi, T. F. Abdelzaher, H. Chenji, R. Stoleru, and C. C. Aggarwal. Optimizing quality-of-information in cost-sensitive sensor data fusion. In Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems, 7th IEEE International Conference and Workshops, DCOSS 2011, Barcelona, Spain, 27-29 June, 2011, Proceedings, pages 1--8, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. R. Willett, A. Martin, and R. Nowak. Backcasting: adaptive sampling for sensor networks. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, IPSN 2004, Berkeley, California, USA, April 26-27, 2004, pages 124--133, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. J. Yick, B. Mukherjee, and D. Ghosal. Wireless sensor network survey. Comput. Netw., 52(12):2292--2330, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. H. Zhao. A multi-objective genetic programming approach to developing pareto optimal decision trees. Decision Support Systems, 43(3):809--826, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Genetic Programming Approach to Cost-Sensitive Control in Resource Constrained Sensor Systems

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          GECCO '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
          July 2015
          1496 pages
          ISBN:9781450334723
          DOI:10.1145/2739480

          Copyright © 2015 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 11 July 2015

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          GECCO '15 Paper Acceptance Rate182of505submissions,36%Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

          Upcoming Conference

          GECCO '24
          Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
          July 14 - 18, 2024
          Melbourne , VIC , Australia

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader