Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE 1

Article Critique: “PANCHENDRIYA: A Multi-sensing Framework through Wireless Sensor Networks for

Advanced Border Surveillance and Human Intrusion Detection”

Francis Mokogwu

Nazarbayev University

April 2021
ARTICLE CRITIQUE 2

Article Critique: “PANCHENDRIYA: A Multi-sensing Framework through Wireless Sensor Networks for

Advanced Border Surveillance and Human Intrusion Detection”

Border surveillance is pertinent to the sovereignty of a country. The recent border encroachment

menace in many countries worldwide engenders the need to develop a border surveillance system that

encompasses the secure sensing and detection of all potential breaches. Researchers have proposed

technologies that are often improvements of previous research in a bid to assuage the demand in

context. The paper under review (Arjun et al., 2019), is one of such studies that has thus far proposed a

multi-sensing framework for border surveillance. Fundamentally, this paper validates the approach

presented in (Arjun et al., 2018).

Summary

India is the 7th largest country in the world, having different topography around its borders. It

shares borders with several countries such as China, Bhutan, Pakistan, Nepal, Afghanistan and Pakistan

in the north and north-west, and with Bangladesh and Myanmar in the east, also shares some maritime

border with Sri Lanka (Borders of India - Wikipedia, n.d.). The recent terrorist activities at the volatile

Indian-Pakistan borders reinforced the authors’ conviction for the need for an effective border

surveillance system.

While there is an existing border patrol intensively involving human participation, it has proven

ineffectual during the recent terrorist attacks. This paper proposes a comprehensive border surveillance

system incorporating five different sensors to accurately detect and track intrusion over the topological

conditions of the country border. The sensors include; geophones, hydrophones, microphones, infrared
ARTICLE CRITIQUE 3

sensors, and cameras. The geophones and hydrophones are deployed on land and in water respectively

to sense intrusion. The microphones meticulously detect sounds from intruders crossing the border area

covered by dry leaves. The sensing cameras are strategically positioned to provide multimedia

information required for precise tracking and reporting. These group of sensors are interconnected in a

hybrid wireless sensor network (WSN) architecture termed “PANCHENDRIYA”; which is the

interpretation for “five-point”, possibly giving a hint on the number of the sensor types utilized. The

proposed system seeks to provide all-encompassing border surveillance keeping human involvement at

a bare minimum.

The architecture of the proposed system is typically divided into two layers; the first layer

comprises geophones, microphones and hydrophones while the second layer contains the cameras and

the infrared sensors. Primarily, the gateway sensors in the first layer collate sensing information and

transmit it to the central monitoring system (CMS) via a wireless protocol. Also, the infrared and camera

sensors in the second layer transmit sensing data to the CMS. Consequently, the CMS evaluates the data

received from both layers using the unique image/signal processing and event detection algorithm

embedded in it. The data is evaluated with respect to the predefined threshold and corresponding

output is produced, reflecting the event at the border. If any kind of human intrusion is detected, the

CMS immediately sends a warning to the border troops for action.

ARTICLE CRITIQUE 4

Critique of the content

Notably, I wish to identify the name of the developed system “PANCHENDRIYA” as an indigenous

name indicating its originality. The critical analysis of this paper helped me uncover the salient points

present in the study.

First of all, the description of the border areas especially “the area with dry leaves” lacks clarity.

It does not clearly describe a surface, because dry leaves could be present on any surface as long as there

are trees that shed leaves. Also, it is a known fact that the Indian-Pakistan border is an area largely

occupied by the Thar desert. It is also popular knowledge that this area is marked with frequent terrorist

attacks, making it a sensitive region requiring constant monitoring. However, the authors omitted this

sensitive area and this raises some doubts about the completeness of this study.

Secondly, it is worth noting that the objective of achieving a multi-sensing surveillance system

led to the choice of sensors utilized. However, to achieve a superior coverage of the border area and

effective sensing, unmanned aerial vehicles are required as illustrated in (Laouira et al., 2019).

Supplementarily, the authors failed to present the operational parameters of the chosen sensors but

discussed the type of surfaces where the sensors will be deployed and went further to make a general

statement that “the sensors are deployed based on their coverage range”. This is a scientific research

paper and specifics such as their make, operational frequency, sensing range, attenuation etc. should be

presented.

Thirdly, in the description of the block diagram in section IV, it was stated that “the first layer

continuously collects data from each of the sensors and communicate to the Central Monitoring Station

through wireless transmission”. This raises the question; “what type of wireless transmission?”. Different

types of wireless transmission protocols could drive this design. Hence, the failure to state the
ARTICLE CRITIQUE 5

transmission protocol is unacceptable. Also, the phrase “event/signal detection algorithm” is a vague

statement because every developed algorithm has a well-defined identity or at least a basis, such as the

one used and dutifully explained in the work presented by (DIlla DIratie & Al Agha, 2020). The need for

a clearer explanation of terms in scientific papers cannot be overemphasized.

Furthermore, the block diagram of “PANCHENDRIYA” in figure 3 gave an appropriate description

of the entire study. It presents an overview of the system due to a clear delineation of the key

information. At the same time, it is obvious that the information in figure 4 is crammed, making it

incomprehensible.

Conclusively, the novelty of this research is the incorporation of different sensors to complement

one another and achieve total surveillance of the entire border. The evident reduction of human

participation in border surveillance is achieved. However, the performance of this design cannot be

ascertained since there was no actual testing recorded, although it was reportedly reserved for future

work. From my perspective, the system should consider integrating perovskite solar cells to drive the

sensors efficiently since the original sensors are running on batteries that demand frequent

replacement. Also, this paper should have been a review, since it is devoid of any actual simulation and

results validating its performance.

Critique of the structure

The structure of the paper is based on the IEEE format, with the following components making

up the structure; title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion, acknowledgement and

references. The title was is clear and comprehensible, devoid of any irrelevant words or phrases. The
ARTICLE CRITIQUE 6

abstract is aptly scripted, giving a summary of the study background, problem statement, objectives of

the proposed design etc.

The “related works” section of the introduction presents a list of previous works done within the

scope of the study under review. However, this section in the paper lacks a logical flow of information.

However, the previous works reported in this paper are vital to this study but the manner of presentation

makes them incohesive with the subject matter.

Generally, the reporting of previous works in scientific papers is carried out in a manner such that

they relate to the study under review. In most cases, there is a direct comparison to the present study

but this is lacking in the paper. The idea is that since the “related works” have carried out similar research

previously, it behoves the originators of the present work to improve on the status quo. This is the case

presented in the first paragraph of the “related works” section. The work cited is a better version of the

current work being investigated by the authors of this paper.

The methods section, though not explicitly indicated, is well structured and outlined. It also

reinforces the readers’ comprehension through the use of diagrams and charts.

Critique of the language

The article under review being peer-reviewed satisfies certain criteria for an IEEE conference

paper. However, after meticulous analysis, I discovered certain avoidable inaccuracies. Under the

purview of grammatical accuracy, the statement in the abstract that reads “…..a multi-sensing system

that integrates different technologies to detect the human intrusion” is incorrect. This is corrected by

removing the definite article “the” before “human” or replacing it with “any”. The statement “the human

footsteps signal imposed on the ground can detect 100m away from the sensor region under ideal
ARTICLE CRITIQUE 7

situation” found in the related works section also lacks grammatical correctness. It can be duly corrected

as “the signals from human footsteps can be sensed 100m away from the sensor’s location”. This reduces

the verbose statement to a simpler one, communicating the same information with clarity.

A vivid representation of hedging is spotted in the description of the second layer of the proposed

design on (pg. 2). The description of the operation of the infrared sensors is vague. The authors seem

uncertain of the right words or scenario to infuse into the description. The tense of the sentence “the

data from lower layer nodes are communicate to the gateway node” found on (pg. 3); under the

description of the block diagram of “PANCHENDRIYA” is incorrect. The correct tense to be used is past

tense, hence the verb “communicate” is changed to “communicated”.

Finally, this paper lacks boosting words or tenses. The authors often presented information using

a passive voice lacking certainty. This could probably emanate from the absence of testing, simulation

and evaluation of the design; making the authors uncertain of the information to report. Hence, the

authors are extremely careful not to communicate erroneous information that could negatively impact

the acceptability of their work.

ARTICLE CRITIQUE 8

REFERENCES

[1] Arjun, D., Indukala, P. K., & Menon, K. A. U. (2018). Border surveillance and intruder detection using

wireless sensor networks: A brief survey. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on

Communication and Signal Processing, ICCSP 2017, 2018-Janua, 1125–1130.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSP.2017.8286552

[2] Arjun, D., Indukala, P. K., & Unnikrishna Menon, K. A. (2019). PANCHENDRIYA: A Multi-sensing

framework through Wireless Sensor Networks for Advanced Border Surveillance and Human

Intruder Detection. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Communication and

Electronics Systems, ICCES 2019, Icces, 295–298

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCES45898.2019.9002161

[3] Borders of India - Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2021, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_India

[4] DIlla DIratie, E., & Al Agha, K. (2020). Hybrid Internet of Things Network for Energy Efficient Video

Surveillance. IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things, WF-IoT 2020 - Symposium Proceedings, 1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1109/WF-IoT48130.2020.9221241

[5] Laouira, M. L., Abdelli, A., Ben Othman, J., & Kim, H. (2019). An efficient WSN based solution for

border surveillance. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing, March, 1–1.

https://doi.org/10.1109/tsusc.2019.2904855