1 / 1

Quality-of-Information Aware Transmission Policies with Time-Varying Links Ertugrul N . Ciftcioglu and Aylin Yener

. . . . Motivation. QoI vs QoS: QoI : associated with a piece of information can be defined as the value provided by it to the end user/application application dependent different from the notion of Quality of Service (QoS)

hashim
Download Presentation

Quality-of-Information Aware Transmission Policies with Time-Varying Links Ertugrul N . Ciftcioglu and Aylin Yener

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. . . Motivation • QoI vs QoS: • QoI: associated with a piece of information can be defined as the valueprovided by it to the end user/application • application dependent • different from the notion of Quality of Service (QoS) • QoS:defined based on traditional metrics such as delay, jitter or packet loss ratio • specific information content is irrelevant to determine its utility to the end user • QoI can be represented by a QoI-vector, which is a vector of attribute-value pairs: for example, • q=[type = image, timeliness = 10s, accuracy = 800 × 600 & FOV = 100mm per meter . . .],. • . • Growing interest in defining and quantifying new higher layer metrics that can capture application-specific objectives more adequately. • Several such metrics have been proposed: • accuracy • timeliness • reliability • precision • corroboration/credibility • freshness • Quality of Information (QoI) is being proposed to formally describe this class ofmetrics/attributes Quality-of-Information Aware Transmission Policies with Time-Varying LinksErtugrul N. Ciftcioglu and Aylin Yener Previous QoI-based networking: Static environment Offline algorithms and static optimization solutions sufficient for rate allocation & scheduling What if channel states vary? Uncertainty in delivered QoI to end users in future slots Different solutions required We consider two basic models with time-varying channels: Single link Two-hop relay network S D S R D Transmission Model QoI Utility Maximization Channel qualities vary within missions Block fading model, i.e., channel gains potentially change each slot Rate regions supported vary each slot j depending on h1(j) and h2(j) Slotted operation Goal: • Why stop? • By continuing, more information could be sent through • but also extra degradation due to timeliness • Online QoI adaptation • Stopping decisions depending on QoI utility state and • time elapsed • Uncertainty: Future channel states and possible rates unknown • => Future QoI utility values unknown Single Link: Optimal Solution State (u,j), Bellman’s equation: V(u,j)=max (u, E[V(d(j)u+g(j+1)e(j),j+1)]) Optimal to stop in (u,j) if: u ≥E[V(d(j)u+g(j+1)e(j),j+1)] Else, it is optimal to continue. • Aim: Stop with maximum QoI utility (us) Value Function Utility ~stop Expected Utility ~continue Hop-by-hop scheduling (queues at relays) Structural Result 1: Structural Result 2: • In each slot, schedule either source or relay. Optimal control policy :Threshold-type Immediate forwarding (no queueing at relays) • In each slot,two phases (S->R & R->D ) scheduled jointly • Time division between phases within the slot optimized. Quality of Information continue stop Thresholds decrease withstage 0 u QoI Utility Dynamics Scheduling Algorithms: Methodology Joint Stopping-Rate Allocation: Single Link The only decision is whether to perform stopping or not. • Optimal solution: Via dynamic programming • In the single user case, can be shown that a threshold-based policy is optimal • Multiple users: Suffers from curse of dimensionality =>Approximate solutions 1-time lookahead approach (Biesterfeld 96): • Compare current QoI utility value with expected values from future decision trajectories • If any future trajectory offers greater expected QoI utility than current QoI utility, continue QoI utility u(j) starts with 0 at the beginning of each mission • Multiple Links: Also rate allocation/link scheduling when continuing • Always scheduling second hop: fails due to causality requirements • Backpressure approaches: Suitable for long-term goals • Adapt Proportional Fair Queuing (PFQ) • Joint stopping- rate allocation algorithm: • If us(j)> E[us,m(j+k)], k=1…D-j, stop • Else, continue with • r1(t)=c1(t), r2(j)=0 if c1(t)/c1 > min(c2(t), x(t))/c2 • r1(t)=0, r2(j)=c2(t) if c1(t)/c1 ≤ min(c2(t), x(t))/c2 • At each time j since the beginning of the mission, amount of information with accuracy metric a(j) already sent in previous slots • Depending on rates at slot j, and scheduled link, extra information worth accuracy metric e(j) transferred • Depending on j, degradation g(j) due to timeliness utility function • At time s, 1≤s<D, the users can decide to stop, • resulting in the final response with utility us=u(s) QoI utility dynamics (under continue decision): u (j+1)=d (j)u(j)+g(j+1)e(j) c1,c2: Mean link capacities x(t): Queue size at t 1-slot degradation factor Simulation Results Conclusions Consider the QoI Utility function [Ciftcioglu et al. 2011]: Delivery time Two-hop network: QoI-based transmission policies for time-varying physical media addressedSingle link: Optimal solution threshold-basedApproximate dynamic programming methodsfor joint stopping-link schedulingPerforms near-optimal to optimal schedulersQueues help exploiting opportunistic scheduling methods, waiting for good channel states pays off . a: Accuracy metric corresponding to QoI-vector q td: Timeliness attribute of QoI-vector q l(a): # bits required to represent QoI-vector w/ accuracy metric a Define D < Tmin): Expiration time . : Timeliness parameter i.e. D=20 Extra slot HHS outperforms IF Rayleigh channels Approximate scheduler near-optimal Sponsored by CTA

More Related