Paper detail

Local Event Boundary Detection with Unreliable Sensors: Analysis of the Majority Vote Scheme

In this paper we study the identification of an event region $X$ within a larger region $Y$, in which the sensors are distributed by a Poisson process of density $λ$ to detect this event region, i.e., its boundary. The model of sensor is a 0-1 sensor that decides whether it lies in $X$ or not, and which might be incorrect with probability $p$. It also collects information on the 0-1 values of the neighbors within some distance $r$ and revises its decision by the majority vote of these neighbors. In the most general setting, we analyze this simple majority vote scheme and derive some upper and lower bounds on the expected number of misclassified sensors. These bounds depend on several sensing parameters of $p$, $r$, and some geometric parameters of the event region $X$. By making some assumptions on the shape of $X$, we prove a significantly improved upper bound on the expected number of misclassified sensors; especially for convex regions with sufficiently round boundary, and we find that the majority vote scheme performs well in the simulation rather than its theoretical upper bound.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.