Advertisement

Optimising Link Quality for Throughput Enhancement in Wireless Sensor Networks

  • Evangelos D. SpyrouEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 990)

Abstract

End-to-end throughput is a major concern in wireless networks. One key approach for enhancing throughput is the optimisation of link quality. This can be efficiently done via power control. Link quality metrics, such as the Expected Transmission Count (ETX), promotes throughput maximisation, since it employs bidirectional links and it is additive by nature. This means that the ETX from the basestation to a node is the sum of all the ETX values across the route. Definitely, nodes behave selfishly, in most cases, in order to satisfy their benefits from their strategies. The methodology that describes this kind of behaviour more accurately is game theory. Thus, we consider nodes to be individual players that operate to maximise their utilities. In this paper, we propose a distributed game-theoretic algorithm, which attempts to keep the reliability of transmission to high standards, while reducing energy consumption. The actions of the nodes are transmission power levels that reside on a finite space; hence, we proceed with majorisation properties and the concavity of the utility function to indicate convergence. Furthermore, we employ the Fictitious Play learning methodology, which is a very well-known learning algorithm for game theoretic approaches, to show some learning properties of our approach. We provide simulations to highlight the efficiency of our approach.

References

  1. 1.
    Jiang, L., Walrand, J.: Approaching throughput-optimality in distributed CSMA scheduling algorithms with collisions. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. (TON) 19(3), 816–829 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ai, J., Kong, J., Turgut, D.: An adaptive coordinated medium access control for wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Computers and Communications, ISCC 2004, vol. 1, pp. 214–219. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antonopoulos, C., Prayati, A., Stoyanova, T., Koulamas, C., Papadopoulos, G.: Experimental evaluation of a WSN platform power consumption. In: IEEE IPDPS, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, G.W.: Iterative solution of games by fictitious play. Activity Anal. Prod. Alloc. 13(1), 374–376 (1951)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bulakci, Ö., Redana, S., Raaf, B., Hämäläinen, J.: Impact of power control optimization on the system performance of relay based lte-advanced heterogeneous networks. J. Commun. Netw. 13(4), 345–359 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chantzis, K., Amaxilatis, D., Chatzigiannakis, I., Rolim, J.: Symmetric coherent link degree, adaptive throughput-transmission power for wireless sensor networks. In: IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems, pp. 26–34. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi, J.: Effective capacity of noma and a suboptimal power control policy with delay QoS. IEEE Trans. Commun. 65(4), 1849–1858 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi, H.-H., Lee, J.-R.: Distributed transmit power control for maximizing end-to-end throughput in wireless multi-hop networks. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 74(3), 1033–1044 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ICSLMS Committee: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daskalakis, C., Goldberg, P.W., Papadimitriou, C.H.: The complexity of computing a nash equilibrium. SIAM J. Comput. 39(1), 195–259 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chipcon, Products from Texas Instruments: CC2420 data sheet, 2.4 GHz IEEE 802.15. 4/Zigbee-ready RF transceiver (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Couto, D.S., Aguayo, D., Bicket, J., Morris, R.: A high-throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless routing. Wirel. Netw. 11(4), 419–434 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fu, Y., Sha, M., Hackmann, G., Lu, C.: Practical control of transmission power for wireless sensor networks. In: 20th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), pp. 1–10. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gnawali, O., Fonseca, R., Jamieson, K., Moss, D., Levis, P.: Collection tree protocol. In: ACM SenSys, pp. 1–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hackmann, G., Chipara, O., Lu, C.: Robust topology control for indoor wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Embedded Network Sensor Systems, pp. 57–70. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Incel, O.D., Ghosh, A., Krishnamachari, B., Chintalapudi, K.: Fast data collection in tree-based wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 11(1), 86–99 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jun, J., Sichitiu, M.L.: The nominal capacity of wireless mesh networks. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 10(5), 8–14 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johari, R.: Lecture 6: Fictitious Play. MS&E 336: Dynamics and Learning in Games, Lecture Notes, Stanford University (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khalil, H.K., Grizzle, J.: Nonlinear Systems, vol. 3. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Komali, R., MacKenzie, A., Gilles, R.: Effect of selfish node behavior on efficient topology design. IEEE Tran. Mob. Comput. 7(9), 1057–1070 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li, J., Blake, C., De Couto, D.S., Lee, H.I., Morris, R.: Capacity of ad hoc wireless networks. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pp. 61–69. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li, M., Li, Z., Vasilakos, A.V.: A survey on topology control in wireless sensor networks: taxonomy, comparative study, and open issues. Proc. IEEE 101(12), 2538–2557 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lin, S., Miao, F., Zhang, J., Zhou, G., Gu, L., He, T., Stankovic, J.A., Son, S., Pappas, G.J.: ATPC: adaptive transmission power control for wireless sensor networks. ACM Trans. Sens. Netw. (TOSN) 12(1), 6 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marshall, A.W., Olkin, I., Arnold, B.: Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications. Springer, New York (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68276-1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meshkati, F., Poor, H.V., Schwartz, S.C., Balan, R.V.: Energy-efficient power and rate control with QoS constraints: a game-theoretic approach. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, pp. 1435–1440. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moeller, S., Sridharan, A., Krishnamachari, B., Gnawali, O.: Routing without routes: the backpressure collection protocol. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, pp. 279–290. ACM, April 2010Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Monderer, D., Shapley, L.S.: Potential games. Games Econ. Behav. 14(1), 124–143 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moscibroda, T., Wattenhofer, R., Weber, Y.: Protocol design beyond graph-based models. In: Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-V), pp. 25–30 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nash Jr., J.: The bargaining problem. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 18(2), 155–162 (1950)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Olkin, I., Marshall, A.W.: Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications, vol. 143. Academic Press, New York (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: On the complexity of the parity argument and other inefficient proofs of existence. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 48(3), 498–532 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rajendran, V., Obraczka, K., Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J.J.: Energy-efficient, collision-free medium access control for wireless sensor networks. Wirel. Netw. 12(1), 63–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rappaport, T.S., et al.: Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, vol. 2. Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Robinson, J.: An iterative method of solving a game. Ann. Math. 54(2), 296–301 (1951)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sadek, A.K., Yu, W., Liu, K.: When does cooperation have better performance in sensor networks? In: 3rd Annual IEEE Communications Society on Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks, SECON 2006, vol. 1, pp. 188–197. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Son, D., Krishnamachari, B., Heidemann, J.: Experimental study of the effects of transmission power control and blacklisting in wireless sensor networks. In: First Annual IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks, SECON 2004, pp. 289–298. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Spyrou, E.D., Yang, S., Mitrakos, D.K.: Game-theoretic optimal power-link quality topology control in wireless sensor networks. Sens. Transducers 212(5), 1 (2017)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Spyrou, E.D., Mitrakos, D.K.: On the homogeneous transmission power under the SINR model. In: 4th International Conference on Telecommunications and Remote Sensing, ICTRS 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Spyrou, E.D., Mitrakos, D.K.: Game-theoretic end-to-end throughput optimisation in wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on e-Business and Telecommunications - Volume 2: WINSYS, (ICETE 2017) (2017)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sun, F., Li, L., Jiang, Y.: Impact of duty cycle on end-to-end performance in a wireless sensor network. In: IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), pp. 1906–1911. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tarighati, A., Jaldn, J.: Optimality of rate balancing in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 64(14), 3735–3749 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tsiropoulou, E.E., Katsinis, G.K., Papavassiliou, S.: Distributed uplink power control in multiservice wireless networks via a game theoretic approach with convex pricing. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 23(1), 61–68 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ui, T.: Discrete concavity for potential games. Int. Game Theor. Rev. 10(01), 137–143 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O., Rubinstein, A., Kuhn, H.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yeung, M., Kwok, Y.: A game theoretic approach to power aware wireless data access. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 5(8), 1057–1073 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yu, Y., Shah, S., Tan, Y., Lim, Y.: End-to-end throughput evaluation of consensus TPC algorithm in multihop wireless networks. In: International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), pp. 941–946. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zeng, K., Lou, W., Zhai, H.: On end-to-end throughput of opportunistic routing in multirate and multihop wireless networks. In: INFOCOM 2008: The 27th Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Computer EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations