arxiv: v1 [cs.ni] 13 Aug 2013

Transcription

1 Robotic Message Ferrying for Wireless Networks using Coarse-Grained Backpressure Control Shangxing Wang Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Uniersity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Andrea Gasparri Department of Engineering Roma Tre Uniersity Rome, Italy Bhaskar Krishnamachari Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Uniersity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA arxi: [cs.ni] 13 Aug 13 Abstract We formulate the problem of robots ferrying messages between statically-placed source and sink pairs that they can communicate with wirelessly. We first analyze the capacity region for this problem under both ideal (arbitrarily high elocity, long scheduling periods) and realistic conditions. We indicate how robots could be scheduled optimally to satisfy any arrial rate in the capacity region, gien prior knowledge about arrial rates. We find that if the number of robots allocated grows proportionally with the number of source-sink pairs, then the capacity of the network scales as Θ(1), similar to what was shown preiously by Grossglauser and Tse for uncontrolled mobility; howeer, in contrast to that prior result, we also find that with controlled mobility this constant capacity scaling can be obtained while ensuring finite delay. We then consider the setting where the arrial rates are unknown and present a coarsegrained backpressure message ferrying algorithm (CBMF) for it. In CBMF, the robots are matched to sources and sinks once eery epoch to maximize a queue-differential-based weight. The matching controls both motion and transmission for each robot: if a robot is matched to a source, it moes towards that source and collects data from it; and if it is matched to a sink, it moes towards that sink and transmits data to it. We show through analysis and simulations the conditions under which CBMF can stabilize the network. We show that the maximum achieable stable throughput with this policy tends to the ideal capacity as the schedule duration and robot elocity increase. I. INTRODUCTION Since the work by Tse and Grossglauser [1], it has been known that the use of delay tolerant mobile communications can dramatically increase the capacity of wireless networks by proiding ideal constant throughput scaling with network size at the expense of delay. Howeer, nearly all the work to date has focused on message ferrying in intermittently connected mobile networks where the mobility is either unpredictable, or predictable but uncontrollable. With the rapidly growing interest in multi-robot systems, we are entering an era where the position of network elements can be explicitly controlled in order to improe communication performance. This paper explores the fundamental limits of robotically controlled message ferrying in a wireless network. We consider a setting in which a set of K pairs of static wireless nodes act as sources and sinks that communicate not directly with each other (possibly because they are located far from each other and hence cannot communicate with each other at sufficiently high rates) but through a set of N controllable robots. We assume that there is a centralized control plane (which, because it collects only queue state information about all network entities, can be relatiely inexpensiely created either using infrastructure such as cellular / WiFi, or through a low-rate multi-hopping mesh oerlay). We mathematically characterize the capacity region of this system, considering both ideal (arbitrarily large) and realistic (finite) settings with respect to robot mobility and scheduling durations. This analysis shows that with N = K robots the system could be made to operate at full capacity (effectiely at the same throughput as if all sources and sinks were adjacent to each other). We indicate how any traffic that is within the capacity region of this network can be sered stably if the data arrial rates are known to the scheduler. We then consider how to schedule the robots when the arrial rates are not known a priori. For this case, we propose and ealuate a queue-backpressure based algorithm for message ferrying that is coarse-grained in the sense that robot motion and relaying decisions are made once eery fixed-duration epoch. We show that as the epoch duration and elocity of robots both increase, the throughput performance of this algorithm rapidly approaches that of the ideal case. II. PROBLEM FORMULATION There are K pairs of static source and destination nodes located at arbitrary locations. Let the source for the i th flow be denoted as src(i), and the destination or sink for that flow be denoted as sink(i). Source i receies packets at a constant rate denoted by λ i. There are N K mobile robotic nodes that act as message ferries, i.e. when they talk to a source node, they can collect packets from it, and when they talk to a sink node, they can transmit packets to it. Furthermore, for simplicity, we assume that the static nodes do not communicate directly with each other, but rather only through the mobile robots. Time is diided into discrete time steps of unit duration. The locations of the sources and sinks for flow i are denoted by x src(i) and x sink(i) respectiely, and the location of robot j at time t is denoted as x j (t). Let the distance between a source for flow i and a robot j be denoted as d(x src(i), x j (t)) (similarly for the sink). When in motion, the robotic nodes moe with a uniform elocity directly to the destination (there are no obstacles), so that if robot j is moing towards the source for flow i, its position x j (t) is updated so that it moes along the ector between its preious position and the source location to be at the following distance: d(x src(i), x j (t 1)) = maxd(x src(i), x j (t)), (1)

2 Fig. 1. flow 1 flow source 1 source robot 1 robot 3 robot robot 4 sink 1 sink A network containing pairs of source and sink nodes and 4 robots We assume that the rate at which a source for flow i can transmit to a robot j, denoted by R src(i),j (t) is always strictly positie, and decreases monotonically with the distance between them, and similarly for the rate at which a robot j can transmit to the sink for flow i, denoted by R j,sink(i) (t). We assume that when the robot is at a location of a particular source or sink, (i.e., the distance between them is ), the corresponding throughput between the mobile robot and that source or sink is R max The queue at the source for flow i is denoted as Q src(i). It is assumed that there is no queue at the sinks as they directly consume all packets intended for them. Each robot j maintains a separate queue for each flow i, labelled Q i j. Figure 1 shows an illustration of this system with K = flows and N = 4 robots. Eery T time steps there is a new epoch. At the start of each epoch, it is assumed that the information about queue states of all source and sink nodes as well as all queues at each of the robots is made aailable to a centralized scheduler. At that time this centralized scheduler can use this information to match each robot to either a source or sink. The matching is represented by an allocation matrix A such that A(i, j) is if the robot j is not allocated to either source or sink for flow i, 1 if it is allocated to src(i), and 1 if it is allocated to sink(i). When a robot is allocated to a gien source (or sink), for the rest of that epoch it moes closer to that node until it reaches its position. At all time steps of that epoch that robot will communicate exclusiely with that source (or sink) to pick up (or drop, in case of the sink) any aailable packets between the corresponding queues at a rate depending on its current distance to that node. If a robot j is communicating with src(i) at time t, the update equations for the corresponding queue of the robot and the source queue will be as follows: n p (t) = minr src(i),j (t), Q src(i) (t) Q i j(t 1) = Q i j(t 1) n p (t) Q src(i) (t 1) = Q src(i) (t 1) n p (t) λ i. () Similarly, if the robot j is communicating with sink(i) at time t, the queue update equation for the robot s corresponding queue will be: n p (t) = minr j,sink(i) (t), Q i j(t) Q i j(t 1) = Q i. (3) j(t 1) n p (t) III. CAPACITY ANALYSIS We define an open region Λ of arrial rates as follows: Λ = λ λ i < R max, i, λ i < R max N. (4) We shall show that this arrial rate region Λ can be sered by a conex combination of configurations in which robots are allocated to sere distinct flows. Let Γ be a finite set of ectors defined as: Γ = γ γ i = a i R max, i, a i, 1,, a i N For each element of this set Γ, the corresponding integer ector a corresponds to a basis allocation of robots to distinct sources and sinks that can serice each flow at rate γ i. Specifically, a i refers to the number of robots allocated to sere flow i. If a i = 1, this means exactly one robot is allocated to flow i, and can sere this flow maximally by spending half its time near the source and half the time near the sink (ignoring for now the time spent in transit), yielding a maximum serice rate of γ i = R max /. If two robots are allocated to a flow i, we hae that a i =, in which case two robots take turns spending time at the source and sink of the flow respectiely for half the time each, yielding a net rate of γ i = R max. The constraints on a i ensure that the total number of robots allocated does not exceed the aailable number N. Let us refer to the conex hull of Γ as H( Γ) or, for readability, simply H. Lemma 1: H Λ Proof: First, note that the conex hull of Γ can be written as follows: H = γ γ i = a i R max, a i [, ] i, a i N. (6) In other words, the conex hull of the set Γ is obtained by allowing a i to ary continuously. Now using the relationship a i = γ i, we can re-express H as follows: R max γ i γ i H = γ [, ] i, N R max R max. = γ γ i R max i, γ i R maxn Λ Each basis allocation corresponding to the elements of Γ can actually be expressed as two distinct but symmetric allocations of robots to sources/sinks oer two successie epochs. For the i th flow, if a i =, there is no robot allocated. (5)

3 to either the source or sink in either of these two epochs; if a i = 1, a particular robot is assigned to be at the source at the first epoch and at the sink at the second epoch; if a i =, two robots are assigned (call them R1 and R) such that R1 is at the source at the first epoch and at the sink at the second epoch while R is at the sink at the first epoch and at the source at the second epoch. The set H describes all possible robot serice rates that can be obtained by a conex combination of these basis allocations. Consider a rate ector γ H. Since it lies in the conex hull of the set Γ it can be described in terms of a ector of conex coefficients α each of whose elements corresponds to a basis allocation of robots. We can therefore 1 identify n i such that n i / n i = α i. The gien rate ector γ can then be i scheduled by allocating n i epochs each for the two parts of the i th basis allocation. And after a total of n i epochs, the i whole schedule can be repeated. This schedule will proide the desired serice rate ector γ. Thus far the schedules hae been deried under the assumption of instantaneous robot moements. Now we consider the effect of transit time. It is possible to choose T or to be sufficiently large to bound the fraction of time spent in transit d by ɛ, i.e. < ɛ. Thus een while taking into account time T wasted in transit, we can scale either time period of the epochs T or the elocity so as to proide a serice rate ector γ that is arbitrarily close to any ideal serice rate γ in the sense that γ i γ i < ɛ i. We now state one of our main results: Theorem 1: Λ is the achieable capacity region of the network. Proof: By construction, H represents the boundary of all feasible robot serice rates, and as we hae discussed time spent in transit can be accounted for by increasing T or so that any arrial rate that is in the interior of H can be sered. Since in lemma 1, we hae already shown that Λ H, any arrial rate in Λ can be stably sered. Furthermore, H represents the closure of the open set Λ. Thus any arrial rate ector that is a bounded distance outside of Λ cannot be sered stably (as it would also be outside of H). Together, these imply that Λ is the achieeable capacity region of the network. A. An Example Figure shows the capacity region when K =, N = 3. The labels such as (x, y) are gien to the basis allocations on the Pareto boundary to denote that they can be achieed by allocating an integer number of robots x to flow 1 and y to flow. Note in particular that the point (R max, R max ) is outside the region in this case because the only way to sere that rate is to allocate two robots full time to each of the two flows, and we hae only 3 robots. The ertices on the boundary 1 Here, for ease of exposition, we are assuming that α i is rational, otherwise it can be approximated by an arbitrarily close rational number which will not affect the oerall result. Fig.. Capacity region for a problem with 3 robots and flows of the region, which represent basis allocations, are all in the set Γ; the conex hull of Γ completely describes the region. B. Θ(1) Capacity Scaling with Controlled Mobility In [1], Grossglauser and Tse first showed that in a network with uncontrolled mobility, under certain mixing conditions, a total capacity of Θ(1) could be achieed by using one intermediate relay node. Our modeling in this paper shows that the total capacity region scales linearly with the number of robotic relays. Therefore, when the number of robots is linear in the number of flows, the per-pair network capacity will be Θ(1) here as well. There are a few minor differences between the model in this paper and what is considered in [1], howeer these differences are not consequential, as they affect only constants in the asymptotic scaling: In [1] it is assumed that all nodes are mobile. In our setting, first note that if the source and sink nodes were controllably mobile, then they could each be simply paired up directly and moed arbitrarily close to each other, and we would achiee Θ(1) scaling without een needing the controllable relays. Een if the source and sink were randomly moing, if they do so within a bounded region in such a way that the controllable robots could always locate and moe to them within a finite time, our results would be remain unaffected. In [1] it is assumed that each source/sink node is a source for one flow and a sink for another. Making the same assumption in our model for the static nodes would merely double the number of flows, and would result only in a constant factor difference. For ease of exposition and analysis, in our work we hae assumed that robots do not interfere with each other at any time. Howeer, for deriing the capacity region, it suffices to assume that the robots do not interfere with each other wheneer they are arbitrarily close to the source/sink they are communicating with. This is consonant with the modeling and result in [1] that when nodes are sufficiently close to each other they may communicate without experiencing interference from any number of other distant transmitters.

4 Finally, in [1], the Θ(1) capacity is obtained at the cost of aerage delay increasing with the size of the network. In stark contrast, in our formulation, as we discuss below, it is still possible to obtain a constant fraction of the full capacity (hence still maintaining the Θ(1) capacity scaling) een while keeping the delay bounded. C. Capacity Region under finite elocity and epoch duration The analysis thus far assumes that either the elocity of the robot or the epoch duration can be chosen to be arbitrarily large. Next, motiated by practical considerations we consider the case when and T are finite. In particular, the restriction of T to be finite is useful for two reasons: a) it fixes the oerhead of scheduling and b) it can be used to enforce a deterministic upper bound on delay (the time between generation and deliery of a gien packet). As may be expected, these constraints reduce the capacity region. The fraction of time spent in transit, is bounded by d T, where d is the maximum distance between the static nodes. We d assume that < 1, which implies that a robot can always T reach its destination (source or sink) within an epoch. This directly yields the following inner-bound on the capacity region when and T are finite and fixed: Λ IB (, T) = λ λ i < R max (1 d T ), i, λ i < R max(1 d T ) N. (7) Remark 1: Any arrial rate in the inner-bound region can still be achieed while scheduling them this way. As the inner bound is only a constant factor away from the full capacity region, this shows that a capacity scaling of Θ(1) can be achieed with controllable mobility een while keeping aerage delay to be bounded. This is in contrast to what happens with opportunistic mobility [1] where a constant capacity scaling is obtained at the cost of unbounded delay. Note further that when the number of robots N = K, it is possible to schedule the robots for each flow in alternate cycles so that een the worst case delay is bounded deterministically by T. IV. COARSE-GRAINED BACKPRESSURE CONTROL From the preious discussion, we know that if the arrial rate of each flow is known, and within the ideal capacity region of the system, the epoch duration and a serice schedule for the robots can be designed in such a way that the rate is sered in a stable manner (maintaining the aerage size of each queue to be bounded). We consider now the case when the arrial rates are within the capacity region but not known to the scheduling algorithm, and the and T parameters are kept fixed. Is it still possible to schedule the moement and communications of the robots in such a way that all queues remain stable? The answer to this question turns out to be yes, using the notion of Backpressure scheduling first proposed by Tassiulas and Ephremides []. We propose an algorithm for scheduling message ferrying robots that achiees throughput-optimal performance for finite and T parameters, which we refer to as coarse-grained backpressure-based message ferrying (CBMF). The CBMF algorithm works as follows. At the beginning of each epoch: compute the weights w src(i),j = (Q src(i) Q i j ) and w sink(i),j = (Q i j ). If the allocation A(i, j) = 1, denote w i,j = w src(i),j. If A(i, j) = 1, denote w i,j = w sink(i),j. Else, if A(i, j) =, w i,j =. Find the allocation A that maximizes i,j A(i, j) w i,j(a(i, j)) subject to the following three constraints: (1) i A(i, j) = 1, () j IA(i, j) = 1 1, j IA(i, j) = 1 1. (3) The first constraint ensures that each robot is allocated to exactly one source or sink. The second constraint (I represents the indicator function) ensures that no source is allocated more than one robot, while the third constraint ensures that no sink is allocated more than one robot. Theorem : For any arrial rate that is strictly within Λ IB (, T), the CBMF algorithm ensures that all source and robot queues are stable (always bounded by a finite alue). Proof: The proof essentially follows the treatment in [?]. Since the arrial rate is strictly interior in Λ IB (, T), we can make some simple assumptions. We ignore data transmitted when robots are moing. And at the beginning of each epoch, once the robots are allocated, they moe instantly to their destinations(sources or sinks) and remain static with a constant transmission rate as R max = R max (1 d T ). Let b ij (t) denote whether robot j is allocated to src(i) or not. b ij (t) = 1 means robot j is allocated to src(i); b ij (t) = means robot j is not allocated to src(i). Similarly, c ij (t) denotes whether robot j is allocated to sink(i) or not. c ij (t) = 1 means robot j is allocated to sink(i), and c ij (t) = means robot j is not allocated to sink(i). Then we hae R src(i),j (t) = b ij (t)r max and R j,sink(i) (t) = c ij (t)r max. The queue backlog at source i, i 1,..., K, is updated as follows Q src(i) (t1)=max Q src(i) (t) (b i1(t)... b in (t))r max, λ i. (8) The queue backlog at robot j for flow i, i 1,..., K and j 1,..., N, is gien by Q i j (t 1)=max Q i j (t) cij(t)r max, min Q src(i) (t), b ij(t)r max. (9) Define the queue backlog ector of this system as Θ(t)=(Q src(1) (t),..., Q src(k) (t), Q 1 1 (t),..., QK 1 (t),..., Q1 N (t),..., QK N (t)). (1) And the Lyapuno function as L(Θ(t)) = 1 N Q src(i) (t) Q i j(t). (11)

5 Then, L(Θ(t 1)) L(Θ(t)) = 1 K [ Qsrc(i) (t 1) Q src(i) (t) ] 1 N [ Q i j (t 1) Q i j(t) ] ( N b ij (t)r max) λ i N (c ij (t)r max) (b ij (t)r max) N Q src(i) (t) λ i b ij (t)r max) N Q i j(b ij (t) c ij (t))r max. (1) where the inequality comes from equations (8) and (9), and max Q b, a Q a b Q(a b). (13) max Q 1 c, min Q, b max Q 1 c, b. (14) Define the conditional Lyapuno drift as (Θ(t)) = E L(Θ(t 1)) L(Θ(t)) Θ(t). (15) Since i 1,..., K and j 1,..., N, b ij (t)r max R max, c ij (t)r max R max and the arrial rates are finite, the first two terms on the left-hand-side of inequality (15) can be upper bounded by a finite constant B. Thus, (Θ(t)) B Q src(i) (t)λ i N E (Q src(i) (t) Q i j(t))b ij(t)r maxq i j(t)c ij(t)r max Θ(t). Applying the CBMF algorithm to allocate robots, the last term on the right-hand-side can be maximized, thus the conditional drift can be minimized. Let b ij (t) and c ij (t) be any other robot allocation policy, then we hae (16) (Θ(t)) B Q src(i) (t)λ i N E (Q src(i) (t) Q i j(t))b ij(t)r maxq i j(t)c ij(t)r max Θ(t) ( N ) B Q src(i) (t) E b ij(t)r max Θ(t) λ i N Q i j(t)e ( c ij(t) b ij(t) ) R max Θ(t). In order to upper bound the terms on the right-hand-side, let us first consider the following problem: gien an arrial rate ector λ = (λ 1,..., λ K ) Λ IB (, T) a priori, we want to design an S-only (depends only on the channel states) algorithm to find ɛ > N s.t. λ i ɛ E b ij(t)r max i 1,..., K, E b ij(t)r max ɛ E c ij (t)r max, i 1,..., K and j 1,..., N. (18) The S-only algorithm to achiee any gien arrial rates which are strictly interior to the capacity region is designed as follows: Since λ = (λ 1,..., λ K ) H/ H, we can find a ector ɛ = (ɛ 1,..., ɛ K ) such that λ = (λ 1 ɛ 1,..., λ K ɛ K ) H. Let ɛ max = minɛ 1,..., ɛ K, and since λ is strictly interior in H, we hae ɛ max >. Since λ = (λ 1 ɛ max,..., λ K ɛ max ) H, it can be represented as a conex combination of basis allocations. To be specific, in a network containing K flows and N robots, there are M (depends on K and N, and is finite) basis allocations in total. Let [λ l1,..., λ lk ] T, l 1,..., M denote the capacity the l th allocation can proide. Let α = (α 1,..., α M ) be the allocation ector of the conex coefficients. And we hae α 1 [λ 11,..., λ 1K ] T... α M [λ M1,..., λ MK ] T =[λ 1 ɛ max,..., λ K ɛ max ] T. (19) Let us identify integers n l satisfying n l M n i = α l, l 1,..., M. Then the arrial rate ector λ can be sered by first allocating n l epochs for the l th basis allocation, and allocating the next n l epochs for the same l th basis allocation but exchanging the robots locations, l 1,..., M. And after a total of M n l epochs, repeat the whole process. l=1 Since the sered rate λ is ɛ max greater than the original gien rate λ, we can change the aboe scheduling scheme by (17)

6 adding a few more epochs to each n l epochs period, which l still supports the gien input rate. During these additional epochs, we can eenly allocate one robot at each sink to help delier data. In this way we can make sure there exists an ɛ > such that N λ i ɛ E b ij(t)r max, i 1,..., K, E b ij(t)r max ɛ E c ij(t)r max, i 1,..., K and j 1,..., N. () Take inequalities () into equation (17), we hae N (Θ(t)) B ɛ Q src(i) (t) Q i j(t). (1) Taking iterated expectations, summing the telescoping series, and rearranging terms yields: t 1 1 E Q src(i) (τ) N t τ= τ= E Q i j(τ) B ɛ EL(Θ()) ɛ. () t Therefore, 1 t 1 lim E Q src(i) (τ) N t t which indicates that the system is strongly stable. E Q i j(τ) B ɛ, (3) Remark : CBMF is proably stable for all arrial rates up to the inner-bound. Howeer, as and T increase, the innerbound approaches the ideal capacity region. V. DELAY ANALYSIS FOR SINGLE-FLOW TWO-ROBOTS Consider a system which contains one source S, one sink D, and two robots R 1, R. Initially, their queue backlogs are empty. The distance between source and sink is d. R 1 is at the same location as D, and R is at the same location as S. The moing speeds of robots is. The transmission rate function is R(x). Without loss of generality, we assume that after applying CFBP at the beginning of the first epoch, R 1 (called receiing robot) is allocated to S to receie data, and R (called deliering robot) is allocated to D to delier data. Thus, in the first epoch, R 1 moes towards the source and keep receiing data. Since R doesn t hae any data stored in its queue, it just moes to the destination without deliering data. At the end of this epoch, Q s =, Q R1 = λt and Q R =. In the second epoch, after applying CFBP, R 1 will be allocated to the destination to delier data, and R will be allocated to the source to receie data. Applying CFBP algorithm at the begging of each epoch, this whole process repeats eery two epochs in the flowing epochs. Since we focus on the stable state of the system in the long run, we can ignore the first epoch. What s more, the system eoles all the same in the following epochs except for changing the roles of R 1 and R (In one epoch, one is the receiing robot and the other is the deliering robot; In the next epoch, the other way around.). Thus, we can analyze one particular epoch instead. Let us focus on the second epoch. At the beginning of this epoch, queues at source S and robot R are both empty, and queue at R 1 is λt. According to the CFBP algorithm, in the second epoch, robot R 1 is the deliering robot moing towards the sink and delier data; and robot R is the receiing robot moing towards the source to receie data. Depending on different alues of arrial rate λ, the system eoles as one the following two cases. Case 1: when arrial rate λ is small enough so that the deliering robot R 1 can deplete all its packets before reaching the sink. Let s t 1 be the time when the queue at R 1 is empty. Then, λt t 1 R(d t)dt =, and t 1 d. Note the condition t 1 d also proides an upper bound ˆλ max for the input rate in this case. 1) When t 1 t 1, the deliering robot R 1 has data in its backlog and keeps transmitting data to D. Thus, its queue at time t 1 is Q R1 (t 1 ) = λt t 1 R(d t)dt. At the same time, new data arries at the source node S at rate λ, and the receiing robot R keeps receiing data from S. The total amount of data at S and R at t 1 is Q s (t 1 ) Q R (t 1 ) = λt 1. Thus, the total queue backlog in the system at t 1 is Q tot(t 1) = Q s(t 1)Q R1 (t 1)Q R (t 1) = λt t1 R(d t)dtλt 1. (4) ) When t 1 < t 1 T, the deliering robot R 1 has no data to transmit, thus Q R1 (t 1 ) =. The total amount of data at S and R at t 1 is still Q s (t 1 ) Q R (t 1 ) = λt 1. Thus, the total queue backlog in the system at t 1 is Q tot (t 1 ) = λt 1. (5) By definition, the time aerage total queue is Q tot = 1 T T Q(τ)dτ. Then, we hae Q tot = 1 t 1 τ T λt R(d t)dtλτ dτ λτdτ T t 1 = λt 1 λt 1 t 1 τ R(d t)dt dτ. (6) T is And by Little s Law, the time aerage delay of this system D = Q tot λ = t 1 T 1 t 1 τ R(d t)dt dτ. (7) λt Case : when arrial rate λ (ˆλ max < λ < λ max ) is large enough so that the deliering robot R 1 cannot finish depleting all its data during moing, i.e., it will keep downloading data at rate R max while it reaches the destination. Let t

7 be the time when the queue backlog at R 1 is empty. Then, λt R(d t)dt (t d )R max =. Note t T also proides the upper bound capacity λ max for the stable system. (where λ max = R ag = R(d t)dt(t d )Rmax T ) 1) When t 1 d, the deliering robot R 1 keeps moing towards D while transmitting data. Its queue backlog at t 1 is Q R1 (t 1 ) = λt t 1 R(d t)dt. The queue at source S and receiing robot R at time t 1 is Q s (t 1 ) Q R (t 1 ) = λt 1. Thus, the total queue backlog in the system at t 1 is Q tot (t 1 ) = Q s (t 1 ) Q R1 (t 1 ) Q R (t 1 ) = λt t1 R(d t)dt λt 1. (8) ) When d < t 1 t, deliering robot R 1 stays at the same location with sink D and keeps deliering data at the maximum rate R max. Then its queue at t 1 is R 1 (t 1 ) = λt R(d t)dt (t 1 d )R max. The queue at S and R is Q s (t 1 ) Q R (t 1 ) = λt 1. Thus, the total queue backlog at t 1 is Q tot (t 1 ) = λt R(d t)dt (t 1 d )R max λt 1. (9) 3) When t < t 1 T, the deliering robot R 1 has already deliered all its data, thus Q R1 (t 1 ) =. Besides, we still hae Q s (t 1 ) Q R (t 1 ) = λt 1. Thus, the total queue backlog is Thus, Q tot = 1 T and t d T t τ λt λt λτdτ = λt λt 1 T 1 T (t d ) Q tot (t 1 ) = λt 1. (3) R(d t)dt λτ dτ R(d t)dt (τ d )Rmax λτ dτ D = Q tot λ = t T 1 λt 1 λt (t d ) τ R(d t)dt dτ R(d t)dt Rmax T (t d ). τ R(d t)dt dτ (31) R(d t)dt R max λt (t d ). (3) VI. SIMULATIONS We first present numerical simulation results for two flows and four robots. We use η =, C = 1, d 1 = 5, d = 1, and T and λ i are aried as shown in the figures. In figure 3 we see the aerage end-to-end delay (time taken for a packet generated at the source to reach the sink; it is obtained by measuring the aerage total queue size for each flow in the simulations and diiding by the arrial rate, as per Little s Theorem [3]) ersus arrial rate for each flow, plotted whereer CBMF results in stable queues; we find that we are able to get conerging, bounded delays (indicatie of stability) een beyond the inner-bound capacity line. Also marked on the figure is the lower (inner) bound of capacity, for rates below which CBMF is proably stable. We see that as the elocity increases, so does the capacity, and at the same time the delay decreases. Thus improement in robot elocity benefits both throughput and delay performance of CBMF, as may be expected. Figure 4, in which the elocity is kept constant across cures but the epoch duration is aried, is somewhat similar but with one striking difference, howeer, as the epoch duration increases, so does the capacity; but at the same time, the aerage delay also increases (for the same arrial rates, so long stability is maintained). Thus, increasing the scheduling epoch duration improes throughput but hurts delay performance. Second, we present numerical simulation results for delay in one-flow two-robots system. We use d = 1, T, and λ are aried as shown in Figure 5. As it is shown in Figure 5, the simulation results match the theoretical results. We can reach the same conclusion as before: increasing the scheduling epoch duration improes throughput but hurts delay performance; howeer, increasing robot elocities benefits both throughput and delay performance. Besides, in the Figure 5, delay seems to be a linear function of the input rate λ. This can be shown theoretically if we ignore the integral part of equation (7) or equation (3). VII. CONCLUSIONS This paper has addressed two fundamental questions in robotic message ferrying for wireless networks: what is the throughput capacity region of such systems? How can they be scheduled to ensure stable operation, een without prior knowledge of arrial rates? There are a number of open directions suggested by the present work. The first is to improe the CBFM algorithm to support the entire capacity region without delay inefficiency, possibly by adapting the schedule length based on obsered delay or by considering finer-grained motion control. Finally, we are interested in deeloping decentralized scheduling mechanisms that the robots can implement in a distributed fashion. REFERENCES [1] M. Grossglauser and D. Tse, Mobility Increases the Capacity of Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, ol 1, no 4, August. [] L. Tassiulas, A. Ephremides, Stability properties of constrained queueing systems and scheduling for maximum throughput in multihop radio networks, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp , December 199. [3] A. Leon-Garcia, Probability and Random Processes for Electrical Engineering, Addison-Wesley, 1993.

8 5 5 =sqrt() capacity inner bound=.3 =4*sqrt() campacity inner bound=.576 =1*sqrt() capacity inner bound=.688 =sqrt() capacity inner bound=.576 =4*sqrt() capacity inner bound=.665 =1*sqrt() capacity inner bound=.691 Delay of flow Delay of flow Input rate λ 1 Input rate λ Fig. 3. Delay of flows 1 (left) and (right) as we ary for T = Delay of flow 1 15 T=5 capacity inner bound=.3 T=5 capacity inner bound=4481 T=3 capacity inner bound=653 Delay of flow 15 T=5 capacity inner bound=576 T=5 capacity inner bound=6319 T=3 capacity inner bound= Input rate λ 1 Input rate λ Fig. 4. Delay of flows 1 (left) and (right) as we ary T for = T=1 in simulation 1 T=1 in theory capacity inner bound=.35 Delay 6 4 T= in simulation T= in theory capacity inner bound=.5 T=1 in simulation T=1 in theory capacity inner bound=.66 Delay 5 = in simulation = in theory capacity inner bound=.35 =5 in simulation =5 in theory capacity inner bound=.55 =1 in simulation =1 in theory capacity inner bound= Input rate λ Input rate λ Fig. 5. Delay of one-flow two-robots as we ary T for = (left) and we ary for T = 1 (right) [4] M. J. Neely, Stochastic Network Optimization with Application to Communication and Queueing Systems, Morgan and Claypool, 1.