Error Exponents for Decentralized Detection in Tree Networks

  • Wee Peng Tay
  • John N. Tsitsiklis

Consider a set of sensors, one of them designated as the fusion center. We are given two hypotheses H0 and H1, with associated probability spaces. In this chapter, we consider only simple hypothesis testing, i.e., the probability measures under both hypotheses are known to the network. The goal of the network is to make a decision on the true hypothesis based on information provided by observations made at each sensor node. This is commonly known as the decentralized detection problem. Decentralized detection in sensor networks has attracted a lot of interest in recent years, because of new technologies (especially, the availability of low-cost sensing devices) and numerous potential applications. The decentralized detection problem was first formulated and studied by [3], which considers a "parallel configuration" whereby each sensor makes an observation and sends a quantized version of that observation to a fusion center. The goal is to make a decision on the two possible hypotheses, based on the messages received at the fusion center.


Sensor Node Error Probability Leaf Node Relay Node Fusion Center 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    W.-P. Tay, J. N. Tsitsiklis, and M. Z. Win, “Data fusion trees for detec-tion: Does architecture matter?” in Proc. Allerton Conf. on Communi-cation, Control, and Computing, Monticello, IL, Sep. 2006.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    ——, “Detection in dense wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE Wire-less Commun. and Networking Conf., Hong Kong, Mar. 2007.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. R. Tenney and N. R. Sandell, “Detection with distributed sensors,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 17, pp. 501-510, 1981.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Z. Chair and P. K. Varshney, “Optimal data fusion in multiple sensor detection systems,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 22, pp. 98-101, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    G. Polychronopoulos and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Explicit solutions for some simple decentralized detection problems,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 26, pp. 282-292, 1990.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. R. Reibman and L. W. Nolte, “Design and performance comparison of distributed detection networks,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 23, pp. 789-797, 1987.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Willett and D. Warren, “The suboptimality of randomized tests in distributed and quantized detection systems,” IEEE Transactions on In-formation Theory, vol. 38, pp. 355-361, Mar. 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. W. Irving and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Some properties of optimal thresholds in decentralized detection,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 39, pp. 835-838, 1994.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Extremal properties of likelihood-ratio quantizers,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 41, pp. 550-558, 1993.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    C. Rago, P. Willett, and Y. Bar-Shalom, “Censoring sensors: A low- communication-rate scheme for distributed detection,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 554-568, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Appadwedula, V. V. Veeravalli, and D. Jones, “Energy-efficient detec-tion in sensor networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 693-702, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    J.-F. Chamberland and V. V. Veeravalli, “Decentralized detection in sen- sor networks,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 407-416, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    ——, “Asymptotic results for decentralized detection in power con- strained wireless sensor networks,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., Spe-cial Issue on Wireless Sensor Networks, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1007-1015, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    W.-P. Tay, J. N. Tsitsiklis, and M. Z. Win, “Censoring sensors: Asymp- totics and the value of cooperation,” in Proc. Conf. on Inform. Sci. and Sys., Princeton, NJ, Mar. 2006, pp. 62-67.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Decentralized detection,” Advances in Statistical Signal Processing, vol. 2, pp. 297-344, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Viswanathan and P. K. Varshney, “Distributed detection with multiple sensors: part I - fundamentals,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 85, pp. 54-63, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    L. K. Ekchian and R. R. Tenney, “Detection networks,” in Proc. 21st IEEE Conf. Decision Control, 1982, pp. 686-691.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R. Viswanathan, S. C. A. Thomopoulos, and R. Tumuluri, “Optimal serial distributed decision fusion,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 366-376, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Z. B. Tang, K. R. Pattipati, and D. L. Kleinman, “Optimization of de- tection networks: part I- tandem structures,” Systems, Man and Cyber-netics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1044-1059, 1991.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    ——, “Optimization of detection networks: part II- tree structures,” Sys-tems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 211-221, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J. D. Papastavrou and M. Athans, “On optimal distributed decision ar- chitectures in a hypothesis testing environment,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1154-1169, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    A. Pete, K. Pattipati, and D. Kleinman, “Optimization of detection net- works with multiple event structures,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1702-1707, 1994.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. Alhakeem and P. K. Varshney, “A unified approach to the design of decentralized detection systems,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 9-20, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    T. A. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, 1st ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1991.MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    P.-N. Chen and A. Papamarcou, “New asymptotic results in parallel dis- tributed detection,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1847-1863, Nov. 1993.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Decentralized detection by a large number of sensors,” Math. Control, Signals, Syst., vol. 1, pp. 167-182, 1988.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    A. Dembo and O. Zeitouni, Large Deviations Techniques and Applica- tions. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    W.-P. Tay, J. N. Tsitsiklis, and M. Z. Win, “On the sub-exponential decay of detection probabilities in long tandems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Honolulu, HI, Apr. 2007.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    ——, “Data fusion trees for detection: Does architecture matter?” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2006, submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, A guide to the theory of NP- Completeness. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman, 1979.MATHGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    A. E. F. Clementi, M. D. Ianni, M. A., L. M., R. G., and S. R., “Di- vide and conquer is almost optimal for the bounded-hop MST problem on random Euclidean instances,” in Proc. Structural Information and Communication Complexity, Mont Saint-Michel, France, May 2005, pp. 89-98.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    R. Niu and P. K. Varshney, “Distributed detection and fusion in a large wireless sensor network of random size,” EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, vol. 2005, no. 4, pp. 462-472, 2005.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    L. T. Animashree Anandkumar, “A large deviation analysis of detection over multi-access channels with random number of sensors,” in Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2006. ICASSP 2006 Proceedings. 2006 IEEE International Conference on, vol. 4, 2006.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    T. Q. S. Quek, D. Dardari, and M. Z. Win, “Energy efficiency of dense wireless sensor networks: to cooperate or not to cooperate,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 25, pp. 459-469, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    W.-P. Tay, J. N. Tsitsiklis, and M. Z. Win, “Bayesian detection in bounded height tree networks,” in Proc. of Data Compression Conf., Snowbird, UT, Mar. 2007.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    J.-F. Chamberland and V. V. Veeravalli, “How dense should a sensor net-work be for detection with correlated observations?” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 5099-5106, Nov. 2006.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    W. Li and H. Dai, “Distributed detection in large-scale sensor networks with correlated sensor observations,” in Proc. 43rd Allerton Annual Con-ference on Communication, Control, and Computing, Sep. 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wee Peng Tay
    • 1
  • John N. Tsitsiklis
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Information and Decision SystemsMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations