Fuzzy-based Sensor Search in the Web of Things by Cuong Truong - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

fuzzy based sensor search
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Fuzzy-based Sensor Search in the Web of Things by Cuong Truong - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Fuzzy-based Sensor Search in the Web of Things by Cuong Truong University of Lbeck, Germany truong@iti.uni-luebeck.de 1 The Vision of the Internet of Things real world objects will be uniquely identifiable and connected to the Internet 2


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Fuzzy-based Sensor Search in the Web of Things

by Cuong Truong

University of Lübeck, Germany truong@iti.uni-luebeck.de

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

The Vision of the Internet of Things

real world objects will be uniquely identifiable and connected to the Internet

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

The Vision of the Web of Things

mashing up sensors and actuators with services and data available on the Web

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Sensor Search in WoT: Start-of-the-art

4

Internet

sensor capteur 傳感器

publish a textual description

GSN

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Sensor Search in WoT: Start-of-the-art

 complex for end user!

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • What to type in

search engine?

  • How to describe

search criteria? Not easy! Hmm!

Places that have similar climate and

  • ceanic condition

to Key West in the last year? Pick a climate sensor in Key West, and search for similar sensors

Sensor Similarity Search: An Illustration

Key West Marathon Fishery owner

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Sensor Similarity Search: Architecture

local database

Internet

crawls crawls crawls search for:

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Questions to be addressed

8

I.

How to define and compute similarity between two sensors?

II.

How to construct a fuzzy set from historical sensor readings?

III.

How to minimize the cost of storing such fuzzy sets?

IV.

How to efficiently compute a similarity score between a pair of sensors?

V.

How to objectively evaluate the approach?

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • I. Similarity Definition

9

10 20 11 21 12 125

similar different

(2) similar reading ranges (1) similar reading curves

what about me?

slide-10
SLIDE 10

 Degree of membership of elements of fuzzy set

  • FK(38) = 0.9
  • FL(38) = 0.6

 Key idea: Same value, different degree of

memberships in different fuzzy sets

x

28 48

kitchen

time

x

1

F

K 28 48 35 44

F

L 35 44

library

time

x

0.9 0.6

38

10

  • I. Similar Reading Curves: Captured by Fuzzy Set
slide-11
SLIDE 11

 The reading 38 is likely read by sensor in kitchen:

  • FK(38) = 0.9 > 0.6 = FL (38)

 Given a sensor S with set of readings X = {x}, S is

likely located in kitchen if:

x

28 48

kitchen

time

x

1

F

K 28 48 35 44

F

L 35 44

library

time

x

0.9 0.6

38

11

  • I. Similar Reading Curves: Captured by Fuzzy Set
slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • I. Similar Reading Ranges

12

captured by the reading range difference

slide-13
SLIDE 13

 Given a sensor V, and a sensor S whose set of

readings is X = {x}

 Combining the two above mentioned similarity

conditions:

  • Similar reading curves (defined by fuzzy set)
  • Similar reading ranges (defined by reading range

difference)

13

  • I. Similarity Computation
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Questions to be addressed

14

I.

How to define and compute similarity between two sensors?

II.

How to construct a fuzzy set from historical sensor readings?

III.

How to minimize the cost of storing such fuzzy sets?

IV.

How to efficiently compute a similarity score between a pair of sensors?

V.

How to objectively evaluate the approach?

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • II. Fuzzy Set Construction

24 00:00 23:59

time

x

15 30

S

 Temperature sensor S has been monitoring a room

for 24 hours from 00:00 -> 23:59

FS(x)

x

15 30 1 24

15

+ + + + + +

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Questions to be addressed

16

I.

How to define and compute similarity between two sensors?

II.

How to construct a fuzzy set from historical sensor readings?

III.

How to minimize the cost of storing such fuzzy sets?

IV.

How to efficiently compute a similarity score between a pair of sensors?

V.

How to objectively evaluate the approach?

slide-17
SLIDE 17
  • III. Efficient Fuzzy Set Storage: Approximation

 Fuzzy set‘s storage overhead  Membership function is smooth

Approximation using set of line segments

17

+ +

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Questions to be addressed

18

I.

How to define and compute similarity between two sensors?

II.

How to construct a fuzzy set from historical sensor readings?

III.

How to minimize the cost of storing such fuzzy sets?

IV.

How to efficiently compute a similarity score between a pair of sensors?

V.

How to objectively evaluate the approach?

slide-19
SLIDE 19
  • III. Efficient Similarity Score Computation

19

x f(x)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Questions to be addressed

20

I.

How to define and compute similarity between two sensors?

II.

How to construct a fuzzy set from historical sensor readings?

III.

How to minimize the cost of storing such fuzzy sets?

IV.

How to efficiently compute a similarity score between a pair of sensors?

V.

How to objectively evaluate sensor similarity search?

slide-21
SLIDE 21
  • V. Evaluation: Approach

 For a search, a list of sensors is returned

  • Ranked by decreasing similarity score
  • Similar sensors are ranked on top

 Issue: „Similarity“ is highly subjective!  no

ground truth

 Fact: Sensors close to each other have similar

readings

 Approach: Group sensors based on location and

annotated group with its location

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

kitchen bedroom

perform search

List ranked by similarity score

22

  • V. Evaluation: Approach
slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • V. Ranked List: Degree of Accuracy

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24
  • V. Evaluation: Multiple Real Data Sets

 For each data set, group sensors based on

location, and define a search trial as

  • Picking a sensor and perform search
  • Compute DOA value of the obtained ranked list

 For each sensor

  • Last 24 hours of readings are used

 Evaluation is done on a PC

  • Java VM
  • Intel Core i5 CPU at 2.4 Ghz clock rate

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

IntelLab Data Set

 http://db.csail.mit.edu/labd

ata/labdata.html

 12 sensors in 3 groups  1500 data points/24 hours  Performance: 222 μs / pair

 4505 sensors / second (brute force)

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

NOAA Data Set

 http://tidesandcurrents.no

aa.gov/gmap3

 23 sensors in 5 groups  200 data points/24 hours  Performance: 28 μs / pair

 35741 sensors / second (brute force)

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

MavPad Data Set

 http://ailab.wsu.edu/m

avhome/index.html

 8 sensors in 2 groups  500 data points / 24

hours

 Performance: 70 μs /

pair  14285 sensors / second (brute force)

27

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Summary

 Sensor similarity search and distributed

architecture to realize it

 Fuzzy-based approach to efficiently

compute similarity score

 Evaluation metric for ranked list  Accurate results of evaluation  Outlook: Scalability

  • Paralellize search
  • More efficient similarity computation
  • Index and lookup of fuzzy sets at server side
  • Incremental search accuracy

28