1 / 42

EE 685 presentation

Distributed Cross-layer Algorithms for the Optimal Control of Multi-hop Wireless Networks By Atilla Eryılmaz, Asuman Özdağlar, Devavrat Shah and Eytan Modiano. EE 685 presentation. Objective of the paper.

Télécharger la présentation

EE 685 presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Distributed Cross-layer Algorithms for the Optimal Control of Multi-hop Wireless Networks By Atilla Eryılmaz, Asuman Özdağlar, Devavrat Shah and Eytan Modiano EE 685 presentation

  2. Objective of the paper • Proposing a general frameworkthat facilitates the development of distributed mechanismsto achieve full utilization of multi-hop wireless networks. • Describe generic randomized routing, scheduling andflow control scheme that allows for a set of imperfections in theoperation of the randomized scheduler to account for potentialerrors in its operation. • Studying the effect of suchimperfections on the stability and fairness characteristics of thesystem, and • Explicitly characterize the degree of fairness achievedas a function of the level of imperfections.

  3. Motivation and basic approach • The results reveal therelative importance of different types of errors on the overallsystem performance, and provide valuable insight to the designof distributed controllers with favorable fairness characteristics. • A specificinterference model, namely the secondary interference model, have emphasized and distributed algorithms with polynomial communicationand computation complexity in the network size have been developed. • This isan important result given that earlier centralized throughput- optimalalgorithmsrelies on thesolution to an NP-hard problem at every decision. • This resultsin a polynomial complexity cross-layer algorithm that achievesthroughput optimality and fair allocation of network resourcesamongst the users. • It has also been shown that the algorithmic approach proposed by the authors enables efficientapproximation of the capacity regionof a multi-hop wireless network.

  4. Contributions • A scheduling-routing algorithmcombined with a congestion controller for a general systemmodel whereby multi-hop flows are considered. • Explicit characterization of the effect ofdifferent types of errors on the overall performance. • A generic cross-layer mechanism withthree components: • A randomized scheduling component • A routing component (implemented by the network nodes) aimedat allocating resources to the flows efficiently; and a • A dualcongestion control component (implemented at the sources)aimed at regulating the flow rates to achieve fairness. • Studyof the proximity of the achieved rate allocationwith generic cross-layer scheme to the fair allocation, andcharacterization of the performance loss as a function ofthe imperfections of the underlying scheduler. • Distributed algorithm for the cross-layer mechanism with secondary interference model

  5. System Model The problem is formulated for • A wireless network which is modeled as a undirected graph G = (N;L) where N is the set of nodes and L isthe set of links. Let N and L be the number of nodes andlinks in the network, respectively. • A time-slotted system with synchronized nodes in which each time-slot is long enough to accommodate a single packet transmission. • General interference model specified by aset of link-pairs that interfere with each other. It has been assumed that if twointerfering links are activated in a slot, both transmissions fail. • Link allocation and scheduling is made based on feasible allocations principle where no two active links will interfere with each other. • At each node, a buffer (queue) is maintained for each destination.

  6. System Model • The flow that enters the network at node n and leaves it at node d as is referred as Flow-(n, d) • X[t] =X(d)n[t] denotes the vector of arrivals to the network in slot t corresponding to the arrivals for Flow-(n, d) • x(d)n [t] denotes the mean flow rate of Flow-(n, d) in slot t, i.e., x(d)n [t] = E[ X(d)n[t]]. • Then, the mean flow rate of Flow-(n, d)is defined as • S(d)(n,m)[t] ∈ {0, 1} is 1 if link(n,m) serves a packet destined for node d in that slot, and 0 otherwise. • This implies that for all (n,m) ϵN

  7. Queue Evolution for nodes • At each node, a buffer (queue) is maintained for each destination. • We let Q(d)n[t] denote the length of the queue atnode ndestined for node d at the beginning of slot t. • Evolution of Q(d)n[t] when n ≠ d satisfies • We also have

  8. Queue stability and Capacity region

  9. Achieveable goals • Given the general model described above, the system goal is to designdistributed algorithms that achieve • Throughput-optimality • Fair allocation of the network resources amongst the flows. • A policy is called as throughput-optimal if it can supportany mean flow rate in the capacity region without violating the network stability. • To define fairness ,“utility maximization” frameworkof economics has been used: • With each flow, say Flow-(n, d), weassociate a utility function Un,d(·), of the mean flow rates whereby Un,d(x(d)n) is a measure of the utility gained by Flow-(n, d) for the mean flow rate x(d)n . • Based on thelaw of diminishing returns, the function Un,d(·) is concaveand non-decreasing for all flows. So throughput optimal fair allocation is achieved by mean flow rate vector

  10. Generic Cross-layer Scheme • Genericcongestion control-routing-scheduling scheme aiming to achieve aforementioned throughput-optimality and fairness goals • The scheme combines ideas from state-of-art congestion controllersdesigned for wireless networks and the randomized scheduling strategy introducedby Tassiulas . • The proposed algorithm not onlyextends the use of randomized scheme of Tassiulas et al to multi-hopnetworks with general interference models, but also utilizes theparallel use of a dual congestion controller to achieve fairness.

  11. Generic Cross-layer Scheme • The scheduling component builds on two algorithms: • PICK, which randomly picks a feasible allocation satisfying aspecific condition • UPDATE, which contains a network-wide comparison operation

  12. Generic Cross-layer Scheme • In the operation of PICK and UPDATEalgorithms, various types of imperfections andrelaxations have been allowed to accommodate errors and to facilitate distributedimplementations. • The routing component determines whichpackets to be served over which links so as to optimize theirroutes. • Finally, the congestion controller component adjuststhe rate of injected traffic into the network to fully utilize theresources, i.e., to solve (2). • The scheme operates in stages, each stage containing afinite number of time slots where the number of slots is adesign choice. • The scheduling-routing and congestion controldecision is updated at the beginning of each stage, and is kept unmodified throughout the stage.

  13. Scheduling Component

  14. Scheduling component imperfections • δrelaxes the constraint of picking the optimum feasible allocationin each iteration, hence significantly reduces thecomplexity of this operation; • γcaptures the potential errors inthe computation of the total weight of the randomly selectedschedule; • ψcaptures the potential errors in the comparisonof the weights of the previous and the random scheduler • The imperfections included in the scheduling component arelikely to occur when randomized or distributed methods areemployed to perform these operations..

  15. Routing Component

  16. Congestion control Component

  17. Analysis : Theorem 1

  18. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof

  19. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof

  20. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof

  21. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof

  22. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof

  23. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof

  24. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof

  25. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof • Now we are aiming to bound (21)

  26. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof • Thus, T0 is the first slot after t when the randomly pickedschedule R according to (5) is equal to the optimum schedule,and (6) is satisfied • T1 is the first slot after T0 when thecondition in (6) is violated. • Note that in the interval betweenT0 and T1, the system is well-behaved, and no undesired eventsuch as that in (6) occurs. • Finally, let us define T2 := T − min (T, T1) as the remaining time after T1 until the end of T slots, if any. • The idea is to show that if T is sufficiently large,the duration between T0 and T1 will dominate the interval ofduration T. • Next, we make this argument rigorous.

  27. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof

  28. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof

  29. Analysis : Theorem 1 : Proof

  30. Analysis : Theorem 2

  31. Analysis : Theorem 2 : Proof

  32. Analysis : Theorem 2 : Proof

  33. Analysis : Theorem 2 : Proof

  34. Analysis : Theorem 2 : Proof

  35. Analysis : Theorem 2 : Proof • Noting thatV (Y) ≥ 0 for all feasible Y, and re-arranging the terms inthis expression, we can obtain

  36. Analysis : Theorem 2 : Proof

  37. Analysis : Theorem 2 : Proof

  38. Theorem 2 Implications • Theorem 2 reveals the effect of the errors and relaxationin the operation of the scheduler. • In particular, we see that,when γ=ψ=0, and δ > 0, the cross-layerscheme achievesoptimal performance. • Also, we observe that the effect of ψcan be detrimental unless it is significantly smaller than δ. • In comparison, the effect of γ appears to be milder if it canbe made small. • Ideally, we would like to design schedulerswith γ=ψ=0 in which case optimal performance can beguaranteed. • One such schedulerthat is applicable to second order interference model will be proposed

  39. Algorithm DesignConstantly Backlogged Sources • We have two sequential algorithms PICK and COMPARE • The PICK algorithmis a randomized, distributed algorithm thatyields a feasibleschedule R[t] satisfying (5) in finite time. • The COMPAREalgorithm compares the total weights of the old schedule S[t]with the new schedule R[t] according to (6) in a distributedmanner. • An important feature of the COMPARE algorithm isthe use of the conflict graph of the two schedules. • On theconflict graph, a spanning tree can be constructed in a distributedmanner and used for comparison of the weights of thetwo schedules in polynomial time. • The conflict graph enablesa natural partitioning of the network, whereby decisions canbe made independently in different partitions in a distributedmanner. • The operations on the conflict graphcan be mapped to the actual network operations owing to thespecial structure of the problem.

  40. PICK ALGORITHM

  41. PICK ALGORITHM

  42. COMPARE ALGORITHM • We have two sequential algorithms PICK and COMPARE • TheCOMPARE Algorithm is composed of two proceduresthat are implemented consecutively: • FIND SPANNING TREEand COMMUNICATE & DECIDE. • The FIND SPANNING TREEprocedure finds a spanning tree for each connected componentof G′ in a distributed fashion. • Then, the COMMUNICATE &DECIDE procedure exploits the constructed tree structure tocommunicate and compare the weights of the two schedulesin a distributed manner.

More Related