Low-Latency Short-Packet Transmissions: Fixed Length or HARQ?

We study short-packet communications, subject to latency and reliability constraints, under the premises of limited frequency diversity and no time diversity. The question addressed is whether, and when, hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) outperforms fixed-blocklength schemes with no feedback (FBL-NF) in such a setting. We derive an achievability bound for HARQ, under the assumption of a limited number of transmissions. The bound relies on pilot-assisted transmission to estimate the fading channel and scaled nearest-neighbor decoding at the receiver. We compare our achievability bound for HARQ to stateof-the-art achievability bounds for FBL-NF communications and show that for a given latency, reliability, number of information bits, and number of diversity branches, HARQ may significantly outperform FBL-NF. For example, for an average latency of 1 ms, a target error probability of 10^-3, 30 information bits, and 3 diversity branches, the gain in energy per bit is about 4 dB.Comment: 6 pages, 5 figures, accepted to GLOBECOM 201

Wireless Data Acquisition for Edge Learning: Data-Importance Aware Retransmission

By deploying machine-learning algorithms at the network edge, edge learning can leverage the enormous real-time data generated by billions of mobile devices to train AI models, which enable intelligent mobile applications. In this emerging research area, one key direction is to efficiently utilize radio resources for wireless data acquisition to minimize the latency of executing a learning task at an edge server. Along this direction, we consider the specific problem of retransmission decision in each communication round to ensure both reliability and quantity of those training data for accelerating model convergence. To solve the problem, a new retransmission protocol called data-importance aware automatic-repeat-request (importance ARQ) is proposed. Unlike the classic ARQ focusing merely on reliability, importance ARQ selectively retransmits a data sample based on its uncertainty which helps learning and can be measured using the model under training. Underpinning the proposed protocol is a derived elegant communication-learning relation between two corresponding metrics, i.e., signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and data uncertainty. This relation facilitates the design of a simple threshold based policy for importance ARQ. The policy is first derived based on the classic classifier model of support vector machine (SVM), where the uncertainty of a data sample is measured by its distance to the decision boundary. The policy is then extended to the more complex model of convolutional neural networks (CNN) where data uncertainty is measured by entropy. Extensive experiments have been conducted for both the SVM and CNN using real datasets with balanced and imbalanced distributions. Experimental results demonstrate that importance ARQ effectively copes with channel fading and noise in wireless data acquisition to achieve faster model convergence than the conventional channel-aware ARQ.Comment: This is an updated version: 1) extension to general classifiers; 2) consideration of imbalanced classification in the experiments. Submitted to IEEE Journal for possible publicatio

Analysis of NOMA-Based Retransmission Schemes for Factory Automation Applications

New use cases and applications in factory automation scenarios impose demanding requirements for traditional industrial communications. In particular, latency and reliability are considered as some of the most representative Key Performance Indicators (KPI) that limit the technological choices addressing wireless communications. Indeed, there is a considerable research effort ongoing in the area of wireless systems, not only from academia, but also from companies, towards novel solutions that fit Industry 4.0 KPIs. A major limitation for traditional wireless architectures is related to the harsh nature of the industrial propagation channel. Accordingly, this paper addresses these challenges by studying the reliability and latency performance of the joint use of different retransmission schemes in combination with Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA) techniques. Two general retransmission schemes have been tested: time-based and spatial diversity-based retransmissions. An adaptive injection level NOMA solution has been combined with the retransmission schemes to improve the reliability of critical information. In all cases, a particular set of simulations has been carried out varying the main parameters, such as modulation, code rate and the injection level. Moreover, the impact of the number of transmitters in relation to the communication reliability has been analyzed. Results show that spatial diversity-based retransmissions overcome considerably the reliability obtained with time-domain retransmissions while maintaining assumable latency ratesThis work was supported in part by the Basque Government under Grant IT1234-19, in part by the PREDOC under Grant PRE_2020_2_0105, and in part by the Spanish Government through project PHANTOM (MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE) under Grant RTI2018-099162-B-I0

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