Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2013
50
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the impacts of applying game
theory on the network throughput, network voltage loss
and accuracy of malicious node detection to wireless sensor networks. We implement a protocol which the sensors
use when deciding whether or not to forward packets they
receive from other sensors in order to conserve power.
Nodes in a wireless sensor network accomplish this by
optimizing their decision making based on a framework
using game theory. Defining a suitable cost and profit to
routing and forwarding incoming packets and keeping a
history of experiences with non-cooperating nodes drives
malicious nodes out of the wireless sensor network.
Keywords: wireless sensors, game theory, security
Introduction
Related Work
51
communication protocols. Authors in [33] report on systematic experiments that conducted to quantify the impact of key wireless sensor network design and environmental parameters on battery performance.They evaluated the extent to which known electrochemical phenomena, such as rate-capacity characteristics, charge recovery
and thermal effects, can play a role in governing the selection of key wireless sensor networks design parameters
such as power levels and packet sizes. They have also analyzed the non-trivial implications of battery characteristics on wireless sensor networks power control strategies,
and find that a battery-aware approach to power level
selection leads to a 52% increase in battery efficiency.
The most work in this area relies on simulation of
generic battery models.There are a number of approaches
of energy management in sensor networks, including
topology management and network layer optimization.
Authors in [9] empirically examine the gain of battery
runtime due to the battery recovery effect, and found this
effect significant and dependent on duration. They also
proposed a more energy-efficient duty cycling scheme that
is aware of battery recovery effect, and analyzed its performance with respect to the latency of data delivery.
The benefit of behaving well is not obvious in the case
of a delay between granting a favor and repayment, which
is when nodes of a wireless sensor network forward packets for each other [7]. Defining a suitable cost and profit
to routing and forwarding incoming packets and keeping a
history of experiences with non-cooperating nodes drives
malicious nodes out of the wireless sensor network. Reputation systems are being used in many systems to provide
a means of obtaining a quality rating of participants of
transactions by having all parties give each other feedback on how their activities were perceived and evaluated
[28, 29]. In order to avoid centralized rating, local lists are
maintained at each node and nodes can look up senders
in their blacklist containing any node with a bad rating
before forwarding anything to them [23].
Like in all shared-medium networks, medium access
control (MAC) is an important technique that enables
the successful operation of the network. To design a good
MAC protocol for the wireless sensor networks, we have
to consider energy efficiency since prolonging network lifetime for these nodes is a critical issue. Major sources of
energy waste are collision, overhearing and idle listening
[38]. Therefore periodic listening and sleep reduces energy
consumption by avoiding idle listening.
Game Formulation
3.1
Equilibrium
52
53
cti
rit
si (h ) =
F orward
Do not f orward
t+1
if ut+1
A1 > uA2
otherwise
is the cost
is the gain of node is reputation,
where
of sending or forwarding a packet for the node as energy
loss, and and are weight parameters. We assume that
measurement data can be included in a single message
that we call a packet. Packets all have the same size. The
transmission cost for a single packet is a function of the
transmission distance [34].
At time t, each node calculates the utility to be gained
for each of the two actions available. For forwarding a
packet, the utility is calculated as:
k=1
rit =
t1
X
i (k)
3.3
Configurations
We use three major network configurations. The first configuration, named case1, consists of a network of wireless sensors which broadcast packets to any nodes within
range. Since the nodes in our experiment are located
within a small distance of each other, all nodes in the network are capable of broadcasting directly to every other
node in the network. Whenever a node receives a packet
from another node and forwards the packet, that packet
is re-broadcast to every node within range. For networks
of a large size, this generates a large amount of traffic. In
an attempt to remedy this, another network configuration
was developed [20].
Case2 utilizes a neighbor system. Each node has a
neighbor table that holds the IDs of several neighbors,
which are determined by a handshaking process that occurs after the nodes boot up and send an initial voltage
reading to the base station. The neighbor relationship
is bi-directional. Whenever a node receives a packet, it
checks the data. This gives the ID number of the node
that just sent the packet. If the ID found in path of the
packet is not found in the neighbor table of the receiving
node, the node ignores the packet and no further action is
taken. However, if the ID of the node that just forwarded
the packet matches an ID in the neighbor table, then the
nodes number of packets received is incremented and the
node will take the appropriate action with the packet.
Since we did not have access to a large testing area where
we could spread the nodes out further, this is an attempt
to emulate a less dense, less traffic-heavy network than
what is found in case1.
The third network configuration utilizes cluster networking. The network consists of groups of sensors called
clusters, where the sensors in a cluster report to a sensor in the network that is designated as the cluster-head
of the network. All non cluster-heads within a cluster,
known as members of a cluster, only communicate directly with their respective cluster-heads. Cluster-heads
transfer data to the base station where the data is to be
collected and stored [6]. In our simulations, the process
of determining which cluster-head a sensor reports to is
based on the sensors battery level. If a member receives
a packet broadcast by a cluster-head within range, the
member will forward that packet directly to its clusterhead.
For each configuration, simulations are run both with
and without implementing game theory. By doing so, we
can compare average network throughput, as well as voltage loss, and see under which scenario using one would
be favorable over the other. The sensor programs for the
game theory and non game theory configurations are identical except that the game theory program implements the
strategy of whether or not to forward a packet that it receives. For the first two configurations, the networks are
either entirely comprised of nodes that implement game
theory or entirely of nodes that do not implement game
theory. When we implement game theory in the cluster
54
3.4
Performance Evaluation
In the case1 scenarios, the simulation starts with an initial voltage reading from each sensor. In this work we
have used MICAZ sensors [19], which run on TinyOs [37].
Next, a packet is broadcast once every 200 milliseconds
for 300 seconds. Then a final voltage reading is sent to
the base station. In the case2 scenarios, after the initial
voltage reading, the neighbor handshaking phase takes
place. After the neighbor handshaking process, each node
broadcasts data once every 200 milliseconds for 300 seconds. Lastly, a final voltage reading is sent to the base
station. In the cluster networking scenarios, an initial
voltage reading is sent from each sensor. Next, cluster
membership is established for each non clusterhead node
in the network. After that, a packet is broadcast once
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
Number of Nodes in Network
Figure 2 shows that for case1, implementing game theory results in a lower voltage loss for smaller networks, but
results in a greater voltage loss for larger networks. As
the size of a network increases, so does the traffic. Since
deciding whether or not to forward a packet by using a
strategy also consumes power, there is a point where the
frequency of deciding whether or not to forward an incoming packet is so high that the energy used for implementing the strategy is greater than the amount of energy the
node tries to save by not forwarding packets. For case2,
implementing game theory consistently results in a lower
network voltage loss. The neighbor system helps reduce
the amount of traffic in the network, which prevents the
voltage loss that happens with larger networks in case1.
Correct % of Malicious Nodes Removed
30
55
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% of Malicious Nodes in Network
90
100
Figure 1: Average network throughput for normal nodes. Figure 3: Average percentage of malicious nodes correctly
removed from network.
As shown in Figure 1, reputations for simulations using
game theory have a lower reputation, than simulations
not using game theory, regardless of network size. By
implementing game theory, the average throughput of the
network drops, but this is to be expected since the sensors
are dropping packets based on a set of rules in order to
save power.
100
80
60
56
40
20
0
200
-20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% of Malicious Nodes in Network
90
100
-200
Utility
20
-400
-600
-800
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
-1000
0
100
150
200
250
300
350
Time (s)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 5:
nodes.
100
50
40
30
25
Utility
35
Voltage Loss (mV)
50
-50
-100
-150
-200
20
-250
15
-300
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
% of Malicious Nodes in Network
100
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
100
Utility
50
0
-50
-100
-150
0
50
100
150
200
Time (s)
250
300
350
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number 1054492.
References
[1] A. Agah, M. Asadi, and C. Zimmerman, Maximizing battery life: Applying game theory to wireless
sensor networks, The WCU Research Consortium,
2011.
[2] A. Agah, S. K. Das, and K. Basu, Enforcing security for prevention of dos attack in wireless sensor
networks using economical modeling, Proceedings of
the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Mobile
Ad-Hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS), 2005.
[3] A. Agah, S. K. Das, and K. Basu, Preventing dos
attack in sensor and actor networks: A game theoretic approach, IEEE International Conference on
Communications (ICC), 2005.
57
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
58