1

Joint Uplink and Downlink Resource
Configuration for Ultra-reliable and
Low-latency Communications

arXiv:1801.00988v1 [] 3 Jan 2018

Changyang She, Chenyang Yang and Tony Q.S. Quek

Abstract
Supporting ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC) is one of the major goals for
the fifth-generation cellular networks. Since spectrum usage efficiency is always a concern, and large
bandwidth is required for ensuring stringent quality-of-service (QoS), we minimize the total bandwidth
under the QoS constraints of URLLC. We first propose a packet delivery mechanism for URLLC.
To reduce the required bandwidth for ensuring queueing delay, we consider a statistical multiplexing
queueing mode, where the packets to be sent to different devices are waiting in one queue at the base
station, and broadcast mode is adopted in downlink transmission. In this way, downlink bandwidth is
shared among packets of multiple devices. In uplink transmission, different subchannels are allocated to
different devices to avoid strong interference. Then, we jointly optimize uplink and downlink bandwidth
configuration and delay components to minimize the total bandwidth required to guarantee the overall
packet loss and end-to-end delay, which includes uplink and downlink transmission delays, queueing
delay and backhaul delay. We propose a two-step method to find the optimal solution. Simulation and
numerical results validate our analysis and show remarkable performance gain by jointly optimizing
uplink and downlink configuration.

Index Terms
This paper was presented in part at the workshop on ultra-reliable and low-latency communications in wireless networks with
IEEE Global Communications Conference 2016 [1].
Changyang She was with the School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China.
He is now with the Information Systems Technology and Design Pillar, Singapore University of Technology and Design, 8
Somapah Road, Singapore 487372 (email:shechangyang@gmail.com).
Chenyang Yang is with the School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
(email:cyyang@buaa.edu.cn).
T. Q. S. Quek is with the Information Systems Technology and Design Pillar, Singapore University of Technology and Design,
8 Somapah Road, Singapore 487372 (e-mail: tonyquek@sutd.edu.sg).

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

2

Ultra-reliable and low-latency communications, resource configuration, packet delivery mechanism.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC) are required in the emerging application scenarios of the fifth-generation (5G) cellular networks [2]. Different from existing
communication systems that are designed for human-to-human (H2H) communications, URLLC
target to ultra-reliable machine-type-communications and human-to-machine communications
that require haptic interactions, such as autonomous vehicles, factory automation, and remote
control [3, 4]. All those applications have strict requirements on end-to-end (E2E) or round trip
delay (say around 1 ms) and reliability (say around 10−6 packet loss probability), which can not
be satisfied in Long Term Evolution systems.
The E2E delay consists of various delay components that depend on communication scenarios.
In long distance communication scenarios, the E2E delay consists of transmission delay and
queueing delay in radio access network, routing delay in backhaul and core networks, and also
propagation delay that is hard to control. For example, when the communication distance is
longer than 300 km, the propagation delay is longer than 1 ms since light travels 300 km per
millisecond in vacuum [5]. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that ensuring the ultra-short E2E
delay is not easy even in local communication scenarios, where communication is only required
by users in adjacent cells with short backhaul delay and negligible propagation delay.
A core difference between radio resource allocation for URLLC and that for traditional realtime service comes from both transmission delay and packet size [2]. In H2H communications,
transmission delay is relative long (say 10 ms) and the packet size is large (say 1500 bytes)
[6]. As a result, Shannon’s Capacity is widely applied in existing literatures to characterize
achievable rate of traditional services with long packets (e.g., [7] and references therein). In
URLLC, to satisfy short transmission delay, short packets are transmitted (say 20 byte [2]). As
a result, the blocklength of channel coding is short. In addition, to ensure ultra-high reliability,
decoding error with short blocklength channel codes cannot be ignored. Therefore, decoding
error probability with short blocklength channel codes should be applied [8], which is with very
complicated expression. Fortunately, approximate decoding error probability in finite blocklength
regime has been obtained with simple expression in [9,10], which are shown accurate for quasistatic fading channels. Yet these approximations are neither convex nor concave in transmit

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

3

power or bandwidth. As a result, the resource allocation optimization for URLLC is much more
challenging than H2H 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
[11–13] 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. 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]. Simulation results in [12] validated that if
Shannon’s Capacity is applied, then the delay violation probability will be underestimated, and
hence the quality-of-service (QoS) cannot be guaranteed. The performance of relay systems was
analyzed in [13], where effective capacity was applied to characterize the queueing delay. More
recently, the transmission policy in both single-user and multi-user scenarios was optimized to
minimize the maximal transmit power required to satisfy QoS requirement in [14]. To study
how to serve multiple users with multiple BSs, a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR)
model was applied to simplify the reliability requirement in [15], where multi-connectivity was
exploited to improve reliability.
The study in [14] focuses on downlink (DL) transmission design, and implicitly assume that
the uplink (UL) transmission can be finished in a short time with guaranteed reliability. However,
ensuring ultra-reliable and low-latency for UL transmission is not easy as well. To ensure the
QoS for URLLC, UL and DL resource allocation should be jointly optimized [16]. To guarantee
queueing delay violation probability, effective bandwidth and effective capacity were applied
in [16], where the Shannon’s Capacity was used as the service rate (and hence decoding error
probability was not considered), and the global optimal solutions of the problem was not found.
If the achievable rate in finite blocklength regime is applied in the joint UL and DL resource
allocation, it could be more challenging to find the optimal solution [17].
On the other hand, spectrum is scarce resource for wireless communications. Due to stringent
QoS requirement, the resource allocation for URLLC is inevitably conservative, and hence the

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

4

bandwidth usage efficiency for URLLC will be very low without judicious control. In some
application scenarios, the overall bandwidth can become unaffordable. For example, the packet
arrival rate in tactile internet is very high [18], and in smart factory the number of devices
can be very large [19]. In order to improve the spectrum usage efficiency, the packet delivery
mechanism for URLLC, including queueing and transmission modes, should be reconsidered. To
guarantee the QoS of each user, the packets to different users are waiting in different queues (i.e.,
individual queueing mode) in [14, 16]. However, to achieve the same average queueing delay,
the required service rate of the individual queueing mode is much higher than that of a statistical
multiplexing queueing mode, where the packets to different users are waiting in one common
queue, and hence the DL bandwidth can be shared among multiple users [20]. Besides, most of
existing studies assumed that channel state information at transmitter (CSIT) is perfectly known,
which incurs training/feedback overhead that linearly increases with the number of receivers
[11, 12, 14, 16]. Since the packet size in URLLC is usually very small, large signaling overhead
leads to low spectrum efficiency. With a transmission mechanism without CSIT, the overhead
can be reduced, but whether the QoS requirement can be guaranteed becomes a question.
In this paper, we study how to jointly optimize UL and DL resource configuration and delay
components to minimize the total bandwidth to support URLLC in local communication scenarios. We focus on orthogonal multiple access systems to avoid strong and random interference.
The major contributions are summarized as follows:
•

We propose a packet delivery mechanism for URLLC. To save bandwidth in UL transmission, bandwidth is not reserved for all the UL devices since they may stay dumb for a long
time. Only the devices that request sending packets will be assigned bandwidth. To reduce
the bandwidth for ensuring queueing delay requirement, statistical multiplex queueing mode
is adopted, where the packets to different users are waiting in one queue at the buffer of the
base station (BS). By taking Poisson arrival process as an example, we prove that under the
same queueing delay bound and queueing delay violation probability, the required service
rate of a statistical multiplex queue is less than the sum of the required service rates of all
individual queues, where the packets to different users are waiting in different queues. To
reduce overhead, broadcast is applied for DL transmission.

•

We jointly optimize the bandwidth assignment for UL and DL transmissions and delay
components to minimize the total bandwidth required by the packet delivery mechanism to
ensure the E2E delay and overall packet loss probability, where routing and propagation

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

5

delays are characterized by a deterministic backhaul delay, and the achievable rate in finite
blocklength regime is applied. The E2E delay includes UL and DL transmission delay and
queueing delay, the overall packet loss includes packet loss in UL and DL transmissions and
queueing delay violation. A two-step method is proposed, where the bandwidth assignment
is first optimized with given delay components and then the uplink and downlink bandwidth
are optimized given the E2E delay. Numerical results show that the joint configuration
requires half of the total bandwidth of the non-joint optimization.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. System model is described in Section II.
A packet delivery mechanism is proposed in Section III. Section IV formulates the optimization
problem. Section V shows how to obtain the optimal solution. Simulation and numerical results
are provided in Section VI. Section VII concludes this work.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
A. Local Communication Scenarios
We consider local communication scenarios, where BSs are connected with one-hop backhaul
and the communication distance is less than a few kilometers. In such scenarios, propagation
delay is negligible. By deploying high-capacity backhaul links such as fiber, the backhaul delay
is around 0.1 ms [21].
As illustrated in Fig. 1, we consider a cellular system with K + M single-antenna devices
and three BSs. Each device is served by one of the BSs, which are equipped with Nt antennas.
To avoid strong interference among adjacent BSs, the frequency-reuse factor of the network is
assumed to be 1/3. Frequency-division multiple access is applied to avoid interference among
different devices. There are two kinds of devices. The first kind of devices are K users, which
need to download packets from the BSs. The second kind of devices are M sensors, which
generate and upload packets to the BSs. After receiving the packets successfully, the BSs send
the packets to users.1 Depending on application scenarios, each user may require packets from
one or more sensors in the M sensors, and the packets of one sensor may be required to one or
more target users in the K users. If a sensor and a target user are connected to two BSs, then
the required packets need to be forwarded from the BS connected with the sensor to the BS
connected with the user via backhaul. Frequency division duplex (FDD) systems is considered,
1

Device-to-device communications are possible for URLLC, which will not be addressed in this work.

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

6

because they are widely deployed. Our studies can be easily extended to time division duplex
(TDD) systems. In TDD systems, one can adjust the ratio of UL and DL transmission durations,
which is equivalent to adjusting UL and DL bandwidth in FDD systems.
BS3

user
sensor
UL
DL

user K
sensor M
BS2

BS1
Backhaul

user 2
sensor 1
user 1

sensor 2

sensor 3

Fig. 1. Illustration of a local communication scenario.

B. QoS Requirement
The QoS requirement of URLLC is characterized by an ultra-short E2E delay Dmax and an
overall packet loss probability εmax that are imposed on each packet. For local communication
scenario, the E2E delay includes UL and DL transmission delays, queueing delay at the BSs
and backhaul delay by assuming negligible propagation delay and processing delay. The overall
packet loss comes from decoding errors and queueing delay violation. In Long Term Evolution
systems, transmission time interval (TTI) is 1 ms, and hence the E2E delay of URLLC cannot
be supported. To reduce transmission delay, we consider the short frame structure as illustrated
in Fig. 2, where TTI equals to the frame duration Tf , which is the minimal time granularity
of the system (i.e., subframe in [22]). Therefore, the transmission delays and queueing delay
should be divisible by frame duration. The E2E delay requirement is given by
Du + Dd + Dq + Db ≤ Dmax ,

(1)

where Du , Dd , Dq and Db are the UL and DL transmission delays, queueing delay and backhaul
delay, respectively.
In application scenarios of URLLC such as smart factory and vehicle networks, there are two
kinds of packets: event-driven packets and periodic packets [23,24]. For the event-driven packets,

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

7

E2E delay

Du

Db

Dq

control signaling

Dd

data transmission
time

TTI (frame)
Fig. 2. Frame duration and delay components of event-driven packets.

the transmission delay includes those caused by control signaling and data transmission as
illustrated in Fig. 2. The UL transmission procedure includes the following steps: (i) generation of
a packet by a sensor; (ii) UL scheduling request from the sensor; (iii) bandwidth assignment and
transmission grant by the BS; (iv) UL data transmission. The scheduling requests are triggered
by some urgent events, and the BSs need to grant the transmission immediately when a request
is received. To ensure that the UL scheduling request can be successfully received by the BS
(i.e., to avoid scheduling collision), control channel should be reserved for each sensor with
event-driven packets [22], and hence only two frames are occupied by control signaling in steps
(ii) and (iii). For periodic packets, the inter-arrival time between packets are known at the BSs.
By reserving data transmission resource to each sensor, there is no control signaling.2
Denote the requirements on the packet loss probabilities in UL transmission, DL transmission
and queueing as εu , εd and εq , respectively. The ultra-high reliability can be ensured if
(1 − εu )(1 − εd )(1 − εq ) ≈ 1 − εu − εd − εq ≤ εmax ,

(2)

where the approximation is accurate since εu , εd , and εq are extremely small.
III. PACKET D ELIVERY M ECHANISM
In this section, we propose a packet delivery mechanism for event-driven packets in URLLC,
which can be easily extended to periodic packets since their arrival processes are deterministic.
To reduce the total bandwidth required to ensure QoS requirement, we consider statistical
multiplexing mode for queueing at BSs, broadcasting mode for downlink transmission, and
bandwidth assignment for UL and DL transmissions.
2

Since random access could cause long latency for machine-type communications [25], it will not be used for both kinds of
packets in URLLC [2].

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

8

A. Queueing Mode
As shown in [26, 27], the packet arrival process in vehicle networks and some M2M communications can be modeled as a Poisson process, which is an aggregation of packets generated by
multiple sensors. Denote the average arrival rate of the Poisson process as λ packets/frame. The
arrival process of each sensor is modeled as Bernoulli process. Denote am (n) as the number of
packets arrived at a BS from the mth sensor in the nth frame, m = 1, ..., M . With probability
pm , am (n) = 1, and with probability 1 − pm , am (n) = 0. Then, the average total arrival rate
P
of the M sensors is λ = M
m=1 pm packets/frame. According to the result in [14], the effective
bandwidth of the arrival process can be expressed as follows,
EB =

Tf ln(1/εq )
h
i packets/frame,
q)
Dq ln Tf ln(1/ε
+
1
λDq

(3)

which is the minimal constant packet service rate required to ensure queueing delay Dq and
queueing delay violation probability εq . It is widely believed that effective bandwidth is applicable when the queue length or queueing delay is long. However, the results in [28] imply that
for Poisson process and the arrival processes that are more bursty than Poisson process, a short
delay requirement (Dq , εq ) can be satisfied with a constant packet service rate that is equal to
or higher than EB . This implication is validated in [14] for typical arrival processes in URLLC,
such as Poisson process, interrupted Poisson processes that is more bursty than Poisson process,
and Switched Poisson process that is autocorrelated.
L queues

EB

EB

EB

(a)


...

...

...





...

...



EB

(b)

Fig. 3. Queueing modes. (a) Individual queueing mode. (b) Statistical multiplexing queueing mode.

In existing papers that study how to ensure queueing delay requirement of each users, the
packets target to different users wait in different queues before DL transmission as in Fig. 3(a)
[14,16]. Such a queueing mode is referred to as individual queueing mode. It has been shown that

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

9

if λ̃ = λ/L and ẼB = EB /L, then the average queueing delay with the individual queueing mode
will be L times of that with the statistical multiplexing mode in Fig. 3(b) [20]. The following
proposition indicates that a similar conclusion can be obtained when the delay requirement is
characterized by (Dq , εq ), which is imposed on each packet.
Proposition 1. Given the requirement on Dq and εq , if λ̃ = λ/L, then LẼB > EB .
Proof. See proof in Appendix A.
If the queueing delay requirement (Dmax , εq ) can be satisfied with the statistical multiplexing
queue, then for any packet that comes from any of the M sensors, the probability that the
queueing delay of the packet exceeds Dmax is smaller than εq . In other words, no matter which
sensor a packet came from, the delay requirement of it can be satisfied with the statistical
multiplexing queue. Proposition 1 indicates that to guarantee the queueing delay requirement
imposed on each packet, the required effective bandwidth of statistical multiplexing queue is less
than the total effective bandwidth of individual queues. Since effective bandwidth is the minimal
constant service rate that can ensure queueing delay requirement, and the required bandwidth
decreases with service rate, we consider statistical multiplexing mode for saving bandwidth.
B. Transmission Mode and Bandwidth Assignment
In typical scenarios of URLLC, the channel coherence time is longer than the typical E2E
delay (i.e., 1 ms) [14]. Then, the channel gain changes little before the deadline of conveying
each packet, and hence simply retransmitting a packet in multiple consecutive frames can hardly
improve the reliability. When channel is in deep fading, frequency diversity can be applied. To
illustrate how the overall reliability can be ensured with diversity, we consider a simple method
that transmits each packet multiple times over multiple separated subchannels [29].3
1) Subchannel assignment for UL transmission: Considering that a sensor may stay dumb for
a long duration between the transmissions of short packets [26], the bandwidth is only assigned
to the active sensors immediately after receiving the scheduling requests.
3

For saving bandwidth, a simple idea is that all sensors transmit packet under the same spectrum. In the spectrum sharing
network, interference is random and strong, which cannot be treated as additive noise or simply ignored. Unfortunately, the
achievable rate with finite blocklength codes in the interference environment is unavailable in existing literatures. Therefore,
whether or not the QoS requirement of URLLC can be satisfied in spectrum sharing systems is unknown and deserves further
study.

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

10

u
To exploit frequency diversity, the BS assigns Nm
separated subchannels to the mth sensor
u
if it has a packet to transmit. The packet is repeatedly transmitted over the Nm
subchannels.
u
If one of the Nm
transmissions is successful, then the packet is successfully received at the

BS. Since the interference among sensors causes severe deterioration in QoS, we assume that
different subchannels are assigned to the sensors that request transmissions concurrently. To
u
maximize frequency diversity gain, the instantaneous channel gains on the Nm
subchannels
u
assigned to transmit one packet should be independent, i.e., the separation of the Nm
subchannels

should exceed the channel coherence bandwidth Wc , as shown in Fig. 4. In real-word systems,
frequency is discretized into basic bandwidth units, e.g., subcarriers in orthogonal frequency
division multiple access systems, and then each subchannel consists of multiple bandwidth units
u
with bandwidth B0 . Denote Bm
as the bandwidth of each subchannel allocated to the mth sensor.
u
Then, Bm
is divisible by B0 . By adjusting the number of bandwidth units in one subchannel,

the bandwidth of each subchannel can be controlled. The bandwidth assigned to the sensor
u u
u
for transmitting a packet is Nm
Bm . We assume that Bm
< Wc , such that each subchannel is

frequency-flat fading.
coherence
bandwidth

...

bandwidth unit

...
frequency

subchannel 1

subchannel 2

Fig. 4. Bandwidth of each subchannel.

2) Subchannel assignment for DL transmission: We consider broadcast for DL transmission.4
Without access control, acknowledgment feedback, and CSIT, the control and training/feedback
overhead is negligible. To guarantee reliability, each packet is repeatedly transmitted over N d
subchannels each with bandwidth B d < Wc , and different packets are transmitted over different
subchannels. Each user can receive the signals on all the DL subchannels. We assume that
the channel coding on each subchannel is independent of the others. With independent channel
coding, decoding errors on different subchannels are uncorrelated. If one packet is lost due to
decoding error, other packets can still be decoded successfully.
4
In some applications like factory automation and tactile internet each user only requests packets from M 0 sensors, where
M 0 < M . For these applications, multi-cast is an option for DL transmission, where users and sensors are grouped into multiple
clusters. Our method can be extended into multi-cast systems by applying it in each cluster.

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

11

C. Illustration of the Packets Delivery Mechanism
The proposed packets delivery mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 5, where sensors 1, 2, and
M are served by BSs 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In the considered time slots, sensor M has no
packet to transmit and stays dumb, and the other two sensors are active. In the UL transmission
phase, sensor 1 sends a packet to BS1 over subchannel 1, and sensor 2 sends two copies of
its packet to BS2 over subchannels 2 and 3. Then, BS1 forwards the packet from sensor 1 to
BS2 via backhaul. After arriving at the buffer of BS2 , both packets wait in the buffer before
DL transmission. In the DL transmission phase, packets in the buffer are broadcast to all the
users associated with BS2 over multiple subchannels at rate EB+ packets/frame, where EB+ is the
minimal integer that is equal to or higher than EB .
packet 1

packet 2

subchannel 1 BS1
Buffer
at BS2
sensor 1

subchannel 4
subchannel 5

subchannel 2
sensor 2

...

subchannel 6
subchannel 3
subchannel 7
sensor M

BS3

UL transmission

BS2

Broadcast

users

DL transmission

Fig. 5. Illustration of packets delivery mechanism.

IV. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
In this section, we formulate the optimization problem to minimize the total bandwidth by
jointly optimizing UL and DL transmission delays, queueing delay and subchannel assignment.
A. Ensuring UL and DL Packet Loss Requirements
When analyzing the reliability of URLLC, Shannon capacity was applied in many existing
studies such as [15, 30], which cannot characterize the decoding error probability.
1) Constraint on UL transmission packet loss probability: Denote the large-scale channel gain
u
of the mth sensor as αm
, and the instantaneous channel gain on the ith subchannel allocated to
u
the mth sensor as gm,i
= (hum,i )H hum,i , where [·]H denotes the conjugate transpose and hum,i ∈

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

12

CNt ×1 is the channel vector whose elements are independent and identically complex Gaussian
distributed with zero mean and unit variance. To avoid feedback overhead, CSIT is not assumed
available at the sensors, and then the maximal transmit power at each sensor is equally allocated
u
among Nm
subchannels. For single-input-multiple-output system, the achievable rate from the

mth sensor to the BS over the ith subchannel can be accurately approximated by [10]
s
( 
)
u 
u
u
u
u
Vm,i
g
P
α
Tf Bm
m max m,i
−1 u
u
ln 1 +
−
f (em,i ) bits/frames,
Rm,i ≈
u Nu
u Q
ln 2
φN0 Bm
(Du − 2Tf )Bm
m

(4)

u
is the maximal transmit power of each sensor, φ > 1 reflects the signal-to-noise
where Pmax

ratio (SNR) loss due to the errors of channel estimation at receiver,5 N0 is the single-sided
noise spectral density, eum,i is the decoding error probability (i.e., the block error probability) on
u
= 1−
the ith subchannel of the mth sensor, fQ−1 (x) is the inverse of the Q-function, and Vm,i
h
i
−2
u gu
αu
P
m max m,i
1 + φN
[10]. The blocklength of channel coding is determined by the UL bandwidth
u
u
0B N
m

m

u
. When the blocklength
of each subchannel and transmission duration according to (Du −2Tf )Bm

is large, (4) approaches to the Shannon’s capacity.
As shown in [9, 10], the approximation in (4) is very accurate in quasi-static channel when
eum,i ∈ [10−3 , 10−6 ]. In typical scenarios, the required transmission delay in URLLC is shorter
than the channel coherence time [14], i.e., the channel is quasi-static.6 This suggests that the
approximation in (4) is applicable for URLLC.
When transmitting a packet that contains b bits over one subchannel, the decoding error
u
(Du − 2Tf )/Tf = b as
probability can be obtained by substituting (4) into Rm,i
 


u 
u
u
p
g
P
α
b
ln
2
m,i
max
m
u
u ln 1 +
em,i = fQ
(Du − 2Tf )Bm
− u u
,
u Nu
φN0 Bm
Bm (D − 2Tf )
m

(5)

where Vmu ≈ 1 is applied. eum,i in (5) depends on channel, and hence is a random variable.
To show the relation between the decoding error probability and packet loss probability, we
use indicator functions to represent whether a packet is successfully transmitted over multiple
subchannels. If the packet is successfully transmitted to the BS over the ith subchannel assigned
5
The impact of channel estimation errors on data rate can be equivalent to a SNR loss, which depends on the velocity of
sensors [31]. Velocity of devices ranges from 0 to 500 km/h [19]. For sensors with slow and median velocity, φ is close to 1.
6

If the transmission duration of each block is less than the channel coherence time, then the channel is referred to as quasi-static
channel in [10].

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

13

to the mth sensor, then 1um,i = 1. Otherwise, 1um,i = 0. From (5), we have
Z ∞
u
eum,i fg (x)dx,
Pr{1m,i = 0} =

(6)

0

where fg (x) is the distribution of instantaneous channel gain. If the elements of hum,i are complex
Gaussian distributed, then fg (x) =

1
xNt −1 e−x .
(Nt −1)!

u
Since each packet is transmitted over Nm

subchannels, the packet loss probability is given by
u


Pr

u
Nm

∩

i=1

1um,i


=0


=

Nm
Y

Pr



1um,i

i=1

Z
=0 =

Nmu

∞

eum,i fg

(x)dx

,

(7)

0

which should be no large than εu to guarantee the UL reliability.
Optimizing resource allocation under the constraint on the packet loss probability in (7) is very
difficult, because the expression of eum,i in (5) is too complicated to obtain any useful insights.
To simplify the analysis, we consider an upper bound of it. Since fQ (·) is a decreasing function,
u
increases. Then, an upper bound of eum,i can be obtained from
eum,i decreases as gm,i

 eu,th , if g u ≥ g u,th ,
m
m,i
m
u
em,i ≤
u
 1, if g < g u,th ,
m,i
m
u,th
u,th
u
where gm
can be obtained by substituting em
into Rm,i
(Du − 2Tf )/Tf = b as
s
(
"
#
)
u
u

N
φN
B
b
ln
2
1
0 m m
u,th
gm
≈
exp
+
f −1 eu,th
−1 .
m
u Pu
u − 2T )B u
u − 2T )B u Q
αm
(D
(D
f
f
max
m
m

(8)

(9)

u
is higher than a
The upper bound in (8) means that if the instantaneous channel gain gm,i
u
u,th
(Du − 2Tf )/Tf ≥ b, then a packet with size b can be transmitted
such that Rm,i
threshold gm

successfully with probability 1 − eu,th
over the ith subchannel. Otherwise, the packet cannot be
m
transmitted successfully over the ith subchannel.
The upper bound of decoding error probability in (8) is different from outage probability,
defined as the probability that the SNR or SINR is lower than a threshold in [15, 30]. When the
channel gain exceeds the threshold, the outage probability is zero. As shown in (8), however,
u,th
u,th
even when the channel gain is higher than the threshold gm
, em
is not zero. The relation
u,th
between eu,th
and gm
is shown in (9).
m

From (8), the packet loss probability can be bounded by
 u


 u
 u
Nm
u
th,u
u,th Nm
Pr ∩ 1m,i = 0 ≤ Pr gm,i
< gm
+ em
.
i=1

January 4, 2018

(10)

DRAFT

14

 u
R gu,th
th,u
= 0 m fg (x) dx, the constraint on UL packet loss probability is
< gm
Since Pr gm,i
u
u
u
fm
(Nm
, Bm
, eu,th
m ) ,

"Z

#Nmu

u,th
gm

fg (x) dx + eu,th
m

≤ εu , m = 1, ..., M.

(11)

0
u
u,th
Remark 1. The upper bound in (8) is not accurate when gm,i
is smaller than the threshold gm
.

In this case, the decoding error probability ranges from eu,th
to 1. Since eu,th
is smaller than 1,
m
m
u
u,th
setting eum,i = 1 when gm,i
< gm
leads to conservative resource allocation. We will show the

impact of the loose upper bound on bandwidth allocation with numerical results.
2) Constraint on DL transmission packet loss probability: Since the frame duration is much
shorter than the E2E delay, it is possible to adjust transmission duration of each packet Dd . To
achieve a constant rate of EB+ packets per frame, the number of packets that are transmitted
Dd +
EB . Without CSIT, the maximal
Tf
d
D
EB+ N d active subchannels. Denote
Tf

simultaneously is

d
is equally
transmit power of a BS Pmax

allocated among

the average channel gain of the kth user

as αkd .
Similar to UL transmission, we can derive the threshold in DL transmission as follows:
(
"
#
)
r


d d + d
φN
B
D
E
b
ln
2
1
N
N
0
t
B
gkd,th ≈
exp
+
f −1 ekd,th − 1 ,
(12)
dBd
dBd Q
d T
D
D
αkd Pmax
f
where ekd,th is the block error probability when the instantaneous channel gain is gkd,th . Then, the
probability that the packet is not successfully transmitted to the kth user is bounded by
fkd (N d , B d , ed,th
k ) ,

"Z

gkd,th

#N d
fg (x) dx + ed,th
k

.

(13)

0
d,th
As shown in (12), gkd,th decreases with αkd . Moreover, fkd (N d , B d , ed,th
k ) increases with gk .

Therefore, the user with the lowest average channel gain has the highest packet loss probability.
To study DL transmission reliability for all users, we only need to consider the user with the
index kmin = arg min αkd . Then, the constraint on DL packet loss probability is,
k

d
fkdmin (N d , B d , ed,th
kmin ) ≤ ε .

(14)

u
u
Remark 2. Since Vm,i
≤ 1, by substituting Vm,i
= 1 into (4), we can obtain a lower bound

of the achievable rate. As validated in [12], V is very close to 1 when the SNR is higher than
10 dB, which is the typical SNR at the edge of a cell [32]. On the other hand, to guarantee

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

15

the QoS requirement of typical applications in URLLC [19], the required SNR should be high,
which can be supported by equipping multiple antennas at the BS. To simplify the analysis, we
u
use the lower bounds in the rest of this work, i.e., Vm,i
= 1. For DL transmission, we can also

obtain a lower bound of achievable rate in this way.
B. Total Bandwidth of the System
To ensure Dq and εq , the packet rate for DL transmission should be EB+ packets per frame. To
ensure downlink transmission delay of each packet Dd with frame duration Tf , the number of
packets that are transmitted simultaneously should be
for DL transmission in each cell is

Dd

EB+ N d B d .
Tf

Dd +
EB .
Tf

Therefore, the bandwidth required

Denote the number of active sensors in one

frame as Ma , and the indices of these sensors as set Ma . Then, the total bandwidth for UL
P
u u
transmission is
Nm
Bm . Thus, the required total bandwidth of the system is given by
m∈Ma

X

u u
Nm
Bm + FR−1

m∈Ma

Dd + d d
E N B ,
Tf B

(15)

where FR is the frequency-reuse factor.
Since Ma is a random variable, and the resource allocation changes with Ma , the BSs
need to solve the optimization problem when the number of active sensors changes (e.g.,
every millisecond). To reduce computational complexity for solving optimization problem, we
introduced an upper bound of the number of active sensors.
Denote 1m as an indicator function. If the mth sensor is active, 1m = 1. Otherwise, 1m = 0.
Then, E(1m ) can be expressed as a function of pm , which is the probability that the mth sensor
has a transmission request in each frame. In particular, if there is a request, the sensor will stay
active in (Du − 2Tf )/Tf frames, and E(1m ) = (Du − 2Tf )pm /Tf . Since all the sensors could be
active at the same time, a simple upper bound of (15) can be obtained by setting Ma = M .
However, such an bound will lead to very conservative bandwidth assignment for UL transmission
if the number of sensors is large, where the probability that all the sensors are active is extremely
small. In what follows, we provide a threshold of Ma , which is an upper bound of Ma with
high probability. Denote the threshold as Math . With probability εM , Ma is higher than Math , i.e.,
εM , Pr{Ma > Math }. Since Ma is the sum of M Bernoulli process, it can be approximated
PM
u
th
f
as a Poisson process with parameter D T−2T
m=1 pm . Hence, it is not hard to obtain Ma with
f
M
th P
u u
given εM . Then, the bandwidth for UL transmission is bounded by MMa
Nm
Bm with high
m=1

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

16

probability. When Ma > Math , some packets may be lost due to insufficient bandwidth, which
however has little impact on the overall reliability if εM  εmax . Then, an upper bound of the
M
th P
d
u u
Nm
Bm + FR−1 DTf EB+ N d B d ,
required total bandwidth of the system can be obtained as MMa
m=1

Btot . With this upper bound, the BSs only need to solve the optimization problem and update
resource allocation when the large-scale channel gains change (e.g., every second).
C. Optimization Problem
The optimal UL and DL transmission delays, queueing delay and subchannel assignment that
minimize the upper bound of the required total bandwidth to ensure the QoS can be obtained
from the following problem:
min

Du ,Dd ,Dq ,N d B d ,ed,th
k

min

M
Math X u u
Dd + d d
Nm Bm + FR−1
E N B
M m=1
Tf B

(16)

u ,B u ,eu,th ,m=1,...,M
Nm
m m

s.t. EB+ =



 Dq ln

q

ln(1/ε )
h
q

Tf ln(1/ε )
λDq

+


i
,
+1 

(16a)

u
u
0 < Bm
≤ Wc , 0 < B d ≤ Wc , Bm
, B d ∈ {zB0 , z ∈ Z}

(16b)

u
u
0 < Nm
, 0 < N d , Nm
, N d ∈ Z,

(16c)

Du ∈ {3Tf , 4Tf , ..., Dmax − Db − 2Tf },
Dd , Dq ∈ {Tf , 2Tf , ..., Dmax − Db 4Tf },
(1), (11), and (14),
where constraint in (16a) is the required DL packet service rate for ensuring queueing delay
and queueing delay bound violation probability, constraint (16b) ensures the bandwidth of each
subchannel less than the coherence bandwidth such that each copy of a packet is transmitted
over a flat fading channel,7 (1) is the constraint on the E2E delay, and the constraints in (11)
and (14) ensure the transmission packet loss probabilities in UL and DL, respectively. Because
u,th
the upper bounds in (11) and (14) are not unique and depend on em
and ekd,th
, the values of
min

eu,th
and ed,th
m
kmin affect the optimal solution and the total bandwidth. To minimize the required
total bandwidth, we adjust eu,th
and ekd,th
in the upper bounds in an optimal manner.
m
min
7

The value of Wc depends on propagation environment, which is not hard to obtain before a system is configured [33].

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

17

Remark 3. Similar to the delay components, the system can also adjust packet loss components
in queueing and UL and DL transmissions. With different values of εu , εq and εd , the required
total bandwidth is different. In problem (16), the values of εu , εq and εd are given. If they
are optimization variables, then problem (16) will become intractable. Owing to the following
reason, we can provide a simple but reasonable way to divide the constraint on the overall
packet loss probability into constraints on different components. If εu → 0, then according to
u
(11), Nm
→ ∞, which means that the required bandwidth tends to infinite. Similarly, if εd → 0,

N d → ∞. Moreover, by substituting (3) into (15), the relation between Btot and εq can be
expressed as Btot = C1 + C2 ln (1/εq )/ln [C3 ln (1/εq ) + 1], where C1 , C2 and C3 are parameters
that do not change with εq . If εq → 0, then Btot approaches infinite. This suggests that all
the values of εu , εq and εd cannot be ignored. Here we set them as one third of εmax , i.e.,
εu = εq = εd = εmax /3. In simulation part, we will show that the total bandwidth with optimal
values of εu , εq and εd is almost the same as that with εu = εq = εd = εmax /3.
V. J OINT UL AND DL R ESOURCE C ONFIGURATION
In this section, we provide a two-step method to find the optimal solution of problem (16). In
the first step, we find the optimal subchannel assignment that minimizes total bandwidth with
give delay components. In the second step, we find the optimal delay components that minimize
the total bandwidth. Finally, we prove that the two-step method can provide the optimal solution.
A. Bandwidth Assignment Optimization
u
u
,
, Bm
In this subsection, we fix the values of Du , Dd and Dq , and optimize the values of Nm

N d and B d . Because the UL and DL bandwidth assignments can be decoupled given the delay
components and packet loss components, we first optimize UL subchannel assignment, and then
consider DL subchannel assignment.
u
u
u,th
1) UL subchannel assignment: We optimize the values of Nm
, Bm
, and em
in (8) to minimize

the UL bandwidth under the constraint on εu with given Du from the following problem:
M
Math X u u
Nm Bm
u ,B u ,eu,th M
Nm
m m
m=1

min

(17)

m=1,...,M

u
u
s.t. 0 < Bm
≤ Wc , 0 < Nm
, Nm ∈ Z,

(17a)

and (11),

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

18

u
where Bm
is relaxed to continuous variable. After obtaining the solution of problem (17), the
u
u
discrete value of Bm
can be directly obtained from (Bm
/B0 )+ B0 .

In the sequel, we propose an algorithm to find the optimal solution of problem (17). Since
the constraints for each sensor do not depend on those of the other sensors, problem (17) can
be further equivalently decomposed into M single-sensor problems as follows:
min

u ,B u ,eu,th
Nm
m m

u u
Nm
Bm

(18)

s.t. (17a), and (11).
u
u
u
u,th
To solve problem (18), we need some properties of fm
(Nm
, Bm
, em
).
u,min
u,th
u
that
, we can find a unique solution of Bm
and em
Property 1. Given the values of Nm
u
u,th
u
u
u
u
u
u
, eu,th
, Bm
(Nm
minimizes fm
m ). Moreover, fm (Nm , Bm , em ) strictly decreases with Bm in the
u,mim
u
u
u,mim
u
, ∞).
∈ [Bm
in the region Bm
] and strictly increases with Bm
∈ [0, Bm
region Bm

Proof. See proof in Appendix B.
u,min
According to the numerical results in [34], Bm
is larger than Wc in typical scenarios of

URLLC. In what follows, we propose an algorithm that can find the global optimal solution
u,min
u,min
when Bm
≥ Wc . For the case Bm
< Wc , a local optimal solution can be obtained.

Based on Property 1, we can obtain the following property.
u
u,min
u
u
u
u,th∗
Property 2. Given the value of Nm
, when Bm
≥ W c , fm
(Nm
, Bm
, em
) strictly decreases
u
u,th∗
u
u
u
u,th
with Bm
in the region [0, Wc ], where em
is the optimal value that minimizes fm
(Nm
, Bm
, em
)
u
u
with given Nm
and Bm
.

Proof. See proof in Appendix C.
u
u
If fm
(Nm
, Wc , eu,th∗
) > εu , the reliability can not be guaranteed, and more subchannels are
m
u
u
u
needed. If fm
(Nm
, Wc , eu,th∗
) ≤ εu , the minimal value of Bm
that satisfies (11) can be obtained
m
u
u
u
when fm
(Nm
, Bm
, eu,th∗
) = εu , and can be obtained via the binary search method [35]. The
m
u
u
u
u,th∗
search algorithm needs to compute the value of fm
(Nm
, Bm
, em
), and hence needs to find
u
eu,th∗
with given Bm
. To show when eu,th∗
can be obtained with a low complexity method, we
m
m

provide the following property.

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

19

u
u
u
u
u
u,th
u,th
Property 3. Given the values of Nm
and Bm
, fm
(Nm
, Bm
, eu,th
m ) is convex in em when gm <

Nt − 1.
Proof. See proof in Appendix D.
u,th∗
u,th
u
u
u
can be obtained by the exact linear search
, eu,th
, Bm
(Nm
If fm
m ) is convex in em , then em

, the exhaustive search method should be used. Note that
method [35]. Otherwise, to obtain eu,th∗
m
u,th
cannot be too large. For example, when Nt ≥ 2 and
to ensure ultra-high reliability in (11), gm
u,th
< Nt − 1 under constraint (11) in the
εmax ≤ 10−5 ( which is typical for URLLC), we have gm
u
u
results in large bandwidth, and our goal is to minimize
≤ 10. Since large Nm
cases where Nm
u
will not be too large. In the proposed search algorithm, we find the
the total bandwidth, Nm
u
u
u
is the maximal
, where Nmax
≤ Nmax
optimal solution of problem (17) in the region 0 < Nm

number of subchannels that can be assigned to each sensor. We will validate that the optimal
u
value of Nm
is not large with numerical results.
u
u
Given the value of Nm
, according to Property 2 and Property 3, the optimal values of Bm
and

eu,th
m that minimize (18) can be found via binary search method and exact linear search method,
u
u
u
respectively. By searching Bm
and eu,th
m with different values of Nm ∈ {1, ..., Nmax }, the optimal
u∗
u∗ u,th∗
solution of problem (18) can be obtained, denoted as {Nm
, Bm
, em }. To solve problem (17),

we need to solve problem (18) for M sensors. Hence, the complexity of the proposed algorithm
u
is O(M Nmax
). The details of the algorithm are provided in Table I.

2) DL subchannel assignment: The optimal DL subchannel assignment that minimizes the
required DL bandwidth can be obtained by solving the following problem:
min

N d ,B d ,ed,th
k

min

Dd + d d
E N B
Tf B

s.t. 0 < B d ≤ Wc ,
0 < N d , N d ∈ Z,

(19)
(19a)
(19b)

and (14),
where FR−1 is removed from the objective function since it does not change the optimal solution.
u
u
u
d
d
d d,th
Similar to fm
(Nm
, Bm
, eu,th
m ) in (11), we can prove that fkmin (N , B , ekmin ) in (14) also satisfies

Property 1, Property 2 and Property 3. The proofs are similar to that in Appendices B, C and
D, and hence are omitted for conciseness. Therefore, the solution of problem (19) can also be

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

20

TABLE I
A LGORITHM TO S OLVE P ROBLEM (18)
u
u
u
Input: Nmax
, Tf , b, N0 , Nt , αm
, Pmax
, and accuracy requirement of binary search method δb .
u∗
u∗
u,th∗
Output: Nm , Bm , and em .
u
1: Nm
:= 1
u
u
2: while Nm
≤ Nmax
do
u
3:
Set Blb := 0, Bub := Wc , Bbs
:= 0.5(Blb + Bub ).
4:
while Bub − Blb > δb do
u
u
u
5:
Apply exact linear search method to find eubs that minimizes fm
(Nm
, Bbs
, eubs ).
u
u
u
u
u
6:
if fm (Nm , Bbs , ebs ) > ε then
7:
Blb := Bbs , Bbs := 0.5(Blb + Bub ).
8:
else
9:
Bub := Bbs , Bbs := 0.5(Blb + Bub ).
10:
end if
11:
end while
u
u
u
12:
if fm
(Nm
, Bbs
, eubs ) ≤ εu then
u
u
u
u
u
13:
Bm (Nm ) := Bbs
and eu,th
m (Nm ) := ebs .
14:
else
u
u
u
15:
Bm
(Nm
) := NaN and eu,th
m (Nm ) := NaN.
16:
end if
u
u
+ 1.
:= Nm
17:
Nm
18: end while
+
u
u
u
u∗
) /B0 ] B0 .
(Nm
[Bm
:= arg min Nm
19: Nm
u∗
Bm

:=
20:
21: return

u
Nm
+
u∗
u
) /B0 ]
(Nm
[Bm
u∗ u,th∗
u∗
Nm , Bm , em .

u∗
:= eu,th
B0 , eu,th∗
m (Nm ).
m

d∗ d,th∗
d∗
, em }.
, Bm
found with the algorithm in Table I, and is denoted as {Nm

B. Delay Components Optimization
To show how to optimize the delay components and to reduce complexity in optimization, we
first analyze the relations between the required bandwidth and the delay components.
1) Increasing queueing delay bound: From (3), we can directly obtain that the required DL
service rate decreases with Dq . As a result, the DL bandwidth decreases with Dq .
2) Increasing UL transmission delay: In order to show the relationship between UL bandwidth
and UL transmission delay, we compare two systems with different UL transmission delays
D̂u < D̃u . With 2Tf delay caused by control signaling, the transmission delay is D̂u − 2Tf (or
D̃u − 2Tf ). Denote 1̂m and 1̃m as the indicator functions that indicate whether the mth sensor is
active in the first and the second systems, respectively. Given the probability that the mth sensor
requests to transmit a packet in a certain frame as pm , the probabilities that the mth sensor is
active can be expressed as E(1̂m ) =

D̂u −2Tf
pm
Tf

Tf E(1̂m )
D̂u

January 4, 2018

− 2Tf

and E(1̃m ) =

= pm =

D̃u −2Tf
pm ,
Tf

Tf E(1̃m )
.
D̃u − 2Tf

respectively. Then,
(20)

DRAFT

21

The bandwidth for UL transmission in (17) is hard to analyze since Math has no closed-form
expression. To obtain some useful insights, we study the average bandwidth for UL transmission.
Proposition 2. Increasing Du can reduce the required average bandwidth for UL transmission.
Proof. See proof in Appendix E.
Although the average bandwidth cannot reflect the bandwidth requirement directly, the simulations in the next section validate that the minimal UL bandwidth decreases with Du .
3) Increasing DL transmission time: Based on the following proposition for DL transmission,
we can obtain a different conclusion from UL transmission.
Proposition 3. If constraint (19a) is inactive (i.e., B d < Wc ), the required minimal bandwidth
for DL transmission does not change with Dd .
Proof. See proof in Appendix F.
Given the number of subchannels for each packet transmission, B d increases as Dd decreases.
Whether constraint (19a) is inactive or not depends on the number of antennas at each BS, the
radius of each cell and communication environment. If Nt is large or the radius of a cell is
small, then B d < Wc even when Dd = Tf . We will provide related numerical results in the next
section.
4) Joint optimization of the three delay components: The above analysis shows that given
E2E delay, the tradeoff between delay components lead to a tradeoff between UL bandwidth and
DL bandwidth. To minimize the total bandwidth, we need to optimize the delay components.
For any given Du Dd and Dq , by solving problem (17) and problem (19), we can obtain the
optimal bandwidth assignment policy and the minimized total bandwidth, which are denoted as
u∗
u∗ u,th∗
∗
u
d
q
Φ∗ (Du , Dd , Dq ) , (Nm
, Bm
, em , N d∗ , B d∗ , ed,th∗
kmin ) and Btot (Φ (D , D , D )), respectively.

Since the optimal bandwidth assignment policy depends on the delay components, Φ∗ (·) and
Btot (·) are functions of the delay components. To obtain the optimal delay components, we
search the values of Du , Dd , and Dq . Since the possible values of Du , Dd , and Dq in problem
(16) are finite, it is not hard to obtain Du∗ , Dd∗ , and Dq∗ that minimize Btot (Φ∗ (Du , Dd , Dq ))
with the exhaustive search method.
For large Nt or small cells, B d < Wc . According to Proposition 3, Dd∗ = Tf . We only need
to search Du and Dq under the constraint Du + Dq ≤ Dmax − Db − Tf . Further considering that

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

22

the bandwidth is minimized when Du + Dq = Dmax − Db − Tf , we only need to search Du in
(0, Dmax − Tf ), which is one-dimensional searching, and hence the complexity is not high.
C. Optimality of the Two-step Method
To show that Du∗ , Dd∗ , Dq∗ and Φ∗ (Du∗ , Dd∗ , Dq∗ ) is the optimal solution of problem (16),
we need the following proposition.
Proposition 4. For an arbitrary solution of problem (16), D̃u , D̃d , D̃q and Φ̃(D̃u , D̃d , D̃q ), we
always have Btot (Φ∗ (Du∗ , Dd∗ , Dq∗ )) ≤ Btot (Φ̃(D̃u , D̃d , D̃q )).
Proof. See proof in Appendix G.
This suggests that if both the solution for bandwidth assignment policy and the solution for
delay components are global optimal, then the two-step method gives rise to a global optimal
solution of problem (16). The global optimal bandwidth assignment policy can be obtained by
u,min
u,th
the algorithm in Table I when Wc ≤ Bm
and gm
< Nt − 1. Otherwise, we need to use

exhaustive searching to find the global optimal solution.
VI. S IMULATION AND N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, we validate the analyses and demonstrate the required bandwidth to support
URLLC. With simulation results, we show the impact of minimizing the upper bound of the
required total bandwidth and illustrate the performance gain with jointly UL and DL configuration, where arrivals of packet at each sensor are generated by simulation. With numerical results,
we show the impact of the upper bound in (8) on the bandwidth required by each sensor and
illustrate the optimal number of subchannels allocated to each sensor.
TABLE II
S IMULATION PARAMETERS [4, 26, 27, 33]
Number of BSs

3

Number of sensors M

3000

u
Maximal transmit power of a sensor Pmax

23 dBm

d
Maximal transmit power of a BS Pmax

46 dBm

Overall packet loss probability εmax

10−7

Latency in radio access network Dmax − Db

1 ms

Frame duration Tf

0.1ms

Backhaul delay Db

0.1 ms

Single-sided noise spectral density N0

−174 dBm/Hz

Coherence bandwidth Wc

0.5 MHz

Maximal number of subchannels allocated to
u
d
each packet Nmax
and Nmax

10

Average packet rate generated by each sensor

100 packets/s

Simulation Parameters are listed in Table II. Since broadcast is used in DL transmission, the
required bandwidth does not change with the number of users. To ensure the QoS requirement

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

23

of all users, we only consider the users with the worst large-scale channel gains, i.e., the users
located at the edge of each cell. The path loss model is −10 lg(αm ) = 35.3 + 37.6 lg(dm ),
where dm (m) is the distance between sensors and the BSs they associated with. dm is uniformly
distributed in [50, r] m, where r is the radius of each cell. We only consider the scenarios where
u
dm > 50 m, because the large-scale channel gain αm
decreases with dm , and more resources are

needed to guarantee QoS requirement with larger sensor-BS distance.
We solve problem (19) with different values of Nt and cell size to show when the required
bandwidth of each subchannel is less than the channel coherence bandwidth. Our results show
that if the radius of each cell is 100 m, then B d∗ < Wc when Nt ≥ 4, and if the radius is 250 m,
then B d∗ < Wc when Nt ≥ 8. In the rest of this section, the radius of each cell is set to be
250 m and Nt ≥ 8. As a result, Proposition 3 holds. In other words, required minimal bandwidth
for DL transmission dose not change with Dd . The required total bandwidth is minimized when
Dd∗ = Tf .
60

Total bandwidth, numerical
Total bandwidth, simulation
UL bandwidth, simulation
DL bandwidth, simulation

54

Bandwidth (MHz)

48

Bandwidth reduction

42

Optimized policy

36
30
24
18
12
6

Existing policy
3

4

5

6

7

8

UL delay D u (frames)

Fig. 6. Required bandwidth versus delay components, where εu = εd = εq = εmax /3, and Nt = 8.

Figure 6 shows the required bandwidth with different delay components. The numerical results
are obtained by solving problem (16) with different values of Du and Dq , where Dd∗ = Tf and
εM = Pr{Ma > Math } = 10−15 (i.e., εM  εmax ). Ma can be approximated by a Poisson process
with mean λ(Du − 2Tf )/Tf , where λ average number of packets generated by M sensors in one
frame. Based on this distribution, we can obtain Math in (16) from Pr{Ma > Math } = 10−15 . To
show the impact of minimizing the upper bound of the required total bandwidth, we also provide
the simulation results. To obtain the simulation result, we first compute the total bandwidth in

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

24

TABLE III
T OTAL BANDWIDTH WITH DIFFERENT PACKET LOSS COMPONENTS
Nt = 8

Nt = 16

Nt = 32

Optimal εu , εd and εq

28.6 MHz

19.9 MHz

16.8 MHz

εu = εd = εq = εmax /3

29.3 MHz

20.2 MHz

17.0 MHz

(15) achieved by the optimal transmission policy during 106 frames. The maximal total bandwidth
in the 106 frames is the required total bandwidth to ensure the QoS requirement and is shown in
Figure 6. We can see that the total bandwidth obtained via numerical results is higher than that
obtained via simulation results, and the gap between them is small. This means that the objective
function (16) is a tight upper bound of the total bandwidth in (15). To show the gain of jointly
optimizing the delay components, we provide the results with an existing policy, where the UL
data transmission finished in each frame [1]. With the existing policy, the required bandwidth
is show in Fig. 6 when Du = 3Tf (two frames are occupied by control signaling). We can see
that nearly half of the total bandwidth can be saved by optimizing the delay components. The
results also indicate that the maximal bandwidth for UL transmission decreases with Du , which
agrees with Proposition 2.
Simulation results in Table III show the impact of packet loss probabilities on the required
bandwidth. The values of Du , Dd and Dq are set as the optimal values that minimize the total
bandwidth in Fig. 6. The optimal values of εu , εd and εq are obtained by exhaustive search in the
region [0, εmax ]. To reduce complexity, the accuracy is set to be 0.05εmax . For any given values
of εu , εd and εq , the bandwidth assignment is obtained by solving problem (18) and problem
(19). With the bandwidth assignment, the total bandwidth is obtained via simulation, i.e., the
maximal total bandwidth in 106 frames. The results show that the total bandwidth with optimal
values of εu , εd and εq is very close to that with εu = εd = εq = εmax /3. This validates Remark
3.
The upper bound of packet loss probability in (8) is used to formulate problem (16), and
hence the bandwidth allocation is conservative. The numerical results in Fig. 7 show the impact
of the upper bound on the required bandwidth, where UL transmission is considered. For
DL transmission, the results are similar. Given the required decoding error probability, the
minimal bandwidth with accurate model is obtained by exhaustive searching under constraint
R∞ u
em,i fg (x)dx ≤ εu , where eum,i is given in (5). The results show that the gap between the
0
minimal bandwidth obtained via the upper bound and that with the accurate model decreases
with the number of antennas and increases with the sensor-BS distance. This means that the

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

25

Required bandwidth for each packet (kHz)

80
70

Upper bound, d=250m
Accurate model, d=250m
Upper bound, d=50m
Accurate model, d=50m

31.4%

60
18.9%

12.2%

50
40

8.4%
14.0%

30

10.3%

6.0%

5.4%

20
10
0

8

16
32
64
Number of antennas at the BS

u
Fig. 7. Impact of the upper bound in (8) on the required bandwidth, where εu = εmax /3, Du = 6Tf , and Nm
= 1.

upper bound has little impact on the resource allocation for macro BSs with a large number of
antennas and small BSs with short sensor-BS distance. However, when the number of antennas
is small and the sensor-BS distance is large, the upper bound leads to conservative resource
u
u,th
allocation. This is because when gm,i
< gm
, the decoding error probability is much smaller

than 1, setting eum,i = 1 leads to conservative resource allocation.
10

Optimal number of subchannels

9

Without CSIT
1bit CSIT

N/A

8
7
6
5

N/A
Nt=2

4
Nt=4

3

Nt=8

2
1
0
50

100

150
Sensor−BS distance (m)

200

250

Fig. 8. Optimal number of links for frequency diversity.

The optimal number of subchannels assigned to each sensor for UL transmission is illustrated
by the numerical results in Fig. 8. We compare two kinds of policies. The first policy does not
exploit CSIT, and equally allocates transmit power on the subchannels. With the second policy

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

26

TABLE IV
AVAILABILITY WHEN S HADOWING IS C ONSIDERED

Nt
u

16

32
−2

64
−2

128

1−1.5×10

1−3.9×10

−3

1−8.9×10−4

D = 3Tf

1−5.9×10

Du = 4Tf

1−1.2×10−2

1−1.9×10−3

1−3.1×10−4

1−5.1×10−5

Du = 5Tf

1−5.1×10−3

1−6.7×10−4

1−9.0×10−5

1−1.1×10−5

Du = 6Tf

1−2.9×10−3

1−3.5×10−4

1−4.1×10−5

1−4.4×10−6

considered in [1], one bit information of channel gain on each subchannel is available at the
transmitter for resource allocation. With the one bit information, the transmitter knows whether
the channel gain on a subchannel is above a threshold that a packet can be decoded successfully
with the required probability if the maximal transmit power is allocated to the subchannel. Then,
∗
the packet is transmitted on one of the subchannels with good channel. When Nt ≥ 16, Nm
=1

for all the sensors with any of these two policies (which are not shown in the figure). The results
show that CSIT is not helpful for saving bandwidth when the sensor-BS distance is short or the
number of active antennas is large.
Availability is another key performance matric for the systems supporting URLLC except the
reliability and latency, which is the probability that a system can provide the required QoS (i.e.,
Dmax and εmax ) for all users [3]. Considering that the availability highly depends on shadowing,
in the following we provide simulation with shadowing, which follows a lognormal distribution
with zero mean and 8 dB standard deviation [33]. Since the transmit power of each sensor is
limited, we provide the results for UL transmission in Table IV. To obtain the simulation results,
we generate the locations and shadowing of 3000 devices randomly with 104 times. The results
show that to guarantee the availability of 1 − 10−5 with a single wireless link, Nt = 128 and
Du = 0.6 ms. To further improve availability, macro-diversity is an option [36].
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we studied joint UL and DL resource configuration to minimize the total
bandwidth under strict E2E delay and packet loss probability requirements. A packet delivery
mechanism was proposed. In UL transmission, bandwidth is only assigned to the active sensors,
and broadcast is used in DL transmission. Channel state information is not available at sensors
in UL transmission and not available at the BS in DL transmission. To reduce the required
packet rate for ensuring queueing delay at the buffers of the BSs, a statistical multiplexing
queueing mode was considered. The total bandwidth required by the mechanism to ensure the

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

27

E2E delay and overall reliability was minimized by jointly optimizing UL and DL transmission
delays, queueing delay and bandwidth assignment. A two-step method was proposed to find
the optimal solution of the problem. We first optimized the bandwidth assignment with given
delay components and packet loss components. Then, the UL and DL transmission delays and
queueing delay were optimized given the E2E delay requirement. Analysis showed that there is
a tradeoff between UL and DL bandwidth and it is necessary to optimize the delay components
in order to minimize the total bandwidth. Simulation and numerical results validated our analysis
and showed that the joint resource configuration can save half of the total bandwidth comparing
with an existing policy, where UL and DL transmission delays are not optimized.
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF P ROPOSITION 1
Proof. For Poisson arrival process with λ, the required minimal constant service rate is provided
in (3). From (3), the required minimal constant service rate of Poisson arrival process with average
rate λ̃ = λ/L is
ẼB =

Tf ln(1/εq )
h
i packets/frame.
q)
Dq ln L Tf ln(1/ε
+
1
λDq

(A.1)

To prove LẼB > EB (L = 2, 3, ..., K), we only need to prove




Tf ln(1/εq )
Tf ln(1/εq )
+ 1 > ln L
+1 ,
L ln
λDq
λDq

(A.2)

which can be obtained by substituting (3) and (A.1) into LẼB > EB . Denote x =

Tf ln(1/εq )
.
λDq

Then, (A.2) can be equivalently rewritten as fL (x) , L ln(x + 1) − ln(Lx + 1) > 0, ∀x > 0. It is
easy to show that fL (0) = 0, and fL0 (x) =

L
x+1

−

L
,
Lx+1

which is positive for L > 1. Therefore,

fL (x) > 0, ∀x > 0. This completes the proof.
A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF P ROPERTY 1
Proof. By substituting fg (x) =

1
xNt −1 e−x
(Nt −1)!

u
u
u
fm
(Nm
, Bm
, eu,th
m ) =

"Z
0

January 4, 2018

u,th
gm

into (11), we have

1
u,th
xNt −1 e−x dx + em
(Nt − 1)!

#Nmu
.

(B.1)

DRAFT

28

Denote fe =

u,th
R gm

0

1
xNt −1 e−x dx.
(Nt −1)!

To prove property 1, we only need to prove that fe first

strictly decreases with Bm and then increases with Bm . To this end, we first prove that fe strictly
u
u,th
u,th
and then increases
first strictly decreases with Bm
and then prove that gm
increases with gm

with Bm .
From fe , we can obtain that

∂fe
u,th
∂gm

=

Nt −1 −g u,th
e m

u,th
( gm
)

(Nt −1)!

> 0. As a result, fe strictly increases

u,th
. For notation simplicity, (9) can be rewritten as follows,
with gm
"
!
#
C2
C3
u,th
u
gm = C1 Bm exp
+p
−1 ,
u
u
Bm
Bm

where C1 =

φN0
u
αu
m Pmax

> 0, C2 =

b ln 2
Du −2Tf

> 0, and C3 =

q

1
f −1
Du −2Tf Q

(B.2)


> 0.
eu,th
m

It is not hard to see that (B.2) is the same as (19) in [34]. According to the proof in Appendix
u
u
u,th
, and there is
and then strictly increases with Bm
first strictly decreases with Bm
B in [34], gm
u,th
u
. This completes the proof.
that minimizes gm
a unique solution of Bm

A PPENDIX C
P ROOF OF P ROPERTY 2
u
u
u
u,th∗
u
u
Proof. To prove that fm
(Nm
, Bm
, em
) decreases with Bm
in the region Bm
∈ [0, Wc ], we
u
u
u,th∗
u
u
u,th∗
show that for any Wmu < W̃mu ≤ Wc , fm
(Nm
, Wmu , em
) > fm
(Nm
, W̃mu , ẽm
), where ẽu,th∗
is
m
u
u
u
u,th
u
u
the optimal value of eu,th
m that minimizes fm (Nm , W̃m , em ) with given Nm and W̃m . According
u
to Property 1, given Nm
and eu,th∗
, we have
m
u
u
u,th∗
u
u
fm
(Nm
, Wmu , em
) > fm
(Nm
, W̃mu , eu,th∗
).
m

(C.1)

u,th
u
u
Since ẽu,th∗
is the optimal value of em
that minimizes fm
(Nm
, W̃mu , eu,th
m
m ), we have
u
u
u
u
fm
(Nm
, W̃mu , eu,th∗
) ≥ fm
(Nm
, W̃mu , ẽu,th∗
).
m
m

(C.2)

u
u
u
u
u,th∗
From (C.1) and (C.2), we can obtain that fm
(Nm
, Wmu , eu,th∗
) > fm
(Nm
, W̃mu , ẽm
). The proof
m

follows.
A PPENDIX D
P ROOF OF P ROPERTY 3
u
u
u
u,th
Proof. According to (B.1), to study the convexity of fm
(Nm
, Bm
, em
), we only need to study
u,th
the convexity of fe . To this end, we first prove that gm
in (9) is convex in eu,th
m . Then, we show

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

29

u,th
u,th
that fe is an increasing and convex function of gm
when gm
< Nt − 1.


R
2
2
∆
∞
For the Q-function fQ (x) = √12π x exp − τ2 dτ , we have fQ0 (x) = − √12π e−x /2 < 0, and

fQ00 (x) =

2
√x e−x /2
2π

> 0 when x > 0. Thus, when x > 0, fQ (x) is a decreasing and convex

u,th
function. Moreover, fQ (x) < 0.5, ∀x > 0. Because em
< εmax < 0.5 that is true for URLLC

applications, and the inverse function of a decreasing and convex function is also convex [35],


u,th
u,th
u,th
fQ−1 em
is convex in eu,th
< 0.5. Denote z = fQ−1 eu,th
. Then, gm
in (9) can be
m , ∀em
m
u

b ln 2
0 Bm
u,th
> 0, C5 = (Du −2T
rewritten as gm
= C4 [exp (C5 + C6 z) − 1], where C4 = αφN
u Pu
u > 0
f )Bm
m
max
q
1
u,th
and C6 = (Du −2T
is an increasing and convex function of
u > 0. It is easy to see that gm
f )B
m

u,th
u,th
z. According to the composition rules, gm
is convex in em
[35].
u,th
u,th Nt −2 −gm

2
g
e
(m )
fe
u,th
u,th
,
It is not hard to derive that ∂u,th
. When Nt −1 ≥ gm
N
−
1
−
g
2 =
t
m
(N
−1)!
t
∂ (gm )
u,th
fe is increasing and convex in gm
. According to the composition rules, fe is convex in eu,th
m ,
u,th
when Nt − 1 ≥ gm
. This completes the proof.

A PPENDIX E
P ROOF OF P ROPOSITION 2
u
u
Proof. Denote the bandwidth for the mth sensor in two systems as B̂m
and B̃m
, respectively. To
u
u,th
u,th
keep the decoding error probability identical, the values of Nm
, gm
, em
in (11) are fixed in
u
u
the two systems. According to (9), the relationship between B̂m
and B̃m
can be obtained from
(
"
#
)
s

1
b
ln
2
u
+
f −1 eu,th
B̂m
exp
−1
m
u
u Q
(D̂u − 2Tf )B̂m
(D̂u − 2Tf )B̂m
#
)
(
"
s

1
b
ln
2
u
+
fQ−1 eu,th
−1 .
(E.1)
=B̃m
exp
m
u
u
u
u
(D̃ − 2Tf )B̃m
(D̃ − 2Tf )B̃m
u,min
u,th
u
Since in typical scenarios Bm
≥ Wc , gm
in (9) strictly decreases with Bm
in the region
u
[0, Wc ]. Hence, both left and right hand sides of (E.1) decrease with Bm
. Moreover, by substiu
tuting B̃m
=

D̂u −2Tf u
B̂
D̃u −2Tf m

into (E.1), the left hand side of (E.1) is larger than the right hand side

u
of it. Therefore, to satisfy (E.1), B̃m
<

E(

M
X

u u
B̃m )
1̃m Nm

m=1

<

D̂u −2Tf u
B̂ .
D̃u −2Tf m

M
X
D̃u − 2Tf
m=1

D̂u − 2Tf

u
From B̃m
<

D̂u −2Tf u
B̂
D̃u −2Tf m

and (20), we have

M
X
− 2Tf u
u u
B̂m = E(
1̂m Nm
B̂m ).
D̃ − 2Tf
m=1

u
u D̂
E(1̂m )Nm
u

The proof follows.

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

30

A PPENDIX F
P ROOF OF P ROPOSITION 3
Proof. To prove Proposition 3, we need to prove that the minimal DL bandwidth obtained by
solving problem (19) does not change with Dd when constraint (19a) is inactive. We consider
two systems with different DL transmission time, i.e., D̂d 6= D̃d . We refer to problem (19) with
D̂d and D̃d as Problem A and Problem B, respectively. Denote the optimal solutions of Problem
d∗
d∗ d,th∗
A and Problem B as {N̂ d∗ , B̂ d∗ , êd,th∗
kmin } and {Ñ , B̃ , ẽkmin }, respectively. Given transmission
d,th
duration D̂d and {N̂ d∗ , B̂ d∗ , êd,th∗
kmin }, the threshold in (12) is denoted as ĝkmin .

To prove

D̂d + d∗ d∗
EB N̂ B̂
Tf

=

D̃d + d∗ d∗
EB Ñ B̃ ,
Tf

tion. Without loss of generality, we assume

we assume they are not equal, and find contradic-

D̂d
Tf

EB+ N̂ d∗ B̂ d∗ <

D̃d + d∗ d∗
EB Ñ B̃ .
Tf

To this end, we first

D̂d

d∗
validate that {N̂ d∗ , D̃d B̂ d∗ , êd,th∗
is a solution of
kmin } is a feasible solution of problem B. Since N̂

problem A, constraint (19b) is satisfied. Then, we only need to validate that (14) is satisfied. N̂ d∗
d

d∗ d,th∗
d∗
d∗ d,th∗
d∗
d∗ d,th∗
d∗ D̂
and êd,th∗
kmin are the same in {N̂ , B̂ , êkmin } and {N̂ , D̃d B̂ , êkmin }. Since {N̂ , B̂ , êkmin }

is a solution of problem A, constraint (14) is satisfied with N̂ d∗ , êkd,th∗
and ĝkd,th
. If gkd,th
with
min
min
min
d

D̂
d∗ d,th∗
, êkmin } is the same as ĝkd,th
, then constraint
transmission duration D̃d and solution {N̂ d∗ , D̃
d B̂
min

gkd,th
min

D̂d d∗
B̂
D̃d

and êd,th∗
kmin into (12), we have




s
d
d∗ 



B̂
D̃d D̂
b ln 2
1
d,th∗ 
−1
D̃d

exp
+
fQ êkmin
−1
=
d
d∗
d D̂d B̂ d∗


Tf
D̃d D̂
B̂
D̃
d
d
D̃
D̃
r





b ln 2
1
D̂d B̂ d
d,th∗
−1
exp
=
+
fQ êkmin
− 1 = ĝkd,th
.
min
d
d
d
d
Tf
D̂ B̂
D̂ B̂

(14) is satisfied. Substituting

(F.1)

d

D̂
d∗ d,th∗
Therefore, {N̂ d∗ , D̃
, êkmin } is a feasible solution of problem B.
d B̂

Given the transmission duration D̃d , the number of packets that are transmitted simultaneously
d
D̃d +
B̂ d∗ , êd,th∗
EB . Therefore, the required bandwidth for DL transmission with {N̂ d∗ , D̂
kmin } satisTf
D̃d
d
d
d
d
fies D̃Tf EB+ N̂ d∗ D̂
B̂ d∗ = D̂Tf EB+ N̂ d∗ B̂ d∗ < D̃Tf EB+ Ñ d∗ B̃ d∗ , which contradicts with the assumption
D̃d
that {Ñ d∗ , B̃ d∗ , ẽd,th∗
kmin } is the optimal solution of problem B. The proof follows.

is

A PPENDIX G
P ROOF OF P ROPOSITION 4
Proof. Given the delay components D̃u , D̃d , D̃q , from the first step of the two-step method the
optimal subchannel assignment policy is Φ∗ (D̃u , D̃d , D̃q ), i.e.,
Btot (Φ∗ (D̃u , D̃d , D̃q )) ≤ Btot (Φ̃(D̃u , D̃d , D̃q )).
January 4, 2018

(G.1)

DRAFT

31

According to the second step of the two-step method, the optimal delay components that minimizes Btot (Φ∗ (Du , Dd , Dq )) are Du∗ , Dd∗ and Dq∗ , and hence
Btot (Φ∗ (Du∗ , Dd∗ , Dq∗ )) ≤ Btot (Φ∗ (D̃u , D̃d , D̃q )).

(G.2)

From (G.1) and (G.2), we have Proposition 4. This completes the proof.
R EFERENCES
[1] C. She, C. Yang, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Uplink transmission design with massive machine type devices in tactile internet,”
in IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (Globecom) Workshops, 2016.
[2] 3GPP, Study on Scenarios and Requirements for Next Generation Access Technologies.

Technical Specification Group

Radio Access Network, Technical Report 38.913, Release 14, Oct. 2016.
[3] P. Popovski, et al., “Deliverable d6.3 intermediate system evaluation results.” ICT-317669-METIS/D6.3, 2014. [Online].
Available: https://www.metis2020.com/wp-content/uploads/deliverables/METIS D6.3 v1.pdf
[4] G. P. Fettweis, “The tactile internet: Applications & challenges,” IEEE Vehic. Tech. Mag., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 64–70, Mar.
2014.
[5] M. Simsek, A. Aijaz, M. Dohler, J. Sachs, and G. Fettweis, “5G-enabled tactile internet,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun.,
vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 460–473, Mar. 2016.
[6] 3GPP, Further Advancements for E-UTRA Physical Layer Aspects.

TSG RAN TR 36.814 v9.0.0, Mar. 2010.

[7] C. She and C. Yang, “Energy efficiency and delay in wireless systems: Is their relation always a tradeoff?” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 7215–7228, Nov. 2016.
[8] G. Durisi, T. Koch, and P. Popovski, “Toward massive, ultrareliable, and low-latency wireless communication with short
packets,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 1711–1726, Aug. 2016.
[9] Y. Polyanskiy, H. V. Poor, and S. Verdú, “Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307–2359, May 2010.
[10] W. Yang, G. Durisi, T. Koch, and Y. Polyanskiy, “Quasi-static multiple-antenna fading channels at finite blocklength,”
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 4232–4264, Jul. 2014.
[11] S. Xu, T.-H. Chang, S.-C. Lin, C. Shen, and G. Zhu, “Energy-efficient packet scheduling with finite blocklength codes:
Convexity analysis and efficient algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 5527–5540, Aug. 2016.
[12] S. Schiessl, J. Gross, and H. Al-Zubaidy, “Delay analysis for wireless fading channels with finite blocklength channel
coding,” in Proc. ACM MSWiM, 2015.
[13] Y. Hu, A. Schmeink, and J. Gross, “Blocklength-limited performance of relaying under quasi-static Rayleigh channels,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 4548–4558, Jul. 2016.
[14] C. She, C. Yang, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Cross-layer optimization for ultra-reliable and low-latency radio access networks,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., early access, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.09575.pdf.
[15] J. Jia, Y. Deng, J. Chen, A.-H. Aghvami, and A. Nallanathan, “Availability analysis and optimization in CoMP and
CA-enabled hetnets,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 2438–2450, Jun. 2017.
[16] A. Aijaz, “Towards 5G-enabled tactile internet: Radio resource allocation for haptic communications,” in Proc. IEEE
Wireless Commun. and Netw. Conf. (WCNC), 2016.
[17] C. She, C. Yang, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Radio resource management for ultra-reliable and low-latency communications,”
IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 72–78, Jun. 2017.

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

32

[18] M. Condoluci, T. Mahmoodi, E. Steinbach, and M. Dohler, “Soft resource reservation for low-delayed teleoperation over
mobile networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 10 445–10 455, May 2017.
[19] P. Schulz, M. Matthé, H. Klessig, M. Simsek, G. Fettweis, J. Ansari, S. A. Ashraf, B. Almeroth, J. Voigt, I. Riedel,
A. Puschmann, A. Mitschele-Thiel, M. Müller, T. Elste, and M. Windisch, “Latency critical IoT applications in 5G:
Perspective on the design of radio interface and network architecture,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 70–78,
Feb. 2017.
[20] M. Harchol-Balter, Performance Modeling and Design of Computer Systems: Queueing Theory in Action.

Cambridge

University Press, 2013.
[21] G. Zhang, T. Q. S. Quek, M. Kountouris, A. Huang, and H. Shan, “Fundamentals of heterogeneous backhaul design—
analysis and optimization,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 876–889, Feb. 2016.
[22] S. A. Ashraf, F. Lindqvist, R. Baldemair, and B. Lindoff, “Control channel design trade-offs for ultra-reliable and lowlatency communication system,” in IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (Globecom) Workshops, 2015.
[23] S. A. Ashraf, I. Aktas, E. Eriksson, K. W. Helmersson, and J. Ansari, “Ultra-reliable and low-latency communication for
wireless factory automation: From LTE to 5G,” in Proc. IEEE Emerg. Tech. and Factory Automation (ETFA), 2016.
[24] H. A. Omar, W. Zhuang, A. Abdrabou, and L. Li, “Performance evaluation of VeMAC supporting safety applications in
vehicular networks,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Topics Comput., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 69–83, Aug. 2013.
[25] R. Abbas, M. Shirvanimoghaddam, Y. Li, and B. Vucetic, “Random access for M2M communications with QoS guarantees,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., early access.
[26] G. R1-120056, “Analysis on traffic model and characteristics for MTC and text proposal.” Technical Report, TSG-RAN
Meeting WG1#68, Dresden, Germany, 2012.
[27] M. Khabazian, S. Aissa, and M. Mehmet-Ali, “Performance modeling of safety messages broadcast in vehicular ad hoc
networks,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 380–387, Mar. 2013.
[28] G. L. Choudhury, D. M. Lucantoni, and W. Whitt, “Squeezing the most out of ATM,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 44,
no. 2, pp. 203–217, Feb. 1996.
[29] D. Ohmann, M. Simsek, and G. P. Fettweis, “Achieving high availability in wireless networks by an optimal number of
Rayleigh-fading links,” in IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (Globecom) Workshops, 2014.
[30] G. Pocovi, B. Soret, M. Lauridsen, K. I. Pedersen, and P. Mogensen, “Signal quality outage analysis for ultra-reliable
communications in cellular networks,” in IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (Globecom) Workshops, 2015.
[31] X. Liu, S. Han, and C. Yang, “Energy-efficient training-assisted transmission strategies for closed-loop MISO systems,”
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 2846–2860, Jul. 2015.
[32] D. Tse, Fundamentals of Wireless Communication.

Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.

[33] 3GPP TR 36.814, “Evolved universal terrestrial radio access (EUTRA); further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer
aspects.”

Tech. rep. Release 9. 3GPP, 2010.

[34] C. Sun, C. She, and C. Yang, “Energy-efficient resource allocation for ultra-reliable and low-latency communications,” in
Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (Globecom), 2017, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.09720.pdf.
[35] S. Boyd and L. Vandanberghe, Convex Optimization.

Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.

[36] C. She and C. Yang, “Available range of different transmission modes for ultra-reliable and low-latency communications,”
in Proc. IEEE Veh. Tech. Conf. (VTC) Spring, 2017.

January 4, 2018

DRAFT

