4.5 Article

The Age of Information in Multihop Networks

期刊

IEEE-ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 1248-1257

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNET.2019.2915521

关键词

Age of information; data freshness; multihop network; new-better-than-used; stochastic ordering; scheduling

资金

  1. ONR [N00014-17-1-2417, N00014-15-1-2166]
  2. Army Research Office [W911NF-14-1-0368, MURI W911NF-12-1-0385]
  3. National Science Foundation [CNS-1446582, CNS-1421576, CNS-1518829, CCF-1813050]
  4. Defense Thrust Reduction Agency [HDTRA1-14-1-0058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Information updates in multihop networks such as Internet of Things (IoT) and intelligent transportation systems have received significant recent attention. In this paper, we minimize the age of a single information flow in interference-free multihop networks. When preemption is allowed and the packet transmission times are exponentially distributed, we prove that a preemptive last-generated, first-served (LGFS) policy results in smaller age processes across all nodes in the network than any other causal policy (in a stochastic ordering sense). In addition, for the class of new-better-than-used (NBU) distributions, we show that the non-preemptive LGFS policy is within a constant age gap from the optimum average age. In contrast, our numerical result shows that the preemptive LGFS policy can be very far from the optimum for some NBU transmission time distributions. Finally, when preemption is prohibited and the packet transmission times are arbitrarily distributed, the non-preemptive LGFS policy is shown to minimize the age processes across all nodes in the network among all work-conserving policies (again in a stochastic ordering sense). Interestingly, these results hold under quite general conditions, including 1) arbitrary packet generation and arrival times, and 2) for minimizing both the age processes in stochastic ordering and any non-decreasing functional of the age processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据