skip to main content
10.1145/1281100.1281132acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Time-decaying sketches for sensor data aggregation

Published:12 August 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present a new sketch for summarizing network data. The sketch has the following properties which make it useful in communication-efficient aggregation in distributed streaming scenarios, such as sensor networks: the sketch is duplicate-insensitive, i.e. re-insertions of the same data will not affect the sketch, and hence the estimates of aggregates. Unlike previous duplicate-insensitive sketches for sensor data aggregation [26,12], it is also time-decaying, so that the weight of a data item in the sketch can decrease with time according to a user-specified decay function. The sketch can give provably approximate guarantees for various aggregates of data, including the sum, median, quantiles, and frequent elements. The size of the sketch and the time taken to update it are both polylogarithmic in the size of the relevant data. Further, multiple sketches computed over distributed data can be combined without losing the accuracy guarantees. To our knowledge, this is the first sketch that combines all the above properties.

References

  1. C. C. Aggarwal. On biased reservoir sampling in the presence of stream evolution. In VLDB, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. I. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam and E. Cayirci. A survey on sensor networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 40 (8) (2002) 102--114 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. N. Alon, Y. Matias, and M. Szegedy. The space complexity of approximating the frequency moments. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 58(1):137--147, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Arasu and G. Manku. Approximate counts and quantiles over sliding windows. In PODS, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. B. Babcock, M. Datar, and R. Motwani. Sampling from a moving window over streaming data. In SODA, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. B. Babcock, M. Datar, R. Motwani, and L. O'Callaghan. Maintaining variance and k-medians over data stream windows. In PODS, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Z. Broder, M. Charikar, A. M. Frieze, and M. Mitzenmacher. Min-wise independent permutations. In STOC, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. C. Busch and S. Tirthapura. A deterministic algorithm for summarizing asynchronous streams over a sliding window. In STACS, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. L. Carter and M. L. Wegman. Universal classes of hash functions. J. of Comp. and System Sciences, 18(2):143--154, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Y. Chen, H. V. Leong, M. Xu, Jiannong Cao, K. C. C Chan and A. T. S Chan. In-network data processing for wireless sensor networks. In MDM (International Conference on Mobile Data Management) 2006 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. E. Cohen and M. Strauss. Maintaining time-decaying stream aggregates. In PODS, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Considine, F. Li, G. Kollios, and J. Byers. Approximate aggregation techniques for sensor databases. In ICDE, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. G. Cormode and S. Muthukrishnan. Space efficient mining of multigraph streams. In PODS, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. G. Cormode, S. Tirthapura, B. Xu. Time-Decaying Sketches for Sensor Data Aggregation. Technical Report TR-2007-06-0, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Datar, A. Gionis, P. Indyk, and R. Motwani. Maintaining stream statistics over sliding windows. SIAM J. on Computing, 31(6):1794--1813, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. P. Flajolet and G. N. Martin. Probabilistic counting. In FOCS, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. P. Gibbons and S. Tirthapura. Estimating simple functions on the union of data streams. In SPAA, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. P. Gibbons and S. Tirthapura. Distributed streams algorithms for sliding windows. In SPAA, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. P. Indyk, D. Woodruff. Tight lower bounds for the distinct elements problem. In FOCS, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. N. Kimura and S. Latifi. A survey on data compression in wireless sensor networks. In ITCC International Conference on Information Technology Coding and Computing, 2005 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. E. Kushilevitz and N. Nisan. Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. L. K. Lee and H. F. Ting. A simpler and more efficient deterministic scheme for finding frequent items over sliding windows. In PODS, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. S. Madden, M. Franklin, J. Hellerstein, and W. Hong. Tag: a tiny aggregation service for ad-hoc sensor networks. SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 36(SI):131--146, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. I. Munro and M. S. Paterson. Selection and sorting with limited storage. Theoretical Computer Science, 12(3):315--323, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. S. Muthukrishnan. Data Streams: Algorithms and Applications. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science. Now Publishers, August 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. S. Nath, P. B. Gibbons, S. Seshan, and Z. Anderson. Synopsis diffusion for robust aggregation in sensor networks. In SENSYS, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. Pavan and S. Tirthapura. Range-efficient computation of F0 over massive data streams. In SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(2):359--379, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. S. Tirthapura, B. Xu, and C. Busch. Sketching asynchronous streams over a sliding window. In PODC, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Time-decaying sketches for sensor data aggregation

            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
              PODC '07: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
              August 2007
              424 pages
              ISBN:9781595936165
              DOI:10.1145/1281100

              Copyright © 2007 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 ACM 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: 12 August 2007

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • Article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate740of2,477submissions,30%

              Upcoming Conference

              PODC '24

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader