29. continuous neighbor discovery in asynchronous sensor networks
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 1 Continuous Neighbor Discovery in Asynchronous Sensor Networks Reuven Cohen and Boris Kapchits Department of Computer Science Technion Haifa Israel Abstract—In most sensor networks the nodes are static. animal, a dust storm, rain or fog. When these events areNevertheless, node connectivity is subject to changes because over, the hidden nodes must be rediscovered.of disruptions in wireless communication, transmission power 3) The ongoing addition of new nodes, in some networkschanges, or loss of synchronization between neighboring nodes.Hence, even after a sensor is aware of its immediate neighbors, it to compensate for nodes which have ceased to functionmust continuously maintain its view, a process we call continuous because their energy has been exhausted.neighbor discovery. In this work we distinguish between neighbor 4) The increase in transmission power of some nodes, indiscovery during sensor network initialization and continuous response to certain events, such as detection of emergentneighbor discovery. We focus on the latter and view it as a situations.joint task of all the nodes in every connected segment. Eachsensor employs a simple protocol in a coordinate effort to reduce For these reasons, detecting new links and nodes in sensorpower consumption without increasing the time required to detect networks must be considered as an ongoing process. In thehidden sensors. following discussion we distinguish between the detection of new links and nodes during initialization, i.e., when the node is I. I NTRODUCTION in Init state, and their detection during normal operation, when the node is in Normal state. The former will be referred to as A sensor network may contain a huge number of simple initial neighbor discovery whereas the latter will be referredsensor nodes that are deployed at some inspected site. In to as continuous neighbor discovery. While previous workslarge areas, such a network usually has a mesh structure. In , ,  address initial neighbor discovery and continuousthis case, some of the sensor nodes act as routers, forwarding neighbor discovery as similar tasks, to be performed by themessages from one of their neighbors to another. The nodes are same scheme, we claim that different schemes are required,conﬁgured to turn their communication hardware on and off for the following reasons:to minimize energy consumption. Therefore, in order for twoneighboring sensors to communicate, both must be in active • Initial neighbor discovery is usually performed when themode. sensor has no clue about the structure of its immediate In the sensor network model considered in this paper, the surroundings. In such a case, the sensor cannot commu-nodes are placed randomly over the area of interest and their nicate with the gateway and is therefore very limited inﬁrst step is to detect their immediate neighbors – the nodes performing its tasks. The immediate surroundings shouldwith which they have a direct wireless communication – and to be detected as soon as possible in order to establish aestablish routes to the gateway. In networks with continuously path to the gateway and contribute to the operation ofheavy trafﬁc, the sensors need not invoke any special neighbor the network. Hence, in this state, more extensive energydiscovery protocol during normal operation. This is because use is justiﬁed. In contrast, continuous neighbor discoveryany new node, or a node that has lost connectivity to its is performed when the sensor is already operational. Thisneighbors, can hear its neighbors simply by listening to the is a long-term process, whose optimization is crucial forchannel for a short time. However, for sensor networks with increasing network lifetime.low and irregular trafﬁc, a special neighbor discovery scheme • When the sensor performs continuous neighbor discovery,should be used. This paper presents and analyzes such a it is already aware of most of its immediate neighbors andscheme. can therefore perform it together with these neighbors in Despite the static nature of the sensors in many sensor order to consume less energy. In contrast, initial neighbornetworks, connectivity is still subject to changes even after the discovery must be executed by each sensor separately.network has been established. The sensors must continuously Figure 1 shows a typical neighbor discovery protocol. In thislook for new neighbors in order to accommodate the following protocol, a node becomes active according to its duty cycle.situations: Let this duty cycle be α in Init state and β in Normal state. 1) Loss of local synchronization due to accumulated clock We want to have β α. When a node becomes active, it drifts. transmits periodical HELLO messages and listens for similar 2) Disruption of wireless connectivity between adjacent messages from possible neighbors. A node that receives a nodes by a temporary event, such as a passing car or HELLO message immediately responds and the two nodes
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 2 v u in Normal state in Init state we present related work. Section III presents a basic scheme (wake up less frequently) (wake up more frequently) and problem deﬁnition. The core of the paper is Section IV, active which presents three methods for estimating the in-segment degree of a hidden neighbor and analyzes their accuracy. Sec- active tion V concentrates on a special case where the network nodes are uniformly distributed. For this case, we are able to ﬁnd a numeric value for the accuracy of the three methods presented active in IV. Section VI presents our continuous neighbor discovery scheme, which is based on our ﬁndings in Section IV. Section active VII presents simulation results that demonstrate the scheme’s efﬁciency. It also includes a discussion of problems that arise when two small segments have to detect one another. Finally, active Section VIII concludes this work. active II. R ELATED W ORK active discovery In a WiFi network operating in centralized mode, a special node, called an access point, coordinates access to the shared medium. Messages are transmitted only to or from the access point. Therefore, neighbor discovery is the process of havingFig. 1. The transmission of HELLO messages in Init and Normal states a new node detected by the base station. Since energy con- some prespecified time elapses or sumption is not a concern for the base station, discovering new connectivity to a prespecified number of neighbors is detected nodes is rather easy. The base station periodically broadcasts a special HELLO message1 . A regular node that hears this mes- initial continuous neighbor Init Normal neighbor sage can initiate a registration process. The regular node can discovery discovery switch frequencies/channels in order to ﬁnd the best HELLO message for its needs. Which message is the best might depend connectivity to most of the neighbors is lost on the identity of the broadcasting base station, on security considerations, or on PHY layer quality (signal-to-noise ratio). Problems related to possible collisions of registration messagesFig. 2. Continuous neighbor discovery vs. initial neighbor discovery in sensornetworks in such a network are addressed in . Other works try to minimize neighbor discovery time by optimizing the broadcast rate of the HELLO messages , , , , . The maincan invoke another procedure to ﬁnalize the setup of their differences between neighbor discovery in WiFi and in meshjoint wireless link. sensor networks are that neighbor discovery in the former To summarize, in the Init state, a node has no information is performed only by the central node, for which energyabout its surroundings and therefore must remain active for consumption is not a concern. In addition, the hidden nodesa relatively long time in order to detect new neighbors. In are assumed to be able to hear the HELLO messages broadcastcontrast, in the Normal state the node must use a more by the central node. In contrast, neighbor discovery in sensorefﬁcient scheme. Such a scheme is the subject of our study. networks is performed by every node, and hidden nodes cannotFigure 2 summarizes this idea. When node u is in the Init hear the HELLO messages when they sleep.state, it performs initial neighbor discovery. After a certain In mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs), nodes usually dotime period, during which the node is expected, with high not switch to a special sleep state. Therefore, two neighboringprobability, to ﬁnd most of its neighbors, the node moves nodes can send messages to each other whenever their physicalto the Normal state, where continuous neighbor discovery is distance allows communication. AODV  is a typical routingperformed. A node in the Init state is also referred to in this protocol for MANETs. In AODV, when a node wishes to sendpaper as a hidden node and a node in the Normal state is a message to another node, it broadcasts a special RREQ (routereferred to as a segment node. request) message. This message is then broadcast by every The main idea behind the continuous neighbor discovery node that hears it for the ﬁrst time. The same message is usedscheme we propose is that the task of ﬁnding a new node for connectivity management, as part of an established routeu is divided among all the nodes that can help v to detect maintenance procedure, aside from which there is no specialu. These nodes are characterized as follows: (a) they are neighbor discovery protocol.also neighbors of u; (b) they belong to a connected segment Minimizing energy consumption is an important target de-of nodes that have already detected each other; (c) node v sign in Bluetooth . As in WiFi, the process of neighboralso belongs to this segment. Let degS (u) be the number of discovery in Bluetooth is also asymmetric. A node that wantsthese nodes. This variable indicates the in-segment degree of a 1 The various systems and protocols that employ neighbor discovery usehidden neighbor u. In order to take advantage of the proposed different names for their control message, such as BEACON or NEIGHBOR-discovery scheme, node v must estimate the value of degS (u). DISCOVERY. For consistency, throughout this paper, we refer to all these The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II control messages as HELLO.
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 3to be discovered switches to an inquiry scan mode, whereas receive or transmit messages. Therefore, the node’s ability toa node that wants to discover its neighbors enters the inquiry discover a new neighbor is limited to periods when both aremode. In the inquiry scan mode, the node listens for a certain active. In , this neighbor discovery model is shown to beperiod on each of the 32 frequencies dedicated to neighbor similar to the well-known “birthday paradox.” In our work wediscovery, while the discovering node passes through these use a similar analysis, in order to ﬁnd the probability that afrequencies one by one and broadcasts HELLO in each of node will be discovered by one of its neighbors.them. This process is considered to be energy consuming and A novel low-power listening (LPL) technique, proposed inslow. A symmetric neighbor discovery scheme for Bluetooth  to overcome sensor synchronization problems, is imple-is proposed in . The idea is to allow each node to switch mented by the B-MAC protocol . The transmission of abetween the inquiry scan mode and the inquiry mode. packet is preceded by a special preamble. This preamble is The 802.15.4 standard  proposes a rather simple scheme long enough to be discovered if each node performs periodicfor neighbor discovery. It assumes that every coordinator node channel sampling. However, this technique can usually not beissues one special “beacon” message per frame, and a newly used for initial neighbor discovery, and cannot be used at alldeployed node has only to scan the available frequencies for continuous neighbor discovery, because it actually requiresfor such a message. However, the standard also supports a the node to stay awake during the entire time it is searchingbeaconless mode of operation. Under this mode, a newly for a new neighbor.deployed node should transmit a beacon request on eachavailable channel. A network coordinator that hears such a III. A BASIC S CHEME AND P ROBLEM D EFINITIONrequest should immediately answer with a beacon of its own.However, this scheme does not supply any bound on the In the following discussion, two nodes are said to behidden neighbor discovery time. neighboring nodes if they have direct wireless connectivity. Neighbor discovery in wireless sensor networks is addressed We assume that all nodes have the same transmission range,in . The authors propose a policy for determining the which means that connectivity is always bidirectional. Duringtransmission power of every node, in order to guarantee that some parts of our analysis, we also assume that the networkeach node detects at least one of its neighbors using as little is a unit disk graph; namely, any pair of nodes that are withinpower as possible. transmission range are neighboring nodes. Two nodes are said In , the authors study the problem of neighbor discovery to be directly connected if they have discovered each otherin static wireless ad hoc networks with directional antennas. and are aware of each other’s wake-up times. Two nodes areAt each time slot, a sensor either transmits HELLO messages said to be connected if there is a path of directly connectedin a random direction, or listens for HELLO messages from nodes between them. A set of connected nodes is referredother nodes. The goal is to determine the optimal rate of trans- to as a segment. Consider a pair of neighboring nodes thatmission and reception slots, and the pattern of transmission belong to the same segment but are not aware that they havedirections. direct wireless connectivity. See, for example, nodes a and c In , neighbor discovery is studied for general ad-hoc in Figure 4(a). These two nodes can learn about their hiddenwireless networks. The authors propose a random HELLO wireless link using the following simple scheme, which usesprotocol, inspired by ALOHA. Each node can be in one of two message types: (a) SYNC messages for synchronizationtwo states: listening or talking. A node decides randomly between all segment nodes, transmitted over known wirelesswhen to initiate the transmission of a HELLO message. If links; (b) HELLO messages for detecting new neighbors.its message does not collide with another HELLO, the node Scheme 1 (detecting all hidden links inside a segment):is considered to be discovered. The goal is to determine This scheme is invoked when a new node is discovered bythe HELLO transmission frequency, and the duration of the one of the segment nodes. The discovering node issues aneighbor discovery process. special SYNC message to all segment members, asking them In , the sensor nodes are supposed to determine, for to wake up and periodically broadcast a bunch of HELLOevery time slot, whether to transmit HELLO, to listen, or to messages. This SYNC message is distributed over the alreadysleep. The optimal transition rate between the three states is known wireless links of the segment. Thus, it is guaranteeddetermined using a priori knowledge of the maximum possible to be received by every segment node. By having all thenumber of neighbors. nodes wake up “almost at the same time” for a short period, In , the Disco algorithm is proposed for scheduling the we can ensure that every wireless link between the segment’swake-up times of two nodes that wish to ﬁnd each other. For members will be detected.this algorithm, each node chooses a prime number; the choice To better understand the beneﬁt of Scheme 1, we nowdepends on the required discovery time. Using the Chinese compare its performance to the performance of a trivialRemainders theorem, it is proved that the wake-up periods of algorithm where every node discovers its hidden neighborsthe nodes will overlap within the required time. However,  independently. When Scheme 1 is used, a hidden node isdoes not discuss the problem of many sensors in the same discovered by all of its in-segment neighbors as soon as it issegment collaborating to reduce the energy they expend for discovered by the ﬁrst of them. In contrast, when Scheme 1 isdiscovering hidden nodes. not used, the hidden node is discovered by all of its in-segment As discussed in Section I, the sensor network nodes spend neighbors only when it is discovered by the last of them. Tomost of their time in sleep/idle mode, where they cannot analyze the time slots at which these nodes are discovered,
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 4 300 without Scheme 1 a b l a b l with Scheme 1 250 c d k c d k 200 e u v e u v discovery time 150 f i f i 100 g h g h a known link 50 a hidden link (a) (b) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 number of neighbors Fig. 4. Segments with hidden nodes and linksFig. 3. Discovery delay of non-cooperative vs. cooperative schemes NP-hard and also cannot be well approximated. Since the time period during which every node wakes up is very short, andsuppose that the time axis is divided into slots such that the the HELLO transmission time is even shorter, the probabilityprobability that a node discovers a given hidden neighbor is that two neighboring nodes will be active at the same time isp. Consider a node u with m in-segment hidden neighbors. practically 0. In the rare case of collisions, CSMA/CD can beThe probability that u discovers its ﬁrst in-segment hidden used to schedule retransmissions.neighbor only at slot k + 1 is By Scheme 1, the discovery of an individual node by any k pm (k) = (1 − p)m (1 − (1 − p)m ). node in a segment leads to the discovery of this node by all of its neighbors that are part of this segment. Therefore,Since pm has geometric distribution with probability of suc- discovering a node that is not yet in the segment can becess equal to p = 1 − (1 − p)m , the expected time until considered a joint task of all the neighbors of this node in thethe ﬁrst discovery (ﬁrst “success”) is E m = (1 − p )/p = segment. As an example, consider Figure 4(a), which shows(1 − p)m /(1 − (1 − p)m ). If Scheme 1 is not used, node u a segment S and a hidden node u. In this ﬁgure, a dasheddiscovers all its in-segment hidden neighbors one by one. The line indicates a hidden wireless link, namely, a link betweenexpected delay in this case is the expected delay until the ﬁrst two nodes that have not yet discovered each other. A thickdiscovery in a set of m neighbors (E m ) plus the expected solid line indicates a known wireless link. After executiondelay until the ﬁrst discovery in a set of m − 1 neighbors of Scheme 1, all hidden links in S are detected (see Figure(E m−1 ) and so on, namely, 1≤i≤m E i . Figure 3 shows a 4(b)). The links connecting nodes in S to u are not detectednumerical comparison between the two cases when p = 0.01 because u does not belong to the segment. Node u has 4and the number of in-segment neighbors ranges between 1 and hidden links to nodes in S. Hence, we say that the degree of9. u in S is degS (u) = 4. When u is discovered by one of its Scheme 1 allows two neighboring nodes u and v to discover four neighbors in S, it will also be discovered by the rest ofeach other if they belong to a connected segment. However, its neighbors in S as soon as Scheme 1 is reinvoked. Consideras discussed in Section I, in order for two neighbors not yet one of the four segment members that are within range of u,connected to the same segment to detect each other, each node node v say. Although it may know about the segment membersshould also execute the following scheme: within its own transmission range, it does not know how many Scheme 2 (detecting a hidden link outside a segment): in-segment neighbors participate in discovering u.Node u wakes up randomly, every T (u) seconds on the In the next section we study three methods that allow vaverage, for a ﬁxed period of time H. During this time it to estimate the value of degS (u) for a hidden node u, andbroadcasts several HELLO messages, and listens for possible compare their accuracy and applicability.HELLO messages sent by new neighbors. The value of T (u)is as follows: IV. E STIMATING THE IN - SEGMENT D EGREE OF A H IDDEN • T (u) = TI , if node u is in the Init state of Figure 2. N EIGHBOR • T (u) = TN (u), if node u is in the Normal state of As already explained, we consider the discovery of hidden Figure 2, where TN (u) is computed according to the neighbors as a joint task to be performed by all segment scheme presented in Section IV. nodes. To determine the discovery load to be imposed on every segment node, namely, how often such a node should become A random wake-up approach is used to minimize the pos- active and send HELLO messages, we need to estimate thesibility of repeating collisions between the HELLO messages number of in-segment neighbors of every hidden node u,of nodes in the same segment. Theoretically, another scheme denoted by degS (u). In this section we present methods thatmay be used, where segment nodes coordinate their wake-up can be used by node v in the Normal (continuous neighborperiods to prevent collisions and speed up the discovery of discovery) state to estimate this value. Node u is assumed tohidden nodes. However, ﬁnding an efﬁcient time division is not yet be connected to the segment, and it is in the Init (initialequivalent to the well-known node coloring problem, which is neighbor discovery) state. Three methods are presented:
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 5 1) Node v measures the average in-segment degree of the Using the deﬁnition of covariance, we get segment’s nodes, and uses this number as an estimate of the in-segment degree of u. The average in-segment cov(X, Y ) = E((X − E(X))(Y − E(Y )) degree of the segment’s nodes can be calculated by the = (XY − XE(Y ) − Y E(Y ) + E(X)E(Y )) segment leader. To this end, it gets from every node in the segment a message indicating the in-segment degree = (XY ) − E(X)E(Y ) − E(Y )E(X) + E(X)E(Y ) of the sending node, which is known due to Scheme 1. We assume that the segment size is big enough for the = (XY ) − E(X)E(Y ). received value to be considered equal to the expected Hence, number of neighbors of every node. 2) Node v discovers, using Scheme 1, the number of its E(XY ) = cov(X, Y ) + E(X)E(Y ) in-segment neighbors, degS (v), and views this number = corr(X, Y ) Var(X) + E(X)E(Y ) as an estimate of degS (u). This approach is expected = C Var(X) + E(X)E(Y ). (3) to yield better results than the previous one when the degrees of neighboring nodes are strongly correlated. Substituting into Eq. 2 and keeping in mind that X and Y 3) Node v uses the average in-segment degree of its seg- have the same distribution, we get ment’s nodes and its own in-segment degree degS (v) to estimate the number of node u’s neighbors. This MSE2 = E(X 2 ) + E(Y 2 ) − 2(C Var(X) + E(X)E(Y )) approach is expected to yield the best results if the cor- = E(X 2 ) + E(X 2 ) − 2C Var(X) − 2E(X)E(X) relation between the in-segment degrees of neighboring = 2E(X 2 ) − 2E(X)2 − 2C Var(X) nodes is known. An interesting special case is when the = 2 Var(X) − 2C Var(X) in-segment nodes are uniformly distributed. = (2 − 2C) Var(X). The in-segment degree of v and u depends on how thevarious nodes are distributed in the network. Let X be a For the third estimation approach, we deﬁne a linear pre-random variable that indicates the degree degS (v) of v, a diction problem. We seek the values of β and γ that minimizeuniform randomly chosen node in the segment S. Let Y be the MSE function E((Y − Y )2 ), where Y = βX + γ. Bya random variable that indicates the degree degS (u) of u, a differentiating the MSE with respect to γ, we getuniform randomly chosen hidden neighbor of v, which we δMSE δ(E((Y − Y )2 ) = E((βX + γ − Y )2 ))want to estimate. Note that u itself is not aware of the value =of Y . Let Y be the estimated value of Y . Clearly, we want δ(γ) δ(γ) ...Y to be as close as possible to Y . We use the mean square = 2γ + 2βµ − 2µ.error measure (MSE) to decide how good an estimate is. TheMSE is deﬁned as E((Y − Y )2 ). Since v and u are two Equating the result to 0 yieldsrandom neighbors in the same graph, X and Y have the samedistribution. Let us denote the correlation between X and Y , γ = µ − βµ. ˆ (4)corr(X, Y ), by C. Throughout the section we assume that In a similar way, differentiating the MSE with respect to βdegS (v) is small compared to the network size. yields Denote the average graph degree by µ. Clearly, E(X) =E(Y ) = µ. Thus, for the ﬁrst method the following holds: δMSE = 2βE(X 2 ) + 2γµ − 2E(XY ). δ(β) We now replace γ with the value of γ from Eq. 4 and get: ˆ MSE1 = E((Y − Y )2 ) = E((Y − µ)2 ) = Var(Y ). (1) δMSE = 2βE(X 2 ) + 2γµ − 2E(XY ) For the second method, we have Y = X. Hence, δ(β) = 2βE(X 2 ) + 2(µ − βµ)µ MSE2 = E((Y − Y )2 ) = E((Y − X)2 ) −2E(XY ) = (y − x)2 P (X = x, Y = y) = 2βE(X 2 ) + 2µ2 − 2βµ2 x y −2E(XY ). = (y 2 − 2xy + x2 )P (X = x, Y = y) x y Therefore, the value of β that brings the MSE to its minimum = E(X 2 ) + E(Y 2 ) − 2E(XY ). (2) is µ2 − E(XY ) cov(X, Y ) By the correlation of random variables and the fact that β = = . µ2 − E(X 2 ) Var(X)Var(X) = Var(Y ), we get Since X and Y have similar distribution, cov(X, Y ) corr(X, Y ) = . Var(X) cov(X, Y ) = corr(X, Y ) Var(X) = C Var(X). (5)
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 6 Method degS (u) MSE V. T HE U NIFORM D ISTRIBUTION S PECIAL C ASE 1 µ Var(X) 2 X (2 − 2C) Var(X) 3 CX + (1 − C)µ (1 − C 2 ) Var(X) We now examine a special case where the network nodes are uniformly distributed. The node degree has a binomial distri-Fig. 5. The three methods and their MSEs bution, where the “probability of success” p is the probability that a node v is in the transmission range of another node u. This probability is equal to the ratio between the area covered We conclude that β = C Var(X)/ Var(X) = C and by v and the area covered by the whole network. For this kindγ = µ − βµ = (1 − C)µ are the values that minimize the of distribution, the variance is known to be np(1 − p), where n is the number of nodes. Note that np is the expected nodeMSE. Therefore, for the third estimation method, degS (v) isestimated as: degree, denoted earlier by µ. For this special case we get Y = CX + (1 − C)µ, cov(X, Y ) corr(X, Y ) = Var(X)and the value of MSE3 is E(XY ) − µ2 = , (6) Var(X) MSE3 = E((Y − Y )2 ) = E((CX + (1 − C)µ − Y )2 ) where = E(C 2 X 2 + 2C(1 − C)Xµ −2CXY − 2(1 − C)µY + (1 − C)2 µ2 + Y 2 ) E(XY ) = xyP (X = x, Y = y) = C 2 E(X 2 ) + 2C(1 − C)E(X)µ − 2CE(XY ) y x −2(1 − C)µE(Y ) + (1 − C)2 µ2 + E(Y 2 ) = xyP (X = x|Y = y)P (Y = y) = C 2 E(X 2 ) + 2C(1 − C)µ2 − 2CE(XY ) y x −2(1 − C)µ2 + (1 − C)2 µ2 + E(Y 2 ) = [yP (Y = y) xP (X = x|Y = y)] = C 2 E(X 2 ) + E(Y 2 ) − 2CE(XY ) y x +(2C − 2C 2 − 2 + 2C + 1 − 2C + C 2 )µ2 = [yP (Y = y)E(X|Y = y)]. (7) = C 2 E(X 2 ) + E(Y 2 ) + (2C − C 2 − 1)µ2 y −2CE(XY ). We now show how to ﬁnd E(X|Y = y), namely, the Using again the fact that X and Y have the same distribution expected number of neighbors of v given that the number ofand substituting the value of E(XY ) from Eq. 3 yields neighbors of u is known and equal to y. The set of neighbors of v can be divided into two subsets: subset A includes neighbors MSE3 = (C 2 + 1)E(X 2 ) + (2C − C 2 − 1)µ2 of v that are also neighbors of u; subset B includes neighbors −2C(C Var(X) + µ2 ) of v that are not neighbors of u. In the same way, the set of neighbors of u can be divided into two sets: the same subset = (C 2 + 1)E(X 2 ) − (C 2 + 1)µ2 − 2C 2 Var(X) A, and subset B of neighbors of u that are not neighbors of = (C 2 + 1)(E(X 2 ) − µ2 ) − 2C 2 Var(X) v. Theorem 1 shows the relationship between the neighbors = (C 2 + 1) Var(X) − 2C 2 Var(X) of v and the neighbors of u: = (1 − C 2 ) Var(X). Theorem 1: Let u, v and w be nodes in a geometric graph with the same transmission range, where nodes are distributed The table in Figure 5 summarizes the three methods dis- uniformly. If u is a neighbor of v and v is a neighbor of w,cussed above and their MSEs. We see that the accuracy of the then the probability that u is also a neighbor of w is R = √three methods depends on the correlation between the degrees 3 1 − 4π 3 ≈ 0.586503.of neighboring nodes and on the variance of node degree. For The proof is presented in the appendix.small values of C, the ﬁrst and the third estimation methods Following Theorem 1, we conclude that (a) the expectedare more accurate than the second one. For greater values of size of subset A is equal to the number of neighbors of uC = corr(X, Y ), the accuracy of the second and the third multiplied by R, namely E(|A|) = R · degS (u); (b) themethods is closer to that of the ﬁrst method. Moreover, for expected size of subset B is equal to the average graph degreethe same variance, the MSEs of these methods approach 0 multiplied by (1 − R), where (1 − R) is the part of the areawhen C approaches 1. An example of a sensor network with covered by v but not by u, as follows from Theorem 1. SinceC close to 1 is a network whose sensors are spread around the degree of v is |A| + |B|, we getseveral spots of interest, because the correlation between nodedegrees is greater than when the nodes are uniformly spreadall over the network. E(X|Y = y) = Ry + (1 − R)µ.
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 7 Substituting this into Eq. 7 yields: t − H(1 − δ) and t + H(1 − δ). The length of this valid time interval is 2H(1 − δ). Since the average time interval between E(XY ) = yP (Y = y)(Ry + (1 − R)µ) two wake-up periods of v is TN (v), the probability that u and y v discover each other during a speciﬁc HELLO interval of u = Ry 2 P (Y = y) is 2H(1−δ) . TN (v) y Let n be the number of in-segment neighbors of u. When +(1 − R)µ yP (Y = y) u wakes up and sends HELLO messages, the probability that y at least one of its n neighbors is awake during a sufﬁciently = RE(Y 2 ) + (1 − R)µ2 . (8) long time interval is 1 − (1 − 2H(1−δ) )n . TN (v) For the sake of our analysis, consider a division of the time Substituting Eq. 8 into Eq. 6 yields axis of u into time slots of length H. The probability that E(XY ) − µ2 u is awake in a given time slot is TI , and the probability H corr(X, Y ) = Var(X) that u is discovered during this time slot is P1 = TI (1 − H RE(Y 2 ) + (1 − R)µ2 − µ2 (1 − TN (v) ) ). Denote by D the value of H . Then, the 2H(1−δ) n T = probability that u is discovered within at most D slots is P2 = Var(X) 1 − (1 − P1 )D . Therefore, we seek the value of TN (v) that RE(Y 2 ) − Rµ2 + µ2 − µ2 = satisﬁes the following equation: Var(X) R Var(Y ) 1 − (1 − P1 )D ≥ P, = Var(X) which can also be stated as R Var(X) √ = P1 ≥ 1 − D 1 − P. Var(X) = R. Since P1 = H TI (1 − (1 − 2H(1−δ) n TN (v) ) ), we get Hence, for the uniform distribution special case, the three √estimation approaches yield the following MSEs: H TI (1 − (1 − 2H(1−δ) n TN (v) ) ) ≥1− D 1 − P, 1) MSE1 = Var(X), and therefore 2) MSE2 ≈ 0.84 Var(X), 2H(1 − δ) 3) MSE3 ≈ 0.66 Var(X). TN (v) ≤ √ . (9) We see that the third approach yields the smallest MSE. TI D 1− n 1− H (1 − 1 − P)However, this approach, as well as the ﬁrst one, requires some Since node v does not know the exact value of n, it canglobal information on the network topology, while the second estimate it using the methods presented in Section IV.approach requires only local information. We now give a simple example for the proposed algorithm. Suppose that nodes in the Init state remain active until they VI. A N E FFICIENT C ONTINUOUS N EIGHBOR D ISCOVERY enter the Normal state. Suppose also that the requirement is to A LGORITHM discover a hidden node within 10 time units with probability In this section we present an algorithm for assigning 0.5. Consider a segment node in the Normal state, whereHELLO message frequency to the nodes of the same segment. continuous neighbor discovery is performed, that estimates theThis algorithm is based on Scheme 1. Namely, if a hidden degree of its hidden neighbor as 1. Following our deﬁnitions,node is discovered by one of its segment neighbors, it is D = 10, TI = H = 1 and n = 1. Substituting these values intodiscovered by all its other segment neighbors after a very short Eq. 9 yields TN ≈ 15. Note that the intuitive value of TN = 20time. Hence, the discovery of a new neighbor is viewed as a is wrong because it would yield a detection probability ofjoint effort of the whole segment. One of the three methods 1 − (1 − 20 )10 ≈ 0.4 to discover a hidden node within 10 time 1presented in Section IV is used to estimate the number of units.nodes participating in this effort. If one needs to enforce not only the expected hidden Suppose that node u is in initial neighbor discovery state, neighbor discovery delay but also an upper bound on it, eachwhere it wakes up every TI seconds for a period of time node can be assigned a wake-up period according to the rulesequal to H, and broadcasts HELLO messages. Suppose that described in .the nodes of segment S should discover u within a time period In Figure 6 we present two graphs that show the dependencyT with probability P . Each node v in the segment S is in between T and TN (v). We assume that a hidden node wakescontinuous neighbor discovery state, where it wakes up every up once every 100H time units on the average, and that TI =TN (v) seconds for a period of time equal to H and broadcasts 100, H = 1, and δ = 0.5 . In Figure 6(a) the estimated valueHELLO messages. of n is 10. The curves present the value of TN (v) as a function We assume that, in order to discover each other, nodes u of the desired discovery time T for 3 different values of P :and v should have an active period that overlaps by at least a 0.5, 0.8 and 0.95. In Figure 6(b) P is set to 0.8 and n variesportion δ, 0 < δ < 1, of their size H. Thus, if node u wakes between 5 and 50. Again, TN (v) is calculated as a functionup at time t for a period of H, node v should wake up between of the desired discovery time. As expected, the nodes have to
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 8 70 140 P=0.5 n=50 P=0.8 n=30 P=0.95 n=20 60 120 n=10 n=5 50 100 40 80 TN(v) TN(v) 30 60 20 40 10 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 T (time units) T (time units) (a) TN (v) as a function of T for n = 10 (b) TN (v) as a function of T for different values of nFig. 6. TN (v) as a function of maximum tolerated delaywork harder to achieve a greater discovery rate in less time, detected, it joins the segment and learns about its in-segmentwhile the increase in the density of segment nodes allows to neighbors using Scheme 1. A hidden node that detects anothera greater TN (v) to be chosen. In both graphs the dependency hidden node remains in the initial neighbor discovery state.between TN (v) and T is almost linear and, as we can see in Our simulations reveal that when the hidden nodes areFigure 6(b), the slope of the curves is almost linear in the uniformly distributed, the three algorithms proposed in Sectionvalue of n as well. This means that a node v can use linear IV yield very similar results. The reason for this similarity isapproximation to compute the value of TN (v). that the degree estimation errors of the neighbors of every node cancel each other, and the mean estimation bias approaches 0. VII. S IMULATION S TUDY Because of this similarity, in most of the graphs we show only In this section we present a simulation study for the schemes the results of one algorithm (Algorithm 3).presented in the paper. We simulate a large sensor network, Figure 7(a) shows the ratios of hidden nodes to the totalwith nodes distributed randomly and uniformly over the area of number of nodes as a function of time. The initial ratio isinterest. We assume that the nodes have an equal and constant 0.05. We can see that after 100 time units, this ratio decreasestransmission range. Communication is always bi-directional. to 0.035 for P = 0.3, to 0.025 for P = 0.5, and to 0.015 forWe also assume that most of the nodes discover each other P = 0.7. After 200 time units, the ratios of the hidden nodesand enter the continuous neighbor discovery state before the are 0.025, 0.012 and 0.005 respectively. It is evident that thesesimulation begins. results are very close to the required ratios. Our simulation model consists of 2,000 sensor nodes, ran- In the next simulation we start with 50% hidden nodes.domly placed over a 10,000 x 10,000 grid. The transmission Figure 7(b) shows the change in the average frequency ofrange is set to r units. Any two nodes whose Euclidean HELLO intervals of the segment nodes, as a function of time,distance is not greater than r are considered to have wireless for the same three values of P . We can see that for the smallerconnectivity. A portion of the nodes are randomly selected value of P (the lower curve), the frequency is almost 75%to be hidden. These nodes are uniformly distributed in the lower than the frequency for the larger value of P . We canconsidered area. We set the algorithm parameters such that also see that for a given value of P , the average frequencyevery hidden node will be detected with probability P within of HELLO intervals decreases with time. This is because asa predetermined period of time T . For the study reported in the segment grows, more nodes participate in the discoverythis section, r is chosen to be 300 (0.03 of the graph), the process. Similar results are obtained for the case where thedetection probability ranges between 0.3 and 0.7, and the target initial hidden node ratio was 0.05, but they can hardly bedetection time is 100 time units. observed due to the small changes in the segment size during The hidden nodes are assumed to be in the initial neighbor the simulation.discovery state, where they are supposed to wake up randomly, Another interesting case is when the hidden nodes areevery TI time units on the average, and to exchange HELLO distributed non-uniformly in the area. To simulate this case,messages with other nodes during a period of H time units. A we randomly select some points as “dead areas,” and assumenon-hidden node v is assumed to be in the continuous neighbor that the probability of a node to be hidden increases whendiscovery state, where it wakes up randomly, every TN (v) time its distance to one of these points decreases. The rationaleunits on the average for a period of H time units, in order to here is that bad weather, dust storms, or other environmentaldiscover hidden nodes. For the study reported in what follows, conditions may adversely affect wireless connectivity in someTI = 20, H = 1 and δ = 0.5 are used. When a node is areas more than in others. Unlike the uniform distribution
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 9 0.09 required P=0.3 P=0.7 actual P=0.3 P=0.5 0.05 required P=0.5 P=0.3 0.08 actual P=0.5 required P=0.7 actual P=0.7 0.07 0.04 0.06 ratio of hidden nodes 0.03 0.05 1/TN(v) 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 T (time units) T (time units) (a) Decrease in the ratio of hidden nodes (b) The average 1/TN (v) as a function of timeFig. 7. Hidden neighbor detection for the case of uniform distribution first method trivial scheme third method 0.045 our scheme 0.05 second method required rate 0.04 0.04 0.035 ratio of hidden nodes ratio of hidden nodes 0.03 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.005 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 T (time units) transmission range (a) Decrease in hidden node ratio (b) Our scheme compared to a trivial scheme that does not adjust wake-up frequency to the network densityFig. 8. Hidden neighbors detection with extreme pointcase, here we do see differences between the three estimation in dense networks and not aggressive enough in sparse ones.algorithms presented in Section IV. Recall that the goal of our scheme is not to discover nodes Figure 8(a) shows the percent of hidden nodes as a function as quickly as possible, but to impose an upper bound on theof time for the three estimation algorithms and P = 0.5. discovery time while minimizing energy consumption. In lightUnlike in the uniform distribution case, here we can see some of this goal, we see that our scheme performs better because itsdifferences between the three algorithms: the second algorithm discovery rate is ﬁxed, and so is its overall expended energy.is the closest to the required rate (shown by a separate curve), The simulation starts with 5% hidden nodes, and each nodewhere the ﬁrst algorithm discovers the hidden nodes at a rate in Init is conﬁgured with P = 0.5. For all transmission ranges,slower than the required one. our scheme indeed guarantees that after T time units the Figure 8(b) shows the ratio of hidden nodes after T for percentage of hidden nodes will decrease by half, to 2.5%.networks with different transmission ranges, and hence with Interestingly enough, the trivial scheme discovers half of thedifferent node average degrees. This graph reveals the ﬂex- hidden nodes only when the transmission range is ≈ 0.06.ibility of our scheme and its ability to adjust the wake-up When the transmission range is shorter, the trivial schemefrequency to the network density. We show this by comparing discovers a smaller fraction of the hidden nodes. For instance,our scheme to a trivial scheme that does not take the network for a range of 0.03, the ratio of hidden nodes is reduced fromdensity into account. For the trivial scheme, all the nodes have 0.05 to 0.04. When the transmission range is greater than 0.06,the same wake-up frequency. The actual values, which depend the trivial scheme discovers more nodes during a time periodon the wake-up frequency of the nodes, are not important. The of T . But this is, of course, with a much greater expensecomparison shows that the trivial scheme is too aggressive of energy than required in our scheme. We conclude that our
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 10 1 actual discovery rate required discovery rate u α v u α v u v S1 S2 S3 0.8 Fig. 10. Deﬁnitions for the proof of Theorem 1 0.6discovery rate 0.4 VIII. C ONCLUSIONS We exposed a new problem in wireless sensor networks, 0.2 referred to as ongoing continuous neighbor discovery. We argue that continuous neighbor discovery is crucial even if the sensor nodes are static. If the nodes in a connected segment 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 work together on this task, hidden nodes are guaranteed to segment size be detected within a certain probability P and a certain time period T , with reduced expended on the detection.Fig. 9. The hidden neighbor discovery rate for a small detecting segment We showed that our scheme works well if every node connected to a segment estimates the in-segment degree of its possible hidden neighbors. To this end, we proposed threealgorithm can self-adjust to invest the minimum energy needed estimation algorithms and analyzed their mean square errors.to guarantee the required discovery rate, whereas the trivial We then presented a continuous neighbor discovery algorithmalgorithm cannot. that determines the frequency with which every node enters So far we have assumed that the detecting node belongs the HELLO period. We simulated a sensor network to analyzeto a big segment to which the detected node joins. However, our algorithms and showed that when the hidden nodes areit is still possible that two nodes in the Init state of Figure 2 uniformly distributed in the area, the simplest estimation algo-will discover each other. These nodes can either stay in the Init rithm is good enough. When the hidden nodes are concentratedstate or switch to the Normal state. It is more efﬁcient to switch around some dead areas, the third algorithm, which requiresto the Normal state because the overhead of detecting more every node to take into account not only its own degree, butneighbors is shared by all of the segment nodes. However, two also the average degree of all the nodes in the segment, wasof the assumptions made in Section IV are not valid when the shown to be the best.detecting node is not a part of a big segment: the assumptionthat the expected in-segment degree of the segment’s nodesis equal to the expected in-segment degree of the hidden A PPENDIXnode, and the (implicit) assumption that the segment’s sizeis signiﬁcantly bigger than the node’s expected degree. For The proof of theorem 1:example, when a single node v in a small segment of size two Proof: Consider Figure 10. Node w is a neighbor ofdetects another node, the expected in-segment degree of the u only if it resides in the area marked as S3 . To ﬁnd thenodes in the detecting segment is 1. In contrast, by Theorem probability that this is indeed the case, we have to ﬁnd the1, the expected degree of the hidden neighbor of v is about ratio between S3 and the unit circle area. Now, note that1.58. Figure 9 shows simulation results for the discovery by a S1 = r sin α r cos α ; S2 = πr2 2π ; S3 = 2(S2 − S1 ). 2 2 αsmall detecting segment. The transmission range is set to 0.3 Since cos α = 2r , where x is the distance between u and v, xof the graph, but similar results have been obtained for other 2 then 2 = arccos 2r holds. Hence, we can write: α xtransmission ranges. It is evident that the desired discovery rateis achieved for a segment of three or more nodes. For segments x2 r2of two nodes, the discovery rate is faster than the desired rate. S1 = x r 2 1− 4r 2 ; S2 = x 2 2 arccos 2r .In such a segment, the in-segment degree of every node v andthe in-segment degree of v’s neighbor are both 1. Thus, every Thus, S3 = 2r2 arccos 2r − xr 1 − 4r2 . x x 2in-segment node v estimates the degree of a hidden neighbor A neighbor of v is also a neighbor of u only if it lies insideu to be 1, while the actual expected degree of u is 1.58 as S3 . The probability for this is πr32 . Denote the probability for Sfollows from Theorem 1. Our simulations reveal that for a such an event as Px , where x is the distance between u and2-node segment, the in-segment degree of a hidden neighbor v. Hence,should be taken to be 1.4, in which case the target discoveryrate is achieved, whereas for a larger segment Algorithm 3 2 x x x2should be used. On the basis of these results, we claim that Px = arccos − 1− . π 2r πr 4r2our algorithms can be used for every segment size, despiteour assumption during the analysis that the segment is “big In order to ﬁnd the probability P that w is a neighbor ofenough.” u, we should consider all possible values of x, from 0 to r,
IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEB 2011 11while taking into account the density function:  G. Alonso, E. Kranakis, R. Wattenhofer, and P. Widmayer, “Probabilis- r tic protocols for node discovery in ad-hoc, single broadcast channel 1 networks,” in IPDPS, 2003, p. 218. P = 2πxPx dx  C. Perkins, E. Belding-Royer, and S. Das, “Ad hoc on-demand distance πr2 x=0 vector (AODV) routing,” RFC 3561, July 2003. 2 r 2 x x x2  J. Haartsen, Bluetooth Baseband Speciﬁcation v. 1.0. = x arccos − 1− dx  T. Salonidis, P. Bhagwat, L. Tassiulas, and R. O. LaMaire, “Distributed r2 x=0 π 2r πr 4r2 topology construction of bluetooth personal area networks,” in INFO- r COM, 2001, pp. 1577–1586. 2 2 d  IEEE 802.15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical = x arccos dx r2 x=0 π 2r Layer (PHY) Speciﬁcations for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Net- r works (WPANs), IEEE 802.15 WPAN Task Group 4 (TG4), 2006. 2π 1 2 x2  P. Dutta and D. Culler, “Practical asynchronous neighbor discovery and − 2 x 1− dx rendezvous for mobile sensing applications,” in SenSys: Proceedings of πr πr 4r2 x=0 the 6th ACM conference on Embedded network sensor systems. New r York, NY: ACM Press, 2008, pp. 71–84. 2 2 1 x2 1 x  J. Hill and D. Culler, “A wireless embedded sensor architecture for = − rx 1− + x2 arccos r2 π 2 4r2 2 2r system-level optimization,” Technical report, U.C. Berkeley, 2001. 0  R. Jurdak, P. Baldi, and C. V. Lopes, “Adaptive low power listening for 2 2 2 x r wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, + 2 r arcsin vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 988–1004, 2007. r π 2r 0 r 2 1 1 x2 − 2 x(−2r2 + x2 ) 4 − 2 r πr 8 r 0 2 1 x r − 2 r3 arcsin . r πr 2r 0 Substituting the integration limits yields: 4 r2 1 r2 1 1 P = 2 − + 1− arccos + r2 arcsin πr 2 4 2 2 2 Reuven Cohen (M’93, SM’99) received his B.Sc., 2 1 1 √ 1 M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science from − 2 r(−r2 ) 3 + r3 arcsin the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, com- r πr 8 2 pleting his Ph.D. studies in 1991. From 1991 to PLACE 1993, he was with the IBM T.J. Watson Research 4 1 3 1 2π π PHOTO Center, working on protocols for high speed net- = − r2 + r + r2 HERE πr2 2 4 2 3 6 works. Since 1993, he has been a professor in the Department of Computer Science at the Technion. 2 1 1 √ π He has also been a consultant for numerous compa- − 2 r(−r2 ) 3 + r3 nies, mainly in the context of protocols and archi- r πr 8 6 tectures for broadband access networks. Dr. Cohen 1 √ 1 1 1 √ 1 has served as an editor of the IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking and = 2 − 3+ + − − 3+ the ACM/Kluwer Journal on Wireless Networks (WINET). He is the technical π2 3 3 8π 6 program co-chair of Infocom’2010. Dr. Cohen is a senior member of the IEEE 1√ 4 1 √ 1 and heads the Israeli chapter of the IEEE Communications Society. = − 3+ + 3− π 3 4π 3 3 √ = 1− 3 ≈ 0.586503. 4π R EFERENCES  S. Vasudevan, J. Kurose, and D. Towsley, “On neighbor discovery in wireless networks with directional antennas,” in INFOCOM, vol. 4, 2005, pp. 2502–2512. Boris Kapchits received the B.Sc. in and M.Sc.  R. Madan and S. Lall, “An energy-optimal algorithm for neighbor in Computer Science from the Technion – Israel discovery in wireless sensor networks,” Mob. Netw. Appl., vol. 11, no. 3, Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, in 2002 and pp. 317–326, 2006. 2005, respectively. Since 2005, he has been a Ph.D.  M. J. McGlynn and S. A. Borbash, “Birthday protocols for low en- PLACE student in Computer Science Department in the ergy deployment and ﬂexible neighbor discovery in ad hoc wireless PHOTO Technion, working on mesh sensor networks. networks,” in MobiHoc: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International HERE Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, 2001, pp. 137–145.  D. Baker and A. Ephremides, “The architectural organization of a mobile radio network via a distributed algorithm,” in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 29, Nov. 1981, pp. 1694–1701.  A. Keshavarzian and E. Uysal-Biyikoglu, “Energy-efﬁcient link assess- ment in wireless sensor networks,” in INFOCOM, 2004.  E. B. Hamida, G. Chelius, and E. Fleury, “Revisiting neighbor discovery with interferences consideration,” in PE-WASUN, 2006, pp. 74–81.  S. A. Borbash, “Design considerations in wireless sensor networks,” Ph.D. dissertation, ISR, August 2004.