Advertisement

Link Scheduling in Local Interference Models

  • Bastian Katz
  • Markus Völker
  • Dorothea Wagner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5389)

Abstract

Choosing an appropriate interference model is crucial for link scheduling problems in sensor networks. While graph-based interference models allow for distributed and purely local coloring approaches which lead to many interesting results, a more realistic and widely agreed on model such as the signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio (SINR) inherently makes scheduling radio transmission a non-local task, and thus impractical for the development of distributed and scalable scheduling protocols in sensor networks. In this work, we focus on interference models that are local in the sense that admissibility of transmissions only depends on local concurrent transmissions, and correct with respect to the geometric SINR model.

In our analysis, we show lower bounds on the limitations that these restrictions impose an any such model as well as approximation results for greedy scheduling algorithms in a class of these models.

Keywords

Sensor Network Schedule Problem Schedule Algorithm Link Length Interference Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schmidt, S., Wattenhofer, R.: Algorithmic Models for Sensor Networks. In: 20th IEEE Int. Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS 2006), pp. 450–459 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rappaport, T.: Wireless Communications: Principles and Practices. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gupta, P., Kumar, P.R.: The Capacity of Wireless Networks. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 46(2), 388–404 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moscibroda, T., Wattenhofer, R., Weber, Y.: Protocol Design Beyond Graph-Based Models. In: Proc. of the 5th Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets) (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hunt, H., Marathe, M., Radhakrishnan, V., Ravi, S., Rosenkrantz, D., Stearns, R.: NC-Approximation Schemes for NP- and PSPACE-Hard Problems for Geometric Graphs. Journal of Algorithms 26 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krumke, S.O., Marathe, M., Ravi, S.S.: Models and approximation algorithms for channel assignment in radio networks. Wireless Networks 6, 575–584 (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Björklund, P., Värbrand, P., Yuan, D.: A Column Generation Method for Spatial TDMA Scheduling in Ad hoc Networks. Ad Hoc Networks 2(4), 4005–4418 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goussevskaia, O., Oswald, Y.A., Wattenhofer, R.: Complexity in Geometric SINR. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MOBIHOC 2007), pp. 100–109. ACM Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Locher, T., von Rickenbach, P., Wattenhofer, R.: Sensor Networks Continue to Puzzle: Selected Open Problems. In: Rao, S., Chatterjee, M., Jayanti, P., Murthy, C.S.R., Saha, S.K. (eds.) ICDCN 2008. LNCS, vol. 4904, pp. 25–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hajek, B., Sasaki, G.: Link Scheduling in Polynomial Time. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 34(5), 910–917 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar, V.S.A., Marathe, M.V., Parthasarathy, S., Srinivasan, A.: End-to-end packet scheduling in wireless ad-hoc networks. In: Proc. of the 15th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2004), pp. 1021–1030 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moscibroda, T., Wattenhofer, R.: Coloring Unstructured Radio Networks. In: Proc. of the 17th Annual ACM Symp. on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Behzad, A., Rubin, I.: On the Performance of Graph-based Scheduling Algorithms for Packet Radio Networks. In: Proc. of the IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM) (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grönkvist, J., Hansson, A.: Comparison Between Graph-Based and Interference-Based STDMA Scheduling. In: Proc. of the 2nd ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking & Computing (MOBIHOC), pp. 255–258 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moscibroda, T., Wattenhofer, R.: The Complexity of Connectivity in Wireless Networks. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moscibroda, T., Oswald, Y.A., Wattenhofer, R.: How Optimal are Wireless Scheduling Protocols? In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Linial, N.: Locality in Distributed Graph Algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing 21, 193–201 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naor, M., Stockmeyer, L.: What can be computed locally? SIAM Journal on Computing 24(6), 1259–1277 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuhn, F., Moscibroda, T., Wattenhofer, R.: The Price of Being Near-Sighted. In: Proc. of the 17th ACM–SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toth, L.F.: Minkowskian distribution of discs. Proceedings of the AMS 16(5), 999–1004 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bastian Katz
    • 1
  • Markus Völker
    • 1
  • Dorothea Wagner
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of InformaticsUniversität Karlsruhe (TH)Germany

Personalised recommendations