2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmcj.2012.03.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Market mechanisms for resource allocation in pervasive sensor applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We note here that while Wei et al [2010] presented a theoretical performance analysis of target tracking with a Brownian-motion-modeled moving target, Chen et al [2008] studied market-based techniques to manage the operation of a sensor network tracking a target moving in a deterministicallyconstrained manner with the objective to minimize information value loss. We further note that in subsequent maturations of the latter work, such as Geyik et al [2012], the authors progressed from an originally loose distinction between quality and value of information to a more concrete separation of QoI and VoI along the lines of Bisdikian et al [2009b], where QoI reflected the effectiveness of a sensor network in providing information, for example, the latency experienced in delivering information, and VoI was derived from the QoI and the application context. This separation provided [Geyik et al 2012] a more solid framework for executing their management operations and applying the market-based techniques to additional use scenarios as well.…”
Section: Summary and Concluding Remarksmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…We note here that while Wei et al [2010] presented a theoretical performance analysis of target tracking with a Brownian-motion-modeled moving target, Chen et al [2008] studied market-based techniques to manage the operation of a sensor network tracking a target moving in a deterministicallyconstrained manner with the objective to minimize information value loss. We further note that in subsequent maturations of the latter work, such as Geyik et al [2012], the authors progressed from an originally loose distinction between quality and value of information to a more concrete separation of QoI and VoI along the lines of Bisdikian et al [2009b], where QoI reflected the effectiveness of a sensor network in providing information, for example, the latency experienced in delivering information, and VoI was derived from the QoI and the application context. This separation provided [Geyik et al 2012] a more solid framework for executing their management operations and applying the market-based techniques to additional use scenarios as well.…”
Section: Summary and Concluding Remarksmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Some recent studies in the literature, such as [73], do not differentiate between VoI and Quality of Information (QoI), which is defined by Sachidananda et al [6] as "the user's perceived quality towards the information." However, Geyik et al [74] distinguish between VoI and QoI, and Bisdikian et al [56] introduce a taxonomy for both QoI and VoI attributes. Both consider QoI as an objective measure of the information utility which can be determined from the information object only.…”
Section: A Quality Attributes Of Informationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, if the packet has not passed the congested node yet, the node does not approximate the time delay, meaning that the loss of information utility cannot be evaluated exactly. To allow the congested node to make more efficient decisions, the authors in [153] introduced a traveling auction scheme in which a node can share its local auction information with its neighbors. The traveling auction is similar to the auction scheme in [150] with the addition of the information sharing mechanism among nodes in the network.…”
Section: Congestion Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%