1 / 51

Optimal Resource Allocation in Coordinated Multi-Cell Systems

Optimal Resource Allocation in Coordinated Multi-Cell Systems. Emil Björnson Post-Doc Alcatel-Lucent Chair on Flexible Radio, Supélec , France & Signal Processing Lab, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Seminar at Alcatel-Lucent, Stuttgart, 2013-02-06. Biography : Emil Björnson.

amy
Download Presentation

Optimal Resource Allocation in Coordinated Multi-Cell Systems

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. Optimal Resource Allocation in Coordinated Multi-Cell Systems Emil Björnson Post-Doc Alcatel-Lucent Chair on Flexible Radio, Supélec, France & Signal Processing Lab, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Seminar at Alcatel-Lucent, Stuttgart, 2013-02-06 Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  2. Biography: Emil Björnson • 1983: Born in Malmö, Sweden • 2007: Master of Science inEngineering Mathematics,Lund University, Sweden • 2011: PhD in Telecommunications,KTH, Stockholm, Sweden • 2012: Recipient of International Postdoc Grant from Sweden. Work with Prof. MérouaneDebbah at Supélec for 2 years. • Optimal Resource Allocation in Coordinated Multi-Cell Systems • Research book by E. Björnson and E. Jorswieck • Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory, Vol. 9, No. 2-3, pp. 113-381, 2013 Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  3. Outline • Introduction • Multi-Cell Structure, System Model, Performance Measure • Problem Formulation • Resource Allocation: Multi-Objective Optimization Problem • Subjective Resource Allocation • Utility Functions, Different Computational Complexity • Structural Insights • BeamformingParametrization • Extensions to Practical Conditions • Handling Non-Idealities in Practical Systems Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  4. Introduction Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  5. Introduction • Problem Formulation (vaguely): • Transfer Information Wirelessly to Devices • Downlink Coordinated Multi-Cell System • Many Transmitting Base Stations (BSs) • Many Receiving Users • Sharing a Common Frequency Band • Limiting Factor: Inter-User Interference • Multi-Antenna Transmission • Beamforming:Spatially Directed Signals • Can Serve Multiple Users(Simultaneously) Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  6. Introduction: Basic Multi-Cell Structure • Multiple Cells with Base Stations • Adjacent Base Stations Coordinate Interference • Some Users Served by Multiple Base Stations • Dynamic Cooperation Clusters • Inner Circle: Serve Users with Data • Outer Circle: Avoid Interference • Outside Circles: Negligible Impact (Impractical to Coordinate) Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  7. Example: Ideal Joint Transmission • All Base Stations Serve All Users Jointly Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  8. Example: Wyner Model • Abstraction: User receives signals from own and neighboring base stations • One or Two Dimensional Versions • Joint Transmission or Coordination between Cells Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  9. Example: Coordinated Beamforming • One base station serves each user • Interference coordination across cells Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  10. Example: Cognitive Radio • Secondary System Borrows Spectrum of Primary System • Underlay: Interference Limits for Primary Users Other Examples Spectrum Sharing between Operators Physical Layer Security Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  11. Introduction: Resource Allocation • Problem Formulation (imprecise): • Select Beamforming to Maximize System Utility • Means: Allocate Power to Users and in Spatial Dimensions • Satisfy: Physical, Regulatory & Economic Constraints • Some Assumptions: • Linear Transmission and Reception • Perfect Synchronization (whenever needed) • Flat-fading Channels (e.g., using OFDM) • Perfect Channel State Information • Ideal Transceiver Hardware • Centralized Optimization • Will be relaxed Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  12. Introduction: Multi-Cell System Model • Users: Channel Vector to User from All BSs • Antennas at th BS • Antennas in Total (dimension of ) Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  13. Introduction: Power Constraints • General Power Constraints: • Many Interpretations • Protect Dynamic Range of Amplifiers • Limit Radiated Power According to Regulations • Control Interference to Certain Users • Manage Energy Expenditure • Weighting Matrix • (Positive semi-definite) • Limit • (Positive scalar) Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  14. Introduction: User Performance Measure • Mean Square Error (MSE) • Difference: transmitted and received signal • Easy to Analyze • Far from User Perspective? • Bit/Symbol Error Rate (BER/SER) • Probability of Error (for given data rate) • Intuitive Interpretation • Complicated & Ignores Channel Coding • Information Rate • Bits per ”Channel Use” • Mutual Information: perfect and long coding • Still Closest to Reality? • All improveswith SINR: • Signal • Interf + Noise Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  15. Introduction: User Performance Measure • Generic Model • Any Function of Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise Ratio (SINR) • Increasing and Continuous Function • Can be MSE, BER/SER, Information Rate, etc. • Complicated Function • Depends on All Beamforming Vectors Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  16. Problem Formulation Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  17. Problem Formulation • General Formulation of Resource Allocation: • Multi-Objective Optimization Problem • Generally Impossible to Maximize For All Users! • Must Divide Power and Cause Inter-User Interference Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  18. Performance Region • Definition: Performance Region R • Contains All Feasible • Care aboutuser 2 Pareto Boundary Cannot Improve for any user without degrading for other users • Balancebetweenusers • Part of interest: • Pareto boundary • 2-User • PerformanceRegion • Care aboutuser 1 Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  19. Performance Region (2) • Can it have any shape? • No! Can prove that: • Compact set • Simply connected (No holes) • Nice upper boundary • Normal set • Upper corner in region, everything inside region Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  20. Performance Region (3) • Some Possible Shapes User-Coupling Weak: Convex Strong: Concave Scheduling Time-sharingbetween strongly coupled users Shape is Unknown Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  21. Performance Region (4) • Which Pareto Optimal Point to Choose? • Tradeoff: Aggregate Performance vs. Fairness • Utilitarian point(Max sum performance) No Objective Answer • Only subjective answers exist! • Egalitarian point(Max fairness) • Single user point • PerformanceRegion • Single user point Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  22. Subjective Resource Allocation Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  23. Subjective Approach • System Designer Selects Utility Function f : R→ R • Describes Subjective Preference • Increasing and Continuous Function • Examples: Sum Performance: Proportional Fairness: Harmonic Mean: Max-Min Fairness: Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  24. Subjective Approach (2) • Gives Single-Objective Optimization Problem: • This is the Starting Point of Many Researchers • Although Selection of f is Inherently Subjective Affects the Solvability Pragmatic Approach • Try to Select Utility Function to Enable Efficient Optimization Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  25. Subjective Approach (3) • Characterization of Optimization Problems • Main Categories of Resource Allocation • Convex: Polynomial time solution • Monotonic: Exponential time solution • Practically Solvable • Approx. Needed Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  26. Subjective Approach (4) • When is the Problem Convex? • Most Problems are Non-Convex • Necessary: Search Space must be Particularly Limited • Classification of Three Important Problems • The “Easy” Problem • Weighted Max-Min Fairness • Weighted Sum Performance Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  27. The “Easy” Problem • Given Any Point • Find Beamformingthat Attains this Point • Minimize Emitted Power • Convex Problem • Second-Order Cone or Semi-Definite Program • Global Solution in Polynomial Time – use CVX, Yalmip • M. Bengtsson, B. Ottersten, “Optimal Downlink Beamforming Using SemidefiniteOptimization,” Proc. Allerton, 1999. • A. Wiesel, Y. Eldar, and S. Shamai, “Linear precoding via conic optimization for fixed MIMO receivers,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, 2006. • W. Yu and T. Lan, “Transmitter optimization for the multi-antenna downlink with per-antenna power constraints,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, 2007. • E. Björnson, G. Zheng, M. Bengtsson, B. Ottersten, “Robust Monotonic Optimization Framework for Multicell MISO Systems,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, 2012. Total PowerConstraints Per-Antenna Constraints General Constraints,Robustness Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  28. Subjective Approach: Max-Min Fairness • How to Classify Weighted Max-Min Fairness? • Property: Solution makes the same for all Solution is on this line Line in direction () Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  29. Subjective Approach: Max-Min Fairness (2) • Simple Line-Search: Bisection • Iteratively Solving Convex Problems (i.e., quasi-convex) • Find start interval • Solve the “easy” problem at midpoint • If feasible: • Remove lower half • Else: Remove upper half • Iterate • Subproblem: Convex optimization • Line-search: Linear convergence • One dimension (independ. #users) Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  30. Subjective Approach: Max-Min Fairness (3) • Classification of Weighted Max-Min Fairness: • Quasi-Convex Problem (belongs to convex class) • If Subjective Preference is Formulated in this Way • Resource Allocation Solvable in Polynomial Time Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  31. Subjective Approach: Sum Performance • How to Classify Weighted Sum Performance? • Geometrically: = opt-value is a line • Opt-value is unknown! • Distance from origin is unknown • Line  Hyperplane(dim: #user – 1) • Harder than max-min fairness • Provably NP-hard! Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  32. Subjective Approach: Sum Performance (2) • Classification of Weighted Sum Performance: • Monotonic Problem • If Subjective Preference is Formulated in this Way • Resource Allocation Solvable in Exponential Time • Algorithm for Monotonic Optimization • Improve Lower/Upper Bounds on Optimum: • Continue Until • Subproblem: Essentially weighted max-min fairness Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  33. Subjective Approach: Sum Performance (3) Branch-Reduce-Bound(BRB) Algorithm • Global convergence • Accuracy ε>0 in finitely many iterations • Exponential complexity only in #users () • Polynomial complexity in other parameters (#antennas/constraints) Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  34. Pragmatic Resource Allocation • Recall: All Utility Functions are Subjective • Pragmatic Approach: Select to enable efficient optimization • Bad Choice: Weighted Sum Performance • NP-hard: Exponential complexity (in #users) • Good Choice: Weighted Max-Min Fairness • Quasi-Convex: Polynomial complexity Pragmatic Resource Allocation • Weighted Max-Min Fairness • (select weights to enhance throughput) Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  35. Structural Insights Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  36. Parametrization of Optimal Beamforming • Beamforming Vectors: Complex Parameters • Can be ReducedtoPositive Parameters • Any Resource Allocation Problem Solved by • Priority of User : • Impact of Constraint : • Tradeoff: Maximize Signal vs. Minimize Interference • Hard to Find the Best Tradeoff Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  37. Parametrization of Optimal Beamforming • Geometric Interpretation: • Heuristic Parameter Selection • Known to Work Remarkably Well • Many Examples (since 1995): Transmit Wiener/MMSE filter, Regularized Zero-forcing, Signal-to-leakage beamforming, virtual SINR/MVDR beamforming, etc. Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  38. Extensions to Practical Conditions Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  39. Robustness to Channel Uncertainty • Practical Systems Operate under Uncertainty • Due to Estimation, Feedback, Delays, etc. • Robustness to Uncertainty • Maximize Worst-Case Performance • Cannot be Robust to Any Error • Ellipsoidal Uncertainty Sets • Easily Incorporated in the Model • Same Classifications – More Variables • Definition: Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  40. Distributed Resource Allocation • Information and Functionality is Distributed • Local Channel Knowledge and Computational Resources • Only Limited Backhaul for Coordination • Distributed Approach • Decompose Optimization • Exchange Control Signals • Iterate Subproblems • Convergence to Optimal Solution? • At Least for Convex Problems Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  41. Adapting to Transceiver Impairments • Physical Hardware is Non-Ideal • Phase Noise, IQ-imbalance, Non-Linearities, etc. • Non-Negligible Performance Degradation at High SNR • Model of Transmitter Distortion: • Additive Noise • Variance Scales with Signal Power • Same Classifications Hold under this Model • Enables Adaptation: Much larger tolerance for impairments Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  42. Summary Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  43. Summary • Resource Allocation • Divide Power between Users and Spatial Directions • Solve a Multi-Objective Optimization Problem • Pareto Boundary: Set of efficient solutions • Subjective Utility Function • Selection has Fundamental Impact on Solvability • Pragmatic Approach: Select to enable efficient optimization • Weighted Sum Performance: Not solvable in practice • Weighted Max-Min Fairness: Polynomial complexity • Parametrization of Optimal Beamforming • Extensions: Channel Uncertainty, Distributed Optimization, Transceiver Impairments Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  44. Main Reference • 270 Page Tutorial, Published in Jan 2013 • Other Convex Problems and General Algorithms • More Parametrizations and Structural Insights • Guidelines for Scheduling and Forming Dynamic Clusters • Extensions: multi-cast, multi-carrier, multi-antenna users, etc. • Matlab Code Available Online • Promotion Code: • EBMC-01069 Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  45. Thank You for Listening! • Questions? • All Papers Available: • http://flexible-radio.com/emil-bjornson Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  46. Additional Slides Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  47. Problem Classifications • General: Any performance functions and constraints • Zero Forcing: Concave performance functions and ZF • Single Antenna: and one BS serves each user Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  48. Why is Weighted Sum Performance Bad? • Some Shortcomings • Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility not Satisfied • Not all Pareto Points are Attainable • Weights have no Clear Interpretation • Not Robust to Perturbations Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  49. Further Geometric Interpretations Utilities has different shapes Same point in symmetric regions Generally large differences Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

  50. Computation of Performance Regions • Performance Region is Generally Unknown • Compact and Normal - Perhaps Non-Convex • Generate 1: Vary parameters in parametrization • Generate 2: Maximize sequence of utilities f Emil Björnson, Post-Doc at SUPELEC and KTH

More Related