skip to main content
10.1145/2783258.2783390acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

State-Driven Dynamic Sensor Selection and Prediction with State-Stacked Sparseness

Authors Info & Claims
Published:10 August 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

An important problem in large-scale sensor mining is that of selecting relevant sensors for prediction purposes. Selecting small subsets of sensors, also referred to as active sensors, often leads to lower operational costs, and it reduces the noise and information overload for prediction. Existing sensor selection and prediction models either select a set of sensors a priori, or they use adaptive algorithms to determine the most relevant sensors for prediction. Sensor data sets often show dynamically varying patterns, because of which it is suboptimal to select a fixed subset of active sensors. To address this problem, we develop a novel dynamic prediction model that uses the notion of hidden system states to dynamically select a varying subset of sensors. These hidden system states are automatically learned by our model in a data-driven manner. The proposed algorithm can rapidly switch between different sets of active sensors when the model detects the (periodic or intermittent) change in the system state. We derive the dynamic sensor selection strategy by minimizing the error rates in tracking and predicting sensor readings over time. We introduce the notion of state-stacked sparseness to select a subset of the most critical sensors as a function of evolving system state. We present experimental results on two real sensor datasets, corresponding to oil drilling rig sensors and intensive care unit (ICU) sensors, and demonstrate the superiority of our approach with respect to other models.

References

  1. C. Aggarwal, Y. Xie, and P. Yu. On dynamic data-driven selection of sensor streams. In ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, August 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. C. C. Aggarwal, editor. Data Streams: Models and Algorithms. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. C. Aggarwal, A. Bar-Noy, and S. Shamoun. On sensor selection in linked information networks. In IEEE DCOSS Conference, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. C. Anagnostopoulos, N. M. Adams, and D. J. Hand. Streaming covariance selection with applications to adaptive querying in sensor networks. The Computer Journal, 53(9):1401--1414, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. T. Arici, T. Akgun, and Y. Altunbasak. A prediction error-based hypothesis testing method for sensor data acquisition. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 2:529--556, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Chang, G.-J. Qi, C. C. Aggarwal, J. Zhou, M. Wang, and T. S. Huang. Factorized similarity learning in networks. pages 60--69, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Deligiannakis and Y. Kotidis. Data reduction techniques in sensor networks. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 28(1):19--25, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. D. Golovin, M.Faulkner, and A. Krause. Online distributed sensor selection. In IPSN Conference, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. V. Klemas. Tracking oil slicks and predicting their trajectories using remote sensors and models: case studies of the sea princess and deepwater horizon oil spills. Journal of Coastal Research, pages 789--797, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. G. Kollios, J. Byers, J. Considline, M. Hadjielefttheriou, and F. Li. Robust aggregation in sensor networks. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 28(1):26--32, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. A. Markov. Extension of the limit theorems of probability theory to a sum of variables connected in a chain. 1971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S. Nassar, K.-P. SCHWARZ, N. EL-SHEIMY, and A. Noureldin. Modeling inertial sensor errors using autoregressive (ar) models. Navigation, 51(4):259--268, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Y. Nesterov. A method of solving a convex programming problem with convergence rate $o(1/k^2)$. Soviet Mathematics Doklady, 27:372--376, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Papadimitriou, J. Sun, and C. Faloutsos. Data Streams: Models and Algorithms, chapter Dimensionality Reduction and Forecasting of Time-Series Data Streams, pages 261--288. Springer, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. G.-J. Qi, C. C. Aggarwal, and T. S. Huang. Online community detection in social sensing. In WSDM, pages 617--626. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Y. Sakurai, S. Papadimitriou, and C. Faloutsos. Braid: Stream mining through group lag correlations. In ACM SIGMOD Conference, July 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. Sharshar, L. Allart, and M.-C. Chambrin. A new approach to the abstraction of monitoring data in intensive care. In Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, pages 13--22. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. P. Tseng. On accelerated proximal gradient methods for convex-concave optimization. submitted to SIAM J. Optim., May 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. L. Yann-Ael, S. Santini, and G. Bontempi. Adaptive model selection for time series prediction in wireless sensor networks. Signal Processing, 87:3010--3020, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. B.-K. Yi, N. Sidiropoulos, T. Johnson, H. Jagadish, C. Faloutsos, and A. Biliris. Online data mining for co-evolving time sequences. In ICDE, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. M. Yuan and Y. Lin. Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 68(1):49--67, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. State-Driven Dynamic Sensor Selection and Prediction with State-Stacked Sparseness

      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
        KDD '15: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
        August 2015
        2378 pages
        ISBN:9781450336642
        DOI:10.1145/2783258

        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 the author(s) 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: 10 August 2015

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        KDD '15 Paper Acceptance Rate160of819submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

        Upcoming Conference

        KDD '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader