Difference between revisions of "CSE730x Research Seminar"
From Cyber-Physical Systems Laboratory
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
'''Abstract:''' | '''Abstract:''' | ||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
| − | Accurate interference models are important for use in | + | Accurate interference models are important for use in transmission scheduling algorithms in wireless networks. In this |
| − | algorithms in wireless networks.In this work, we perform extensive modeling and | + | work, we perform extensive modeling and experimentation on two 20-node TelosB motes testbeds { one indoor and the other |
| − | experimentation on two 20-node TelosB motes testbeds { one indoor and the other | + | outdoor { to compare a suite of interference models for their modeling accuracies. We ¯rst empirically build and validate |
| − | outdoor { to compare a suite of interference models for their modeling accuracies. | + | the physical interference model via a packet reception rate vs. SINR relationship using a measurement driven method. We |
| − | We | + | then similarly instantiate other simpler models,such as hop-based, range-based, protocol model,etc. The modeling accuracies |
| − | packet reception rate vs. SINR relationship using a measurement driven method. We | + | are then evaluated on the two testbeds using transmission scheduling experiments. We observe that while the physical |
| − | then similarly instantiate other simpler models,such as hop-based, range-based, | + | interference model is the most accurate, it is still far from perfect, providing a 90-percentile error about 20-25% (and 80 |
| − | protocol model, etc. The modeling accuracies are then evaluated on the two | + | percentile error 7-12%),depending on the scenario. The accuracy of the other models is worse and scenario-speci¯c. The |
| − | testbeds using transmission scheduling experiments. We observe that while the | + | second best model trails the physical model by roughly 12-18 percentile points for similar accuracy targets. Somewhat |
| − | + | similar throughput performance di®erential between models is also observed when used with greedy scheduling algorithms. | |
| − | providing a 90-percentile error about 20-25% (and 80 percentile error 7-12%), | + | Carrying on further, we look closely into the the two incarnations of the physical model {`thresholded'(conservative, |
| − | depending on the scenario. The accuracy of the other models is worse and scenario- | + | but typically considered in literature) and `graded' (more realistic). We show via solving the one shot scheduling problem, |
| − | speci¯c. The second best model trails the physical model by roughly 12-18 | + | that the graded version can improve `expected throughput' over the thresholded version by scheduling imperfect links. |
| − | percentile points for similar accuracy targets. Somewhat similar throughput | ||
| − | performance di®erential between models is also observed when used with greedy | ||
| − | scheduling algorithms. Carrying on further, we look closely into the the two | ||
| − | incarnations of the physical model {`thresholded' (conservative, but typically | ||
| − | considered in literature) and `graded' (more realistic). We show via solving the | ||
| − | one shot scheduling problem, that the graded version can improve `expected | ||
| − | throughput' over the thresholded version by scheduling imperfect links. | ||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
'''Links''':[http://www.wings.cs.sunysb.edu/~ritesh/Papers/Ritesh-Sensys08-Interference.pdf paper] | '''Links''':[http://www.wings.cs.sunysb.edu/~ritesh/Papers/Ritesh-Sensys08-Interference.pdf paper] | ||
Revision as of 03:49, 26 September 2008
- Instructors: Chenyang Lu and Gruia-Catalin Roman
- Time: Friday at 2-3pm, Location: Jolley 542
This seminar examines fundamental and emerging concepts in concurrency and distribution by studying seminal papers and recent research results. Broad topics of interest include models of concurrency, mobile computing, parallel architectures, sensor networks, distributed algorithms, and specialized protocols. Each semester, the seminar emphasizes different themes reflecting the current research interests of the participants.
The theme of this semester's seminar is Wireless Sensor Networks. We will read and discuss papers from recent major conferences on mobile, wireless, and sensor networks and systems. These conferences include:
- SenSys
- IPSN (ACM Archive)
- MobiCom (ACM archive)
- MobiSys (2006, ACM archive)
- NSDI (USENIX Website)
- SOSP
- OSDI (Archive website)
- RTSS (IEEE Archive)
- RTAS (IEEE Archive: part1 part2)
When choosing a paper to present, you may look through the conferences mentioned above, or view the list of potential papers.
September 12, 2008 - Sangeeta Bhattacharya
September 19, 2008 - Greg Hackmann
A Measurement Study of Vehicular Internet Access Using In Situ Wi-Fi Networks. Vladimir Bychkovsky, Bret Hull, Allen K. Miu, Hari Balakrishnan, Samuel Madden. MobiCom 2006.
September 26, 2008 - Yong Fu
Gong Chen, Wenbo He, Jie Liu, Suman Nath, Leonidas Rigas, Lin Xiao, and Feng Zhao, "Energy-Aware Server Provisioning and Load Dispatching for Connection-Intensive Internet Services" 5th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design & Implementation(NSDI 2008), San Francisco, CA, April 2008.
October 3, 2008 - Weijun Guo
A Measurement Study of Interference Modeling and Scheduling in Low Power Wireless Networks. Ritesh Maheshwari (Stony Brook University, US); Shweta Jain (Staccato Communications, US); Samir Das (Stony Brook University, US). SenSys'08.
Abstract:
Accurate interference models are important for use in transmission scheduling algorithms in wireless networks. In this
work, we perform extensive modeling and experimentation on two 20-node TelosB motes testbeds { one indoor and the other
outdoor { to compare a suite of interference models for their modeling accuracies. We ¯rst empirically build and validate
the physical interference model via a packet reception rate vs. SINR relationship using a measurement driven method. We
then similarly instantiate other simpler models,such as hop-based, range-based, protocol model,etc. The modeling accuracies
are then evaluated on the two testbeds using transmission scheduling experiments. We observe that while the physical
interference model is the most accurate, it is still far from perfect, providing a 90-percentile error about 20-25% (and 80
percentile error 7-12%),depending on the scenario. The accuracy of the other models is worse and scenario-speci¯c. The
second best model trails the physical model by roughly 12-18 percentile points for similar accuracy targets. Somewhat
similar throughput performance di®erential between models is also observed when used with greedy scheduling algorithms.
Carrying on further, we look closely into the the two incarnations of the physical model {`thresholded'(conservative,
but typically considered in literature) and `graded' (more realistic). We show via solving the one shot scheduling problem,
that the graded version can improve `expected throughput' over the thresholded version by scheduling imperfect links.
Links:paper
October 10, 2008 - Chengjie Wu
October 17, 2008 - Justin Luner
Fall Break
October 24, 2008 - Chien-Liang Fok
October 31, 2008 - Octav Chipara
November 7, 2008 - Sangeeta Bhattacharya
November 14, 2008 - Greg Hackmann
November 21, 2008 - Yong Fu
November 28, 2008 - N/A
Thanksgiving
December 5, 2008 - Weijun Guo
December 12, 2008 - Chengjie Wu
December 19, 2008 - N/A
Winter Break
