| Literature DB >> 30744050 |
Junchao Yang1, Jiangtao Luo2, Feng Lin3, Junxia Wang4.
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) is emerging as one of key applications in future fifth-generation (5G)networks. Uploading VR video in 5G network is expected to boom in near future, as generalconsumers could generate high-quality VR videos with portable 360-degree cameras and arewilling to share with others. Heterogeneous networks integrating with 5G cloud-radio accessnetworks (H-CRAN) provides high transmission rate for VR video uploading. To address themotion characteristic of UE (User Equipments) and small cell feature of 5G H-CRAN, in this paperwe proposed a content-sensing based resource allocation scheme for delay-sensitive VR videouploading in 5G H-CRAN, in which the source coding rate of uploading VR video is determinedby the centralized RA scheduling. This scheme jointly optimizes g-NB group resource allocation,RHH/g-NB association, sub-channel assignment, power allocation, and tile encoding rate assignmentas formulated in a mixed-integer nonlinear problem (MINLP). To solve the problem, a three stagealgorithm is proposed. Dynamic g-NB group resource allocation is first performed according to theUE density of each group. Then, joint RRH/g-NB association, sub-channel allocation and powerallocation is performed by an iterative process. Finally, encoding tile rate is assigned to optimizethe target objective by adopting convex optimization toolbox. The simulation results show that ourproposed algorithm ensures the total utility of system under the constraint of maximum transmissiondelay and power, which also with low complexity and faster convergence.Entities:
Keywords: 5G; Content-Sensing; Delay-Sensitive; H-CRAN; Resource allocation; VR Video
Year: 2019 PMID: 30744050 PMCID: PMC6386839 DOI: 10.3390/s19030697
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1User generated VR video uploading in 5G H-CRAN.
Figure 2An ERP VR video frame with 4 × 8 tiles.
Figure 3Saliency score of an ERP VR video frame with 4 × 8 tiles.
Symbols and notations.
| Symbol | Notation |
|---|---|
| I | Total number of UEs |
| i | Index of UE |
| J | Total number of tiles in a VR video frame |
| j | Index of tiles in a VR video frame |
| z | Index of VR video chunk |
| Z | Total number of chunk in one VR video |
| The coefficient of utility | |
|
| The saliency weight of |
|
| The source coding rate of |
| U | Utility function |
|
| Transmission delay of |
|
| The size of |
| T | The length of a video chunk |
| m | Index of RRH/g-NB |
| M | Total number of RRHs and g-NB |
| g | Index of g-NB group |
| G | Total number of g-NB groups |
|
| The transmission rate of |
|
| The interference on |
|
| The transmit power of |
|
| The set of sub-channels assigned to |
|
| The channel gain of |
| N | Set of total sub-channels |
|
| Set of sub-channels assigned to g-th g-NB |
|
| Index of sub-channel of g-th g-NB group |
|
| sub-channels set of |
|
| Index of sub-channel with |
Figure 4Diagram of Proposed Scheme.
Figure 5Flow chat of Proposed Algorithm.
Figure 6Diagram of an association example.
Figure 7Total utility with different schemes combination.
CPU times with different tile bit rate assignment schemes.
| Schemes | CPU Time (s) |
|---|---|
| TRAC | 0.859 |
| TRAGS | 3.015 |
Figure 8Tile encoding rate of each UE.
Figure 9Iteration of different schemes in stage 2.
Complexity of different combination schemes of solution algorithm.
| Schemes | Complexity |
|---|---|
| SA + IPA + PAS |
|
| SA + EPD + PAS |
|
| SA + EPD + ASR |
|
| SA + IPA + PLAS |
|