ARQ with Cumulative Feedback to Compensate for Burst Errors

We propose a cumulative feedback-based ARQ (CF ARQ) protocol for a sliding window of size 2 over packet erasure channels with unreliable feedback. We exploit a matrix signal-flow graph approach to analyze probability-generating functions of transmission and delay times. Contrasting its performance with that of the uncoded baseline scheme for ARQ, developed by Ausavapattanakun and Nosratinia, we demonstrate that CF ARQ can provide significantly less average delay under bursty feedback, and gains up to about 20% in terms of throughput. We also outline the benefits of CF ARQ under burst errors and asymmetric channel conditions. The protocol is more predictable across statistics, hence is more stable. This can help design robust systems when feedback is unreliable. This feature may be preferable for meeting the strict end-to-end latency and reliability requirements of future use cases of ultra-reliable low-latency communications in 5G, such as mission-critical communications and industrial control for critical control messaging.Comment: GLOBECOM'18. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1806.0577

Tiny Codes for Guaranteeable Delay

Future 5G systems will need to support ultra-reliable low-latency communications scenarios. From a latency-reliability viewpoint, it is inefficient to rely on average utility-based system design. Therefore, we introduce the notion of guaranteeable delay which is the average delay plus three standard deviations of the mean. We investigate the trade-off between guaranteeable delay and throughput for point-to-point wireless erasure links with unreliable and delayed feedback, by bringing together signal flow techniques to the area of coding. We use tiny codes, i.e. sliding window by coding with just 2 packets, and design three variations of selective-repeat ARQ protocols, by building on the baseline scheme, i.e. uncoded ARQ, developed by Ausavapattanakun and Nosratinia: (i) Hybrid ARQ with soft combining at the receiver; (ii) cumulative feedback-based ARQ without rate adaptation; and (iii) Coded ARQ with rate adaptation based on the cumulative feedback. Contrasting the performance of these protocols with uncoded ARQ, we demonstrate that HARQ performs only slightly better, cumulative feedback-based ARQ does not provide significant throughput while it has better average delay, and Coded ARQ can provide gains up to about 40% in terms of throughput. Coded ARQ also provides delay guarantees, and is robust to various challenges such as imperfect and delayed feedback, burst erasures, and round-trip time fluctuations. This feature may be preferable for meeting the strict end-to-end latency and reliability requirements of future use cases of ultra-reliable low-latency communications in 5G, such as mission-critical communications and industrial control for critical control messaging.Comment: to appear in IEEE JSAC Special Issue on URLLC in Wireless Network

Reliable Packet Streams with Multipath Network Coding

With increasing computational capabilities and advances in robotics, technology is at the verge of the next industrial revolution. An growing number of tasks can be performed by artificial intelligence and agile robots. This impacts almost every part of the economy, including agriculture, transportation, industrial manufacturing and even social interactions. In all applications of automated machines, communication is a critical component to enable cooperation between machines and exchange of sensor and control signals. The mobility and scale at which these automated machines are deployed also challenges todays communication systems. These complex cyber-physical systems consisting of up to hundreds of mobile machines require highly reliable connectivity to operate safely and efficiently. Current automation systems use wired communication to guarantee low latency connectivity. But wired connections cannot be used to connect mobile robots and are also problematic to deploy at scale. Therefore, wireless connectivity is a necessity. On the other hand, it is subject to many external influences and cannot reach the same level of reliability as the wired communication systems. This thesis aims to address this problem by proposing methods to combine multiple unreliable wireless connections to a stable channel. The foundation for this work is Caterpillar Random Linear Network Coding (CRLNC), a new variant of network code designed to achieve low latency. CRLNC performs similar to block codes in recovery of lost packets, but with a significantly decreased latency. CRLNC with Feedback (CRLNC-FB) integrates a Selective-Repeat ARQ (SR-ARQ) to optimize the tradeoff between delay and throughput of reliable communication. The proposed protocol allows to slightly increase the overhead to reduce the packet delay at the receiver. With CRLNC, delay can be reduced by more than 50 % with only a 10 % reduction in throughput. Finally, CRLNC is combined with a statistical multipath scheduler to optimize the reliability and service availability in wireless network with multiple unreliable paths. This multipath CRLNC scheme improves the reliability of a fixed-rate packet stream by 10 % in a system model based on real-world measurements of LTE and WiFi. All the proposed protocols have been implemented in the software library NCKernel. With NCKernel, these protocols could be evaluated in simulated and emulated networks, and were also deployed in several real-world testbeds and demonstrators.:Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 6 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.2 Use Cases and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3 Opportunities of Multipath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.4 Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2 State of the Art of Multipath Communication 19 2.1 Physical Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.2 Data Link Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.3 Network Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.4 Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.5 Application Layer and Session Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.6 Research Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3 NCKernel: Network Coding Protocol Framework 27 3.1 Theory that matters! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.2 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.3.1 Socket Buffers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.3.2 En-/Re-/Decoder API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.3.3 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3.4 Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3.5 Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.4 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.5 Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4 Low-Latency Network Coding 35 4.1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2 Random Linear Network Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.3 Low Latency Network Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.4 CRLNC: Caterpillar Random Linear Network Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.4.1 Encoding and Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.4.2 Decoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.4.3 Computational Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.5.1 System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.5.2 Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.5.3 Packet Loss Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.5.4 Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.5.5 Window Size Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5 Delay-Throughput Tradeoff 55 5.1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5.2 Network Coding with ARQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5.3 CRLNC-FB: CRLNC with Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.3.1 Encoding and Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.3.2 Decoding and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.3.3 Retransmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5.4 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.4.1 System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.4.2 Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 5.4.3 Systematic Retransmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 5.4.4 Coded Packet Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5.4.5 Comparison with other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6 Multipath for Reliable Low-Latency Packet Streams 73 6.1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.2 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 6.3 System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6.3.1 Traffic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6.3.2 Network Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6.3.3 Channel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.3.4 Reliability Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.4 Multipath CRLNC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 6.4.1 Window Size for Heterogeneous Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 6.4.2 Packet Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.5.1 Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.5.2 Preliminary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 6.5.3 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 6.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 7 Conclusion 94 7.1 Results and Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 7.2 Future Research Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Acronyms 99 Publications 101 Bibliography 10

Practical Sliding Window Recoder: Design, Analysis, and Usecases

Network coding has been widely used as a technology to ensure efficient and reliable communication. The ability to recode packets at the intermediate nodes is a major benefit of network coding implementations. This allows the intermediate nodes to choose a different code rate and fine-tune the outgoing transmission to the channel conditions, decoupling the requirement for the source node to compensate for cumulative losses over a multi-hop network. Block network coding solutions already have practical recoders but an on-the-fly recoder for sliding window network coding has not been studied in detail. In this paper, we present the implementation details of a practical recoder for sliding window network coding for the first time along with a comprehensive performance analysis of a multi-hop network using the recoder. The sliding window recoder ensures that the network performs closest to its capacity and that each node can use its outgoing links efficiently

High performance faster-than-nyquist signaling

AbstractIn a wireless broadband context, multi-path dispersive channels can severely affectdata communication of Mobile Terminals (MTs) uplink.Single Carrier withFrequency-Domain Equalization (SC-FDE) has been proposed to deal with highlydispersive channels for the uplink of broadband wireless systems. However, currentsystems rely on older assumptions of the Nyquist theorem and assume that a systemneeds a minimum bandwidth 2Wper MT. Faster-Than-Nyquist (FTN) assumesthat it is possible to employ a bandwidth as low as 0.802 of the original Nyquistbandwidth with minimum loss - despite this, the current literature has only proposedcomplex receivers for a simple characterization of the wireless channel. Furthermore,the uplink of SC-FDE can be severely affected by a deep-fade and or poor channelconditions; to cope with such difficulties Diversity Combining (DC) Hybrid ARQ(H-ARQ) is a viable technique, since it combines the several packet copies sent bya MT to create reliable packet symbols at the receiver.In this thesis we consider the use of FTN signaling for the uplink of broadbandwireless systems employing SC-FDE based on the Iterative Block with DecisionFeedback Equalization (IB-DFE) receiver with a simple scheduled access HybridAutomatic Repeat reQuest (H-ARQ) specially designed taking into account thecharacteristics of FTN signals. This approach achieves a better performance thanNyquist signaling by taking advantage of the additional bandwidth employed of aroot-raised cosine pulse for additional diversity.Alongside a Packet Error Rate (PER) analytical model, simulation results show that this receiver presents a better performance when compared with a regular system,with higher system throughputs and a lower Energy per Useful Packet (EPUP)