Interactive mobile applications like web browsing and gaming are known to benefit significantly from low latency networking, as applications communicate with cloud servers and other users’ devices. Emerging mobile channel standards have not met these needs: general-purpose channels are greatly improving bandwidth but empirically offer little improvement for common latency-sensitive applications, and ultra-low-latency channels are targeted at only specific applications with very low bandwidth requirements.
We explore a different direction for wireless channel design: utilizing two channels – one high bandwidth, one low latency – simultaneously for general-purpose applications. With a focus on web browsing, we design fine-grained traffic steering heuristics that can be implemented in a shim layer of the host network stack, effectively exploiting the high bandwidth and low latency properties of both channels. In the special case of 5G’s channels, our experiments show that even though URLLC offers just 0.2% of the bandwidth of eMBB, the use of both channels in parallel can reduce page load time by 26% to 59% compared to delivering traffic exclusively on eMBB. We believe this approach may benefit applications in addition to web browsing, may offer service providers incentives to deploy low latency channels, and suggests a direction for the design of future wireless channels.
more »
« less
Joint scheduling of URLLC and eMBB traffic in 5G wireless networks
Emerging 5G systems will need to efficiently support both enhanced mobile broadband traffic (eMBB) and ultra-low- latency communications (URLLC) traffic. In these systems, time is divided into slots which are further sub-divided into minislots. From a scheduling perspective, eMBB resource allocations occur at slot boundaries, whereas to reduce latency URLLC traffic is pre-emptively overlapped at the minislot timescale, resulting in selective superposition/puncturing of eMBB allocations. This approach enables minimal URLLC latency at a potential rate loss to eMBB traffic.
We study joint eMBB and URLLC schedulers for such systems, with the dual objectives of maximizing utility for eMBB traffic while immediately satisfying URLLC demands. For a linear rate loss model (loss to eMBB is linear in the amount of URLLC superposition/puncturing), we derive an optimal joint scheduler. Somewhat counter-intuitively, our results show that our dual objectives can be met by an iterative gradient scheduler for eMBB traffic that anticipates the expected loss from URLLC traffic, along with an URLLC demand scheduler that is oblivious to eMBB channel states, utility functions and allocation decisions of the eMBB scheduler. Next we consider a more general class of (convex/threshold) loss models and study optimal online joint eMBB/URLLC schedulers within the broad class of channel state dependent but minislot-homogeneous policies. A key observation is that unlike the linear rate loss model, for the convex and threshold rate loss models, optimal eMBB and URLLC schedul- ing decisions do not de-couple and joint optimization is necessary to satisfy the dual objectives. We validate the characteristics and benefits of our schedulers via simulation.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1731658
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10168435
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- IEEEACM transactions on networking
- Volume:
- 28
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1558-2566
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1-15
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Interactive mobile applications like web browsing and gaming are known to benefit significantly from low latency networking, as applications communicate with cloud servers and other users' devices. Emerging mobile channel standards have not met these needs: 5G's general-purpose eMBB channel has much higher bandwidth than 4G but empirically offers little improvement for common latency-sensitive applications, while its ultra-low-latency URLLC channel is targeted at only specific applications with very low bandwidth requirements. We explore a different direction for wireless channel design to address the fundamental bandwidth-latency tradeoff: utilizing two channels -- one high bandwidth, one low latency -- simultaneously to improve performance of common Internet applications. We design DChannel, a fine-grained packet-steering scheme that takes advantage of these parallel channels to transparently improve application performance. With 5G channels, our trace-driven and live network experiments show that even though URLLC offers just 1% of the bandwidth of eMBB, using both channels can improve web page load time and responsiveness of common mobile apps by 16-40% compared to using exclusively eMBB. This approach may provide service providers important incentives to make low latency channels available for widespread use.more » « less
-
Interactive mobile applications like web browsing and gaming are known to benefit significantly from low latency networking, as applications communicate with cloud servers and other users' devices. Emerging mobile channel standards have not met these needs: 5G's general-purpose eMBB channel has much higher bandwidth than 4G but empirically offers little improvement for common latency-sensitive applications, while its ultra-low-latency URLLC channel is targeted at only specific applications with very low bandwidth requirements. We explore a different direction for wireless channel design to address the fundamental bandwidth-latency tradeoff: utilizing two channels -- one high bandwidth, one low latency -- simultaneously to improve performance of common Internet applications. We design DChannel, a fine-grained packet-steering scheme that takes advantage of these parallel channels to transparently improve application performance. With 5G channels, our trace-driven and live network experiments show that even though URLLC offers just 1% of the bandwidth of eMBB, using both channels can improve web page load time and responsiveness of common mobile apps by 16-40% compared to using exclusively eMBB. This approach may provide service providers important incentives to make low latency channels available for widespread use.more » « less
-
Fifth generation mobile communication systems (5G) have to accommodate both Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication (URLLC) and enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) services. While eMBB applications support high data rates, URLLC services aim at guaranteeing low-latencies and high-reliabilities. eMBB and URLLC services are scheduled on the same frequency band, where the different latency requirements of the communications render their coexistence challenging. In this survey, we review, from an information theoretic perspective, coding schemes that simultaneously accommodate URLLC and eMBB transmissions and show that they outperform traditional scheduling approaches. Various communication scenarios are considered, including point-to-point channels, broadcast channels, interference networks, cellular models, and cloud radio access networks (C-RANs). The main focus is on the set of rate pairs that can simultaneously be achieved for URLLC and eMBB messages, which captures well the tension between the two types of communications. We also discuss finite-blocklength results where the measure of interest is the set of error probability pairs that can simultaneously be achieved in the two communication regimes.more » « less
-
Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.2018.8486430
