Collaborative Synchronization Mechanism in Wireless Multimedia Sensor Networks

For the disaster relief system, a reliable architecture of wireless multimedia sensor networks (WMSN) is important to various applications, such as people tracking, robot navigation etc. Because of parallel distributed sensor networks with wireless communication and redundant deployment, WMSN is one of the most promising and potential applications of self-organization, rapid deployment and information accuracy [1].

Owing to the limitation of wireless communication, the transmission of compressed images is troublesome and hard to receive real-time videos of multi-views synchronously [13]. In addition, privacy is a factor in a monitoring system, with no photographing. In this paper, smart visual sensors CMUcam5 (PIXY) are used to detect objects independently [17]. 3D localization in computer vision demands detected results from multi-views synchronously [2, 3, 8‐10, 14‐16, 18, 19]. Wireless sensor networks (WSN) are good at cluster-based communication and ad-hoc network [7, 12]. Therefore, the combination of visual sensors PIXY and WSN is reliable to realize 3D localization. Owing to the high rate of false alarms in foreground detection [11], the proposed architecture employs color algorithm to detect objects [4].

The 3D localization in computer vision demands the time stamps of key frames from multi-views are synchronized. To the best of my knowledge, the synchronization of key frames and asynchronization of the packet transmission from multi-views are not well studied in WMSN. First, the coarse synchronization at ms level makes sure the local time of all sensors is simultaneous [3]. Second, to minimize the size of the packet, it encapsulates the image coordinates of the detected objects in the key frames [4] instead of the compressed images [13]. Third, the coordinator can receive the packets transmitted from multi-views at different time stamps. Fourth, to realize the synchronization of key frames obtained from multi-views, it employs a collaborative synchronization mechanism to sample the key frames at the visual sensors synchronously, and cluster the real-time received data obtained from multi-views in PC.

The main contributions of this Letter can be summarized as follows: First, for the sake of real-time data aggregation from multi-views synchronously, a combination of distributed XBee sensors network and visual sensors PIXY in CMUcam5 project has been proposed. Second, the collaborative synchronization mechanism was employed to sample and cluster the detected results synchronously in real time. Some experiments have been carried out in the real world scenario. Experimental results showed that the proposed architecture realized real-time data aggregation from multi-views synchronously and reliably.

XBee sensors network is used to establish the mesh network in Fig. 1. Eight visual sensors in two rooms comprise PIXY, Arduino UNO and XBee S2 sensors to establish the distributed architecture of WSN. The coordinator is connected directly to PC to exchange data through the serial port. All visual sensors are directed to the center of the rooms. The overlapping area of visual sensors can be extended accordingly. About 1.5 \(\times\) 1.5 m\(^2\) area of each room are overlapped by 4 visual sensors. The rest rooms are overlapped by less than 4 visual sensors.

The collaborative synchronization mechanism is performed on two levels: (1) coarse synchronization to synchronize sensors in the network and (2) collaborative synchronization to samples and clusters the detected results synchronously in real time.

At the coarse synchronization level, the coordinator sends the synchronization unicast packet to predefine visual sensors with a fixed period of 5 seconds. Compared with the broadcast packet in [3], the packet delivery acknowledgement can guarantee the communication quality. Because of the instability of wireless communication in the flood mechanism, visual sensors have to restart automatically sometimes. Periodic synchronization by the coordinator can make sure time stamps of all visual sensors are synchronized.

At the collaborative synchronization level, visual sensors are responsible for the synchronization of sampling time for object detection and asynchronization of packet transmission by wireless communication. PC is responsible for real-time clustering the received data into groups.

Since PIXY and Arduino are independent devices, it is a random local time when Arduino receives detected results from PIXY. If Arduino wants to detect messages delivery from PIXY in every time interval \(\alpha\), it requires a tolerance time \(2\sigma\). Furthermore, in order to keep only one message delivery from PIXY for each sampling, the time interval between \(\theta\) and \(\theta -1\), successful detection messages delivery from PIXY, must be greater than \(2\sigma\). The time stamp of sampling by Arduino for detected results from PIXY is described as follows:where \(T_{sy}\) is synchronized time at the coarse synchronization level; \(\theta\) is a successful detection of message delivery from PIXY; \(\sigma =5\) is the tolerance time; \(\alpha =500\) is the time interval for sampling by Arduino, the threshold \(\alpha\) is a trade-off between the size of the transmit packet and capability of wireless communication; \(\mid \cdot \mid\) is an absolute value sign.

Because of the efforts above, all visual sensors are synchronized. In the flood mechanism, visual sensors transmit packets to the coordinator synchronously. It causes the packet loss at the coordinator. Therefore, each visual sensor is allowed to transmit a packet in every 1 s. It means one packet content contains detected results of \(1000/\alpha\) key frames in the time interval \(\alpha\). Therefore, key frames of each view in every 1 s form a video stream, which can guarantee the real time in a short time interval \(\alpha\). A unique time slot is assigned to each visual sensor in a predefined order. Each visual sensor is allowed to transmit a packet at its own time slot. The time stamp of transmission for lth visual sensor is defined as follows:where \(r(\omega )\) is a random value between 0 and 30, the upper limit of \(r(\omega )\) is 30; \(\beta =50\) is the span for each time slot; l from 1 to 4 is the identity of visual sensors to label each sensor in a room. Therefore, the gap between two time slot is \(\beta -\omega =20\). In this order, the time stamp of received packets at the coordinator can be sorted in an array for all visual sensors; \(\%\) is modulo operation.

At the PC side, the received data need to be grouped by clustering algorithm in real time. In order to handle the fresh received data on time, the length of the segment for data clustering is defined as \(g=20\). When the fresh received data are cumulative to \(s=10\), a new segment is ready for clustering. The real-time data of a new segment is defined as follows:where D is the received data by the coordinator; \(m+1\) is the first index of D in the tth segment; e(t) is the last index of D in the tth segment.

When a new segment is ready for clustering, BFSN clustering algorithm is employed to cluster the real-time data into different groups, based on the time stamp of sampling by Arduino [8]. The clustering result is achieved by the following formula:where \(f_{BFSN}\) is BFSN clustering algorithm; \(f_{SimiR}\) is used to create a normalized similarity matrix; \(T_{s}\) is the time stamp of sampling in the real-time data. The synchronization period of the coordinator is 5 s, which is \(10\times \alpha\). As long as the time stamp of samplings in real-time data is a multiple of \(10\times \alpha\), it means they are synchronized accordingly, in case that visual sensors fail to receive synchronization messages from the coordinator. The parameter which will derive the normalized similarity matrix is \(T_{s}(D_{rt})\%(10\times \alpha )\). It means that when the newly received data are cumulative to \(s = 10\), a new segment is ready for clustering, the length of the segment for data clustering is \(g = 20\) in (3). The clustering data is \(T_{s}\), which is the time stamp of sampling. In order to filter out the unsynchronized data, \(T_{s}\) needs to use the modulus operator to find out the synchronized data in the synchronization period of the coordinator, 5 s.

\(\gamma =0.98\) is a neighborhood threshold, if \(f_{SimiR}(a,b)>\gamma\), a and b are neighbors. \(\gamma =0.98\) is the classification threshold, if the number of elements in class B is num. There is a new element c need to be classified. If more than \((\gamma \times 100)\) percent of elements num in class B are the neighbors of c, c is classified to class B.

However, the clustering result by BFSN algorithm is not following the rules of spatial and temporal correlation. In the practical scenarios, the rule of spatial correlation is that data received from different rooms need to be classified into different groups. The rule of temporal correlation is the data received at different periods of time that need to be classified into different groups, and the data received from the same visual sensor cannot appear at the same group. The real-time clustering algorithm based on spatial and temporal correlation is illustrated in Algorithm III:

where \(Gi_{A}(i)\) is the class identity of ith real-time data defined by BFSN clustering algorithm A; f() returns the indices that satisfy the conditional expression; sz() returns the size of a matrix; \(G_{rt}(i+m) = id\) is the group identity of the ith real-time data in the data of D; vs is the identity of the visual sensor in real-time data of \(D_{rt}\); \(Ri_{\tau }\) is a predefined vector of vs for the \(\tau\)th room; \(G_{\tau }\) is the final clustered data with the group identity and the \(\tau\)th room for the ith real-time data; \(ct_{\tau }\) is the last index of \(G_{\tau }\), \(ct_{\tau }\) is increasing according to the real-time clustering algorithm and \(ct_{\tau } = 1\) is the initial value.

According to the rule of temporal correlation, if the class identity of the ith and \((i-1)\)th real-time data are different, or the identities of visual sensors for the idth group do not contain the identity of visual sensor for the ith real-time data, the group identity id increase 1. Otherwise, id remains still. Based on the rule of spatial correlation, if the identity of visual sensor for the ith real-time data belongs to \(Ri_{\tau }\) of the \(\tau\)th room, the group should be divided accordingly. Finally, each clustered group contains one or multiple unique views of a specific room.

The mean value of time differences is the key indicator for the performance evaluation of synchronization. To track 3D localization in computer vision, the mean value of time differences among the time stamp of sampling in each group should be as small as possible, which is defined as follows:where n is the number of received data in a group, if \(n = 1\), the mean value is 0; \(\delta\) is the number of key frames in a received data, which is determined by the parameter \(\alpha\); \(G_{i}\) is the indices of received data that belongs to the idth group.

The proposed WMSN is compared with [13]. For real-time 3D localization, image size of \(320\times 200\) with the resolution of \(640\times 400\) is adopted. Since PIXY requires only 20 ms to fulfil object detection, the proposed architecture is 2 times faster than that of [13] in terms of time consumption. The results on processing time and transmission data are summarized in Table 1. It describes the fundamental performance of the architecture. Since the location of detected targets are the only content transmitted and 2 times faster than that of [13], the time stamps of sampling for data received from PIXY by Arduino can be more accurate than that of [13]. The first two rows of Table 1 depict the quantitative improvement in the hardware. The last three rows of the table present the qualitative analysis in the software. To minimize the packet size, 2D image coordinates of the detected objects are capsulated in the packet instead of the compressed images. The synchronous clustered data from multi-views are aggregated in PC instead of one view in any moment. Further, the key frames in 1 s from multi-views can realize 3D localization and tracking instead of the video stream in 1 s from one view.

In order to evaluate the real-time performance of proposed architecture, the demonstration system has deployed as shown in Fig. 1. The coordinator with a PC is located in the room 1. Two objects are moving in two rooms at the same time. Therefore, eight visual sensors can transmit detected results to the coordinator in the meantime.

As described in [3], the time differences at the coarse synchronization level are limited to a few milliseconds. At the collaborative synchronization level, the time differences among each group in the data received from visual sensors by the coordinator are shown in Fig. 3. Figure 3a, b show the mean value of time differences among each group. Figure 3c presents the cumulative distribution of \(t^{\mu }\), which is greater than 0.

Comparing the performance of the collaborative synchronization in the two rooms, results can be concluded as follows:

First, accuracy of the mean value: more than 90% of \(t^{\mu }\) are less than 12 ms in both rooms. The mean values for all \(t^{\mu }\) in all clustered groups are around 10 ms. It is acceptable for 3D localization, since any objects like pedestrians or mobile robot can move a short distance in such a period. For example, the average speed of an adult is about 1.1–1.5 m/s.

Second, interference caused by distance: the maximum value of \(t^{\mu }\) in room 2 is dramatically increased to 100 ms. It is due to the distance between visual sensors and coordinator are increasing. Compared with room 1, the uncertainties of sensors network are also increasing in the meantime. The interference in the network causes the packet loss and the transmission delay, which increase the cost for collaborative synchronization.

Figure 4 indicates the interference caused by the distance in details for \(t^{\mu } = 102.5\) in room 2. The group identity is \(G_{rt} = 43\). The time stamp of sampling at \(\alpha\) and \(2\alpha\) are listed accordingly. The identity of visual sensor \(vs = 23\) means the 3th visual sensor in the room 2. Raw data is the time stamp of sampling \(T_{s}\) in the real-time data. Cooked data is the remainder of \(T_{s}\%(10\times \alpha )\) in (4). It depicts that \(T_{s}\) is dramatically changed from 4794 to 482 for \(vs = 23\) caused by the coarse synchronization level. However, \(t^{\mu }\) between 4794 and 4994 for \(vs = 23\) and 24 is 200. The reason is that the cost for collaborative synchronization is increasing along with the distance between the coordinator and visual sensors. The solution can be achieved by two steps. First, the location of the coordinator is justified to the most important room in the monitoring area, in order to optimize synchronization results in other conditions unchanged. Second, a threshold \(4\sigma\) is introduced to eliminate any unsuccessful clustered group, the rule is \(t^{\mu } > 4\sigma\).

The possible steady states are (1) a fully synchronized network; (2) a combination of synchronized clusters without synchronized nodes; and (3) not synchronized nodes (a node has no synchronized partner). Figure 2a, b show the steady states. \(t^{\mu } > 0\) and \(t^{\mu } \le 4\sigma\) means the first state that the time stamps of key frames from multi-views are synchronized and well clustered into the groups. \(t^{\mu } = 0\) means the second state that there is only one node in the group, and the node is a cluster. Because of the self-organization in WMSN, any node stands a chance to become a cluster. \(t^{\mu } > 4\sigma\) means the third state that the clustered data in the group are not synchronized.

Figure 5 depicts the steady synchronization states over network size. In the first clustered column, there are only 4 visual sensors to communicate with the coordinator. If the visual sensors are deployed in the room 1 R1, the distance between the visual sensors and coordinator is very short. The nodes are fully synchronized with only one exception. Because the distance is increasing in the room 2 R2, the percentage of the fully synchronous nodes are decreasing. Since the network size is increased to 10 visual sensors, which are placed in two rooms separately, the communication quality is decreasing obviously. The percentage of the fully synchronized nodes in both rooms is less than the situation of 4 visual sensors. However, all the situations are much better than the coarse synchronization method [3].

Figure 6 shows the synchronization results over network size in two rooms. It indicates the distance between the visual sensors and coordinator has obvious influence on the synchronization results. The mean values of \(t^{\mu }\) in room 1 are always better than those in room 2. The network size also affects the synchronization results. The larger network size has the greater mean value of \(t^{\mu }\). However, the network size of 10 visual sensors in the room 2 can limit the mean value of \(t^{\mu }\) to around 10 ms, which is acceptable to the most application of WMSN.

On account of security measurement employed by the proposed architecture, it is very hard to analyze the practical performance of wireless communication. WMSNs in this experiment have to be set in AT mode so that VinnoTech Multi-channel Packet Analyser can be utilized to capture packets for analysis. Figure 7 describes the packet list of AT mode. As shown in the first 5 indexes, AT packets from two source addresses, 0x3D6A and 0x5EB1, have arrived at the coordinator within 0.56 s. The maximal time interval between different packets is 0.36 s. These packets own only a few bytes. However, the packet content is the location of detected objects, which is a substitute of images in [13]. It indicates that the proposed architecture can realize real-time data aggregation from multi-views of visual sensors.

Figure 8 depicts the time-channel diagram of AT mode. 9483 packets in channel 09 have been captured in 8 min. It indicates the tremendous communication traffic of XBee sensors network. Even though there are still some disturbance in channel 07 and 08, the communication status of channel 09 remains stable and fluent along the timeline. It shows excellent anti-interference performance.

According to the requirement of the disaster relief system, an architecture in indoor WMSN was presented. It established XBee sensors network and fulfilled the requirement of real-time data aggregation and RF transmission instantaneously. The detected results of multi-views can be transmitted to the coordinator synchronously and clustered in real time. The experimental results showed that the proposed architecture can realize real-time data aggregation of multi-views reliably and synchronously.