Novel random models of entity mobility models and performance analysis of random entity mobility models

It has become possible to collect data from geographically large areas with smart devices that are prevalently used today. Sensors that are integrated into smart devices make it possible for these devices to receive and transmit data wirelessly. The most important problem of this model that is known as mobile crowd sensing and that allows inferences on the data obtained from its users is lack of data. The main reason for this problem is the lack of sufficient usage of the sensors on devices by the user. To increase the amount of data collected, while users may be incentivized in various ways, the amount and accuracy of the collected data may be increased by developing random entity mobility models REMMs . In this study, two new models random point and random journey were proposed as alternatives to existing REMMs. In the experiment environment that was created to measure the performances of the proposed models, their performances were compared to those that are currently used prevalently random waypoint RWP , random walk RW , and random direction RD . In the experiment environment, the performances were compared in terms of three different metrics visiting rates of nodes, rates of reaching the basis, and the number of messages they carried to the basis . The greatest increase in differently sized areas and at different numbers of nodes in the RP model in terms of rates of reaching the basis was 2.6% compared to RWP, 7% compared to RW, and 46.34% compared to RD, while these values for the number of nodes that were visited were 3% compared to RWP, 1.5% compared to RW, and 17.67% compared to RD. In the same conditions in terms of the metric on the number of messages, the model collected 1465.4, 2933.46, and 7260.12 more messages than those in respectively RWP, RW, and RD. The greatest increase in differently sized areas and at different numbers of nodes in the RJ model in terms of reaching the basis was 1% compared to RWP, 3.5% compared to RW, and 25% compared to RD, while these values for the number of nodes that were visited were 0.75% compared to RWP, 2% compared to RW, and 21.4% compared to RD. In the same conditions in terms of the metric on the number of messages, the model collected 1109.56, 1534.26, and 4488.5 more messages than those in RWP, RW, and RD, respectively.

___

  • [1] Zordan D, Martinez B, Vilajosana I, Rossi M. On the Performance of lossy compression schemes for energy constrained sensor networking. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks 2014; 11 (1): 1-34. doi: 10.1145/2629660
  • [2] Lin Y, Shen H. VShare: A wireless social network aided vehicle sharing system using hierarchical cloud architecture. In: IEEE First International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation; Berlin, Germany; 2016. pp. 37-48.
  • [3] Campbell AT, Eisenman SB, Lane ND, Miluzzo E, Peterson RA et al. The rise of people-centric sensing. IEEE Internet Computing 2008; 12 (4): 12-21. doi: 10.1109/MIC.2008.90
  • [4] Bilgin M, Şentürk İF. Network connectivity and data quality in crowd assisted networks. In: Ask P (editor). Crowd Assisted Networking and Computing 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2018, pp. 137-159.
  • [5] Goodchild MF. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 2007; 69 (4): 211-221. doi: 10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y
  • [6] Boulos MNK, Resch B, Crowley DN, Breslin JG, Sohn G et al. Crowdsourcing, citizen sensing and sensor web technologies for public and environmental health surveillance and crisis management: trends, OGC standards and application examples. International Journal of Health Geographics 2011; 10 (67): 1-29. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-10- 67
  • [7] Liu J, Shen H,Narman HS, Chung W, Lin Z. A Survey of mobile crowdsensing techniques: a critical component for the internet of things. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems 2018; 2 (3): 18. doi: 10.1145/3185504
  • [8] Burke JA, Hansen M, Parker A, Ramanathan N, Reddy S et al. Participatory sensing. In: Workshop on WorldSensor-Web: Mobile Device Centric Sensor Networks and Applications; Boulder, Colorado, USA; 2006. pp. 117-134.
  • [9] Ra MR, Liu B, Porta TFL, Govindan R. Medusa: a programming framework for crowd-sensing applications. In: International conference on Mobile systems, applications, and services; Low Wood Bay, Lake District, UK; 2012. pp. 337-350.
  • [10] Carreras I, Miorandi D, Tamilin A, Ssebaggala ER, Conci N. Matador: mobile task detector for context-aware crowdsensing campaigns. In: IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops; San Diego, CA, USA; 2013. pp. 212-217.
  • [11] Zaslavsky A, Jayaraman PP, Krishnaswamy S. ShareLikesCrowd: Mobile analytics for participatory sensing and crowd-sourcing applications. In: IEEE 29th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops; Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 2013. pp. 128-135.
  • [12] Guo B, Yu Z, Zhou X, Zhang D. From participatory sensing to Mobile Crowd Sensing. In: IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops; Budapest, Hungary; 2014. pp. 593-598.
  • [13] Ma H, Zhao D, Yuan P. Opportunities in mobile crowd sensing. IEEE Communications Magazine 2014;52 (8):29-35. doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2014.6871666
  • [14] Zhang D, Wang L, Xiong H, Guo B. 4W1H in mobile crowd sensing. IEEE Communications Magazine 2014;52 (8):42-48. doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2014.6871668
  • [15] Pournajaf L, Xiong L, Sunderam V, Goryczka S. Spatial task assignment for crowd sensing with cloaked locations. In: IEEE 15th International Conference on Mobile Data Management; Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 2014. pp. 73-82.
  • [16] Wen Y, Shi J, Zhang Q, Tian X, Huang Z et al. Quality-driven auction-based incentive mechanism for mobile crowd sensing. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 2015; 64 (9):4203-4214. doi: 10.1109/TVT.2014.2363842
  • [17] Aly H, Basalamah A, Youssef M. Map++: A crowd-sensing system for automatic map semantics identification. In: IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communication, and Networking; Singapore, Singapore; 2014. pp. 546-554.
  • [18] Zhang X, Yang Z, Sun W, Liu Y, Tang S et al. Incentives for mobile crowd sensing: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 2016; 18 (1): 54-67. doi: 10.1109/COMST.2015.2415528
  • [19] Guo B, Wang Z, Yu Z, Wang Y, Yen NY et al. Mobile crowd sensing and computing: The review of an emerging human-powered sensing paradigm. ACM Computing Surveys 2016; 48 (1): 7. doi: 10.1145/2794400
  • [20] Hu S, Su L, Liu H, Wang H, Abdelzaher TF. SmartRoad: Smartphone-based crowd sensing for traffic regulator detection and identification. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks 2015; 11 (4):55. doi: 10.1145/2770876
  • [21] Althunibat S, Badarneh OS, Mesleh R. Random waypoint mobility model in space modulation systems. IEEE Communications Letters 2019; 23 (5): 884-887. doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2019.2907947
  • [22] Nawaz H, Ali HMA. Study of mobility models for uav communication networks. 3c Tecnología 2019; 8 (29): 276-297. doi: 10.17993/3ctecno.2019
  • [23] Guillen-Perez A, Cano MD. Flying ad hoc networks: A new domain for network communications. Sensors 2018; 18 (10): 3571. doi: 10.3390/s18103571
  • [24] Petit J, Lambiotte R, Carletti T. Classes of random walks on temporal networks. Applied Network Science 2019; 4 (1): 72. doi: 10.1007/s41109-019-0204-6
  • [25] Wu Q, Liu H, Zhang C, Fan Q, Li Z et al. Trajectory protection schemes based on a gravity mobility model in IoT. Electronics 2019; 8 (2): 148. doi: 10.3390/electronics8020148
  • [26] Hussaini M, Naeem MA, Kim BS, Maijama’a IS. Efficient producer mobility management model in informationcentric networking. IEEE Access 2019; 7: 42032-42051. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2907653
  • [27] Hussaini M, Nor SA, Ahmad A. PMSS: Producer mobility support scheme optimization with RWP mobility model in named data networking. International Journal of Communication Networks and Information Security 2018; 10 (2): 329-339. doi: 10.11591/ijece.v8i6.pp5432-5442
  • [28] Yoshimura Y, Sinatra R, Krebs A, Ratti C. Analysis of visitors’ mobility patterns through random walk in the Louvre museum. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 2019;1-16. doi: 10.1007/s12652-019- 01428-6
  • [29] Samouylov KEE, Gaidamaka YV, Shorgin SY. Modeling the movement of devices in a wireless network by random walk models. Informatics and its Applications 2018; 12 (4): 2-8. doi: 10.14357/19922264180401
  • [30] Johnson DB, Maltz DA. Dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks. In: Imielinski T, Korth HF (editors). Mobile Computing. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 1996, pp. 153-181.
  • [31] Camp T, Boleng J, Davies V. A survey of mobility models for ad hoc network research. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing 2002;2 (5):483-502. doi: 10.1002/wcm.72
  • [32] Broch J, Maltz DA, Johnson DB, Hu YC, Jetcheva J. A performance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols. In: IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking; Dallas, Texas, USA; 1998. pp. 85-97.
  • [33] Chiang CC, Gerla M. On-demand multicast in mobile wireless networks. In: International Conference on Network Protocols; Austin, TX, USA; 1998. pp. 262-270.
  • [34] Young-Bae K, Nitin V. Location‐Aided Routing (LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks. Wireless Networks 2000; 6 (4): 307-321. doi: 10.1023/A:1019106118419
  • [35] López MS, ManzoniSánchez P. ANEJOS: A Java based simulator for ad hoc networks. Future Generation Computer Systems 2001; 17 (5): 573-583. doi: 10.1016/S0167-739X(00)00040-6
  • [36] Davies VA. Evaluating mobility models within an ad hoc network. MSc, Colorado School of Mines, Colorado, USA, 2000.
  • [37] Garcia-Luna-Aceves JJ, Madruga EL. A multicast routing protocol for ad-hoc networks. In: IEEE Computer and Communications Societies; New York, USA; 1999. pp. 784-792.
  • [38] Bar-Noy A, Kessler I, Sidi M. Mobile users: to update or not to update?. Wireless Networks 1995; 1 (2):175-185. doi: 10.1007/BF01202540
  • [39] Rubin I, Choi CW. Impact of the location area structure on the performance of signaling channels in wireless cellular networks. IEEE Communications Magazine 1997;35 (2):108-115. doi: 10.1109/35.565672
  • [40] Zonoozi MM, Dassanayake P. User mobility modeling and characterization of mobility patterns. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 1997;15 (7):1239-1252. doi: 10.1109/49.622908
  • [41] Basagni S, Chlamtac I, Syrotiuk VR, Woodward BA. A distance routing effect algorithm for mobility (DREAM). In: ACM/IEEE international conference on Mobile computing and networking; Dallas, Texas, USA; 1998. pp. 76-84.
  • [42] Royer EM, Melliar-Smith M, Moser LE. An analysis of the optimum node density for ad hoc mobile networks. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications; Helsinki, Finland; 2001. pp. 857-861.