Distributed and Coordinated Spectrum Access Methods for Heterogeneous Channel Bonding

Abstract

Channel bonding (CB) is a technique that enables a wireless link to combine channels and achieve higher data rates. In this paper, competition for efficient spectrum access among autonomous users with heterogeneous CB capabilities is considered. Specifically, we propose distributed and coordinated channel/bonding selection methods under signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) and collisionprotocol models. In our methods, users utilize only limited feedback to distributively arrive at CB selections that minimize their probability of conflict. The proposed method utilizes a novel channel quality metric, which is based on the ratio of noise power to the sum of interference and noise power. It is shown that CB can lead to higher data rates, and it is most beneficial when users have a high SINR. However, it is also shown that as the ratio of users to available channels increases, CB performance degrades. Our results show that under certain scenarios, the proposed coordinated and distributed channel/bonding selection schemes help users converge fast to conflict-free channel selections as compared to the other channel/bonding selection schemes. Moreover, the proposed schemes result in considerably superior performance to existing CB schemes in terms of network data rate.

Interactive Trial and Error Learning Method for Distributed Channel Bonding: Model, Prototype Implementation, and Evaluation

“…In [18], we proposed distributed and coordinated channel/bonding selection methods under SINR and collisionchannel models. However, our work in [18] ignores uncertainty in bonding size demands of users.…”

“…In [18], we proposed distributed and coordinated channel/bonding selection methods under SINR and collisionchannel models. However, our work in [18] ignores uncertainty in bonding size demands of users. Different from [18], to overcome the uncertainty, the proposed method has the following key ingredient: if someone experiences a payoff decrease due to external factors such as a bonding size strategy change by some other user or due to an internal factor such as a change in a user's own bonding size demand, the user starts a search for a new action, eventually settling on one with a probability that increases monotonically with her realized payoff.…”

“…Different from [18], to overcome the uncertainty, the proposed method has the following key ingredient: if someone experiences a payoff decrease due to external factors such as a bonding size strategy change by some other user or due to an internal factor such as a change in a user's own bonding size demand, the user starts a search for a new action, eventually settling on one with a probability that increases monotonically with her realized payoff. The distributed method in [18] also ignores strategic interactions among users. Also, different from [18], using analytical and simulation results we provide extensive NE analysis of the proposed method.…”

“…The distributed method in [18] also ignores strategic interactions among users. Also, different from [18], using analytical and simulation results we provide extensive NE analysis of the proposed method. Moreover, unlike [18], in this paper, a complete channel/bonding size selection solution is realized by presenting an implementation of the prototype of the proposed method.…”

“…Also, different from [18], using analytical and simulation results we provide extensive NE analysis of the proposed method. Moreover, unlike [18], in this paper, a complete channel/bonding size selection solution is realized by presenting an implementation of the prototype of the proposed method. The implemented prototype is evaluated by experiments which use real OTA wireless communications.…”