DaQual: Data Quality Assessment for Tree Trunk Relative Water Content Sensors in a Pomegranate Orchard
Authors: 
Yue Zhang, Abdias Tellez Benitez, Reza Ehsani, and Shijia PanAuthors Info & Claims
Yue Zhang, Abdias Tellez Benitez, Reza Ehsani, and Shijia PanAuthors Info & ClaimsNovember 2022
Pages 1096 - 1101
Abstract
High-fidelity sensor data quality is the fundamental base of smart agriculture. Since crop information inference and cultivating strategy optimization mainly depend on data-driven methods; the data quality assessment is essential to ensure the reliability of the IoT systems for smart agriculture. The traditional data quality assessment methods focus on sensor data consistency with the costly reference truth, which is often not scalable for agricultural applications.
We present DaQual, a data-driven data quality assessment scheme for tree trunk relative water content sensors in a pomegranate orchard. The objective is to leverage the neural network architecture to learn the underlying relationship between sensors deployed on the same farm and utilize the quantified associated relationship between sensors to assess its reliability. DaQual first builds a prediction model for each sensor with all other sensors' data as input. Then, the trained network's parameter values (weights) are used to quantify the contribution of the sensor - the higher the contribution, the higher its data quality. We evaluate DaQual via a real-world tree trunk relative water content sensor dataset with nine sensors deployed in a pomegranate orchard, and our scheme demonstrates up to 1.8× improvements when used to select a subset of sensors with high data quality.
References
[1]
2022. Nonclassical multidimensional scaling. https://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/mdscale.html
[2]
2022. triangular window. https://www.mathworks.com/help/signal/ref/triang.html
[3]
Jeremy Adler and Ingela Parmryd. 2010. Quantifying colocalization by correlation: the Pearson correlation coefficient is superior to the Mander's overlap coefficient. Cytometry Part A 77, 8 (2010), 733--742.
[4]
Deepesh Agarwal, Pravesh Srivastava, Sergio Martin-del Campo, Balasubramaniam Natarajan, and Babji Srinivasan. 2021. Addressing Uncertainties within Active Learning for Industrial IoT. In 2021 IEEE 7th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT). 557--562.
[5]
A Alizadeh, A Toudeshki, R Ehsani, K Migliaccio, and D Wang. 2021. Detecting tree water stress using a trunk relative water content measurement sensor. Smart Agricultural Technology 1 (2021), 100003.
[6]
Muhammad Ayaz, Mohammad Ammad-Uddin, Zubair Sharif, Ali Mansour, and El-Hadi M Aggoune. 2019. Internet-of-Things (IoT)-based smart agriculture: Toward making the fields talk. IEEE access 7 (2019), 129551--129583.
[7]
Laura Balzano and Robert Nowak. 2007. Blind calibration of sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Information processing in sensor networks. 79--88.
[8]
Victor Blanco and Lee Kalcsits. 2021. Microtensiometers Accurately Measure Stem Water Potential in Woody Perennials. Plants 10, 12 (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/10/12/2780
[9]
Katarzyna J Blinowska, Rafał Kuś, and Maciej Kamiński. 2004. Granger causality and information flow in multivariate processes. Physical Review E 70, 5 (2004), 050902.
[10]
InduShobha N Chengalur-Smith, Donald P Ballou, and Harold L Pazer. 1999. The impact of data quality information on decision making: an exploratory analysis. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering 11, 6 (1999), 853--864.
[11]
PyTorch Contributors. 2022. CONV1D. https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/generated/torch.nn.Conv1d.html
[12]
PyTorch Contributors. 2022. Reducelronplateau. https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/generated/torch.optim.lr_scheduler.ReduceLROnPlateau.html
[13]
Ramide Augusto Sales Dantas, Milton Vasconcelos da Gama Neto, Ivan Dimitry Zyrianoff, and Carlos Alberto Kamienski. 2020. The swamp farmer app for iot-based smart water status monitoring and irrigation control. In 2020 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for Agriculture and Forestry (MetroAgriFor). IEEE, 109--113.
[14]
Saverio De Vito, Marco Piga, Luca Martinotto, and Girolamo Di Francia. 2009. CO, NO2 and NOx urban pollution monitoring with on-field calibrated electronic nose by automatic bayesian regularization. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 143, 1 (2009), 182--191.
[15]
Muhammad Shoaib Farooq, Shamyla Riaz, Adnan Abid, Kamran Abid, and Muhammad Azhar Naeem. 2019. A Survey on the Role of IoT in Agriculture for the Implementation of Smart Farming. Ieee Access 7 (2019), 156237--156271.
[16]
Jessica Feng, Seapahn Megerian, and Miodrag Potkonjak. 2003. Model-based calibration for sensor networks. In SENSORS, 2003 IEEE, Vol. 2. IEEE, 737--742.
[17]
JE Fernández. 2014. Plant-based sensing to monitor water stress: Applicability to commercial orchards. Agricultural water management 142 (2014), 99--109.
[18]
JE Fernández and MV Cuevas. 2010. Irrigation scheduling from stem diameter variations: a review. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150, 2 (2010), 135--151.
[19]
Craig W Fisher, InduShobha Chengalur-Smith, and Donald P Ballou. 2003. The impact of experience and time on the use of data quality information in decision making. Information systems research 14, 2 (2003), 170--188.
[20]
John R Freeman. 1983. Granger causality and the times series analysis of political relationships. American Journal of Political Science (1983), 327--358.
[21]
Ruiyang Gao, Wenwei Li, Yaxiong Xie, Enze Yi, Leye Wang, Dan Wu, and Daqing Zhang. 2022. Towards Robust Gesture Recognition by Characterizing the Sensing Quality of WiFi Signals. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 6, 1 (2022), 1--26.
[22]
Laura García, Lorena Parra, Jose M Jimenez, Jaime Lloret, and Pascal Lorenz. 2020. IoT-based smart irrigation systems: An overview on the recent trends on sensors and IoT systems for irrigation in precision agriculture. Sensors 20, 4 (2020), 1042.
[23]
Syeda Iqra Hassan, Muhammad Mansoor Alam, Usman Illahi, Mohammed A Al Ghamdi, Sultan H Almotiri, and Mazliham Mohd Su'ud. 2021. A systematic review on monitoring and advanced control strategies in smart agriculture. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 32517--32548.
[24]
Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. 1026--1034.
[25]
Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 770--778.
[26]
Binh-Son Hua, Minh-Khoi Tran, and Sai-Kit Yeung. 2018. Pointwise convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 984--993.
[27]
Aimad Karkouch, Hajar Mousannif, Hassan Al Moatassime, and Thomas Noel. 2016. Data quality in internet of things: A state-of-the-art survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 73 (2016), 57--81.
[28]
Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).
[29]
Ankur Kohli, Rohit Kohli, Bhupendra Singh, and Jasjit Singh. 2020. Smart plant monitoring system using IoT technology. In Handbook of Research on the Internet of Things Applications in Robotics and Automation. IGI Global, 318--366.
[30]
Chaofeng Li and Alan C Bovik. 2009. Three-component weighted structural similarity index. In Image quality and system performance VI, Vol. 7242. SPIE, 252--260.
[31]
Leslie Lipper, Philip Thornton, Bruce M Campbell, Tobias Baedeker, Ademola Braimoh, Martin Bwalya, Patrick Caron, Andrea Cattaneo, Dennis Garrity, Kevin Henry, et al. 2014. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature climate change 4, 12 (2014), 1068--1072.
[32]
Yuehua Liu, Tharam Dillon, Wenjin Yu, Wenny Rahayu, and Fahed Mostafa. 2020. Noise removal in the presence of significant anomalies for industrial IoT sensor data in manufacturing. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 7, 8 (2020), 7084--7096.
[33]
Balz Maag, Olga Saukh, David Hasenfratz, and Lothar Thiele. 2016. Pre-Deployment Testing, Augmentation and Calibration of Cross-Sensitive Sensors. In EWSN. 169--180.
[34]
Meike Nauta, Doina Bucur, and Christin Seifert. 2019. Causal discovery with attention-based convolutional neural networks. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction 1, 1 (2019), 312--340.
[35]
Boon Chong Ng and Chong Meng Samson See. 1996. Sensor-array calibration using a maximum-likelihood approach. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 44, 6 (1996), 827--835.
[36]
Alan V Oppenheim and Ronald W Schafer. 1975. Digital signal processing(Book). Research supported by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bell Telephone Laboratories, and Guggenheim Foundation. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975. 598 p (1975).
[37]
Antonios E Panteleon, Kerstin Rebrin, and Garry M Steil. 2003. The role of the independent variable to glucose sensor calibration. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 5, 3 (2003), 401--410.
[38]
David A Pierce and Larry D Haugh. 1977. Causality in temporal systems: Characterization and a survey. Journal of econometrics 5, 3 (1977), 265--293.
[39]
Leo L Pipino, Yang W Lee, and Richard Y Wang. 2002. Data quality assessment. Commun. ACM 45, 4 (2002), 211--218.
[40]
S Pooja, DV Uday, UB Nagesh, and Shamitha Gurunath Talekar. 2017. Application of MQTT protocol for real time weather monitoring and precision farming. In 2017 International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Communication, Computer, and Optimization Techniques (ICEECCOT). IEEE, 1--6.
[41]
Josh Robinson, Scott Kuzdeba, James Stankowicz, and Joseph M Carmack. 2020. Dilated causal convolutional model for RF fingerprinting. In 2020 10th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC). IEEE, 0157--0162.
[42]
Sebastian Ruder. 2016. An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04747 (2016).
[43]
Anil Seth. 2007. Granger causality. Scholarpedia 2, 7 (2007), 1667.
[44]
Ralf Steuer, Jürgen Kurths, Carsten O Daub, Janko Weise, and Joachim Selbig. 2002. The mutual information: detecting and evaluating dependencies between variables. Bioinformatics 18, suppl_2 (2002), S231--S240.
[45]
Sumya Tabassum, Afzal Hossain, et al. 2018. Design and development of weather monitoring and controlling system for a smart agro (farm). Intelligent Control and Automation 9, 03 (2018), 65.
[46]
Deepak Vasisht, Zerina Kapetanovic, Jongho Won, Xinxin Jin, Ranveer Chandra, Sudipta Sinha, Ashish Kapoor, Madhusudhan Sudarshan, and Sean Stratman. 2017. {FarmBeats}: An {IoT} Platform for {Data-Driven} Agriculture. In 14th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 17). 515--529.
[47]
Yuan Yao, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Andrea Caponnetto. 2007. On early stopping in gradient descent learning. Constructive Approximation 26, 2 (2007), 289--315.
[48]
Lei Zhang, Fengchun Tian, Chaibou Kadri, Bo Xiao, Hongjuan Li, Lina Pan, and Hongwei Zhou. 2011. On-line sensor calibration transfer among electronic nose instruments for monitoring volatile organic chemicals in indoor air quality. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 160, 1 (2011), 899--909.
[49]
Yue Zhang, Zhizhang Hu, Susu Xu, and Shijia Pan. 2021. AutoQual: task-oriented structural vibration sensing quality assessment leveraging co-located mobile sensing context. CCF Transactions on Pervasive Computing and Interaction 3, 4 (2021), 378--396.
[50]
Yang-Yang Zheng, Jian-Lei Kong, Xue-Bo Jin, Xiao-Yi Wang, Ting-Li Su, and Min Zuo. 2019. CropDeep: the crop vision dataset for deep-learning-based classification and detection in precision agriculture. Sensors 19, 5 (2019), 1058.
Index Terms
- DaQual: Data Quality Assessment for Tree Trunk Relative Water Content Sensors in a Pomegranate Orchard
Recommendations
Addressing data quality problems with metamorphic data relations
MET '19: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Metamorphic TestingIn the era of big data, cloud computing and the Internet of Things, the quality of data has tremendous impact on our everyday life. Moreover, the increasing velocity, volume and variety of data requires new approaches for quality assessment. In this ...
Quality assessment of Landsat surface reflectance products using MODIS data
Surface reflectance adjusted for atmospheric effects is a primary input for land cover change detection and for developing many higher level surface geophysical parameters. With the development of automated atmospheric correction algorithms, it is now ...
BIGQA: Declarative Big Data Quality Assessment
In the big data domain, data quality assessment operations are often complex and must be implementable in a distributed and timely manner. This article tries to generalize the quality assessment operations by providing a new ISO-based declarative data ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2022
1280 pages
ISBN:9781450398862
DOI:10.1145/3560905
- General Chairs:
- Jeremy Gummeson,
- Sunghoon Ivan Lee,
- Program Chairs:
- Jie Gao,
- Guoliang Xing
Copyright © 2022 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
- SIGMETRICS: ACM Special Interest Group on Measurement and Evaluation
- SIGCOMM: ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication
- SIGMOBILE: ACM Special Interest Group on Mobility of Systems, Users, Data and Computing
- SIGOPS: ACM Special Interest Group on Operating Systems
- SIGBED: ACM Special Interest Group on Embedded Systems
- SIGARCH: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Architecture
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 24 January 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
Conference
SenSys '22: The 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems
November 6 - 9, 2022
Massachusetts, Boston
Acceptance Rates
SenSys '22 Paper Acceptance Rate 52 of 187 submissions, 28%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 174 of 867 submissions, 20%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 220Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)145
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)21
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in