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

Age-Energy Tradeoff in Fading Channels with Packet-Based Transmissions

The optimal transmission strategy to minimize the weighted combination of age of information (AoI) and total energy consumption is studied in this paper. It is assumed that the status update information is obtained and transmitted at fixed rate over a Rayleigh fading channel in a packet-based wireless communication system. A maximum transmission round on each packet is enforced to guarantee certain reliability of the update packets. Given fixed average transmission power, the age-energy tradeoff can be formulated as a constrained Markov decision process (CMDP) problem considering the sensing power consumption as well. Employing the Lagrangian relaxation, the CMDP problem is transformed into a Markov decision process (MDP) problem. An algorithm is proposed to obtain the optimal power allocation policy. Through simulation results, it is shown that both age and energy efficiency can be improved by the proposed optimal policy compared with two benchmark schemes. Also, age can be effectively reduced at the expense of higher energy cost, and more emphasis on energy consumption leads to higher average age at the same energy efficiency. Overall, the tradeoff between average age and energy efficiency is identified

Age of Information in Downlink Systems: Broadcast or Unicast Transmission?

We analytically decide whether the broadcast transmission scheme or the unicast transmission scheme achieves the optimal age of information (AoI) performance of a multiuser system where a base station (BS) generates and transmits status updates to multiple user equipments (UEs). In the broadcast transmission scheme, the status update for all UEs is jointly encoded into a packet for transmission, while in the unicast transmission scheme, the status update for each UE is encoded individually and transmitted by following the round robin policy. For both transmission schemes, we examine three packet management strategies, namely the non-preemption strategy, the preemption in buffer strategy, and the preemption in serving strategy. We first derive new closed-form expressions for the average AoI achieved by two transmission schemes with three packet management strategies. Based on them, we compare the AoI performance of two transmission schemes in two systems, namely, the remote control system and the dynamic system. Aided by simulation results, we verify our analysis and investigate the impact of system parameters on the average AoI. For example, the unicast transmission scheme is more appropriate for the system with a large number UEs. Otherwise, the broadcast transmission scheme is more appropriate

Short-packet Transmission via Variable-Length Codes in the Presence of Noisy Stop Feedback

We present an upper bound on the error probability achievable using variable-length stop feedback codes, for a fixed size of the information payload and a given constraint on the maximum latency and the average service time. Differently from the bound proposed in Polyanskiy et al. (2011), which pertains to the scenario in which the stop signal is sent over a noiseless feedback channel, our bound applies to the practically relevant setup in which the feedback link is noisy. By numerically evaluating our bound, we illustrate that, for fixed latency and reliability constraints, noise in the feedback link can cause a significant increase in the minimum average service time, to the extent that fixed-length codes without feedback may be preferable in some scenarios.Comment: Submitted to a Transactions on Wireless Communication

On Age-of-Information Aware Resource Allocation for Industrial Control-Communication-Codesign

Unter dem Überbegriff Industrie 4.0 wird in der industriellen Fertigung die zunehmende Digitalisierung und Vernetzung von industriellen Maschinen und Prozessen zusammengefasst. Die drahtlose, hoch-zuverlässige, niedrig-latente Kommunikation (engl. ultra-reliable low-latency communication, URLLC) – als Bestandteil von 5G gewährleistet höchste Dienstgüten, die mit industriellen drahtgebundenen Technologien vergleichbar sind und wird deshalb als Wegbereiter von Industrie 4.0 gesehen. Entgegen diesem Trend haben eine Reihe von Arbeiten im Forschungsbereich der vernetzten Regelungssysteme (engl. networked control systems, NCS) gezeigt, dass die hohen Dienstgüten von URLLC nicht notwendigerweise erforderlich sind, um eine hohe Regelgüte zu erzielen. Das Co-Design von Kommunikation und Regelung ermöglicht eine gemeinsame Optimierung von Regelgüte und Netzwerkparametern durch die Aufweichung der Grenze zwischen Netzwerk- und Applikationsschicht. Durch diese Verschränkung wird jedoch eine fundamentale (gemeinsame) Neuentwicklung von Regelungssystemen und Kommunikationsnetzen nötig, was ein Hindernis für die Verbreitung dieses Ansatzes darstellt. Stattdessen bedient sich diese Dissertation einem Co-Design-Ansatz, der beide Domänen weiterhin eindeutig voneinander abgrenzt, aber das Informationsalter (engl. age of information, AoI) als bedeutenden Schnittstellenparameter ausnutzt. Diese Dissertation trägt dazu bei, die Echtzeitanwendungszuverlässigkeit als Folge der Überschreitung eines vorgegebenen Informationsalterschwellenwerts zu quantifizieren und fokussiert sich dabei auf den Paketverlust als Ursache. Anhand der Beispielanwendung eines fahrerlosen Transportsystems wird gezeigt, dass die zeitlich negative Korrelation von Paketfehlern, die in heutigen Systemen keine Rolle spielt, für Echtzeitanwendungen äußerst vorteilhaft ist. Mit der Annahme von schnellem Schwund als dominanter Fehlerursache auf der Luftschnittstelle werden durch zeitdiskrete Markovmodelle, die für die zwei Netzwerkarchitekturen Single-Hop und Dual-Hop präsentiert werden, Kommunikationsfehlerfolgen auf einen Applikationsfehler abgebildet. Diese Modellierung ermöglicht die analytische Ableitung von anwendungsbezogenen Zuverlässigkeitsmetriken wie die durschnittliche Dauer bis zu einem Fehler (engl. mean time to failure). Für Single-Hop-Netze wird das neuartige Ressourcenallokationsschema State-Aware Resource Allocation (SARA) entwickelt, das auf dem Informationsalter beruht und die Anwendungszuverlässigkeit im Vergleich zu statischer Multi-Konnektivität um Größenordnungen erhöht, während der Ressourcenverbrauch im Bereich von konventioneller Einzelkonnektivität bleibt. Diese Zuverlässigkeit kann auch innerhalb eines Systems von Regelanwendungen, in welchem mehrere Agenten um eine begrenzte Anzahl Ressourcen konkurrieren, statistisch garantiert werden, wenn die Anzahl der verfügbaren Ressourcen pro Agent um ca. 10 % erhöht werden. Für das Dual-Hop Szenario wird darüberhinaus ein Optimierungsverfahren vorgestellt, das eine benutzerdefinierte Kostenfunktion minimiert, die niedrige Anwendungszuverlässigkeit, hohes Informationsalter und hohen durchschnittlichen Ressourcenverbrauch bestraft und so das benutzerdefinierte optimale SARA-Schema ableitet. Diese Optimierung kann offline durchgeführt und als Look-Up-Table in der unteren Medienzugriffsschicht zukünftiger industrieller Drahtlosnetze implementiert werden.:1. Introduction 1 1.1. The Need for an Industrial Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Related Work 7 2.1. Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3. Codesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3.1. The Need for Abstraction – Age of Information . . . . . . . . 11 2.4. Dependability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. Deriving Proper Communications Requirements 17 3.1. Fundamentals of Control Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.1. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1.2. Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.1.3. Packet Losses and Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2. Joint Design of Control Loop with Packet Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.1. Method 1: Reduced Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.2. Method 2: Markov Jump Linear System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.3. Focus Application: The AGV Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3.1. Control Loop Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3.2. Control Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.3.3. Joint Modeling: Applying Reduced Sampling . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.3.4. Joint Modeling: Applying MJLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4. Modeling Control-Communication Failures 43 4.1. Communication Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.1.1. Small-Scale Fading as a Cause of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.1.2. Connectivity Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.2. Failure Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.2.1. Single-hop network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.2.2. Dual-hop network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.3. Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.3.1. Mean Time to Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.3.2. Packet Loss Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.3.3. Average Number of Assigned Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.3.4. Age of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5. Single Hop – Single Agent 61 5.1. State-Aware Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5.2. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.3. Erroneous Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6. Single Hop – Multiple Agents 71 6.1. Failure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.1.1. Admission Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.1.2. Transition Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.1.3. Computational Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 6.1.4. Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6.2. Illustration Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 6.3.1. Verification through System-Level Simulation . . . . . . . . . 78 6.3.2. Applicability on the System Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.3.3. Comparison of Admission Control Schemes . . . . . . . . . . 80 6.3.4. Impact of the Packet Loss Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 6.3.5. Impact of the Number of Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 6.3.6. Age of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 6.3.7. Channel Saturation Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 6.3.8. Enforcing Full Channel Saturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 6.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 7. Dual Hop – Single Agent 91 7.1. State-Aware Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.2. Optimization Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7.3.1. Extensive Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 7.3.2. Non-Integer-Constrained Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 8. Conclusions and Outlook 105 8.1. Key Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 8.2. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 A. DC Motor Model 111 Bibliography 113 Publications of the Author 127 List of Figures 129 List of Tables 131 List of Operators and Constants 133 List of Symbols 135 List of Acronyms 137 Curriculum Vitae 139In industrial manufacturing, Industry 4.0 refers to the ongoing convergence of the real and virtual worlds, enabled through intelligently interconnecting industrial machines and processes through information and communications technology. Ultrareliable low-latency communication (URLLC) is widely regarded as the enabling technology for Industry 4.0 due to its ability to fulfill highest quality-of-service (QoS) comparable to those of industrial wireline connections. In contrast to this trend, a range of works in the research domain of networked control systems have shown that URLLC’s supreme QoS is not necessarily required to achieve high quality-ofcontrol; the co-design of control and communication enables to jointly optimize and balance both quality-of-control parameters and network parameters through blurring the boundary between application and network layer. However, through the tight interlacing, this approach requires a fundamental (joint) redesign of both control systems and communication networks and may therefore not lead to short-term widespread adoption. Therefore, this thesis instead embraces a novel co-design approach which keeps both domains distinct but leverages the combination of control and communications by yet exploiting the age of information (AoI) as a valuable interface metric. This thesis contributes to quantifying application dependability as a consequence of exceeding a given peak AoI with the particular focus on packet losses. The beneficial influence of negative temporal packet loss correlation on control performance is demonstrated by means of the automated guided vehicle use case. Assuming small-scale fading as the dominant cause of communication failure, a series of communication failures are mapped to an application failure through discrete-time Markov models for single-hop (e.g, only uplink or downlink) and dual-hop (e.g., subsequent uplink and downlink) architectures. This enables the derivation of application-related dependability metrics such as the mean time to failure in closed form. For single-hop networks, an AoI-aware resource allocation strategy termed state-aware resource allocation (SARA) is proposed that increases the application reliability by orders of magnitude compared to static multi-connectivity while keeping the resource consumption in the range of best-effort single-connectivity. This dependability can also be statistically guaranteed on a system level – where multiple agents compete for a limited number of resources – if the provided amount of resources per agent is increased by approximately 10 %. For the dual-hop scenario, an AoI-aware resource allocation optimization is developed that minimizes a user-defined penalty function that punishes low application reliability, high AoI, and high average resource consumption. This optimization may be carried out offline and each resulting optimal SARA scheme may be implemented as a look-up table in the lower medium access control layer of future wireless industrial networks.:1. Introduction 1 1.1. The Need for an Industrial Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Related Work 7 2.1. Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3. Codesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3.1. The Need for Abstraction – Age of Information . . . . . . . . 11 2.4. Dependability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. Deriving Proper Communications Requirements 17 3.1. Fundamentals of Control Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1.1. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1.2. Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.1.3. Packet Losses and Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2. Joint Design of Control Loop with Packet Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.1. Method 1: Reduced Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.2. Method 2: Markov Jump Linear System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.3. Focus Application: The AGV Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3.1. Control Loop Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3.2. Control Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.3.3. Joint Modeling: Applying Reduced Sampling . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.3.4. Joint Modeling: Applying MJLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4. Modeling Control-Communication Failures 43 4.1. Communication Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.1.1. Small-Scale Fading as a Cause of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.1.2. Connectivity Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.2. Failure Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.2.1. Single-hop network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.2.2. Dual-hop network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.3. Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.3.1. Mean Time to Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.3.2. Packet Loss Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.3.3. Average Number of Assigned Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.3.4. Age of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5. Single Hop – Single Agent 61 5.1. State-Aware Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5.2. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.3. Erroneous Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6. Single Hop – Multiple Agents 71 6.1. Failure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.1.1. Admission Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.1.2. Transition Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.1.3. Computational Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 6.1.4. Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 6.2. Illustration Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 6.3.1. Verification through System-Level Simulation . . . . . . . . . 78 6.3.2. Applicability on the System Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.3.3. Comparison of Admission Control Schemes . . . . . . . . . . 80 6.3.4. Impact of the Packet Loss Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 6.3.5. Impact of the Number of Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 6.3.6. Age of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 6.3.7. Channel Saturation Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 6.3.8. Enforcing Full Channel Saturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 6.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 7. Dual Hop – Single Agent 91 7.1. State-Aware Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.2. Optimization Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 7.3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7.3.1. Extensive Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 7.3.2. Non-Integer-Constrained Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 7.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 8. Conclusions and Outlook 105 8.1. Key Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 8.2. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 A. DC Motor Model 111 Bibliography 113 Publications of the Author 127 List of Figures 129 List of Tables 131 List of Operators and Constants 133 List of Symbols 135 List of Acronyms 137 Curriculum Vitae 13

Spectrum slicing for multiple access channels with heterogeneous services

Wireless mobile networks from the fifth generation (5G) and beyond serve as platforms for flexible support of heterogeneous traffic types with diverse performance requirements. In particular, the broadband services aim for the traditional rate optimization, while the time-sensitive services aim for the optimization of latency and reliability, and some novel metrics such as Age of Information (AoI). In such settings, the key question is the one of spectrum slicing: how these services share the same chunk of available spectrum while meeting the heterogeneous requirements. In this work we investigated the two canonical frameworks for spectrum sharing, Orthogonal Multiple Access (OMA) and Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA), in a simple, but insightful setup with a single time-slotted shared frequency channel, involving one broadband user, aiming to maximize throughput and using packet-level coding to protect its transmissions from noise and interference, and several intermittent users, aiming to either to improve their latency-reliability performance or to minimize their AoI. We analytically assessed the performances of Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and ALOHA-based schemes in both OMA and NOMA frameworks by deriving their Pareto regions and the corresponding optimal values of their parameters. Our results show that NOMA can outperform traditional OMA in latency-reliability oriented systems in most conditions, but OMA performs slightly better in age-oriented systems