On Fairness Evaluation

Ali, Zoraze; Bojović, Biljana; Giupponi, Lorenza; Bafalluy, Josep Mangues

doi:10.1145/2989250.2989255

Cited by 5 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…channel selection [129], [133], [146], [155]- [157] −vs. duty cycle variants [124], [132], [133], [145], [146], [153], [155]- [157] −vs. other LBT variants [124], [136], [147], [149]- [152], [154], [158]- [162] Impact on LTE −no baseline [148] −vs.…”

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…duty cycle variants [124], [132], [133], [145], [146], [153], [155], [157] −vs. other LBT variants [124], [136], [147], [150]- [152], [154], [158]- [162] Other −fairness (implicitly) for Wi-Fi vs. coexistence with itself [136], [147], [149], [150], [153], [155]- [157], [159] −proportional fair rate allocation for Wi-Fi and LTE [143] −fairness as same Wi-Fi/LTE airtime [152] −proportional fair channel switch [158] −fairness as minimization of collision probability to Wi-Fi [160] −fairness as constant aggregate Wi-Fi throughput [161] −airtime fairness for Wi-Fi based on altruistic gains [162] −maximize aggregate LTE capacity in presence of Wi-Fi [144] −enable different levels of protection for Wi-Fi [148] −maximize total throughput given requirements of each technology [147] −simulations [123], [124], [129], [132], [133], [135], [136], [143]- [146], [148]- ...…”

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…−analytical [126], [132], [136], [142], [144], [147]- [149], [151], [153], [160]- [162] −throughput [123], [124], [129], [133], [135], [136], [142]- [161];…”

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…−successful transmissions [126], [132]; −protection level [148]; −transmission duration [148] −channel access probability [126], [149] −collision probability [149], [160] −SINR [150] −airtime [152], [162] −Jain's fairness [152], [156], [157], [162] −channel occupation [160] −utility [161] −Q-value [161] −entropy [162] −risk-informed interference assessment [156], [157] − 1 LTE link/AP & several Wi-Fi devices [143], [148], [149], [152], [160] − ≤10 APs, or 15 APs/km 2 of each technology [124], [126], [135], [142], [146], [147], [151], [153], [154], [158], [161], [162];…”

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, it is not clear whether these mathematical optimization approaches result in performance improvements over conventional CW adaptation approaches, especially in realistic deployments. 5) Wi-Fi/Duty-Cycle-LTE Coexistence: The following work in the literature considered Wi-Fi/duty-cycle-LTE coexistence [121], [122], [124], [127], [130], [132]- [134], [139], [143], [145], [153], [155], [156], [163]- [168]. a) Fixed duty cycle: The authors in [122], [127], [139], [153], [155], [163] considered LTE with fixed duty cycle.…”

Section: ) Wi-fi/lte Coexistencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Survey of Spectrum Sharing for Inter-Technology Coexistence

Voicu

Simić

Petrova

2019

IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing capacity demands in emerging wireless technologies are expected to be met by network densification and spectrum bands open to multiple technologies. These will, in turn, increase the level of interference and also result in more complex inter-technology interactions, which will need to be managed through spectrum sharing mechanisms. Consequently, novel spectrum sharing mechanisms should be designed to allow spectrum access for multiple technologies, while efficiently utilizing the spectrum resources overall. Importantly, it is not trivial to design such efficient mechanisms, not only due to technical aspects, but also due to regulatory and business model constraints. In this survey we address spectrum sharing mechanisms for wireless inter-technology coexistence by means of a technology circle that incorporates in a unified, system-level view the technical and nontechnical aspects. We thus systematically explore the spectrum sharing design space consisting of parameters at different layers. Using this framework, we present a literature review on intertechnology coexistence with a focus on wireless technologies with equal spectrum access rights, i.e. (i) primary/primary, (ii) secondary/secondary, and (iii) technologies operating in a spectrum commons. Moreover, we reflect on our literature review to identify possible spectrum sharing design solutions and performance evaluation approaches useful for future coexistence cases. Finally, we discuss spectrum sharing design challenges and suggest future research directions.

show abstract

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…−analytical [126], [132], [136], [142], [144], [147]- [149], [151], [153], [160]- [162] −throughput [123], [124], [129], [133], [135], [136], [142]- [161];…”

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ) Wi-fi/lte Coexistencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Survey of Spectrum Sharing for Inter-Technology Coexistence

Voicu

Simić

Petrova

2019

IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Spectrum sharing mechanisms in the unlicensed band: Performance limit and comparison

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deploying networks in unlicensed spectrum has been drawing significant attention, which serves to alleviate the increasing demands in licensed spectrum. However, the network coexistence in unlicensed channel may lead to throughput degradation and unfairness. An appropriate spectrum‐sharing mechanism is therefore of great significance. In this paper, we study the performance limit of two representative mechanisms used in the coexistence with WiFi, including Duty Cycle (DC) and Listen‐Before‐Talk (LBT). In particular, both the throughputs of the coexisting network and WiFi under two mechanisms are derived as explicit expressions of system parameters, based on which the maximum total throughput of the coexisting network and WiFi is characterized under throughput fairness and 3GPP fairness, respectively. A systematic comparison between the optimal throughput performance of DC and LBT is conducted. It is found that if the coexisting network with LBT occupies the channel for a large period each time it successfully accesses the channel, then the maximum total throughput in LBT would be close to that in DC under both throughput fairness and 3GPP fairness. The optimal settings for DC and LBT mechanisms to achieve maximum total throughput are obtained, respectively, which sheds important light on the design of fair and efficient spectrum‐sharing protocols.

show abstract

Evaluating Unlicensed LTE Technologies: LAA vs LTE-U

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, there has been much interest by the cellular network industry in utilizing unlicensed spectrum to expand potential capacity. In particular, two LTE unlicensed technologies gained much attention: licensed-assisted access (LAA) and LTE unlicensed (LTE-U). While these are rapidly entering the market, there are not many studies in the literature that are providing a complete evaluation and comparison of their performance. Available work usually focuses on single technology standalone evaluations. Also, despite the vast body of simulation results by industry and academia, the simulators are not publicly available, and the analytical models proposed in the literature do not offer complex enough frameworks for thorough performance evaluations. To carry out an evaluation study, we have built a comprehensive simulation platform, strictly complying with the standards and specifications of each technology. The models are built upon popular ns-3 simulator, have been designed in close consultation with industry experts, and have been validated through calibration processes and against analytical proposals and experimental platforms. In this paper, we provide a detailed overview, performance evaluation, and comparison of LAA and LTE-U in a wide variety of scenarios, following 3GPP and Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) guidelines. We show that despite the market is confirming LAA as the leading unlicensed LTE technology, in certain setups, efficient implementations of LTE-U may prove unexpectedly better in coexisting with Wi-Fi. Similarly, the expected behaviors of the LAA LBT procedure can reveal untrue, depending on the traffic or interference patterns and specific implementation details, even in Wi-Fi. This paper also includes scenarios involving TCP, which is a rarely treated topic in the literature in the context of LTE and Wi-Fi coexistence. The end-to-end and full protocol stack simulation platform is openly available to foster results' reproducibility and collaborative development.

show abstract

On Fairness Evaluation

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Survey of Spectrum Sharing for Inter-Technology Coexistence

Survey of Spectrum Sharing for Inter-Technology Coexistence

Spectrum sharing mechanisms in the unlicensed band: Performance limit and comparison

Evaluating Unlicensed LTE Technologies: LAA vs LTE-U

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About