Energy-Efficient Packet Scheduling With Finite Blocklength Codes: Convexity Analysis and Efficient Algorithms

Abstract

This paper considers an energy-efficient packet scheduling problem over quasi-static block fading channels. The goal is to minimize the total energy for transmitting a sequence of data packets under the first-in-first-out rule and strict delay constraints. Conventionally, such design problem is studied under the assumption that the packet transmission rate can be characterized by the classical Shannon capacity formula, which, however, may provide inaccurate energy consumption estimation, especially when the code blocklength is finite. In this paper, we formulate a new energy-efficient packet scheduling problem by adopting a recently developed channel capacity formula for finite blocklength codes. The newly formulated problem is fundamentally more challenging to solve than the traditional one because the transmission energy function under the new channel capacity formula neither can be expressed in closed form nor possesses desirable monotonicity and convexity in general. We analyze conditions on the code blocklength for which the transmission energy function is monotonic and convex. Based on these properties, we develop efficient offline packet scheduling algorithms as well as a rolling-window based online algorithm for real-time packet scheduling. Simulation results demonstrate not only the efficacy of the proposed algorithms but also the fact that the traditional design using the Shannon capacity formula can considerably underestimate the transmission energy for reliable communications. Index TermsEnergy efficiency, packet scheduling, finite blocklength code, optimization Part of this work has been presented in

Energy-Efficient Non-Orthogonal Transmission under Reliability and Finite Blocklength Constraints

“…As is shown in [6], F m > 0 and F x > 0 always hold with m > 0 and x > 0 respectively. Thus the monotonicity of E(m) = m k Γ k (m k ) can be verified by…”

“…Note that (4b) with k = 1 corresponds to (2), and (4b) with k = 2 corresponds to (3). Constraints (4c) represents the minimum blocklength constraint for (4b) holding true [5] [6] (typicallym = 100), while (4d) and (4e) are the transmission power constraints.…”

Energy-Latency Tradeoff in Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication With Retransmissions

“…Let E ⋆ (S m ) be the minimum average energy going to the state S m . According to (12), it is easy to prove that…”

Joint Uplink and Downlink Resource Configuration for Ultra-Reliable and Low-Latency Communications

“…Similar to H2H communications, ensuring short queueing delay is also necessary for URLLC, where queueing delay requirement should be characterized by the queueing delay bound and its violation probability. Considering that packets are randomly generated and the service rate of a wireless link could be random, queueing delay has been considered in single-user scenarios [11][12][13] and multi-user scenarios [14], where achievable rate in finite blocklength regime was applied in their analyses. A packet scheduling policy was proposed under strict delay bound constraint on queueing delay in [11], which cannot be satisfied with probability one due to channel fading.…”

“…A packet scheduling policy was proposed under strict delay bound constraint on queueing delay in [11], which cannot be satisfied with probability one due to channel fading. To show when the delay bound can be satisfied, a feasible condition was obtained, but delay bound violation probability can not be derived under the framework in [11]. To analyze queueing delay bound violation probability, network calculus was applied to obtain an upper bound of the delay violation probability in [12].…”