4.7 Article

Stochastic Coalitional Games for Cooperative Random Access in M2M Communications

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 6179-6192

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TWC.2017.2720658

关键词

Game theory; machine-to-machine communications; Internet of Things; coalitional games

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research [N00014-15-1-2709]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, the problem of random access contention between machine type devices (MTDs) in the uplink of a wireless cellular network is studied. In particular, the possibility of forming cooperative groups to coordinate the MTDs' requests for the random access channel (RACH) is analyzed. The problem is formulated as a stochastic coalition formation game in which the MTDs are the players that seek to form cooperative coalitions to optimize a utility function that captures each MTD's energy consumption and time-varying queue length. Within each coalition, an MTD acts as a coalition head that sends the access requests of the coalition members over the RACH. One key feature of this game is its ability to cope with stochastic environments in which the arrival requests of MTDs and the packet success rate over RACH are dynamically time-varying. The proposed stochastic coalitional game is composed of multiple stages, each of which corresponds to a coalitional game in stochastic characteristic form that is played by the MTDs at each time step. To solve this game, a novel distributed coalition formation algorithm is proposed and shown to converge to a stable MTD partition. Simulation results show that, on the average, the proposed stochastic coalition formation algorithm can reduce the average fail ratio and energy consumption of up to 36% and 31% for a cluster-based distribution of MTDs, respectively, compared with a noncooperative case. Moreover, when the MTDs are more sensitive to the energy consumption (queue length), the coalitions' size will increase (decrease).

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

4.7
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