Next Article in Journal
3-D Image-Driven Morphological Crop Analysis: A Novel Method for Detection of Sunflower Broomrape Initial Subsoil Parasitism
Previous Article in Journal
Sensor Fusion and State Estimation of IoT Enabled Wind Energy Conversion System
Article Menu
Issue 7 (April-1) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sensors 2019, 19(7), 1568; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19071568

Fault Detection in Wireless Sensor Networks through the Random Forest Classifier

1
Department of Computer Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2
College of Computer and Information Sciences, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Computer Systems Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan
4
College of Computer Science and Information Technology, Al Baha University, Al Baha 11074, Saudi Arabia
5
College of Science, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44511, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 4 January 2019 / Revised: 20 February 2019 / Accepted: 25 February 2019 / Published: 1 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Sensor Networks)
  |  
PDF [1089 KB, uploaded 1 April 2019]
  |  

Abstract

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are vulnerable to faults because of their deployment in unpredictable and hazardous environments. This makes WSN prone to failures such as software, hardware, and communication failures. Due to the sensor’s limited resources and diverse deployment fields, fault detection in WSNs has become a daunting task. To solve this problem, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Random Forest (RF), and Probabilistic Neural Network (PNN) classifiers are used for classification of gain, offset, spike, data loss, out of bounds, and stuck-at faults at the sensor level. Out of six faults, two of them are induced in the datasets, i.e., spike and data loss faults. The results are compared on the basis of their Detection Accuracy (DA), True Positive Rate (TPR), Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCC), and F1-score. In this paper, a comparative analysis is performed among the classifiers mentioned previously on real-world datasets. Simulations show that the RF algorithm secures a better fault detection rate than the rest of the classifiers. View Full-Text
Keywords: WSNs; fault detection; machine learning; random forest; support vector machine; convolutional neural network WSNs; fault detection; machine learning; random forest; support vector machine; convolutional neural network
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Noshad, Z.; Javaid, N.; Saba, T.; Wadud, Z.; Saleem, M.Q.; Alzahrani, M.E.; Sheta, O.E. Fault Detection in Wireless Sensor Networks through the Random Forest Classifier. Sensors 2019, 19, 1568.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Sensors EISSN 1424-8220 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top