pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07020 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 💻 cs.IT · math.IT

Top-P Sensor Selection for Target Localization

Kaan Buyukkalayci , Kyle Pak , Merve Karakas , Xinlin Li , Christina Fragouli This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IT math.IT
keywords sensor selectiontarget localizationtop-p hypothesessequential hypothesis testinggeometry-aware algorithmtarget trackingset-valued decisions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Defining success as capturing the top-p likely target positions rather than the single closest one improves sensor selection for localization.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines set-valued decision rules where performance is judged by whether the true target location falls among the top-p hypothesized positions. This criterion fits sensor selection in target tracking, where cheap initial measurements help pick which nodes to activate for precise localization. It compares how top-p rules behave against traditional top-1 selection inside sequential hypothesis testing. A geometry-aware algorithm is introduced to choose sensors that raise the chance of including those top-p positions. Real testbed experiments then confirm that the approach works in practice.

Core claim

We study set-valued decision rules in which performance is defined by the inclusion of the top-p hypotheses, rather than only the single best or true hypothesis. This criterion is motivated by sensor selection for target tracking, where inexpensive measurements are used to identify a list of sensor nodes that are likely to be closest to a target. We analyze the performance of top-p versus top-1 selection under sequential hypothesis testing, propose a geometry-aware sensor selection algorithm, and validate the approach using real testbed data.

What carries the argument

The geometry-aware sensor selection algorithm that picks nodes to maximize inclusion of the top-p most probable target locations under sequential testing.

If this is right

  • Sequential testing can stop earlier when the stopping rule accounts for multiple hypotheses rather than only the single best one.
  • Geometry information lets the selector avoid redundant sensors that cover overlapping high-probability regions.
  • Fewer total measurements are needed to reach a given inclusion probability for the top-p set.
  • The same selection logic applies directly to any sensor network where early cheap reads narrow the list of plausible target spots.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The top-p idea could transfer to other multi-hypothesis problems such as radar tracking or indoor navigation with sparse beacons.
  • Energy savings in battery-powered networks would grow if the geometry-aware rule is combined with sleep scheduling for non-selected nodes.
  • Extending the analysis to dynamic targets that move between selection rounds would test whether the static top-p model still holds.

Load-bearing premise

That judging sensor selection by whether it includes the top-p hypotheses is a suitable performance measure for target tracking.

What would settle it

Run the proposed algorithm and a top-1 baseline on the same testbed trajectories; if the top-p version does not reduce the number of activated sensors or the final localization error, the claimed advantage does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07020 by Christina Fragouli, Kaan Buyukkalayci, Kyle Pak, Merve Karakas, Xinlin Li.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Accuracy vs. selection set size for different noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fitted 8-bin linear spline models for various nodes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Algorithm 1 and the Normalized Max Value Selection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accuracy vs average output set size for Algorithm 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Vehicle trajectory and sensor node placements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: reports the top-p containment accuracy as a function of the synchronization interval tsync for different values of p, with fixed parameters k = 3 and m = 5. We observe that, as expected, accuracy degrades as the synchronization interval increases, since longer intervals lead to larger local grids and consequently greater uncertainty in the posterior. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 s (seconds) 50 60 70 80 90 100… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fitted propagation models for all 10 nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average set size corresponding with Fig. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study set-valued decision rules in which performance is defined by the inclusion of the top-$p$ hypotheses, rather than only the single best or true hypothesis. This criterion is motivated by sensor selection for target tracking, where inexpensive measurements are used to identify a list of sensor nodes that are likely to be closest to a target. We analyze the performance of top-$p$ versus top-$1$ selection under sequential hypothesis testing, propose a geometry-aware sensor selection algorithm, and validate the approach using real testbed data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper studies set-valued decision rules in which performance is defined by inclusion of the top-p hypotheses rather than only the single best hypothesis. Motivated by sensor selection for target tracking, it analyzes the performance of top-p versus top-1 selection under sequential hypothesis testing, proposes a geometry-aware sensor selection algorithm, and validates the approach using real testbed data.

Significance. If the results hold, the work offers a practical contribution to sensor selection in target localization by shifting from single-hypothesis to set-valued criteria, supported by both theoretical comparison under sequential testing and empirical validation on real data. The geometry-aware algorithm and testbed results provide a concrete basis for assessing improvements over top-1 methods in tracking applications.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of the manuscript, recognition of its significance in set-valued decision rules for sensor selection, and recommendation to accept. We are pleased that the analysis of top-p versus top-1 under sequential testing, the geometry-aware algorithm, and the real testbed validation were viewed favorably.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper analyzes top-p versus top-1 selection under sequential hypothesis testing, proposes a geometry-aware sensor selection algorithm motivated by target tracking applications, and validates it on independent real testbed data. The set-valued performance criterion is presented as an application-driven choice rather than derived from the algorithm or fitted parameters. No load-bearing steps reduce by construction to self-citations, ansatzes, or renamed inputs; the central claims rest on external validation and analysis that does not presuppose the results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit details on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all arrays left empty due to insufficient information.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5381 in / 957 out tokens · 54212 ms · 2026-05-10T17:47:06.943795+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Information-driven dynamic sensor collaboration,

    F. Zhao, J. Shin, and J. Reich, “Information-driven dynamic sensor collaboration,”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 61–72, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Continuous inspection schemes,

    E. S. Page, “Continuous inspection schemes,”Biometrika, vol. 41, no. 1/2, pp. 100–115, 1954. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable /2333009

    work page 1954

  3. [3]

    Procedures for reacting to a change in distribution,

    G. Lorden, “Procedures for reacting to a change in distribution,”Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1897–1908, Ara 1971

    work page 1908

  4. [4]

    Quickest change detection in dis- tributed sensor systems,

    A. Tartakovsky and V . Veeravalli, “Quickest change detection in dis- tributed sensor systems,” inSixth International Conference of Informa- tion Fusion, 2003. Proceedings of the, vol. 2, 2003, pp. 756–763

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Coverage problems in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks,

    S. Meguerdichian, F. Koushanfar, M. Potkonjak, and M. Srivastava, “Coverage problems in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks,” inProceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2001. Conference on Computer Communications., vol. 3, 2001, pp. 1380–1387 vol.3

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Dynamic clustering for acoustic target tracking in wireless sensor networks,

    W.-P. Chen, J. Hou, and L. Sha, “Dynamic clustering for acoustic target tracking in wireless sensor networks,” in11th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, 2003, pp. 284–294

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Auction-based dynamic coalition for single target tracking in wireless sensor networks,

    J. Chen, C. Zang, W. Liang, and H. Yu, “Auction-based dynamic coalition for single target tracking in wireless sensor networks,” in2006 6th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, vol. 1, 2006, pp. 94–98

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Energy efficient target tracking in wireless sensor network using pf-svm (particle filter-support vector machine) technique,

    K. Reddy Madhavi, M. N. Mohd Nawi, B. Bhaskar Reddy, K. Baboji, K. Hari Kishore, and S. Manikanthan, “Energy efficient target tracking in wireless sensor network using pf-svm (particle filter-support vector machine) technique,”Measurement: Sensors, vol. 26, p. 100667, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Edge intelligence through in-sensor and near-sensor computing for the artificial intelligence of things,

    Y . Baek, B. Bae, H. Shinet al., “Edge intelligence through in-sensor and near-sensor computing for the artificial intelligence of things,”npj Unconventional Computing, vol. 2, p. 25, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44335-025-00040-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s44335-025-00040-6 2025

  10. [10]

    Intelligent sensing and computing in wireless sensor networks for multiple target tracking,

    X. Zou, L. Li, H. Du, and L. Zhou, “Intelligent sensing and computing in wireless sensor networks for multiple target tracking,”Journal of Sensors, vol. 2022, pp. 1–11, 04 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Selection of sensors for efficient transmitter localization,

    A. Bhattacharya, C. Zhan, A. Maji, H. Gupta, S. R. Das, and P. M. Djuri´c, “Selection of sensors for efficient transmitter localization,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 107–119, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Senseye: a multi- tier camera sensor network,

    P. Kulkarni, D. Ganesan, P. Shenoy, and Q. Lu, “Senseye: a multi- tier camera sensor network,” inProceedings of the 13th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2005, p. 229–238

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    Adaptive gps duty cycling and radio ranging for energy-efficient localization,

    R. Jurdak, P. Corke, D. Dharman, and G. Salagnac, “Adaptive gps duty cycling and radio ranging for energy-efficient localization,” in Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, ser. SenSys ’10. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2010, p. 57–70. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/1869983.1869990

    work page doi:10.1145/1869983.1869990 2010

  14. [14]

    Enhancing binary search via overlapping partitions,

    K. Buyukkalayci, M. Karakas, X. Li, and C. Fragouli, “Enhancing binary search via overlapping partitions,” in2025 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2025, pp. 1–6

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Refining search spaces with gradient-guided sensor activation,

    K. Buyukkalayci, X. Li, C. Fragouli, B. Krishnamachari, and G. Verma, “Refining search spaces with gradient-guided sensor activation,” in2025 59th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Keeping a target

    K. Buyukkalayci, X. Li, M. Karakas, T. Sarkar, C. Fragouli, and B. Krishnamachari, “Keeping a target ”on the radar”, using model- based group sensor selection algorithms,” inMILCOM 2025 - 2025 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM, 10 2025, pp. 856–861

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Loss functions for top-k error: Analysis and insights,

    M. Lapin, M. Hein, and B. Schiele, “Loss functions for top-k error: Analysis and insights,” in2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 1468–1477

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    On the consistency of top-k surrogate losses,

    F. Yang and S. Koyejo, “On the consistency of top-k surrogate losses,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, H. D. III and A. Singh, Eds., vol. 119. PMLR, 13–18 Jul 2020, pp. 10 727–10 735. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/yang20f.html

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Least ambiguous set-valued classifiers with bounded error levels,

    M. Sadinle, J. Lei, and L. Wasserman, “Least ambiguous set-valued classifiers with bounded error levels,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 114, 09 2016

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    List-decodable linear regres- sion,

    S. Karmalkar, A. Klivans, and P. Kothari, “List-decodable linear regres- sion,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Top- pSensor Selection for Target Localization,

    K. Buyukkalayci, K. Pak, M. Karakas, X. Li, and C. Fragouli, “Top- pSensor Selection for Target Localization,” 2025, [Online]. Available: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XmJTUsmzwAGTr9XH6HDFP2R4Z zAxHWLJ/view?usp=sharing. APPENDIXA PROOF OFTHEOREM1 For allh∈ H, letµ(h)≜[µ 1(h), . . . , µs(h)]⊤, and letK(h)⊆[s]denote the true unordered top-pindex set, wit...

    work page 2025