Advertisement

Joint Data Admission Control and Power Allocation Over Fading Channel Under Average Delay Constraint

  • Tho Le-Ngoc
  • Khoa Tran Phan
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering book series (BRIEFSELECTRIC)

Abstract

In this chapter, we consider a point-to-point communications link over a fading channel with randomly arriving data at the source buffer for transmission to the destination. For delay quality-of-service (QoS) requirement, (maximum) average delay constraint is imposed. Also, the source is assumed to have (maximum) average power constraint. To avoid constraint violation, it is assumed that only a portion of the arriving data can be buffered (or admitted). Note that the considered data buffer admission control is different from the common user (or stream) admission control. In the latter case, we admit a particular user (among many users) into the system while in the former, we admit data packets of an already admitted user (or stream) into the transmission buffer. Under such settings, this chapter studies the joint data admission control-power allocation (AC-PA) to maximize the throughput defined as the average admitted rate. In particular, we first analyze the structural properties of the optimal AC-PA policy with respect to fading channel, data arrival, and queue length states. We then propose an online AC-PA algorithm when the statistical knowledge of the system random channel fading, and data arrival processes is unknown.

References

  1. 1.
    R. S. Sutton, and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. The MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. J. Neely, “Energy Optimal Control for Time Varying Wireless Networks,” IEEE Trans. Infor. Theory, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 2915–2934, July 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Berry, and R. Gallager, “Communication over Fading Channels with Delay Constraints,” IEEE Trans. Infor. Theory, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1135–1149, May 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Fu, and M. van der Schaar, “Structure-Aware Stochastic Control for Transmission Scheduling,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 3931–3945, Nov. 2012.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Altman, Constrained Markov Decision Processes: Stochastic Modeling. London, UK.: Chapman & Hall CRC, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Djonin, and V. Krishnamurthy, “Q-Learning Algorithms for Constrained Markov Decision Processes with Randomized Monotone Policies: Applications to MIMO Transmission Control,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 2170–2181, May 2007.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Salodkar, A. Bhorkar, A. Karandikar, and V. S. Borkar, “On-Line Learning Algorithm for Energy Efficient Delay Constrained Scheduling over Fading Channel,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 732–742, May 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Amir, “Supermodularity and Complementarity in Economics: An Elementary Survey,” Southern Economic Journal, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 636–660, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. S. Borkar, Stochastic Approximation: A Dynamical Systems Viewpoint. Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tho Le-Ngoc
    • 1
  • Khoa Tran Phan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer Systems EngineeringMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations