Skip to main content
Top
Published in: EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 1/2009

Open Access 01-12-2010 | Research Article

An Active Constraint Method for Distributed Routing, and Power Control in Wireless Networks

Authors: Alban Ferizi, Armin Dekorsy, Joerg Fliege, Larissa Popova, Wolfgang Koch, Michael Söllner

Published in: EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking | Issue 1/2009

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Efficiently transmitting data in wireless networks requires joint optimization of routing, scheduling, and power control. As opposed to the universal dual decomposition we present a method that solves this optimization problem by fully exploiting our knowledge of active constraints. The method still maintains main requirements such as optimality, distributed implementation, multiple path routing and per-hop error performance. To reduce the complexity of the whole problem, we separate scheduling from routing and power control, including it instead in the constraint set of the joint optimization problem. Apart from the mathematical framework we introduce a routing and power control decomposition algorithm that uses the active constraint method, and we give further details on its distributed application. For verification, we apply the distributed RPCD algorithm to examples of wireless mesh backhaul networks with fixed nodes. Impressive convergence results indicate that the distributed RPCD algorithm calculates the optimum solution in one decomposition step only.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, there is an increased interest in communication via wireless mesh networks such as ad-hoc, sensor, or wireless mesh backhauling networks [1, 2]. In wireless networks the link capacities are variable quantities and can be adjusted by the resource allocation such as scheduling, and power allocation to fully exploit network performance. Hence, for efficient data transmission an integrated routing, time scheduling and power control optimization strategy are required. This strategy has to take different transmission constraints into account, for example, maximum available power level or limited buffer size at nodes. The inherent decentralized nature of wireless mesh networks mandates that distributed algorithms should be developed to implement the joint routing, scheduling, and power control optimization. The first step towards a distributed implementation is to break up this problem into manageable subproblems and solve these subproblems by iterative algorithms. Cruz and Santhanam [3] have addressed the problem of finding an optimal link scheduling and power control policy while minimizing total average power consumption. Their algorithm is designed for single-path routing only, does not consider buffer limitations and has a worst case exponential complexity. In [4], Li and Ephremedis solve at first power control and scheduling jointly. They use the obtained power values to calculate a routing distance that in turn is used by Bellman-Ford routing. However, the proposed separation is performed by not considering the combinational structure of the entire routing, scheduling and power control problem. Although less computationally intensive, the algorithm ends up in a suboptimal solution. It further fully neglects multiple path routing as well as buffer restrictions. Xiao et al. proposed in [5] the dual decomposition as a promising decomposition approach. By dual decomposition the overall problem is split into two subproblems while the master dual problem coordinates them. In this paper we consider joint routing, time-scheduling, and power control for single frequency wireless mesh networks. The wireless transmissions are arranged in time-slots. However, we take into account that simultaneously active transmissions suffer from multiple access interference. Dual decomposition is a universal approach to solve such optimization problems [5, 6], but it does not consider the specific combinational structures of optimization problems. By contrast, we propose a novel method that explicitly exploits the combinational structure of a joint routing, time-scheduling, and power control problem by means of an active constraint method. The formulation of the optimization problem is yet generally valid, so that the method proposed here is applicable to a plurality of wireless networks. The proposed approach meets the following requirements: ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq1_HTML.gif ) less iterations to an optimum solution, ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq2_HTML.gif ) distributed implementation, ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq3_HTML.gif ) multiple path routing, and ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq4_HTML.gif ) per hop error performance. In particular, the approach is as follows. We separate scheduling from routing and power allocation by including it in the constraint set of a S imultaneous R outing and P ower C ontrol (SRPC) problem. For scheduling, several well known approximations such as Greedy-based approaches exist [7, Section https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq5_HTML.gif ], that we can leverage on. The constraints we use in the SRPC problem are induced by a precalculated colored graph of the network that, in turn, reflects the scheduling decisions of any arbitrary scheduler. Consequently, the main contribution is to introduce a R outing and P ower C ontrol D ecomposition (RPCD) method to solve the simultaneous routing and power control problem while meeting the above-mentioned requirements. The clever bits of the RPCD are manifold. ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq6_HTML.gif ) We rewrite the SRPC problem to an equivalent problem by applying the active constraint method. ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq7_HTML.gif ) We decouple the equivalent problem by solving a (convex) network and a (convex) power assignment problem separately. ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq8_HTML.gif ) Iterations are performed by switching between the two subproblems for which network and power variables act as interchanging variables. Apart from the mathematical framework we introduce the RPCD algorithm and prove its convergence to a KKT-point of the joint routing and power control problem. We compare the RPCD algorithm with dual decomposition as state-of-art approach with respect to the number of iterations needed to calculate the KKT-point. This verification is performed by applying both algorithms to a wireless cellular mesh backhauling network [1, 2]. The backhauling network describes a "regular" cellular network. This models the situation where, in order to save infrastructure expenses of laying cable or fiber to each node (base station), we try to extend the range of a given source node with wired backhaul connection by using several other nodes. These intermediate nodes have no wired connection and can only communicate with the backhaul via the source node by wireless mesh communications. The simulation set-up correctly models mobile radio channel characteristics such as path-loss and slow fading. The comparison indicates that the RPCD approach requires only one decomposition step to calculate the optimum solution as opposed to dual decomposition. This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe the network model used for the wireless data network. In Section 3 we formulate the optimization problem and define the standard interference function. The RPCD algorithm for solving the joint routing and power control problem is presented in Section 4. We extend the RPCD algorithm in Section 5 by introducing distributed algorithms for solving the routing and power assignment problem. Finally, in Section 6 we apply the algorithm to a wireless backhaul network and present the simulation results. We conclude the paper in Section 7.

2. Network Model

The transmission problem we are facing is to transmit messages indexed by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq9_HTML.gif each of size https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq10_HTML.gif in bits via a multiple hop wireless network. Each message has its source node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq11_HTML.gif and its destination node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq12_HTML.gif . Let https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq13_HTML.gif be an index set for the set of messages with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq14_HTML.gif . With multiple path routing each message is transmitted via several paths from its source node to its destination node. Thus, nodes can send parts of messages to many receivers and receive parts of messages from many transmitters. We denote the nodes by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq15_HTML.gif with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq16_HTML.gif be a finite set of nodes. At any time, each of these nodes https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq17_HTML.gif can map any parts of messages https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq18_HTML.gif onto a single link https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq19_HTML.gif for transmission. The set of all links is denoted by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq20_HTML.gif . A wireless communication link corresponds to an edge https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq21_HTML.gif between two nodes https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq22_HTML.gif and is described by the ordered pair https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq23_HTML.gif such that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq24_HTML.gif transmits information directly to https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq25_HTML.gif . Moreover, we assume that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq26_HTML.gif for all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq27_HTML.gif . We have that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq28_HTML.gif is a directed graph with node set https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq29_HTML.gif and edge set https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq30_HTML.gif . For an arbitrary node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq31_HTML.gif , denote by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq32_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq33_HTML.gif the set of outgoing and incoming edges within https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq34_HTML.gif at the node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq35_HTML.gif , respectively. A link represents a wireless resource characterized by a given bandwidth, time duration, space fraction, or by a given code assignment. We assume a time-slotted single frequency network for which the time is divided into equal slots of length https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq36_HTML.gif while all nodes occupy the same frequency band of bandwidth https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq37_HTML.gif . Time slots are indexed by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq38_HTML.gif , with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq39_HTML.gif as an index set. We take time scheduling into account by assuming that there is a given coloring of the nodes such that adjacent nodes do not have the same color (half-duplex constraint) [4]. That is, we are given a number https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq40_HTML.gif and a function https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq41_HTML.gif such that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq42_HTML.gif for all nodes https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq43_HTML.gif with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq44_HTML.gif . Here, https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq45_HTML.gif is at least as large as the chromatic number of https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq46_HTML.gif . Computing such a coloring can be done by a Greedy approach [7]. To take delay constraints into account we introduce https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq47_HTML.gif as the maximum number of time slots, a message is allowed to use for transmission from its source to its destination, that is, https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq48_HTML.gif . The interference model we consider includes multiple access interference caused by simultaneously active transmissions that can not be perfectly separated by, for example, code- or space division multiple access (CDMA/SDMA) techniques. Thus, let https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq49_HTML.gif be the set of edges interfering edge https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq50_HTML.gif at time https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq51_HTML.gif . The signal attenuation from node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq52_HTML.gif to node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq53_HTML.gif is https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq54_HTML.gif and it remains unchanged within the duration of a time slot https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq55_HTML.gif . We further assume perfect knowledge of https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq56_HTML.gif at the corresponding senders. Let https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq57_HTML.gif be the transmitting node and let https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq58_HTML.gif be the receiving node of edge https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq59_HTML.gif . Hence, https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq60_HTML.gif denotes the attenuation a signal suffers that is transmitted from https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq61_HTML.gif but received by node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq62_HTML.gif . For link https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq63_HTML.gif such a signal represents multiple-access interference that is caused by link https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq64_HTML.gif . Furthermore, with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq65_HTML.gif as the (transmit) power to be allocated to link https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq66_HTML.gif at time slot https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq67_HTML.gif , the received signal power at node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq68_HTML.gif from the transmitter https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq69_HTML.gif is given by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq70_HTML.gif . We define the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) of edge https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq71_HTML.gif at time slot https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq72_HTML.gif as
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ1_HTML.gif
(1)
with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq73_HTML.gif as an additive noise power of edge https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq74_HTML.gif . If we only assume thermal noise to be the same for all edges, we have https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq75_HTML.gif with noise spectral density https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq76_HTML.gif . For the optimization problems to be introduced later we have the following design variables. As network flow variables we have https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq77_HTML.gif as the part of the message https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq78_HTML.gif sent along edge https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq79_HTML.gif in time slot https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq80_HTML.gif (in bits), and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq81_HTML.gif as the part of the message https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq82_HTML.gif stored in a buffer at node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq83_HTML.gif directly before the start of time slot https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq84_HTML.gif (in bits). Communication variable https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq85_HTML.gif is the transmit power allocated to edge https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq86_HTML.gif at time slot https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq87_HTML.gif to transmit the total traffic on edge https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq88_HTML.gif (in Watt). If we stack the different variables to vectors we obtain https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq89_HTML.gif , https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq90_HTML.gif , and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq91_HTML.gif . We further use the following parameters. Let https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq92_HTML.gif be the size of message https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq93_HTML.gif (in bits) and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq94_HTML.gif be the maximum total buffer size at node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq95_HTML.gif (in bits). Power constraints are https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq96_HTML.gif as the maximum transmission power of a node (in Watt) assumed to be the same for all nodes and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq97_HTML.gif as the maximum transmission power per edge (in Watt).

3. Optimization Problem

3.1. Problem Description

Let us consider an operation of a wireless data network with the objective to minimize a convex cost function https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq98_HTML.gif (or to maximize a concave utility function). The design variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq99_HTML.gif , https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq100_HTML.gif , and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq101_HTML.gif are subject to some constraints. For instance, with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq102_HTML.gif we require the power constraints
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ2_HTML.gif
(2)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ3_HTML.gif
(3)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ4_HTML.gif
(4)
forming the polyhedral set
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ5_HTML.gif
(5)
Since we isolated coloring from the joint routing and power control, we have to take the precalculated colored network graph in the flow constraints into account. Similar to power constraints, we require that flow constraints form a polyhedral set https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq103_HTML.gif . For example, if we assume that given source nodes https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq104_HTML.gif have to transmit messages of sizes https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq105_HTML.gif to destinations https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq106_HTML.gif in a given time https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq107_HTML.gif , the polyhedral set https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq108_HTML.gif is defined by the equalities and inequalities
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ6_HTML.gif
(6)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ7_HTML.gif
(7)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ8_HTML.gif
(8)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ9_HTML.gif
(9)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ10_HTML.gif
(10)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ11_HTML.gif
(11)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ12_HTML.gif
(12)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ13_HTML.gif
(13)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ14_HTML.gif
(14)
Equations (7) and (8) avoid buffer overload while (9) and (10) initialize buffer values. To account for delay constraints (11) and (12) ensure that messages reach their destinations completely at https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq109_HTML.gif at last. Coloring is ensured by (13) and (14) is a modified Kirchhoff's Law [6]. The SRPC problem under consideration is now as follows
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ15_HTML.gif
(15)
By the last constraints, we assume that at any time https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq110_HTML.gif each node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq111_HTML.gif can map all part of messages https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq112_HTML.gif onto a single link https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq113_HTML.gif for transmission [5]. Furthermore, we assume that the amount of information (in bits) we can transmit on a single wireless link https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq114_HTML.gif at time slot https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq115_HTML.gif is bounded from above by a maximum mutual information bound https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq116_HTML.gif that itself depends on the power setting. The last constraints of (15) are the only constraints coupling network flow variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq117_HTML.gif with communication variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq118_HTML.gif . Thus, we call them coupling constraints [5], and they represent the most challenging constraints of the SRPC problem. All the other constraints are either constraints for the network flow variables or for the communication variables only. Assuming time-invariant channel conditions within the duration of a single time slot https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq119_HTML.gif , function https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq120_HTML.gif describes the amount of information of edge https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq121_HTML.gif and can be expressed with (1) by the well-known Shannon formula
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ16_HTML.gif
(16)
For each edge https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq122_HTML.gif , the factor https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq123_HTML.gif represents any implementation margin relative to the maximum mutual information given by the Shannon formula [8]. In practice, achieving this mutual information requires adaptive modulation and coding. To accomplish the description of the optimization problem under consideration, we like to list some commonly used examples of cost (utility) functions. Examples are
(1)
minimization of total transmitted power
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ17_HTML.gif
(17)
 
(2)
maximization of total network throughput
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ18_HTML.gif
(18)
with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq124_HTML.gif representing any linear combination of flows that egress node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq125_HTML.gif ,
 
(3)
any linear combination of items ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq126_HTML.gif ) and ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq127_HTML.gif ).
 
A comprehensive overview on commonly used cost functions for wireless data networks is given in [5].

3.2. Standard Interference Function

In the following we give an interpretation of the coupling constraints https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq128_HTML.gif of the SRPC problem (15). We define for https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq129_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq130_HTML.gif
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ19_HTML.gif
(19)
to be a standard interference function in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq131_HTML.gif [9]. To clarify the meaning of a standard interference function, we restate the definition given in [9]. Here, https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq132_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq133_HTML.gif mean componentwise inequality.
If we insert (1) into (16) and solve the coupling constraints in (15) for power values, we obtain rewritten coupling constraints as
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ20_HTML.gif
(20)
Definition 1.
For given values https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq134_HTML.gif , https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq135_HTML.gif is a standard interference function if for all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq136_HTML.gif the following properties are satisfied.
(i)
Positivity: https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq137_HTML.gif .
 
(ii)
(ii)Monotonicity: if https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq138_HTML.gif then https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq139_HTML.gif .
 
(iii)
Scalability: For all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq140_HTML.gif , https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq141_HTML.gif
 
The positivity property ensures positive power values of the joint routing and power control problem (15). If any transmit power level is decreased, the monotonicity guarantees the decrease of the interference on the other links in the network, ensuring the maintenance of the same or even the achievement of a lower interference level for all links. The scalability property implies that if https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq142_HTML.gif then https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq143_HTML.gif for https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq144_HTML.gif .
Interestingly, (20) represents a Quality-of-Service (QoS) constraint, that is, a lower bound on the (implicitly defined) SINR. By reusing the coupling constraints again (15) and solving (16) for SINR we require
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ21_HTML.gif
(21)
SINR is the main indicator for the transmission quality. Hence, given a modulation and coding scheme a specific per-hop error performance implies a respective https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq145_HTML.gif . In turn, by varying https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq146_HTML.gif we vary the transmission quality.
Note that for given values https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq147_HTML.gif , we can use a fixed point iteration algorithm to find a unique power vector https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq148_HTML.gif with
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ22_HTML.gif
(22)
This power iteration represents a standard power control algorithm as introduced in [9]. The power iteration used herein to solve (15) will be described in detail in Section 5.1. With coupling constraints (20) of problem (15) we can make use of the properties of the standard interference function [9], arriving at the following theorem.
Theorem 1.
Suppose that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq149_HTML.gif , that the objective function https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq150_HTML.gif is monotone in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq151_HTML.gif , and that we want to solve the optimization problem
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ23_HTML.gif
(23)
Suppose there exists a feasible point of this optimization problem, then there exists a feasible point with the same or better objective function value for which all the constraints (20) are active, that is, equality holds in all of them. Especially, for every optimum objective function value there exists an optimum variable setting such that all constraints in (20) are active. If https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq152_HTML.gif is strictly monotone in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq153_HTML.gif , then all constraints (20) are active at each optimal solution of this problem.
Proof.
See Appendix A.
Theorem 1 is an extension of the results found in [9]. In contrast to [9] we do not assume that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq154_HTML.gif is just a sum of powers, instead it can be an arbitrary function being monotone in power values. Moreover, the objective as well as the coupling constraints depend on the flow variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq155_HTML.gif and buffers https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq156_HTML.gif , a case not considered in [9].

4. RPCD-Algorithm

In this section we present the RPCD-Algorithm for solving the SRPC problem (15). In contrast to universal approaches, like the dual decomposition method, we fully exploit our knowledge of active constraints of the joint optimization problem.
Based on Theorem 1 we can formulate an equivalent optimization problem but we avoid the extension of the utility function as usually done by applying dual or penalty approaches. We further keep the constraints and we only have to exchange the common network and power variables.
The main idea of the RPCD-Algorithm is to decouple the SRPC problem into two convex subproblems and to find the optimum solution of the SRPC problem by iteratively toggling between the two subproblems (Figure 1).

4.1. RPCD-Principle

Let us consider again problem (15). Due to Theorem 1 we know that all coupling constraints (20) of the SRPC problem are active at least at one optimum solution. By means of this observation, we can rewrite the SRPC problem to an equivalent problem as follows. Activity (equality) means that
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ24_HTML.gif
(24)
We now substitute (24) into the objective of the SRPC problem (15) and obtain an equivalent problem with the rewritten cost function as
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ25_HTML.gif
(25)
In the following we use (25) and decompose the SRPC problem into two convex subproblems.
In particular, by assuming feasible power variables, a routing problem with fixed link capacities is formulated and the optimum flow variables for the routing problem are calculated. Equivalently, we can assume fixed routing variables and formulate a power control problem to calculate optimum power values [10].
The two subproblems are as follows.

4.1.1. Network Flow (Routing) Subproblem

We assume feasible power variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq157_HTML.gif . With (25) we need to solve the optimization problem
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ26_HTML.gif
(26)
where https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq158_HTML.gif are the optimization variables.
We have the following lemma.
Lemma 1.
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq159_HTML.gif ) If https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq160_HTML.gif is a continuously differentiable and monotone function in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq161_HTML.gif and in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq162_HTML.gif , then the objective of (26) is a continuously differentiable and monotone function in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq163_HTML.gif .
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq164_HTML.gif ) Let https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq165_HTML.gif ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq166_HTML.gif ). Suppose that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq167_HTML.gif is twice continuously differentiable, that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq168_HTML.gif is a convex and monotone function in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq169_HTML.gif for all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq170_HTML.gif and that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq171_HTML.gif is a convex function in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq172_HTML.gif for all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq173_HTML.gif , for all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq174_HTML.gif . Assume that at least one of the following holds:
(a)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq175_HTML.gif is strictly convex in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq176_HTML.gif for all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq177_HTML.gif ,
 
(b)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq178_HTML.gif is strictly convex in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq179_HTML.gif for all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq180_HTML.gif , for all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq181_HTML.gif ,
 
(c)
s https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq182_HTML.gif is strictly monotone in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq183_HTML.gif for all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq184_HTML.gif .
 
Then, the objective of (26) is strictly convex in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq185_HTML.gif and the solution to (26) is unique and continuous on https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq186_HTML.gif
Proof.
See Appendix B

4.1.2. Power Control Subproblem

We assume feasible network variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq187_HTML.gif . We need to solve the optimization problem
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ27_HTML.gif
(27)
where https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq188_HTML.gif are the optimization variables.
We have the following lemma.
Lemma 2.
Suppose that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq189_HTML.gif is strictly monotone in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq190_HTML.gif and (27) is feasible. Then, we have:
(1)
problem (27) has a unique solution,
 
(2)
the solution for (27) depends continuously on https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq191_HTML.gif .
 
Proof.
See Appendix C

4.2. RPCD Algorithm

As a consequence of the discussion above, we can replace the SRPC problem (15) by two simple subproblems, coupled to each other via fixed variables (power and network variables). The algorithmic scheme used is exemplified as RPCD algorithm and described in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1: RPCD
         Input: All parameters for problem (15).
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq192_HTML.gif )  Choose https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq193_HTML.gif sufficiently large so that problem (26) 
         is feasible;
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq194_HTML.gif )  Choose https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq195_HTML.gif , https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq196_HTML.gif arbitrarily;
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq197_HTML.gif )   https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq198_HTML.gif ;
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq199_HTML.gif )  while stopping criterion for https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq200_HTML.gif not fulfilled
          do
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq201_HTML.gif )  Set https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq202_HTML.gif and solve problem (26).
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq203_HTML.gif )  Denote the result by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq204_HTML.gif , https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq205_HTML.gif .
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq206_HTML.gif )  Set https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq207_HTML.gif and solve problem (27).
         Denote the result by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq208_HTML.gif .
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq209_HTML.gif )   https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq210_HTML.gif .
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq211_HTML.gif )  endw
          Output: https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq212_HTML.gif
Convergence of the RPCD algorithm is given by the following theorem.
Theorem 2.
Let us consider Lemmas 1 and 2. Under these assumptions and under the assumption that (15) is convex, the RPCD algorithm is well defined and provides a sequence of iterates https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq213_HTML.gif such that each subsequence of this sequence converges to an optimal point of (15). Moreover, there exists at least one converging subsequence. Additionally, the sequence https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq214_HTML.gif converges monotonically decreasing.
Proof.
See Appendix D
Note that both subproblems, (26) and (27), are convex and represent standard problems for which many efficient (distributed) algorithms exist. Particularly, we have to solve a flow problem with fixed capacities (fixed power values) [11] while computing optimum power values can be done by means of standard power control algorithms [9].

5. Distributed RPCD

Generally, we can apply centralized as well as distributed implementation for the RPCD algorithm. In this paper we concentrate on distributed algorithm exclusively. For the interested reader, a detailed survey about the centralized and distributed algorithms and their advantages and disadvantages can be found in [12].
Herein, for the distributed approach locally available information is required and we restrict the internode communication between neighbor nodes only.
As we illustrated in the Figure 2, each node executes the distributed RPCD algorithm in advance before a time slot begins. The algorithm allocates the resources optimally, for given network and power variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq215_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq216_HTML.gif .
In the following, as introduced in Section 4.1, we consider again the two subproblems, routing (26) and power control (27), and present distributed algorithms for solving them.

5.1. Distributed Power Control

Let us consider again the power control subproblem (27), which is part of the RPCD algorithm.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ28_HTML.gif
(28)
Assume given network variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq217_HTML.gif and that the standard interference function https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq218_HTML.gif is feasible, that is, if the power vector https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq219_HTML.gif satisfies the coupling constraints (20), then we can use the following fixed point iteration to compute the optimum power settings
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ29_HTML.gif
(29)
However, in practical systems we have https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq220_HTML.gif taking power limitations into account. Given the original interference function https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq221_HTML.gif and considering the maximum power vector https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq222_HTML.gif in (3) we define
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ30_HTML.gif
(30)
It has been proven in [9] that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq223_HTML.gif is a standard interference function fulfilling Definition 1.
To include the constraint on the output power of a node, we define
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ31_HTML.gif
(31)
and denote by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq224_HTML.gif a projection operator that maps computed power values into the polyhedral set https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq225_HTML.gif at each iteration step of the power iteration (29).
This projection allows us to consider only feasible power values during the course of the iteration.
By coupling the constrained interference function https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq226_HTML.gif with this projection on a polyhedral set, we define a new interference function https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq227_HTML.gif for given network variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq228_HTML.gif
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ32_HTML.gif
(32)
It can be easily shown that for all https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq229_HTML.gif the interference function https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq230_HTML.gif satisfies all properties given by Definition 1 and, hence, is also a standard interference function.
For each time step https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq231_HTML.gif we can now write the standard constrained power iteration as
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ33_HTML.gif
(33)
The power iteration (33) we call distributed power control algorithm.
Obviously, (33) is defined in terms of (32), (31), and (19). Due to (19), the information required to update the power values at starting node for a link https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq232_HTML.gif is the interference caused by the interfering transmissions measured at the end node for a link https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq233_HTML.gif . Moreover, the projections introduced to consider the power constraints are local only. Hence, (33) represents a distributed power control algorithm [9].
We use (33) to find a unique vector https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq234_HTML.gif with
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ34_HTML.gif
(34)
If https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq235_HTML.gif is feasible, then for any initial vector https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq236_HTML.gif , the iteration (33) converges to a unique fixed point https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq237_HTML.gif .
Due to Theorems 1 and 2, this unique fixed point of (34) is a solution of the SRPC problem (15). If the SRPC problem is (strictly) convex, the fixed point is the global (unique) solution for the power setting of the joint routing and power control problem.

5.2. Distributed Routing

In the following we present a distributed algorithm for solving the routing subproblem (26) with given power values https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq238_HTML.gif
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ35_HTML.gif
(35)
The key to a distributed algorithm is to apply a decomposition method by means of formulating the dual problem of the optimization problem (26). Therefore we exploit the separable structure of the routing problem (26) via the dual decomposition method (see, e.g., [5, 13]). For solving the dual problem, we propose to apply the common approach of using the subgradient method [14].
To form the dual routing problem we rewrite the original routing problem (26) using the Lagrange function [6]. We introduce the Lagrange multipliers for the most involving constraints, which are the coupling constraints of the SRPC problem (15)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ36_HTML.gif
(36)
and the flow conservation constraints, that is, modified Kirchhoff's Law (14)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ37_HTML.gif
(37)
This results in the partial Lagrangian of (26) given as
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ38_HTML.gif
(38)
and the Lagrange multipliers are denoted by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq239_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq240_HTML.gif .
The Lagrangian dual function is
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ39_HTML.gif
(39)
Given the Lagrange dual function we can formulate the dual problem by [6]
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ40_HTML.gif
(40)
We need to solve the dual problem (40) in order to obtain the best lower bound on https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq241_HTML.gif from the Lagrange dual function (39). Since the Lagrangian dual function is convex, the dual problem is a convex optimization problem [5]. Moreover, Slater's condition (see, e.g., [6, 13]) holds and thus, strong duality holds. This means, the optimal value of the original routing problem (26) and the dual optimal value from (39) are equal and we can solve the primal problem (26) by its dual (40).
The algorithm to solve (39) and (40) is a two stage optimization algorithm. It solves (39) and (40) separately by using the subgradient method [6, 14] and toggling between the two subproblems until a convergence criterion is met.
For the computation of the dual function (39) we use the projected subgradient method [6, 14], which is an algorithm for minimizing a nondifferentiable convex function with the main feature of enabling distributed implementation.
As a first step we have to calculate the subgradients with the respect to the variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq242_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq243_HTML.gif , for variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq244_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq245_HTML.gif . These subgradients are given by
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ41_HTML.gif
(41)
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ42_HTML.gif
(42)
where https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq246_HTML.gif denotes the node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq247_HTML.gif that represents the starting point for one or more links https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq248_HTML.gif . Analog to https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq249_HTML.gif , we denote with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq250_HTML.gif the node https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq251_HTML.gif that represents the end point for one or more links https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq252_HTML.gif .
The subgradient updates on the variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq253_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq254_HTML.gif are
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ43_HTML.gif
(43)
Note that the projection on the nonnegative orthant by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq255_HTML.gif results due to the network constraints https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq256_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq257_HTML.gif .
Furthermore, https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq258_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq259_HTML.gif represent the subgradient step sizes and have to satisfy (shown for https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq260_HTML.gif )
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ44_HTML.gif
(44)
to ensure convergence. By https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq261_HTML.gif we denote the iteration step.
Finally, we have to solve the dual problem. For this, we compute the subgradients of the Lagrangian dual function https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq262_HTML.gif due to the dual optimization variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq263_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq264_HTML.gif that are given by
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ45_HTML.gif
(45)
Applying subgradient update we obtain for variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq265_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq266_HTML.gif
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ46_HTML.gif
(46)
Note that the projection on the nonnegative orthant by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq267_HTML.gif results due to the constraints https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq268_HTML.gif .
Furthermore, https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq269_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq270_HTML.gif represent the subgradient step sizes, both satisfying the conditions in (44) with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq271_HTML.gif denoting the iteration step.
As one can see by considering (33), (41), (42), (45), (39), (46), and (41) two types of information are necessary. First, that the information required for the computation to take place at each and every node is the interference caused by the interfering transmissions measured at the receiving node. Second, by (42) Lagrange multipliers from neighbor nodes, for example, https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq272_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq273_HTML.gif are required.
The distributed routing algorithm tries to achieve an optimum coordination between the network variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq274_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq275_HTML.gif on the one hand and the dual variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq276_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq277_HTML.gif on the other hand. For the considered wireless network, this means that the distributed routing algorithm tries to achieve an optimum coordination between node buffers and capacities allocated to the links, subject to the network constraints as defined in (26).

6. Simulation Results

In this section, we present some numerical results of the distributed RPCD algorithm as applied to a wireless mesh backhaul network. Furthermore, we compare the results with the dual decomposition method introduced by Xiao et al. in [5]. The network under consideration is a typical cellular network with hexagonal cell structure. The cells are arranged around a center cell by rings and a node is located in the center of a hexagon as depicted in Figure 3.
This models the situation where, to save infrastructure expenses like laying cable or fiber to each node in a network, we try to extend the range of given source node (center node) by intermediate nodes being wireless connected. The source node has wired backhaul connection only, while all other nodes have no wired backhaul connection and can only communicate with the wireless mesh backhaul via the source node. We require that wireless links can only be formed between nodes in adjacent rings. This means, ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq278_HTML.gif ) a node can not transmit to any node that is more than one ring away, and ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq279_HTML.gif ) intraring communication is not allowed so that nodes belonging to the same ring have no wireless link established. Figure 4 shows the resulting directed graph of the wireless mesh backhaul network for the case where the first ring composes three, the second ring five, and the third ring the destination node only.
Each intermediate node can transmit to and receive along multiple links from nodes, neither multicast nor broadcast is considered. The network is a single frequency network. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the scheduler does not take in-band signaling users into account, rather we might interpret in-band users as additive noise. We further require in the simulations that simultaneously active links do not interfere. Hence, the SRPC problem under consideration is convex, therefore, the optimum solution is global. This means, we assume orthogonal transmission between links, possibly performed by Space Division Multiple Access (SDMA) schemes such as sending/receiving beamforming [15, 16]. Due to the setup of the wireless backhaul links, the nodes we consider are cellular base stations with high processing capability. Without loss of generality, the objective function we assume is to minimize total transmitted power with https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq281_HTML.gif .
The scenario shown in Figure 4 is denoted as [ https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq282_HTML.gif , 3, 5, 1] scenario. So, we have 10 nodes forming a wireless mesh backhauling network with 23 edges. The simulation parameter set up is as follows. The wireless network has to transmit data of https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq283_HTML.gif = 10 Mbit size from the source node to the destination, but due to the delay constraint the transmission has to be completed within a maximum number of https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq284_HTML.gif time slots, that is, https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq285_HTML.gif . The bandwidth per link is https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq286_HTML.gif = 5 MHz, the length of an time-slot is https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq287_HTML.gif  ms and the radius per hexagonal cell is https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq288_HTML.gif  m. We assume an exponential path-loss model with factor 3, but no shadow-fading. The thermal spectral noise density is https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq289_HTML.gif  dBm/Hz. The buffer size per node is restricted to https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq290_HTML.gif  Mbit. To account for power constraints we upper bound the power per node by https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq291_HTML.gif  Watt, whereas for each specific link we assume no explicit power restriction. Regarding the distributed RPCD algorithm, we use a stopping criterion based on the variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq292_HTML.gif to check for convergence. We proceed with the iteration as long as the maximum norm of two consecutive iteration steps is greater than https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq293_HTML.gif . To show convergence, we apply the algorithm for a huge number of different starting points as well as for several networks, that is, [ https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq294_HTML.gif , 3, 1], [ https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq295_HTML.gif , 3, 5, 1], [ https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq296_HTML.gif , 3, 5, 7, 1].
We observe the following result.
For a given feasible starting point https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq297_HTML.gif the distributed RPCD algorithm converges to an optimum solution within one step only.
Since the algorithm converges globally the zero vector is always a feasible starting point.
The optimum solution is cross checked twice. First, we verify the solution by applying the NPSOL solver of TOMLAB that reflects centralized implementation. Secondly, we compare our results with another distributed algorithm, the dual decomposition approach [5]. Figure 5 shows the dual function versus iteration https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq298_HTML.gif . Clearly, the dual function slowly converges to the unique optimum solution (as proposed in [5], we applied the subgradient method to update the dual variables ).
Hence, it is obvious that the proposed method significantly outperforms the dual decomposition approach in terms of required iterations steps towards the optimum solution. Moreover, the distributed RPCD approach requires an inter-node communication where nodes share the power and network variables only. The dual decomposition, however, requires an extra communication of the dual variables [17]. Finally, Figure 6 shows the average rate allocation of the data values per edge, where averaging is performed over the time slots the links are active. The amount of transmitted bits is given in [Mbit] while the power values are given in [Watt]. For illustration purposes, the thickness of the links reflects the amount of data transmitted, while dotted links are never active during the entire transmission. As expected, we observe that due to the geometry of the network traffic is mainly concentrated in inner links and the algorithm use one single route from the source to the destination, although multiple path routing could be performed.
Further, we decrease the bandwidth for every link in the network and use https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq302_HTML.gif  MHz. In Figure 7 we can observe that the algorithm can not transmit the total amount of the data over one single route anymore and multiple path routing has to be performed. The transmission of the data expands over more routes in the wireless mesh backhaul network. Nevertheless the data traffic is generally concentrated in the inner links, which can be explained with the geometry of the network.

7. Conclusion

In this paper we have considered the joint routing, time scheduling and power control problem for single frequency, time-slotted wireless mesh networks. We presented an approach for optimally solving this crosslayer optimization problem while meeting the requirements, such as distributed implementation, multiple path routing, and per-hop error performance. The main contribution is the distributed Routing and Power Control Decomposition (RPCD) Algorithm, which is based on the idea of decoupling the SRPC problem into two subproblems, power control and routing, and including scheduling in the constraint set of the SRPC problem. Moreover, we presented distributed algorithms for solving both, the power control and the routing subproblem. For illustration purpose we applied the distributed RPCD algorithm to a wireless mesh backhaul network. The observed convergence results are impressive: only one decomposition step is needed to achieve the optimal solution.

Appendices

A. Proof of Theorem 1

Proof.
Choosing feasible variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq305_HTML.gif ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq306_HTML.gif ) for the problem above, we immediately see that the interference function defined by (29) is a standard interference function. Therefore, the power iteration (29) started from, say, https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq307_HTML.gif converges to a point https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq308_HTML.gif with (22). Clearly, for this point the constraints (20) are active. Moreover, in [9] it was shown that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq309_HTML.gif has the smallest objective function value for all possible choices of the variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq310_HTML.gif ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq311_HTML.gif ) with prespecified and fixed variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq312_HTML.gif ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq313_HTML.gif ). Therefore, the constraints (20) have to be active in all solutions of the optimization problem above.

B. Proof of Lemma 1

Proof.
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq314_HTML.gif ) This can be seen by differentiating the objective under consideration with respect to https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq315_HTML.gif .
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq316_HTML.gif ) The Hessian of the objective under consideration with respect to https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq317_HTML.gif can be written as
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ47_HTML.gif
(B1)
where https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq318_HTML.gif is a diagonal matrix with entries
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ48_HTML.gif
(B2)
The objective is strict convex in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq319_HTML.gif if and only if this Hessian is positive definite. Now, the first summand above is clearly positive semidefinite, since https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq320_HTML.gif is convex in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq321_HTML.gif . Likewise, the third summand is positive semidefinite, since https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq322_HTML.gif is convex in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq323_HTML.gif . Finally, the diagonal matrix https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq324_HTML.gif has nonnegative entries on the main diagonal, since https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq325_HTML.gif is strictly convex in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq326_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq327_HTML.gif is monotone in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq328_HTML.gif . Accordingly, the Hessian above is positive definite as long as one of the summands is positive definite. Assumption (a) leads to the positive definiteness of the first summand, assumption (b) leads to the positive definiteness of the last summand, while assumption (c) leads to the positive definiteness of https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq329_HTML.gif .
From this, the strict convexity under the given assumptions readily follows.
Clearly, the variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq330_HTML.gif ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq331_HTML.gif , https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq332_HTML.gif , https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq333_HTML.gif ) are unique in an optimum of the problem under consideration. Using (9), (10), and (14) and induction over https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq334_HTML.gif , one easily concludes that optimal variables https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq335_HTML.gif ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq336_HTML.gif ) are unique, too.
The continuity is a classic result from parametric optimization, see, for example, [18], and follows from the strict convexity of the objective in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq337_HTML.gif and from the fact that the set of feasible points is a polyhedron.
Remark 1.
The following remarks hold with respect to Lemma 1.
(1)The second result of Lemma 1 can be weakened a bit. In case https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq338_HTML.gif is not strictly convex in, say, https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq339_HTML.gif , it suffices to assume that the diagonal entries of the matrix https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq340_HTML.gif are sufficiently large. That amounts to saying that either https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq341_HTML.gif is sufficiently large or that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq342_HTML.gif is sufficiently large, that is, there is certain amount of monotonicity build into the objective function ( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq343_HTML.gif , https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq344_HTML.gif , https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq345_HTML.gif ).
(2)The convexity assumptions of Lemma 1 do not amount in assuming that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq346_HTML.gif is convex, as the example https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq347_HTML.gif shows.

C. Proof of Lemma 2

Proof.
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq348_HTML.gif ) See Theorem 1 and [9].
( https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq349_HTML.gif ) This follows by noting that the solution to the problem at hand is uniquely characterized by the fixed-point equation https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq350_HTML.gif , the latter being a linear system in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq351_HTML.gif . The corresponding solution depends continuously on https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq352_HTML.gif .
Remark 2.
In Lemma 2, strict monotonicity cannot be replaced by monotonicity. However, uniqueness of the results of Lemma 2 hold again if only the (unique) https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq353_HTML.gif -solution of the optimization problem under consideration is considered.

D. Proof of Theorem 2

Proof.
The well-definedness rests on the two lemmas above, which also tell us that the maps https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq354_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq355_HTML.gif , mapping parameters to solutions of optimization problems, that are considered in the algorithm are point-to-point. Moreover, both maps are continuous. We call an arbitrary mapping https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq356_HTML.gif closed if https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq357_HTML.gif = https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq358_HTML.gif and https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq359_HTML.gif = https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq360_HTML.gif imply https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq361_HTML.gif = https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq362_HTML.gif . Clearly, continuous mappings are closed, and therefore the two mappings mentioned above are closed. (See also [19, page 123],. Actually, closedness is a property usually associated with point-to-set mappings, but we only consider point-to-point mappings here. For point-to-point mappings, continuity is sufficient for closedness, and these two notions are equivalent if the set of arguments is compact.) The rest of the theorem follows the convergence proof of the coordinate descent method [19, Section https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq363_HTML.gif ], replacing the set https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq364_HTML.gif = https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq365_HTML.gif with the set of feasible points for which there does not exist a feasible direction of descent: since https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq366_HTML.gif is compact, the coupling constraint implies that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq367_HTML.gif is compact, too, and therefore the whole set of feasible points is compact. Accordingly, the composition of maps
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ49_HTML.gif
(D1)
that is,
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ50_HTML.gif
(D2)
is closed, see [19, page 124]. That the sequence https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq368_HTML.gif is monotonically decreasing (and therefore convergent) follows by construction of the sequence. We can now define the compact set
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_Equ51_HTML.gif
(D3)
that is, the set of feasible points from which the algorithm does not improve objective function values any more. In the convex case this is a set of KKT-points which is the same as the set of the optimal points. It is easy to see that every converging subsequence of https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq369_HTML.gif converges to a point in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq370_HTML.gif , more precisely to a fixed point of https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq371_HTML.gif (see also [20]), which is thereby a point for which no feasible direction of descent exists.
Remark 3.
The following remarks hold with respect to Theorem 2.
(1)
The convexity assumptions within the theorem have mainly be imposed to guarantee that the map https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq372_HTML.gif is well-defined (i.e., the solution to the corresponding optimization problem is unique). If we simply assume this well-definedness (or enforce it by, say, computing the least-squares optimal solution), we can drop the corresponding assumptions on https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq373_HTML.gif instead.
 
(2)
(2)In principle, strict monotonicity of https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq374_HTML.gif in https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq375_HTML.gif is required to obtain that https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq376_HTML.gif is continuous. However, what usually happens is that in step 5 the power iteration is used, which results in the computation of the unique https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq377_HTML.gif -solution to https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2009%2F656832/MediaObjects/13638_2009_Article_1718_IEq378_HTML.gif . In case the power iteration is replaced by another algorithm, uniqueness of the corresponding solution has to be guaranteed in a different way.
 
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Viswanathan H, Mukherjee S: Throughput-range tradeoff of wireless mesh backhaul networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 2006, 24(3):593-602.CrossRef Viswanathan H, Mukherjee S: Throughput-range tradeoff of wireless mesh backhaul networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 2006, 24(3):593-602.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Cruz RL, Santhanam AV: Optimal routing, link scheduling and power control in multi-hop wireless networks. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Joint Conference on the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM '03), March-April 2003, San Francisco, Calif, USA 1: 702-711. Cruz RL, Santhanam AV: Optimal routing, link scheduling and power control in multi-hop wireless networks. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Joint Conference on the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM '03), March-April 2003, San Francisco, Calif, USA 1: 702-711.
4.
go back to reference Li Y, Ephremides A: Joint scheduling, power control, and routing algorithm for ad-hoc wireless networks. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 2005, Big Island, Hawaii, USA 322. Li Y, Ephremides A: Joint scheduling, power control, and routing algorithm for ad-hoc wireless networks. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 2005, Big Island, Hawaii, USA 322.
5.
go back to reference Xiao L, Johansson M, Boyd SP: Simultaneous routing and resource allocation via dual decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Communications 2004, 52(7):1136-1144. 10.1109/TCOMM.2004.831346CrossRef Xiao L, Johansson M, Boyd SP: Simultaneous routing and resource allocation via dual decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Communications 2004, 52(7):1136-1144. 10.1109/TCOMM.2004.831346CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Boyd S, Vandenberghe L: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 2004.MATHCrossRef Boyd S, Vandenberghe L: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 2004.MATHCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Maurer SB, Ralston A: Discrete Algorithmic Mathematics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA; 1991.MATH Maurer SB, Ralston A: Discrete Algorithmic Mathematics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA; 1991.MATH
8.
go back to reference Eyuboglu MV, Forney GD Jr.: Trellis precoding: combined coding, precoding and shaping for intersymbol interference channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 1992, 38(2, part I):301-314. 10.1109/18.119688MATHCrossRef Eyuboglu MV, Forney GD Jr.: Trellis precoding: combined coding, precoding and shaping for intersymbol interference channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 1992, 38(2, part I):301-314. 10.1109/18.119688MATHCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Yates RD: Framework for uplink power control in cellular radio systems. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 1995, 13(7):1341-1347. 10.1109/49.414651MathSciNetCrossRef Yates RD: Framework for uplink power control in cellular radio systems. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 1995, 13(7):1341-1347. 10.1109/49.414651MathSciNetCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Dekorsy A, Fliege J, Sollner M: Optimal distributed routing and power control decomposition for wireless networks. Proceedings of IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM '07), November 2007, Washington, DC, USA 4920-4924. Dekorsy A, Fliege J, Sollner M: Optimal distributed routing and power control decomposition for wireless networks. Proceedings of IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM '07), November 2007, Washington, DC, USA 4920-4924.
11.
go back to reference Bertsekas DP, Gallager RG: Data Networks. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1992.MATH Bertsekas DP, Gallager RG: Data Networks. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1992.MATH
12.
go back to reference Bertsekas DP: Parallel and Distributed Computation. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1989.MATH Bertsekas DP: Parallel and Distributed Computation. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1989.MATH
13.
go back to reference Bertsekas DP: Nonlinear Programming. Athena Scientific, Nashua, NH, USA; 1999.MATH Bertsekas DP: Nonlinear Programming. Athena Scientific, Nashua, NH, USA; 1999.MATH
14.
go back to reference Ferizi A: Distributed routing and power control algorithms in fixed wireless networks, Diploma Thesis. University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany; 2007. Ferizi A: Distributed routing and power control algorithms in fixed wireless networks, Diploma Thesis. University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany; 2007.
15.
go back to reference Paulraj A, Nabar R, Gore D: Introduction to Space-Time Wireless Communications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 2003. Paulraj A, Nabar R, Gore D: Introduction to Space-Time Wireless Communications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 2003.
16.
go back to reference Czylwik A, Dekorsy A, Chalise B: Smart antenna solutions for UMTS. In Smart Antennas–State of the Art, EURASIP Book Series on Signal Processing and Communications. Volume 3. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Cairo, Egypt; 2005:729-758. Czylwik A, Dekorsy A, Chalise B: Smart antenna solutions for UMTS. In Smart Antennas–State of the Art, EURASIP Book Series on Signal Processing and Communications. Volume 3. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Cairo, Egypt; 2005:729-758.
17.
go back to reference Chiang M: Balancing transport and physical layers in wireless multihop networks: jointly optimal congestion control and power control. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 2005, 23(1):104-116.CrossRef Chiang M: Balancing transport and physical layers in wireless multihop networks: jointly optimal congestion control and power control. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 2005, 23(1):104-116.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bonnans JF, Shapiro A: Perturbation Analysis of Optimization Problems, Springer Series in Operations Research. Springer, New York, NY, USA; 2000.CrossRef Bonnans JF, Shapiro A: Perturbation Analysis of Optimization Problems, Springer Series in Operations Research. Springer, New York, NY, USA; 2000.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Luenberger DG: Introduction to Linear and Nonlinear Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA; 1973.MATH Luenberger DG: Introduction to Linear and Nonlinear Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA; 1973.MATH
20.
go back to reference Zangwill WI: Nonlinear Programming: A Unified Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1969.MATH Zangwill WI: Nonlinear Programming: A Unified Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1969.MATH
Metadata
Title
An Active Constraint Method for Distributed Routing, and Power Control in Wireless Networks
Authors
Alban Ferizi
Armin Dekorsy
Joerg Fliege
Larissa Popova
Wolfgang Koch
Michael Söllner
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/656832

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 1/2009 Go to the issue

Premium Partner