The Theory of Fusion Frames |
In wireless sensor networks, sensors of limited capacity and power are spread in an area sometimes as
large as an entire forest to measure the temperature, sound, vibration, pressure, motion and/or pollutants.
In some applications, wireless sensors are placed in a geographical area to detect and characterize chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear material. Such a sensor system is typically redundant, and there is no
orthogonality among sensors, therefore each sensor functions as a frame element in the system.
Due to practical and cost reasons, most sensors employed in such applications have severe constraints in
their processing power and transmission bandwidth. They often have strictly metered power supply as well.
Consequently, a typical large sensor network necessarily divides the network into redundant
sub-networks -- forming a set of subspaces.
The primary goal is to have local measurements transmitted to a local sub-station within a subspace for
a subspace combining. An entire sensor system in such applications could have a number of such local
processing centers. They function as relay stations, and have the gathered information further submitted
to a central processing station for final assembly.
Fusion frame systems are created to model sensor networks perfectly. The sensors in each sub-network
are modeled as frame vectors, which form a frame for a subspace in a Hilbert space. The subspaces, i.e., the
sub-networks, have to satisfy a certain overlapping property, which ensures that the overlaps
are not too large. In practise this condition will always be fulfilled, since we are mostly
dealing with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, and finite sets of subspaces.
The reconstruction in such a system is done in two steps. Inside the subspaces the conventional
frame reconstruction is employed. These local reconstructions then serve as the inputs for the
fusion frame reconstruction, which reconstructs the initial signal completely.
In the following we will first describe the basic definitions and notations related to fusion frames, and the focus on reconstruction issues.
Let I be some index set, let {Wi}i ∈ I be a family of closed subspaces in H, and let {vi}i ∈ I be a family of weights, i.e., vi > 0 for all i ∈ I. Further we denote the orthogonal projections onto Wi by Pi. Then {(Wi,vi)}i ∈ I is a fusion frame, if there exist positive, finite constants C and D such that
In frame theory an input signal is represented by a collection of scalar coefficients that measure the projection of that signal onto each frame vector. The representation space employed in this theory equals l2(I). However, in fusion frame theory an input signal is represented by a collection of vector coefficients that represent the projection (not just the projection energy) onto each subspace. Therefore the representation space employed in this setting is
Finite frame setting:
For computational needs, let us further consider the fusion frame operator in finite frame settings,
where the fusion frame operator will become the sum of (weighted) matrices of each subspace frame
operator.
Let Fi be the frame matrices formed by frame vectors
{fij}j ∈ Ji in the
column-by-column format [Fi ≡ (fi1,
fi2,...,fiji)].
Similarly, let Gi be defined in the same way by the dual frame
{gij}j ∈ Ji.
Then the fusion frame operator associated with finite frames has the expression
The first fundamental observation we make consists of the fact that distributed fusion processing is feasible in an elegant way by employing the inverse fusion frame operator. Let {(Wi,vi)}i ∈ I be a fusion frame for H with fusion frame operator S. Then we have the reconstruction formula