Clustering and routing: Difference between revisions

From Center for Integrated Circuits and Devices Research (CIDR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Added LEACH Protocol)
Line 43: Line 43:
|}
|}
Since routing protocols with intelligence improves network lifetime more than traditional approaches for WSN applications, we decided to implement RL-based protocols, and consider CLIQUE protocol<ref>A. Förster and A. L. Murphy, “CLIQUE: Role-free clustering with Q-learning for wireless sensor networks,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2009, pp. 441–449.</ref> and the Deep Q-Network protocol by Kaur et al<ref>G. Kaur, P. Chanak, and M. Bhattacharya, “Energy-Efficient Intelligent Routing Scheme for IoT-Enabled WSNs,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 14, pp. 11440–11449, Jul 2021.</ref>. For our baseline protocol, we choose the LEACH protocol<ref>W. B. Heinzelman, A. P. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “An application-specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 660–670, Oct 2002.</ref> as it is one of the pioneering clustering and routing approaches for WSNs.
Since routing protocols with intelligence improves network lifetime more than traditional approaches for WSN applications, we decided to implement RL-based protocols, and consider CLIQUE protocol<ref>A. Förster and A. L. Murphy, “CLIQUE: Role-free clustering with Q-learning for wireless sensor networks,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2009, pp. 441–449.</ref> and the Deep Q-Network protocol by Kaur et al<ref>G. Kaur, P. Chanak, and M. Bhattacharya, “Energy-Efficient Intelligent Routing Scheme for IoT-Enabled WSNs,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 14, pp. 11440–11449, Jul 2021.</ref>. For our baseline protocol, we choose the LEACH protocol<ref>W. B. Heinzelman, A. P. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “An application-specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 660–670, Oct 2002.</ref> as it is one of the pioneering clustering and routing approaches for WSNs.
== LEACH Protocol ==
One of the pioneering clustering and routing approaches for WSNs is the Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH). One of the pioneering clustering and routing approaches for WSNs is LEACH. In LEACH, the idea is to select the cluster heads by rotation so that the high energy dissipation in communicating with the base station is spread across all sensor nodes in the network.
The operation of the LEACH protocol is broken into multiple rounds, where each round has two phases: set-up phase and steady-state phase. In the set-up phase, cluster heads are selected and clusters are formed. In the steady-state phase, member nodes send their data to the respective cluster heads, and the cluster heads perform data aggregation for transmission to the base station. The duration of the steady-state phase is typically longer than that of the set-up phase in order to minimize the overhead due to cluster formation.
During the set-up phase, each node decides whether or not to become a cluster head (CH) for the current round. This decision is made by the node choosing a random number between 0 and 1. If the number is less than the following threshold, T(n), the node becomes a cluster head:
<math>T(n) = f(n) = \begin{cases} \frac{P}{1-P(r\bmod \frac{1}{P})}, & \text{if }n \in G \\ 0, & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}</math>
where P is the desired percentage of cluster heads, r is the current round, and G is the set of nodes that have not been elected as cluster heads in the last 1/P rounds. Based on the algorithm, this protocol ensures load balancing by preventing a node from being selected as a cluster head for multiple consecutive rounds.
After the cluster heads are determined, each elected cluster head then broadcasts an advertisement message so that the remaining nodes in the network can choose which cluster to join based on the received signal strength of each message. Each node sends a join request message to its chosen cluster head. After which, the cluster head creates a TDMA schedule, and assigns each node in its cluster a time slot to transmit the data.
Once the clusters are formed, the network can now proceed to the steady-state phase for data transmission. After some time spent on the steady-state phase, the network goes back into the set-up phase for another round of cluster formation.


=== References ===
=== References ===

Revision as of 13:27, 28 June 2023

Figure 1. Clustering in Wireless Sensor Networks.

Routing protocols in wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are generally classified into three main categories according to network structure: flat, hierarchical, and location-based.[1][2] In flat routing protocols, all nodes in the network are typically assigned equal roles, where each node senses the environment and sends the sensed data to a sink or base station. In hierarchical routing protocols, nodes are grouped into clusters. Each cluster has its own cluster head and member nodes, as shown in Figure 1. The member nodes still play the same role of sensing the environment. They forward their sensed data to the respective cluster heads (instead of the base station) for aggregation, and the cluster heads are the ones responsible for transmitting the aggregated data to the base station. In comparison to flat routing protocols, hierarchical routing protocols offer several advantages, including higher energy efficiency, increased scalability, and increased robustness, all of which are advantageous for WSNs.[3]

Computational Intelligence Paradigms

Different computational intelligence (CI) paradigms that can be applied in solving clustering and routing in WSNs are shown in Table 1. Among these paradigms, reinforcement learning (RL) is the most appropriate for WSN applications as it has been proven to achieve optimal routing results in WSNs.[4] While it may need some time to learn the optimal routes, it is highly flexible to network topology changes. Moreover, it has low processing requirements, and low-cost or simple implementation. This makes RL suitable for energy-efficient routing at individual nodes, despite having medium memory requirements for keeping track of different possible actions and values. Thus, discussions on routing protocols with computational intelligence were focused on RL-based routing protocols.

Table 1. Different computational intelligence (CI) paradigms for solving clustering and routing in WSNs.[5]
CI Paradigms Computational Requirements Memory Requirements Flexibility Clustering & Routing
Neural Network medium medium low less appropriate
Fuzzy Logic medium medium high moderately appropriate
Evolutionary Algorithm medium high low less appropriate
Swarm Intelligence low medium high moderately appropriate
Reinforcement Learning low medium high most appropriate

Since routing protocols with intelligence improves network lifetime more than traditional approaches for WSN applications, we decided to implement RL-based protocols, and consider CLIQUE protocol[6] and the Deep Q-Network protocol by Kaur et al[7]. For our baseline protocol, we choose the LEACH protocol[8] as it is one of the pioneering clustering and routing approaches for WSNs.

LEACH Protocol

One of the pioneering clustering and routing approaches for WSNs is the Low Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy (LEACH). One of the pioneering clustering and routing approaches for WSNs is LEACH. In LEACH, the idea is to select the cluster heads by rotation so that the high energy dissipation in communicating with the base station is spread across all sensor nodes in the network.

The operation of the LEACH protocol is broken into multiple rounds, where each round has two phases: set-up phase and steady-state phase. In the set-up phase, cluster heads are selected and clusters are formed. In the steady-state phase, member nodes send their data to the respective cluster heads, and the cluster heads perform data aggregation for transmission to the base station. The duration of the steady-state phase is typically longer than that of the set-up phase in order to minimize the overhead due to cluster formation.

During the set-up phase, each node decides whether or not to become a cluster head (CH) for the current round. This decision is made by the node choosing a random number between 0 and 1. If the number is less than the following threshold, T(n), the node becomes a cluster head:

where P is the desired percentage of cluster heads, r is the current round, and G is the set of nodes that have not been elected as cluster heads in the last 1/P rounds. Based on the algorithm, this protocol ensures load balancing by preventing a node from being selected as a cluster head for multiple consecutive rounds.

After the cluster heads are determined, each elected cluster head then broadcasts an advertisement message so that the remaining nodes in the network can choose which cluster to join based on the received signal strength of each message. Each node sends a join request message to its chosen cluster head. After which, the cluster head creates a TDMA schedule, and assigns each node in its cluster a time slot to transmit the data.

Once the clusters are formed, the network can now proceed to the steady-state phase for data transmission. After some time spent on the steady-state phase, the network goes back into the set-up phase for another round of cluster formation.

References

  1. N. Al-Karaki and A. E. Kamal, “Routing techniques in wireless sensor networks: A survey,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 11, pp. 6–28, 12 2004.
  2. N. A. Pantazis, S. A. Nikolidakis, and D. D. Vergados, “Energy-efficient routing protocols in wireless sensor networks: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 15, pp. 551–591, 2013.
  3. Raghavendra V. Kulkarni, Anna Forster, and Ganesh Kumar Venayagamoorthy. “Computational Intelligence in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey”. In: IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 13.1 (2011), pp. 68–96. doi: 10.1109/SURV.2011.040310.00002.
  4. Mohammad Abu Alsheikh et al. “Machine Learning in Wireless Sensor Networks: Algorithms, Strategies, and Applications”. In: IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 16.4 (2014), pp. 1996–2018. doi: 10.1109/COMST.2014.2320099.
  5. Raghavendra V. Kulkarni, Anna Forster, and Ganesh Kumar Venayagamoorthy. “Computational Intelligence in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey”. In: IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 13.1 (2011), pp. 68–96. doi: 10.1109/SURV.2011.040310.00002.
  6. A. Förster and A. L. Murphy, “CLIQUE: Role-free clustering with Q-learning for wireless sensor networks,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2009, pp. 441–449.
  7. G. Kaur, P. Chanak, and M. Bhattacharya, “Energy-Efficient Intelligent Routing Scheme for IoT-Enabled WSNs,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 14, pp. 11440–11449, Jul 2021.
  8. W. B. Heinzelman, A. P. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “An application-specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 660–670, Oct 2002.