Power Optimal Control In Multi-Hop Wireless Networks With .

1y ago
325.00 KB
11 Pages
Last View : 20d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Dani Mulvey

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.1Power Optimal Control in Multi-Hop WirelessNetworks with Finite BuffersDongyue Xue, Student Member, IEEE, and Eylem Ekici, Senior Member, IEEEAbstract—In this paper, we propose two cross-layer algorithms, namely, Power-optimal Scheduling Algorithm (PSA) andThroughput-optimal Scheduling Algorithm (TSA), to minimizeenergy consumption and to maximize throughput, respectively,in multi-hop wireless networks. Our algorithms guarantee aflow-based minimum data rate and jointly integrate congestioncontrol, power allocation, routing and link rate scheduling. Different from traditional algorithms which assume infinite buffers,the proposed algorithms deterministically upper-bound the flowbased packet queue length and thus can be employed in multi-hopnetworks with finite buffers. In addition, the algorithms achievea power expenditure/throughput “ǫ-close” to the optimal value,with a tradeoff of order O( 1ǫ ) in the buffer size. The averageend-to-end delay upper-bound can also be derived from the finitebuffer property. Finally, numerical results are presented to showthe performance of the two algorithms with different systemparameters.Index Terms—Flow control, power allocation, network scheduling, multi-hop wireless networks, finite bufferI. I NTRODUCTIONWith expanding wireless applications and increasing demand for wireless data rates, it is significant to develop powercontrol algorithms that take maximum advantage of availablecapacity while satisfying certain Quality of Service (QoS)requirements such as minimum data rate and end-to-end delayconstraints.Recently, back-pressure algorithm [1] and its extensionshave been widely employed in developing optimal schedulingin wireless networks. Throughput/utility-optimal routing andscheduling algorithms have been developed in [4]- [6], withsuboptimal algorithms and distributed algorithms proposed in[7]- [12]. Optimal power allocation algorithm is further analyzed in [2], with additional congestion controllers consideredin [3]. The above referenced works do not deal with delayrelated issues in depth. Delay analysis of back-pressure-basedalgorithms and delay-related works can be found in [19]- [23].However, these works do not provide explicit queue backlog(or buffer size) guarantees. The throughput-optimal algorithmin [18] guarantees finite buffer size but the link capacity isassumed to be fixed and power allocation is not considered.Finite buffer property is an important factor for QoS sensitive wireless network applications. Not only are buffer sizesCopyright c 2012 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be obtainedfrom the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA (e-mail: xued,ekici@ece.osu.edu).This work was supported in part by NSF grant CCF-0914912. Preliminaryresults [30] of this work were presented in part in IEEE ICC 2011, Kyoto,Japan, June 2011.closely related to end-to-end delay on a per-flow basis, limitingbuffer sizes is also essential to mitigate playout buffer overflowproblems in multimedia applications. In addition, algorithmswith finite buffer property can also find their application inresource-limited wireless networks such as wireless sensornetworks.In this paper, we develop two cross-layer scheduling algorithms that aim to optimize power allocation in multi-hopwireless networks with finite buffers. Specifically, we proposea Power-optimal Scheduling Algorithm (PSA) to minimizeenergy expenditure, and a Throughput-optimal Scheduling Algorithm (TSA) to maximize throughput, respectively. Since theobjectives of energy consumption minimization and throughput optimization may cause unfairness to individual flowsin the network, we place additional per-flow minimum datarate constraints. In addition, we impose maximum link energyconsumption constraints in the PSA algorithm to limit energyexpenditure. We introduce virtual queues to guarantee the datarate constraints and the energy consumption constraints. BothPSA and TSA are composed of a regulator, a congestioncontroller, a power allocator, and a link rate scheduler. Theregulator regulates the virtual queue dynamics, the congestioncontroller is employed to admit packets from transport layer,while the power allocator determines the power allocation forlinks in the network, and the link rate scheduler schedulestransmission rates for individual flows. Furthermore, we consider adaptive routing scenario, i.e., the routes of each floware not determined a priori, which is more general than fixedrouting scenario. Note that the proposed PSA and TSA arecentralized algorithms which are developed to serve as thebenchmarks for real deployments. Specifically, we assume acentralized setting, such that power is allocated over all thelinks in the network simultaneously via a centralized component, e.g., access point or base station. The interference modelsemployed in this work, such as the node-exclusive interferencemodel, are generally used to handle cases involving hiddenterminals in centralized algorithms. Thus, problems such ashidden terminals, which exist in a random access setting, donot exist in the context considered in this work.To the best of our knowledge, our power allocation algorithms are the first of their kind to achieve an energyconsumption/throughput performance at least ǫ-close to theoptimal, with a tradeoff of in the buffer size for individualflows at nodes. The buffer size upper-bound is deterministic,which leads to bounded average end-to-end delay by Little’sLaw. In comparison, the buffer size is assumed infinitely largein the power allocation algorithm proposed in [3]. In [16][17], which aim to achieve optimal throughput-utility, theCopyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.2ingress buffer size (the buffer size at source nodes) is assumedinfinitely large although the internal buffer sizes are finite.With the assumption of infinite buffer sizes, the algorithmsproposed in the above related works may have to experienceadditional packet loss in finite-buffer networks such as sensornetworks where resources are limited and packet queue lengthsare constrained to finite (constant or varying) buffer sizes.On the contrary, during our algorithm design, we take thebuffer size as a specific requirement which ensures feasibleimplementations of the algorithms in finite-buffer multi-hopwireless networks.The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section IIprovides the network model for multi-hop wireless networks.In Section III and IV, we propose the optimal power allocationand scheduling algorithms PSA and TSA, respectively, andanalyze their performances. The numerical results of theproposed algorithm are provided in Section V. Finally, weconclude our work in Section VI.II. N ETWORK M ODELA. Network ElementsWe consider a multi-hop wireless network consisting of Nnodes and K flows. In the network topology, we denote byF the set of flows, N the set of nodes, L the set of directedlinks in the network, and (m, n) L a link from node m tonode n. In the network, flows follow routes that are determinedadaptively. Additionally, we denote the source node and thedestination node of a flow c F as b(c) and d(c), respectively.A generic cross-layer power control algorithm consists of acongestion controller, a power allocator and link rate scheduleracross transport layer and network layer. Packets are generatedby specific applications at the transport layer, admitted to thenetwork layer at the source node (by a congestion controller)1and transferred from source node to destination node in thenetwork layer (by a power allocator and link rate scheduler).We consider a centralized schedule-based channel, where thechannel access is characterized by a power allocation vectorand determined by the power allocator.We consider a time-slotted system with integer-valuedtime t {0, 1, 2, .}.2 The centralized power schedulingover the channel is characterized by P(t), where P(t) (Pmn (t))(m,n) L represents the power allocation vector fortime slot t according to a generic power allocator. We constrainP(t) to be in Π, i.e., P(t) Π, where Π is the compact andconvex set of feasible power vectors. We also assume thatPmn (t) PM , (m, n) L, P(t) Π, where PM is thepower upper-bound. In addition, we denote µmn (P(t)) as thelink rate function for link (m, n) corresponding to the powerassignment P(t), and denote µ(P(t)) (µmn (P(t)))(m,n) L .1 We note that the backlogged source of a flow can be considered anapplication waiting for packet generation and admission (e.g., a variable ratemultimedia encoder). The term “congestion controller” is different than invarious TCP versions and corresponds to the packet admission rate to thenetwork as in [3].2 Note also that a number of time synchronization methods have beenproposed in the literature, e.g., [27] [28] [29], which can be utilized to ensuresynchronized operation in the time-slotted system we use in our work.A wide range of underlying interference models can be characterized by the link rate functions, where the interferencecaused by simultaneous relaying or transmission in sharedwireless channel environment is addressed. In the following,we take the node-exclusive interference model and SNIRmodel for instance.The node-exclusive interference model [13], which modelswireless networks such as Bluetooth networks [14] and FHCDMA networks [15], can be characterized by µ(P(t)) satisfying, (m1 , n1 ) 6 (m2 , n2 ) L such that {m1 , n1 } {m2 , n2 } 6 ,µm1 n1 (P(t))µm2 n2 (P(t)) 0, P(t).(1)In the node-exclusive interference model [13], a link transmission is only interfered by other simultaneous transmissionwithin a one-hop distance, and equation (1) constrains thata node can involve in at most one communication in onetime slot, i.e., simultaneous transmission or relaying withinany one-hop distance is avoided.The Signal to Noise and Interference Ratio (SNIR) model,where the link transmission rates are dependent on the interference heard from surrounding simultaneous transmission,can be characterized by µ(P(t)) satisfying:!Gmn (t)Pmn (t)P,µmn (P(t)) fmnBn (i,j)6 (m,n) Gin (t)Pij (t)(2)where Bn is the base noise at node n N , Gmn (t) thepropagation gain from the transmitter to the receiver of link(m, n) L in time slot t, and fmn (·) the function of SNIRcharacterizing the link rates associated with the underlyinginterference model. We assume the propagation gain process(Gmn (t)) is ergodic and takes values over a finite state space.For convenience of analysis, we assume that the link ratefunctions are upper semi-continuous, and define:Xln , maxµjn (P),P Πj:(j,n) LfM , max ln ,(3)n NlM , max maxn N P ΠXµni (P),i:(n,i) Li.e., lM and fM are the maximum departure rate from anode and the maximum endogenous arrival rate into a node,respectively.For a feasible link rate scheduler in time slot t, we letthe scheduling parameter µcmn (t) be the link rate assignmentforP flow cc for link (m, n). Thus, given P(t), we must havec F µmn (t) µmn (P(t)), (m, n) L.We assume that the source node for flow c is alwaysbacklogged at the transport layer. For a congestion controller,let µcs(c)b(c) (t) be the admitted rate of flow c from the transportlayer of flow to the source node, where we can regard s(c) asthe source at the transport layer of flow c. It is clear that inany time slot t, µcs(c)n (t) 0 n 6 b(c). We also assume thatµcs(c)b(c) (t) is upper-bounded by a constant µM 0:µcs(c)b(c) (t) µM , c F, t,(4)Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.3i.e., at most µM packets can be admitted into a source nodein any time slot. To simplify the analysis, we prevent loopingback to the source, i.e., we impose the following constraintsX(µcmb(c) (t)) 0 c F, t.(5)m NIn addition, we assume that the network requires each flowc should transmit at a minimum data rate of ac packets pertime slot.a virtual link from transport layer to the source node. We nowmodel queue dynamics and network constraints in the multihop network. For flow c, if n d(c), i.e., n is the destinationnode of flow c, then we have Unc (t) 0 t; Otherwise, thequeue dynamics are:XUnc (t 1) [Unc (t) µcni (t)] i:(n,i) L Xµcjn (t), if n N \d(c).(10)j:(j,n) LcB. Network Constraints and ApproachesNetwork stability and optimality are two necessary goals forthe algorithm designs. We first introduce the notion of networkstability in this subsection and note that power optimalityand throughput optimality will be defined in Section III andSection IV where we propose PSA and TSA, respectively. Agiven power control algorithm is said to stabilize the networkif it stabilizes all actual packet queues. Hence, to representnetwork stability, we begin with a definition of queue stabilitywith respect to a generic queue backlog A(t). The queue isstable ift 11XE{A(τ )} .lim supt tτ 0In addition, we present the following lemma on the stabilityof queues:Lemma 1: If a queue A(t) is stable with some genericservice process µ(t) and some generic arrival process R(t)such that the queue dynamics is of the form A(t 1) [A(t) µ(t)] R(t), where we define the operator [x] as [x] max{x, 0}, then:t 1lim supt t 11X1XE{µ(τ )} lim supE{R(τ )}t τ 0t tτ 0t 1(6)(7)Proof: From the queue dynamics, we have:A(t) A(0) t 1Xτ 0which yields:t 11XE{A(t)} ttτ 0t 11XE{A(t)} ttE{µ(τ )} µ(τ ) t 1Xj:(j,b(c)) Lcif it is guaranteed that no packets will be looped back to thesource.We utilize several types of virtual queues in our twoproposed algorithms introduced in Section III and Sectionc(t)IV. For each flow c, we construct a virtual queue Us(c)at transport layer. We denote by Rc (t) the virtual input rateto the queue at the end of time slot t, and denote by rc thetime-average of Rc (t). We place an upper-bound µM on Rc (t)and update the virtual queue as follows:ccUs(c)(t 1) [Us(c)(t) µcs(c)b(c) (t)] Rc (t),t 11X1Xlim infE{µ(τ )} lim infE{R(τ )}t tt tτ 0τ 0Note that in (10), we ensure that the number of packetstransmitted for flow c from node n does not exceed its corresponding queue backlog, since a feasible scheduling algorithmmay be independentof the informationon queue backlogs.PPThe terms i:(n,i) L µcni (t) and j:(j,n) Lc µcjn (t) represent,respectively, the scheduled departure rate from node n andthe scheduled arrival rate into node n for flow c. Note that(10) is an inequality since the arrivalP rates from correspondingneighbor nodes may be less than j µcjn (t) if some neighbornode does not have enough packets to transmit. From (4)(5),we also haveXµcjb(c) (t) µM ,(11)where we set 0. Considering the admitted ratecµcs(c)b(c) (t) as the service rate, if the virtual queue Us(c)(t) isstable, then by Lemma 1 the time-average admitted rate µc offlow c satisfies:R(τ ),t 1µc , lim infτ 0t E{R(τ )},t 11XE{µ(τ )}.E{A(0)}E{R(τ )} ttτ 01XE{µcs(c)b(c) (τ )}t τ 0t 1t 11XE{A(0)} tt(12)cUs(c)(0)τ 0τ 0(8)(9)By taking the limsup of t on both sides of (8) and the fact thatlim supt E{A(t)} 0 [3], we can prove (6). Similarly, wetcan prove (7) by taking liminf of t on both sides of (9).Now, let Unc (t) be the actual queue backlog of flow c packetsat node n. Then, the network is stable if queues Unc (t) arestable, n N , c F.For convenience of analysis, we define Lc , L {(s(c), b(c))}, where the pair (s(c), b(c)) can be considered as(13)1X rc , lim infE{Rc (τ )}.t tτ 0To satisfy the minimum data rate constraints, we constructa virtual queue Zc (t) for flow c with queue dynamics:Zc (t 1) [Zc (t) Rc (t)] ac ,(14)where we set Zc (0) 0. If queue Zc (t) is stable, we havecrc ac . Additionally, if Us(c)(t) is stable, then according to(13), we have µc ac , i.e.,Pthe minimum data rate for flow ct 1is achieved: lim inf t 1t τ 0 E{µcs(c)b(c) (τ )} ac .The queue evolutions and relationships are illustrated inFigure 1. In the figure, for simplicity we do not representthe actual packet queue evolutions for nodes other thansource nodes, since the dynamics for actual queues (10)Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.4are dependent on specific network topologies. The decisionvariable Rc (t), to be determined by the Rc (t) regulator inthe proposed algorithms, is both the input rate to the virtualcqueue Us(c)(t) and the service rate of the virtual queue Zc (t).The decision variable µcs(c)b(c) (t), to be determined by thecongestion controller in the proposed algorithms, is both theservice rate of the virtual queue Zc (t) and the input rate tocthe actual queue at the source Ub(c)(t). Thus, the decisionof Rc (t), together with that of µcs(c)b(c) (t), regulates thequeue evolutions and stability of the virtual queues (Zc (t) andcUs(c)(t)). In the proposed algorithms, after determining thepower assignment P(t) (by a power allocator), we determine(through a link rate scheduler) the decision variables (µcmn (t)),which, together with the decision of µcs(c)b(c) (t), regulate thequeue evolution and stability of the actual packet queues.We also note that physical packets are only involved in theactual packet queues and the corresponding queue evolutions.Thus, in the following sections, the finite buffer propertiesrefer only to the actual packet queues. By imposing a finitebuffer size to actual queues, we can monitor the averageflow-based end-to-end delay upper-bounds for the multi-hopnetwork simply by employing Little’s Law. In the proposedalgorithms, the virtual queues Zc (t) will be used to satisfy thec(t)minimum data rate requirements; the virtual queues Us(c)are employed as a weight for the differential backlogs acrosseach link, in an attempt to guarantee the finite buffer propertyand the optimality; the virtual queues Xmn (t) will be definedin Section IV and are specially employed for TSA algorithmsto meet average link energy consumption constraints.acRc(t)Rc(t) RegulatorconstP sc( c )b ( c ) (t )Usc(c) (t)Zc(t)Congestion ControllerVirtual Queue EvolutionsP sc( c )b ( c ) (t ).Ubc(c) (t)Power AllocatorLink Rate SchedulerCongestion ControllerP(t )c( Pmn(t ))Actual Packet Queue Evolutions (for source node)Pmn(t)Power AllocatorXmn(t)KmnconstAdditional Virtual Queue Evolutions for TSAFig. 1.Queue relationship diagram with decision variables Rc (t),µcs(c)b(c) (t), (µcmn (t)) and P(t), where virtual queues Xmn (t) are speciallyemployed for TSA.In Section III and Section IV, we introduce PSA and TSA,respectively. We note that the objectives of PSA (minimizingenergy expenditure) and TSA (maximizing throughput) cannotbe achieved by a single solution, since energy expenditure andthroughput tradeoff between each other cannot be optimizedat the same time. While the two algorithms have differentobjectives and solutions, they share some common features: Both algorithms employ virtual queues Zc (t) to guaranteecthe minimum data rate constraints and Us(c)(t) as weightfor the differential backlogs when schedule link rates.Finite buffer property is satisfied in both algorithms withan ǫ-versus- 1ǫ tradeoff. Specifically, PSA/TSA achieves anenergy expenditure/throughput “ǫ-close” to the optimalitywith a tradeoff in the uniform finite buffer size of orderO( 1ǫ ).To assist the development of the following sections, we candefine the capacity region Λ of the multi-hop network, similaras in [2] [3], as the closure of all stabilizable rate vectorsconsidering all power control algorithms choosing P(t) Π.Without loss of generality, we assume that the minimum datarate vector (ac )c F is within Λ.III. P OWER -O PTIMAL S CHEDULING A LGORITHM (PSA)FOR M ULTI -H OP W IRELESS N ETWORKSIn this section, we propose a power-optimal schedulingalgorithm PSA for the introduced multi-hop wireless networkso that PSA stabilizes the network and satisfies the minimumdata rate constraint.We let Pǫ denote the minimum sum power for stabilizingrates (ac ǫ), where ǫ is a positive number which canbe chosen arbitrarily small. According to [3] [5] we havelimǫ 0 Pǫ P , where P is the minimum sum powerfor stabilizing rates (ac ). Note that Pǫ can be considered asthe ǫ-optimal sum power for the multi-hop wireless network.Given ǫ 0, PSA is designed to achieve a sum powerarbitrarily close to Pǫ , with a tradeoff with buffer size whichwill be later given in Theorem 1 and further explained inRemark 1.Let qM max{fM , µM } be a control parameter standingfor buffer size. The optimal algorithm PSA operates on a timeslot basis consisting of four parts: Rc (t) regulator, a congestioncontroller, a power allocator, and a link rate scheduler.1) Rc (t) Regulator:min0 Rc (t) µMRc (t)(qM µM cUs(c) (t) Zc (t)).qM(15)The Rc (t) regulator controls the virtual queue evolutions ofcUs(c)(t) and Zc (t). Since Rc (t) is the arrival process forcvirtual queue Us(c)(t) and the service process for virtual queuecZc (t), we assign Rc (t) 0 when Us(c)(t) is more congestedthan Zc (t) and assign Rc (t) µM otherwise. Specifically,cMwhen qMq µUs(c)(t) Zc (t) 0, Rc (t) is set to zero;MOtherwise, Rc (t) µM .2) Congestion Controller:max0 µcs(c)b(c) (t) µMcµcs(c)b(c) (t)(qM µM Ub(c)(t)).(16)The congestion controller aims to upper-bound by qM theactual packet queue at source node. Specifically, when qM cµM Ub(c)(t) 0, µcs(c)b(c) (t) is set to zero; Otherwise,cµs(c)b(c) (t) µM , where we recall that µcs(c)b(c) (t) is theadmitted number of packets from transport layer into thesource node in time slot t.Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.53) Power Allocator:Xmax(µmn (P(t))wmn (t) V Pmn (t)),P(t) Π(17)(m,n) Lwhere V 0 is a control parameter and wmn (t) is defined asfollows:cUs(c)(t) c(Um (t) Unc (t) ln )] .(18)wmn (t) , [maxc FqMNote that when wmn (t) 0, without loss of optimality weallocate P(t) such that µmn (P(t)) 0 to maximize (17).Different from the traditional back-pressure algorithm, forlink (m, n) L and flow c F, we add a weight of lncto the differentialbacklog (Um(t) Unc (t)) which is furthercUs(c)(t)multiplied by qM . This new type of back-pressure ensuresthe finite buffer property and the optimality, proven later inProposition 1 and Theorem 1, respectively. In (17), we canconsider µmn (P(t))wmn (t) as the reward and Pmn (t) as thecost weighted by V , induced from link (m, n) by allocatingP(t).Under the node-exclusive interference model (1), the powerallocator is equivalent to the well-known maximal weightmatching optimization problem [1], which can be solved in acentralized way. Under the SNIR interference model (2), witha high SNIR assumption where fmn (·) can be approximatedas log(·) in equation (2), the optimization can be converted toa nonlinear convex optimization via a log transform [24].4) Link Rate Scheduler:(µmn (P(t)), if c c mn (t),µcmn (t) (19)0,otherwise,where P(t) is determined by the power allocator and c mn (t)is defined as follows:cUs(c)(t) c(Um (t) Unc (t) ln ).c mn (t) , arg maxc FqMFor a link (m, n) L, the link rate scheduler greedilyschedules the available link resource µmn (P(t)) to the flowc mn (t) with the largest back-pressure (18).Note that in the power allocator and the link rate scheduler,we constrain that there is no looping back to source.To analyze the performance of the algorithm, we firstintroduce the following proposition of finite buffer property.Proposition 1: Employing PSA, if qM max{fM , µM },then each queue backlog in the network has a deterministicworst-case bound:Unc (t) qM , t, n N , c F.(20)Proof: We prove Proposition 1 by induction on time slot.When t 0, we have Unc (0) 0 n, c. Now suppose in timeslot t we have Unc (t) qM n, c. In the induction step, for anygiven node n and flow c, we consider two cases as follows:(1) We first consider the case when n is the source node, i.e.,cwhen n b(c). If Ub(c)(t) qM µM , then according tocthe queue dynamics (10)(11), Ub(c)(t 1) qM ; Otherwise,cUb(c) (t) qM µM and according to the congestion controllercc(16), we have µcs(c)b(c) (t) 0, so Ub(c)(t 1) Ub(c)(t) qM by (5)(10).(2) In the second case, n is not the source node of flow c.If Unc (t) qM ln , then Unc (t) qM by (10); Otherwise,Unc (t) qM ln , and according to the link rate scheduler (19)we have µcmn (t) 0 m N , so Unc (t 1) Unc (t) qMby the queue dynamics (10).Since the above analysis holds for any given n and c,the induction step holds, i.e., Unc (t 1) qM n, c, whichcompletes the proof.Now we present our main results of the PSA algorithm inTheorem 1 which is further explained with Remark 1 andRemark 2.Theorem 1: Given ǫ 0, if22N lM (N 1)fM µ2M N lM fM µM ,ǫthen PSA can achieve a time-average powerqM t 1lim supt 1Xt τ 0XE{Pmn (τ )} Pǫ (m,n) LB1,V(21)(22)PMwhere B1 , 12 µM qM N K 3qM2q 2µKµ2M 12 c F a2c .MIn addition, PSA ensures that the virtual queues have a timeaveraged upper-bound:t 11 XXB1 V Pǫ clim supE{Us(c)(τ ) Zc (τ )} , (23)δt tτ 0c Fwhere δ is a positive constant satisfying δ 2N l2M (N 1)fM µ2M N lM fM2qMǫ(qM µM )2qM .Proof: The proof for Theorem 1 is provided in AppendixA.Remark 1: The results (20) and (23) indicate that PSAstabilizes the network and satisfies the minimum data raterequirement. Specifically, qM in (20) can be employed asthe uniform buffer size at each node for a single flow. Theinequality (22) gives the upper-bound of the power PSA canachieve. Since the constant B1 is independent of V , (22) alsoensures that PSA can achieve a power arbitrarily close to Pǫ .When ǫ tends to 0, PSA can achieve a power arbitrarily closeto the optimal value P with the tradeoff in buffer size qMwhich is of order O( 1ǫ ) as shown in (21). In comparison, in[3], the tradeoff in the average buffer occupancy is of orderO( Vǫ ), where a large value of V is required to achieve closeto the optimal value. In [17] which aims to achieve optimalthroughput-utility, the internal buffer size is of order O( 1ǫ ),but the buffer size at source nodes is assumed infinitely large,which will result in a large average end-to-end delay. Notealso that given buffer size qM , the average end-to-end delayfor flow c F can be upper-bounded by NaqcM by Little’sLaw.Remark 2: Note that in PSA, the Rc (t) regulator, the congestion controller and the link rate scheduler can operate locally at transport layer, source nodes and links, respectively. Toreduce the complexity of the optimization of power allocator(17), distributed implementation can be developed in much thesame way as in [2]. In addition, delayed queue backlogs canbe employed similar to the analysis in [17], and our resultsCopyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.6can be extended to the case where flows have arbitrary arrivalrate at transport layer as in [4].IV. T HROUGHPUT-O PTIMAL A LGORITHM (TSA) FORM ULTI -H OP W IRELESS N ETWORKSIn this section, we propose a throughput-optimal schedulingalgorithm TSA for the introduced multi-hop wireless networkso that TSA maximizes the network throughput while satisfying the minimum data rate constraint. In addition, eachlink must meet the average link energy consumption constraint(ηmn )(m,n) L , i.e.,t 11XE{Pmn (τ )} ηmn , (m, n) L.t tτ 0(24)Given ǫ 0, we define the ǫ-optimal throughput µ ǫ asfollowsXµ ǫ maxµc ,pmn , lim sup(µc ) Λc Fs.t. pmn ηmn ǫ,µc ac ǫ.Accordingly, we define the optimal throughput µ satisfyingboth the minimum data rate constraints and the link energyconsumption constraints asXµ maxµc ,(µc ) Λc Fs.t. pmn ηmn ,µc ac .Then we have limǫ 0 µ ǫ µ , sinceǫǫ µ (1 ) µ ǫ µ ,µ ǫMǫMǫMwhereǫM min{ min ηmn , arg max{(ac ǫ) Λ}}(m,n) Lǫ 0and the first inequality is derived from the fact that the ǫoptimal throughput µ ǫ is greater than or equal to the throughput achieved by the randomized algorithm that adopts a µ ǫM ǫand a µ throughput achieving algorithm with probability ǫMǫthroughput achieving algorithm with probability 1 ǫM.Similar to the virtual queue Zc (t) defined in Section II-B,for each link (m, n) L, we define the virtual queue Xmn (t)associated with each link energy consumption constraint (24),with queue dynamics as follows:Xmn (t 1) [Xmn (t) ηmn ] Pmn (t).Thus, if the virtual queue Xmn (t) is stable, by Lemma 1 theenergy consumption constraint associated with link (m, n) issatisfied.Given ǫ 0, TSA is designed to achieve a throug

controller, a power allocator, and a link rate scheduler. The regulator regulates the virtual queue dynamics, the congestion controller is employed to admit packets from transport layer, while the power allocator determines the power allocation for links in the network, and the link rate scheduler schedules transmission rates for individual flows.

Related Documents:

II. Optimal Control of Constrained-input Systems A. Constrained optimal control and policy iteration In this section, the optimal control problem for affine-in-the-input nonlinear systems with input constraints is formulated and an offline PI algorithm is given for solving the related optimal control problem.

optimal control, dynamic programming, Pontryagin maximum principle. I. INTRODUCTION he optimal control of HEVs (Hybrid Electric Vehicles) is an important topic not only because it is useful for power-management control but also indispensible for the optimal des

not satisy \Dynamic Programming Principle" (DPP) or \Bellman Optimality Principle". Namely, a sequence of optimization problems with the corresponding optimal controls is called time-consistent, if the optimal strategies obtained when solving the optimal control problem at time sstays optimal when the o

a MDP in the domain of transportation optimal control. To solve a DEDP analytically, we derived a duality theorem that recasts optimal control to variational inference and param-eter learning, which is an extension of the current equivalence results between optimal control and probabilistic inference [24, 38] in Markov decision process research.

The optimal control problem of the isolated subsystems is described under the framework of HJB equations. The decentra-lized control law is derived by adding some local feedback gains to the isolated optimal control policies. 3.1. Optimal control In this paper, to design the decentralized control law, we need

4. Linear-quadratic-Gaussian control, Riccati equations, iterative linear approximations to nonlinear problems. 5. Optimal recursive estimation, Kalman –lter, Zakai equation. 6. Duality of optimal control and optimal esti

compared to the three previous methods. ’ Some previous algorithms achieve optimal mapping for restricted problem domains: Chortle is optimal when the input network is a tree, Chortle-crf and Chortle-d are optimal when the input network is a tree and h’ 5 6, and DAG- Map is optimal when the mapping constraint is monotone, which is true for .

tests of the optimal diet model of optimal foraging theory. Optimal foraging theory (OFT) develops hypotheses about how a species would feed if it acted in the most eco-nomical manner with respect to time and energy expenditure (MacArthur & Pianka, 1966). Hanson (1987) summarized the assumptions underlyin