HTML conversions sometimes display errors due to content that did not convert correctly from the source. This paper uses the following packages that are not yet supported by the HTML conversion tool. Feedback on these issues are not necessary; they are known and are being worked on.
failed: aliascnt
Authors: achieve the best HTML results from your LaTeX submissions by following these best practices.
License: CC BY 4.0
arXiv:2304.00355v2 [cs.SI] 19 Dec 2023
Human-Centric Resource Allocation in the
Metaverse over Wireless Communications
Jun Zhao
Liangxin Qian
Wenhan Yu
Jun Zhao is a faculty member in the School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Liangxin Qian and
Wenhan Yu are both PhD students supervised by Jun Zhao.
Emails: [email protected], {qian0080, wenhan002}@e.ntu.edu.sg
Corresponding author: Jun Zhao
Abstract
The Metaverse will provide numerous immersive applications for human users, by consolidating technologies like extended reality (XR), video streaming, and cellular networks. Optimizing wireless communications to enable the human-centric Metaverse is important to satisfy the demands of mobile users. In this paper, we formulate the optimization of the system utility-cost ratio (UCR) for the Metaverse over wireless networks. Our human-centric utility measure for virtual reality (VR) applications of the Metaverse represents users’ perceptual assessment of the VR video quality as a function of the data rate and the video resolution and is learned from real datasets. The variables jointly optimized in our problem include the allocation of both communication and computation resources as well as VR video resolutions. The system cost in our problem comprises the energy consumption and delay and is non-convex with respect to the optimization variables. To solve the non-convex optimization, we develop a novel fractional programming technique, which contributes to optimization theory and has broad applicability beyond our paper. Our proposed algorithm for the system UCR optimization is computationally efficient and finds a stationary point to the constrained optimization. Through extensive simulations, our algorithm is demonstrated to outperform other approaches.
The Metaverse is expected to offer a myriad of opportunities for mobile users to interact with the immersive virtual world [1]. In various Augmented/Virtual Reality (AR/VR) applications for the Metaverse, humans are at the core since users judge whether the AR/VR videos or games provide a satisfying Quality of Experience (QoE) [2]. Compared with the traditional Quality of Service (QoS) that measures the objective service performance (e.g., bit rate, data accuracy), QoE as a utility measure concerns the enjoyment of users [3]. Providing satisfying utilities to multiple users in a resource-constrained system requires allocating resources wisely. In this paper, we formulate and solve human-centric resource allocation for VR in the
Metaverse over wireless communications. Our goal is
to reduce the Metaverse system’s cost in terms of delay and energy, as well as to enhance the human-centric utilities of
mobile users accessing the Metaverse via wireless networks. Tackling this problem also motivates us to propose a new optimization technique.
Studied problem. Our researched system consists of one Metaverse Server (MS) and multiple VR Users (VUs). We consider downlink wireless communications, where the MS sends to each VU the corresponding VR video via frequency division multiple access (FDMA). The MS solves the system utility-cost ratio (UCR) optimization by allocating 1) communication resources (i.e., bandwidth and transmission power) for the MS’s communication with each VU, and 2) the MS’s computation resources for processing the videos to be sent to VUs, as well as deciding 3) the video resolution for all VUs, and 4) the CPU frequencies for the VUs. Then, the MS uses the allocated computation resource to process each VR video with the selected resolution, and transmits the videos to the VUs with the decided bandwidth and transmission power. Each VU receives VR frames of a video and processes the frames with the arranged CPU frequency. To perform the UCR optimization, the MS knows the human-centric utilities of all VUs and how the energy or delay depends on the optimization variables. The system cost is a weighted sum of the energy consumption and delay. For energy, we take into account both the MS and VUs. The energy usage on the MS comprises those for video processing and transmission, whereas the energy of VUs is for video processing. The delay computation includes the processing on the MS, the wireless transmission, and the processing on each VU. Next, we discuss VUs’ human-centric utilities.
Human-centric utility. Prior resource allocation studies [4, 5, 7, 6, 8, 9] for wireless communications typically do not consider human-centric utilities. Incorporating subjective user perception into the design is critical for the development of VR and the Metaverse, as it provides valuable insights into how the technologies can be improved to deliver the best possible experiences for VUs. A recent work [2] also argues the importance of develo** the Metaverse to be human-centric. In our paper, the human-centric utility for each VU is learned from the VU’s perceptual assessment of the VR video quality as a function of the data rate and the video resolution, as illustrated by a recent dataset reporting users’ evaluation of watching VR videos [10]. Then UCR is the ratio of all VUs’ sum human-centric utilities to the system cost.
Our contributions include the problem formulation, a novel fractional programming technique, and an efficient optimization algorithm, as listed below.
•
To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first in the literature to consider the optimization of the system utility-cost ratio (UCR) for the Metaverse over wireless communications. Our work is also among pioneering studies that incorporate human-centric utility for Metaverse optimization.
•
We propose a novel technique for fractional programming (FP), where the objective to be minimized is the sum of a convex function and a series of non-convex ratios with convex numerators and concave denominators. FP of the above kind cannot be addressed by prior
work [11, 12] (viz., Section IV). Our technique contributes to optimization theory and is applicable to many other problems.
•
Our UCR optimization is difficult to solve due to the following two aspects: 1) the objective function being the sum of a complicated function and a sequence of non-convex fractions, and 2) jointly deciding five vector variables (for bandwidth, transmission power, video resolution, allocation of the Metaverse server’s computing resource, CPU frequencies of VR users, respectively). Despite the challenges, we propose an efficient algorithm by leveraging our novel FP technique above and carefully identifying a roadmap (on Pages VI and VI) to solve the variables step-by-step.
•
Simulations demonstrate the superiority of our algorithm over
other baselines. The human-centric utilities used in the simulations are learnt from real-world data including a recent VR dataset [10].
Roadmap. This work is organized as follows. We review related work in Section II. The system model is presented in Section III. We propose a novel technique for fractional programming (FP) in Section IV. Using this FP technique, we analyze how to solve the UCR optimization for the Metaverse over wireless communications in
Sections V and VI. Based on the analysis, Section VII presents our algorithm for the UCR optimization, as well as its performance including solution quality, convergence, and time complexity.
We model human-centric utilities from real datasets in Section VIII, and use the obtained utility functions to provide simulation results in Section IX. We conclude the paper in Section X.
II Related Work
We discuss related work from the following aspects: optimization in wireless networks, the Metaverse over wireless communications, human-centric utility, and the fractional programming technique.
Optimization for wireless networks. Many studies have addressed optimization related to delay, energy, or utility for wireless networks, as discussed below.
Optimizing the system cost, defined as the weighted sum of system delay and system energy consumption, is investigated in [4, 5] for wireless federated learning, in [7] for UAV-enabled mobile edge computing, in [8] for 5G networks.
In [9], the difference between the utility and the energy consumption in a heterogeneous network is maximized. There are also papers on ratio optimization to improve the system’s performance. The ratio is often energy efficiency (EE) [13, 14] or computation efficiency (CE) [15, 16], which denotes the ratio of the number of transmitted or computed bits to energy consumption. EE or CE above can be understood as , but surprisingly there seems no existing work in communication/network publications on optimizing like our paper, although we have conducted an extensive literature survey. Moreover, we consider human-centric utility for the Metaverse, which further increases the novelty of our studied problem.
Metaverse over wireless communications. Recently, researching the Metaverse over wireless communications and networks has become an emerging topic. Recent papers [1, 3] have surveyed Metaverse research from different aspects: [1] focusing on fundamental underlying technologies as well as security/privacy issues, [3] on how edge computing empowers the Metaverse. In addition to surveys [1, 3] above, we discuss representative technical work [17, 18, 19, 20, 21] below. In [17], sampling, communication and prediction are co-designed to minimize the communication load for synchronizing a real-world device and its digital model in the Metaverse.
Yu et al. [18] optimize the delay and reliability of wireless Metaverse using deep reinforcement learning. Contest theory is utilized in [19] for the Metaverse with semantic communications, while game theory is applied in [20, 21] for the vehicular Metaverse. In [14] led by the current paper’s first author, fractional programming (FP) is leveraged for energy efficiency optimization of the Metaverse subject to physical-layer security of wireless communications. In addition to the difference in terms of problem formulation compared with ours, [14] allocates communication resources only without optimizing computing resources and video resolutions. Also [14] does not use our novel FP technique
of Section IV.
Network Utility Maximization (NUM). Our work is related to the research on network utility maximization (NUM) [22]. For a network of users, NUM considers that all users act altruistically to maximize the total network utility [23], defined as the sum of all users’ individual
utilities. In the classical NUM problem by Kelly et al. [24], the goal is to allocate traffic rates to users in order to maximize the total network utility subject to resource constraints (e.g., link capacity limitations). Since then, various NUM problems have been investigated in the literature [25, 26, 27].
The total network utility is also referred to as the social welfare in [28], where game theory is adopted to solve the problem. Despite the relevance of NUM research to our work, we emphasize that our objective is optimizing the ratio of the total system utility to the total system cost , rather than just maximizing . The optimization of the fraction is more challenging than that of due to the non-convexity of the fraction.
Human-centric utility. When utility is referred to as video quality, it can be measured using objective or subjective assessment methods. The subjective quality assessment (SQA) results in human-centric perceptual utility since human subjects are asked for their opinions directly. Higher human-centric utility means better Quality of Experience (QoE), which is in contrast with the traditional notion of Quality of Service (QoS) that quantifies the objective performance of the system. The survey [29] covers human-centric utility for traditional 2D video applications. Human-centric design for Augmented/Virtual Reality (AR/VR) and the Metaverse has received much interest recently.
A 2023 survey [30] systematically reviews human-centric mobile AR. Elwardy et al. [10] report SQA of users watching 360° videos when wearing HTC Vive Pro VR headsets. In [2], the human-centric nature of the Metaverse and using it for personalized value creation are discussed.
In the current paper on
VR for the Metaverse, we model human-centric utility functions of VR users from SQA video datasets [10, 31], as elaborated on in Section VIII later. The logarithmic function form will be adopted, which has been used in [32] for crowdsourcing, in [33] for mobile edge computing, and in [34] for space-air-ground integrated networks.
Fractional programming (FP). In this paper, we present a novel FP technique and use it
to transform a non-convex optimization problem into parametric convex optimization. The detailed comparison between our work and other FP papers [11, 12] is deferred to Section IV.
III System Model
Our studied system consists of one Metaverse Server (MS) and VR Users (VUs), indexed by . In downlink wireless communications, the MS sends to each VU the corresponding VR video via frequency division multiple access (FDMA) so that communications do not interfere.
We have overviewed the system operation in the “Studied problem” paragraph on Page I. As already stated, our goal is to optimize the system utility-cost ratio (UCR), by deciding communication resources (i.e., bandwidth and transmission power) and computation resources (i.e., the MS’s computation allocation and the VUs’ CPU frequencies), as well as VR video resolutions. Figure 1 illustrates the system model.
Note that before the video transmission, there are message exchanges between the MS and VUs for control purpose; e.g., each VU informs the MS of its maximum CPU frequency and utility function, and the MS notifies the obtained CPU frequency for each VU from the system utility-cost ratio (UCR) optimization. We ignore the overhead of the control information since it is much smaller than the video data sizes. Below we first introduce notations, which are used to define the system utility and cost in Sections III-A and III-B. Then we formalize the UCR optimization in Section III-C.
For communications via FDMA,
we define , as the bandwidths and transmission powers used for the MS to communicate with VUs. With being the channel attenuation from MS to VU , the achievable rate from MS to VU is given by the function notation below:
(1)
III-AModeling the human-centric utilities of VR users
Based on the subjective test in [10], for each VU , we formulate the human-centric utility as , a function of the transmission rate and resolution satisfying Assumption 1 below.
Assumption 1.
is non-decreasing in and , concave in , and concave in .
The vector gives the resolutions of VR frames for the VUs. The system utility, defined as the sum of all VUs’ human-centric utilities, is given by
(2)
Our analysis and algorithm use Assumption 1, and do not need ’s joint concavity in and , though the expression of in Section VIII from real datasets is jointly concave in and .
III-BSystem cost comprising delay and energy consumption
We start with defining some notations. For each ,
let be the MS’s computational resource allocated to process the frames for VU . Such allocation of computing resources is also considered in [35] for edge computing. The CPU frequency of VU is denoted by . Then
and .
About the frames for VU , let
be the number of bits per pixel, and be the compression ratio.
The MS will generate a VR video of frames for XU . Let (resp., ) be the number of CPU cycles on MS (resp., VU ) to process a part of those frames before (resp., after) wireless transmission. While later frames of the VR video are yet to be generated, earlier frames can be transmitted from the MS to each VU . Similarly, while later frames of the VR video are yet to be received, VU can process earlier frames which have already been accepted. Hence, the following three stages partially overlap: processing at the MS, wireless transmission from the MS to VU , and processing at VU , as shown in Fig. 2.
Then we define the following:
•
the time used on the MS to generate and process frames
for VU before wireless transmission: ,
•
the time expended to transmit all VR frames from the MS to VU : ,
•
the time cost on VU for processing frames after wireless transmission: ,
We will set the expressions of in Section IX on simulations.
Thus, the delay for VU is
(3)
Then, we let the maximum of all VUs’ delays be the system delay:
(4)
Let be MS’s and VU ’s effective switched capacitance. From the process of generating frames at MS to rendering them at VU , the following energy will be consumed:
•
energy spent on MS to process VR frames for VU : ,
•
energy spent for transmitting VR frames from MS to VU : ,
•
energy spent on VU to process VR frames: ,
where we note that (resp., ) is different from (resp., ) above, since the latter is only before (resp., after) wireless transmission as shown in Fig. 2, while the former considers CPU cycles to process frames. The notations above highlight the dependence on , but we do not write in delay and energy functions as is not optimized.
The total consumed energy is:
(5)
The system cost is a weighted sum of the system delay in Eq. (4) and energy consumption in Eq. (5):
(6)
where and are the weight parameters for energy and delay, respectively. With the utility in Eq. (2) and the cost of the whole system in Eq. (6), we present the optimization problem in the next section.
III-COptimization problem
The aim is to maximize the utility-cost ratio (UCR) of the system as follows:
Constraints (7a), (7b), and (7d) mean the sum-limit of the bandwidth, power, and computing resources of the MS. Constraint (7c) gives the range of the resolution, and (7e) sets the CPU frequency limit of each VU. Our approach to solving will use a fractional programming technique presented next.
IV Our Proposed Technique for Fractional Programming (FP)
In this section, we will first formulate the FP problem and then explain how our proposed FP technique differs from those in the state-of-the-art work [11, 12].
Fractional programming (FP) problem.
Let be functions of variable(s) , and these functions have definitions on a convex set , which is a subset of a real vector space. Also, for , we have and . Then we consider:
FP-problem:optimizing
subject to .
(8)
Two specific instances of FP-problem above are as follows:
FP-maximization: maximizing subject to ,
for concave and convex ,
(9)
FP-minimization: minimizing subject to ,
for convex and concave .
(10)
Note that the above problem formulations (8) (9) (10) cover constrained optimization where the constraints are convex so that we can incorporate the constraints into defining .
TABLE I: A comparison of our paper and other work [11, 12] on fractional programming (FP).
Find a stationary point for FP-maximization in (9)
for both cases of and ,
but fail to tackle FP-minimization.
Our current work
Find a stationary point for FP-minimization in (10)
for both cases of and .
An overview of our contribution in FP technique. With problems defined in (8) (9) (10) above, Table II compares our novel FP technique and those in [11, 12]. We present the details in the paragraphs below, describing [11], [12] and our work, respectively.
Prior work [11] on FP.
In case of , [11] optimizes , which is referred to as the sum of ratios (SoR). Then FP-maximization (resp., FP-minimization) under can be referred to SoR-maximization (resp., SoR-minimization). Via a transform into parametric convex optimization problems, [11] obtains a global optimum for SoR-maximization (i.e., maximizing for concave and convex ) and SoR-minimization (i.e., maximizing for convex and concave ). However, the approach of [11] is only applicable to the case of . The reason is that although the original SoR optimization and the transformed problem find
the same optimal solution for the variable(s), the optimal objective-function values of the two problems are different.
Prior work [12] on FP.
To address cases of and , in the breakthrough work [12], Shen and Yu transform each into , and prove that for concave and convex , FP-maximization in (9) is the same as maximizing subject to and (the set of real numbers). Then alternating optimization (AO) is adopted to optimize and in an alternating manner, since is concave in and concave in , despite not being jointly concave in them. This AO algorithm leads to a stationary point for FP-maximization. Note that [12] tackles only FP-maximization and does not address FP-minimization. above can not be used for FP-minimization, since the minimum of is .
Our new technique for FP. Based on the above discussions, [11, 12] do not cover FP-minimization in (10) with .
To fill this gap, our paper proposes the following technique for FP-minimization in both cases of and . Specifically, we transform each into , and prove that for convex and concave , FP-minimization in (10) is the same as minimizing subject to and . The above holds because with denoting which minimizes given (i.e., ), the partial derivative of with respect to at being is the same as the derivative of with respect to , where the computations are straightforward and shown in the Appendix of our full version [36]. Then FP-minimization in (10) can be tackled by optimizing and in an alternating manner to minimize , since is convex in (for convex ) and convex in (for any ), despite not being jointly convex in them. For non-convex , optimizing with respect to can employ techniques such as difference-of-convex programming or successive convex approximation [37].
The above alternating optimization finds a stationary point for FP-minimization in (10). Finally, we note that while our proposed FP technique will be used to solve the current paper’s Problem of Section III-C, the technique can also be applied to many other FP problems [12] beyond our paper.
V Solve the Optimization Problem
We present our method of solving of (III-C) below. The denominator in the objective function of (III-C), i.e., the system cost, is given by (6) and involves a “maximize” term from the system delay in (4). We add an auxiliary variable to circumvent that “maximize” so that is transformed into Problem :
The subsections below present our steps for solving . These steps together induce our Algorithm 1 on Page 1, which can be better understood after readers have finished all subsections below.
V-ADinkelbach’s transform for the ratio optimization
For maximizing a ratio (i.e., ), we use Dinkelbach’s transform [12] to transform into a series of parametric optimization which maximizes “” subject to ’s constraints, where solving the current decides “” used in the next . For an optimization problem , let denote its objective function. Then and are as follows:
(12)
Pro
(13)
The process of using to solve is as follows. For ease of explanation, we denote by , and write the objective function of as . Then starting from a feasible at initialization, we set as . Then we solve , denote the obtained solution as , set as . This process continues iteratively: in the th iteration, is set as (given by Line 1 of Algorithm 1 on Page 1), and is obtained from solving . As stated in [12], the above process converges and does not lose optimality; i.e., under global optimization of each (not achieved in our current paper, as discussed later), global optimization of is also achieved.
We will solve each
by alternating optimizing (AO) and . Section V-B optimizes given , while Section V-D optimizes given . AO means loo** through these two steps until convergence; i.e., the relative difference between the objective-function values of consecutive iterations is no more than the error tolerance, as shown in Line 1 of Algorithm 1.
V-BOptimizing given for Problem
For Problem , given , optimizing means the following optimization:
(14)
(15)
Eq. (15) has a summation of non-convex ratios, which we address using our fractional programming technique of Section IV, as detailed soon. Note that we cannot use the sum-of-ratios approach in [12], since the objective function in (14) includes not just the sum of ratios, but also .
V-CLeveraging our fractional programming technique to solve
We utilize our fractional programming technique of Section IV to transform into a series of :
(16)
(17)
where we introduce the auxiliary with . We solve in Section VI.
The process of using to solve is as follows. For ease of explanation, we denote by , and write the objective function of as . Then starting from a feasible at initialization, we set as (i.e., optimizing the above objective function with respect to given ). Then we solve , denote the obtained solution as , set as . This process continues iteratively: in the th iteration, is set as , and is obtained from solving . As explained in Section V-C, the above process is alternating optimization and thus converges. We will discuss its performance in Section VI.
V-DOptimizing given for Problem
When in (7c) is ,
given , optimizing for means the following:
(18)
where is defined as which makes equal .
Assuming , , , and of Section III-B to be convex in (which hold in our simulations in Section IX), is convex optimization for , for which the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) conditions give a global optimum. Using the KKT conditions, we obtain that with denoting the maximum point of the function that is concave with respect to , the optimal solution of to is
V-EPutting the above together: Our Algorithm 1 on Page 1
Based on the above, we present Algorithm 1 on Page 1 to solve . Algorithm 1 consists of three levels of iterations: the outermost iteration based on Dinkelbach’s transform in Section V-A, the mid-level iteration for alternating optimization based on Sections V-B and V-D, and the innermost iteration using our fractional programming technique as discussed in Section V-C. In Algorithm 1’s pseudocode, Line 3 represents the outermost iteration based on Dinkelbach’s transform, which solves a series of Problem for iteratively-updated , in order to solve Problem at convergence. Line 9 corresponding to
the mid-level iteration is to alternating solve Problem and Problem , in order to resolve Problem at convergence. In Line 14, the innermost iteration is executed to solve Problem for iteratively-updated , in order to settle Problem at convergence.
We defer the solution quality and time complexity of Algorithm 1 to Section VII after explaining in Section VI below how each in Line 1 of Algorithm 1 is solved.
The transmission rate is jointly concave in and [6]. Then from the composition rule in Eq. (3.11) of [38] and our Assumption 1 on Page 1, in Eq. (2) is jointly concave in and . Thus, belongs to convex optimization. The CVX tool [38] can be used to solve it. However, the worst-case complexity of global convex optimization grows exponentially with the problem size from Section 1.4.2 of [38]. Below we analyze the KKT conditions [38] to globally optimize .
The Lagrange function of is given below, where denote the multipliers:
(19)
Abbreviating , and as , and for simplicity, we present the KKT conditions of as (20)-(33) below.
• Stationarity:
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
• Complementary slackness:
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
• Dual feasibility:
(33)
We now analyze the KKT conditions of (20)–(33), to solve , where “” denotes “” from now on for notation simplicity. Among the Lagrange multipliers, it is clear from (20) that
Thus, (25) (7a) (33a) can be replaced by (34) (35). Hence,
(42)
(43)
Identifying a roadmap to compute the variables step-by-step. Given “” (denoted by “” below), we will find to satisfy the KKT conditions defined above.
We will partition the KKT conditions given in of (43) for into the sets defined below to enable a step-by-step approach, in order to solve for the variables:
(54)
Steps 1.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2.1, 1.2.2.2, 2.1, and 2.2 use and , respectively. Each step uses a subset of the KKT conditions (defined in (43)) of Problem , and all steps combined together utilize all the conditions, since it holds from (45), (47), (49), (50), (52) and (53) that
(55)
We introduce notations to denote the computed results in the steps. The goal is to obtain
(62)
For X being 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2.1, 1.2.2.2, 2.1, or 2.2, Proposition X
below is a formal presentation of Step X
above. For better clarity, we also present the following table to help understand notations.
TABLE II: Notes for notations, where “ ” denotes a wildcard symbol hereinafter for convenience.
Notations
Notes
Represent “”
notations
Defined in Propositions 1.1 and 1.2
, , ,
Defined in (62), and Propositions 1.2.1, 1.2.2.1, and 2.1, respectively
Proposition 1.1.
We have the following results which formally explain Step 1.1 of Page 54.
(i) Given “”, if in defined in (45), we substitute with defined in (62), then
satisfying is defined in (62).
(ii) Given “” and , let the solution of to be. Then
,
= .
(63)
Proof of Proposition 1.1: Given “” and , the conditions in of (45) are necessary and sufficient to decide . Since setting as satisfies due to (62), Results (i) and (ii) of Proposition 1.1 clearly hold. ∎
Proposition 1.2.
We have the following results, which formally explain Step 1.2 of Page 54.
(i) Given “”, if in defined in (46), we substitute with defined in (62), then satisfying is defined in (62).
(ii)
Given “” and , let the solution of to
be . Then
,
(64)
Proof of Proposition 1.2: Given “” and , the conditions in of (46) are necessary and sufficient to decide . Since setting as satisfies due to (62), Results (i) and (ii) of Proposition 1.2 clearly hold. ∎
Proposition 1.2.1.
We have the following result which formally explains Step 1.2.1 of Page 54.
(i) Given “” and , if in defined in (47), we substitute with defined in Proposition 1.2, then satisfying is defined in Proposition 1.2.
(ii) Given “” and , let the solution of to be . Then
(65)
Proof of Proposition 1.2.1: Given “” and , the conditions in of (47) are necessary and sufficient to decide . Since setting as satisfies by the notations in Proposition 1.2, Results (i) and (ii) of Proposition 1.2.1 clearly hold. ∎
Proposition 1.2.2.
We have the following result which formally explains Step 1.2.2 of Page 54.
Given “” and , if in given in (48), we substitute
with defined in Proposition 1.2.1, then satisfying is defined in Proposition 1.2.
Proof of Proposition 1.2.2: Given “” and , if in of (48), we substitute with defined in Proposition 1.2.1, the conditions in of (48) are necessary and sufficient to decide . Since setting as
(i.e., according to (65)) satisfies by the
definition of the notations in Proposition 1.2, Proposition 1.2.2 clearly follows. ∎
Despite Proposition 1.2.2, simultaneously solving for to is challenging. Instead, we solve for as a function of first and then decide in Propositions 1.2.2.1 and 1.2.2.2 below.
Proposition 1.2.2.1.
We have the following results which formally explain Step 1.2.2.1 of Page 54.
(i) Given “” and , if in defined in (49), we substitute with , then satisfying is , where the and notations are defined in Propositions 1.2 and 1.2.1.
(ii) Given “” and , if in , we substitute with defined in Proposition 1.2.1, let the solution of to be . Then
equals , and
(66)
equals .
(67)
Proof of Proposition 1.2.2.1: Given “” and , if in defined in (49), we substitute with , then the conditions in of (49) are necessary and sufficient to decide . Since setting as and setting as (i.e., according to (65)) satisfies by the
definition of the notations in Proposition 1.2, Proposition 1.2.2.1 clearly follows. In particular, after we have (66), we further obtain (67) from (65) and (66).∎
Proposition 1.2.2.2.
We have the following result which formally explains Step 1.2.2.2 of Page 54.
Given “”, if in defined in (50), we substitute with , then satisfying is , where , , and notations are defined in Propositions 1.2.2.1, 1.2.1, and 1.2.
Proof of Proposition 1.2.2.2: Given “”, if in defined in (50), we substitute with , then the conditions in of (50) are necessary and sufficient to decide . Since setting as and setting as (i.e., based on (66) and (67)) satisfies by the notations in Proposition 1.2, Proposition 1.2.2.2 clearly follows. ∎
Proposition 2.
We have the following result which formally explains Step 2 of Page 54.
Given “”, if in defined in (51), we substitute with
defined in Propositions 1.1 and 1.2, then satisfying is defined in (62).
Despite Proposition 2, simultaneously solving for to is challenging. Instead, we solve for as a function of first and then decide in Propositions 2.1 and 2.2 below.
Proposition 2.1.
We have the following result which formally explains Step 2.1 of Page 54.
(i) Given “”, if in defined in (52), we substitute with
, then satisfying is , where the and notations are defined in (62) and Proposition 1.2 respectively.
(ii) Given “”, if in defined in (52), we substitute with
, let the solution of to be . Then
equals , and
(68)
equals
.
(69)
Proof of Proposition 2.1: Given “”, if in defined in (52), we substitute with , then the conditions in of (52) are necessary and sufficient to decide . Since setting as (i.e., according to (63) and (64)) satisfies by the notations in (62), Proposition 2.1 clearly follows. ∎
Proposition 2.2.
We have the following result which formally explains Step 2.2 of Page 54.
Given “”, if in defined in (53), we substitute with
, then satisfying is , where , , and notations are in Proposition 1.2, Proposition 2.1, and (62).
Proof of Proposition 2.2: Given “”, if in defined in (53), we substitute with
, then the conditions in of (53) are necessary and sufficient to decide . Since setting as
(i.e., according to (63) (64) and (68)) satisfies by the
definition of the notations in (62), Proposition 2.2 clearly follows. ∎
• Computing
which denotes a globally optimal solution to Problem as defined in (62)
Figure 3: Our procedure to solve Problem .
Based on the above propositions, Fig. 3 and Algorithm 2 present our procedure to solve . For clarity, the function “Alg-Solve-” is to compute ; e.g., obtains .
For X being 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2.1, 1.2.2.2, 2.1, or 2.2,
Algorithm X will be presented for the computation in Proposition X, as shown in Fig. 3 and explained in detail below.
Algorithm 1.1: Computing defined in Proposition 1.1 using of (45). Among , is satisfying (22) (27) (7d) (33c), while is satisfying (23) (28) (7e) (33d). From (22) and (23), with for an equation denoting the positive root of , we have
(70)
(71)
To obtain satisfying (23) (28) (7e) (33d), we have the following two cases:
•
If ; i.e., if , setting as violates (7e). This with (33d) means , which with (28) induces ;
•
If ; i.e., if , then setting as and satisfies (23) (28) (7e) (33d).
To obtain satisfying (22) (27) (7d) (33c), we discuss the following two cases:
❶
If ; i.e., if , then setting as violates (7d). This with (33c) means , which is used in (27) to induce
(72)
After obtaining the desired , we use it in (70) to get .
❷
If ; i.e., if , then setting as and satisfies (22) (27) (7d) (33c).
Algorithm 1.2: Computing defined in Proposition 1.2.
As shown in the pseudocode, Algorithm 1.2 calls Algorithms 1.2.1, 1.2.2.1, and 1.2.2.2 detailed below.
Algorithm 1.2.1: Computing defined in Proposition 1.2.1 using of (47). Recall that includes (20) (21).
From (20) (21) and (1),
with defined by
Then we can substitute from (77) into (74) and (75), to decide , as shown in Lemma 1 below.
Lemma 1.
Given , we know from Proposition 1.2.1 that and denote the values of and satisfying (20) and (21). We define in (77), and define
(78)
Then is a solution of to
(81)
(82)
With decided according to (82) above, the corresponding satisfying (20) and (21) is
(83)
Proof of Lemma 1: First, for and satisfying (20) and (21), we have already explained above that (i.e., defined in (73)) equals defined in (77). Then equals , and denoting equals the right hand side of (78), which we denote as in (78) for notation simplicity. Then letting be in (74), we obtain (82) which will be used to solve . With denoting the obtained , the corresponding is given by (83). Hence, we have proved that and , denoting and satisfying (20) and (21), are given by (82) and (83), respectively.
∎
Then we use (82) and (83) of Lemma 1 to solve and , respectively. They are considered as two subprocedures of Algorithm 1.2.1, as described below.
Algorithm 1.2.2.1: Computing defined in Proposition 1.2.2.1 using of (49).
Recall that includes (34) and (35). Proposition 1.2.2.1 defines as the solution of to
(84)
Algorithm 1.2.2.2 (Pseudocode on Page 8 based on the following analysis): Using Algorithm 1.2.2.1 to compute according to Proposition 1.2.2.2 using of (50). Recall from (50) that includes (26), (7b), and (33b). Then is the solution of to
Algorithm 2.1: Computing defined in Proposition 2.1 using defined in (52). Recall from (52) that includes (29), (11a), and (33e). Then for each , Proposition 2.1 means is which satisfies the following:
If setting to violates (87b), then must be strictly positive, which is used in (87a) to show that the inequality in (87b) actually becomes equality in this case.
Case 2:
If setting to satisfies (87b), then we can just set as .
Summarizing the above two cases, we know that after defining
(88)
(89)
setting as always ensures that . Letting iterate through and defining
The above Result (96) clearly follows from Result (93) and Lemma 2.
We prove the above Result (100). From (89), it holds that
(107)
With the above Results (93) (96) (100),
we apply the Poincaré–Miranda theorem [39]
and solve (91) to obtain using the multivariate bisection algorithm of [40]. The pseudocode is given as Algorithm 2.1 below. Readers may wonder why the multivariate bisection is not used to jointly solve . The reason is that the conditions to use the multivariate bisection are quite strict; e.g., Results (93) (96) (100) are for any given any . We do not have such strong conditions if we try to solve together.
Algorithm 2.2: Computing according to Proposition 2.2 using defined in (53). Recall from (53) that includes (24). Then Proposition 2.2 defines as the solution of to
(108)
The bisection method is used repeatedly in the algorithms above. The pseudocodes are given below.
To better understand bisection search in our algorithms above,
we prove in the Appendix of our full paper [36] that the left-hand side of (72) (resp., (82), (84), (86), (108)) is non-increasing with respect to (resp., , , , ). In simulations, the above often decreases so that there is a unique solution.
VII Our Algorithm to Solve Problem
Algorithm 1 has been presented on Page 1 to solve the system UCR optimization . In Section V-E, we have also explained how the different building blocks in Sections V-A, V-B, V-C, and V-D are combined together to produce Algorithm 1’s pseudocode. We now discuss the performance of Algorithm 1.
Solution quality and convergence. Algorithm 1 comprises three levels of iterations, with the innermost iteration from Line 17 containing Algorithm 2 in Line 20. Algorithm 2 obtains a global optimum for Problem . The outermost iteration from Line 4 is based on Dinkelbach’s transform and does not lose optimality. However, the mid-level iteration from Line 11 is based on alternating optimization and cannot guarantee local/global optimality. Hence, Algorithm 1 cannot guarantee local/global optimality for . Yet, using the terminology of stationary points in [12] for constrained optimization, Algorithm 1 finds a stationary point for . The convergence of Algorithm 1 is also clear from the above analysis.
Time Complexity. In Algorithm 1 and its subroutine Algorithm 2, the bisection search is repeatedly used. Then the complexity of Algorithm 1 is polylogarithmic in the error tolerance’s reciprocal in various calls of the bisection search. Below we analyze the complexities of Algorithms 1 and 2 with respect to the number of users.
Line 1 of Algorithm 2 calls Algorithm 2.2, which calls Algorithm 2.1. Algorithm 2.1 called in the above and in Line 2 of Algorithm 2 calls Algorithms 1.1 and 1.2. Algorithm 1.2 called in the above and in Line 3 of Algorithm 2 calls Algorithms 1.2.2.2, 1.2.2.1, and 1.2.1. For the multivariate bisection search in Algorithm 2.1, from Theorem 2.3 of [40], to achieve the tolerance level of , the number of iterations required is for define in (92); i.e., logarithmic in .
Computing and takes . Then calculating costs . Thus, obtaining takes . Finally, computing costs . Line 1 of Alg. 2 takes . We analyze other lines of Alg. 2 similarly. Then Alg. 2 and each innermost iteration of Alg. 1 cost . In the outermost and mid-level iterations, each computation of the utility in (2) and the cost in (6) requires . To summarize, Algorithm 1 takes .
VIII Modeling the Human-centric Utility from Real Data
We now model users’ human-centric utilities in the Metaverse over wireless communications using two datasets [10, 31] explained below, which are both based on real experiments of humans assessing videos.
SSV360 dataset. This dataset of [10] captures users’ evaluation of 360° videos when wearing HTC Vive Pro Virtual Reality (VR) headsets. Each data point exhibits a user’s perceptual quality assessment of a 360° scene of a given bitrate and a given video resolution, under standing or seated viewing (SSV).
Netflix dataset. This dataset is a part of Netflix’s Emmy Award-winning VMAF project [31]. Each data point represents users’ mean opinion score for a video at a given bitrate and a given resolution.
The wireless data rate needs to be large enough for users’ smooth watching experience at the given video bitrate [41]. We consider the bitrate as a constant fraction (say ) of the wireless rate. Then substituting the bitrate with the wireless rate just involves replacing with . Hence, for both datasets above, we perform curve-fitting with the bitrate and the resolution to obtain the utility functions.
Modeling human-centric utilities. Based on the two datasets above, the human-centric utility of each user , denoted by , is modeled as a function of the bitrate and the video resolution . We adopt the logarithmic utility function, which is used in [32, 33, 34] for various communication/network systems. The logarithmic function reflects users’ diminishing marginal gain as the bitrate and the resolution increase. Formally, we have for coefficients , which are decided by fitting data. Since using a three-dimensional plot to show the two-variable function is difficult for visual interpretation, we use the following transform to obtain a two-dimensional plot. Let (resp., ) be the maximum (resp., ) from the dataset. After defining , we let be the -axis coordinate, and plot as the -axis coordinate, since it holds that . With the above transformation, each data point’s -coordinate is between and .
In Fig. 4(a) for the SSV360 dataset, the data and curves are about two users watching a 360° video (“Alcatraz” or “FormationPace” [10]) under seated or standing view. The score is an integer from to based on the well-known Absolute Category Rating. In Fig. 4(b) for the Netflix dataset, the data and curves present users’ average assessment (from to ) of different videos (BirdsInCage, BigBuckBunny, ElFuente1, or CrowdRun [31]). Both subfigures demonstrate that the curves of the logarithmic human-centric utility functions fit the data. The specific expressions of the functions are provided in the legends.
IX Simulations
In this section on simulations,
we first describe the default settings and then report various results.
Default settings.
We consider a macro-cell wireless channel model for urban areas. With denoting the distance between the Metaverse server (MS) and a virtual-reality user (VU) indexed by , the path loss between them is along with 8 decibels (dB) for the standard deviation of shadow fading [6], where the unit of is kilometer. The power spectral density of Gaussian noise is dBm/Hz (i.e., the thermal noise amount at 20 °C room temperature). VUs are randomly located in a circle of radius 500m centered at the MU.
The default total bandwidth is 20GHz, and the total transmission power is 30W. The effective switched capacitance and are set as . The number of bits per pixel is 16, and the compression rate is 100. The maximum CPU frequencies at the MS and VUs, and , are 300GHz and 50GHz, respectively. The default weights for energy and delay are and . The default VU number is 5. Based on measurements,
Section V of [41] quantifies the computational complexity of processing a video frame of resolution as tera (i.e., trillion) floating-point operations (FLOPs). From Fig. 2 in Section III-B, we know that (resp., ) of Page 2 for delay is less than (resp., ) of Page 2 for energy. In the simulations, we set both and as
, and set both and as
, which make all of them convex in . For all VU , we let be the same .
Then the optimization objective becomes a multiple of , which thus has no impact. The above avoids considering the impact of heterogeneous for simplicity. Possible values for the resolution are , , , , and pixels, which are also referred to as 4k, 3k, 2k, 1080p, and 720p. The SSV360 dataset [10] in Section VIII includes the perceptual assessment of users watching VR videos. We use those data for curve-fitting different logarithmic utility functions, and assign the functions to users in the simulations: one function for one user.
Comparison with baselines. For the simulation results, we first compare our algorithm with baselines:
•
average allocation, which sets each as , each as , each as (i.e., 2k resolution), each as , and each as ;
•
optimize , , and only, while setting each as and each as ,
•
optimize and only, while setting each as , each as , and each as .
Various simulation results are plotted in the subfigures of Fig. 5 for a detailed comparison and examining the impact of different parameters on the system utility-cost ratio (UCR). We discuss the results below.
•
UCR versus the total bandwidth.
Here we vary the total bandwidth from 1GHz to 20GHz. In Fig. 5(a), larger bandwidth induces higher data rates, which reduce latency and energy consumption, thus increasing the system UCR. In addition, the difference in UCR between the proposed algorithm and the average allocation baseline rises from 522.3% to 630.4% as the total bandwidth increases.
•
UCR versus minimum resolution.
We fix the maximum resolution as (4k) and change the minimum resolution from (720P) to . From Fig. 5(b), the UCR performance of all the algorithms improves as the minimum resolution decreases, with our proposed algorithm showing a significant improvement. The reason for this is that the high data volumes associated with high resolution can lead to higher energy consumption and system delay.
The UCR of the proposed algorithm gradually plateaus when the minimum resolution reaches below (1080p).
•
UCR versus transmission power.
Here we configure the maximum downlink transmission power from 0.03W to 100W. From Fig. 5(c), the UCR of all algorithms increases as the transmission power grows, since raising the transmission power widens the search space for the optimization. When the transmission power is very small (e.g., 0.03W or 0.3W), the UCR of the proposed algorithm is slightly higher than other algorithms, but as the transmission power increases, the performance of the proposed algorithm far exceeds others. The UCR of all methods plateaus when the transmission power reaches 50W.
•
UCR versus computation resource.
We vary the maximum server CPU frequency from 0.5GHz to 60GHz and all VU’s maximum CPU frequencies from 10MHz to 10GHz. In Fig. 5(d) and Fig. 5(e), the system UCR increases as the maximum CPU frequency grows, since the optimization problem has a wider search space.
The proposed algorithm outperforms the average allocation, reaching a difference of 660.9% and 653.2% for server CPU frequency at 60GHz and VU CPU frequencies at 10GHz, respectively.
•
Impact of user number on UCR.
We now amplify the bandwidth, transmission power, and server’s CPU frequency by 10 times and fix other parameters to see the impact of user number on UCR.
In Fig. 7, as the user number increases from 10 to 160, the average UCR decreases. This is because the server allocates fewer resources to each VU and induces decreasing utility. In general, the comfortable frame rate for VR applications is at least 90 [42], i.e., at most 11ms for one frame. Note that the system delay in Fig. 7 is to complete each user’s all frames. In all user scenarios shown in Fig. 7, the delay for one frame (i.e., ) is less than 7 ms, which satisfies the comfortable frame rate requirement.
All the above simulations compare our algorithm with the baselines. Below we provide additional simulation results to show the impact of other settings to our algorithm.
\thesubsubfigure
\thesubsubfigure
\thesubsubfigure
\thesubsubfigure
\thesubsubfigure
\thesubsubfigure
Figure 5: The system utility-cost ratio (UCR) versus various parameters.
Impact of cost weights on UCR.
We configure different cost weights of energy and delay to see the effect on the system UCR, where we enforce .
In Fig. 5(f), as rises to 0.8, the system UCR also increases, reflecting the importance of delay optimization for the whole system. However, as increases to 0.9, the system UCR instead drops significantly, since emphasizing the latency overwhelmingly while undervaluing the energy may enlarge the system cost.
Figure 6: Metrics with respect to the number of users.
\thesubsubfigureAllocated parameters for each user.\thesubsubfigureComparing individual users’ UCR.
Figure 6: Metrics with respect to the number of users.Figure 7: Reviewing the allocated results of different users and the impact of user scenarios on UCR.
Reviewing different users’ allocated results.
In Fig. 7(a), we present the optimized bandwidth , transmit power , resolution , MS resource allocation , and user CPU frequency of five users to visualize the resource allocation. Fig. 7(b) shows the impact of user scenarios on individual UCRs. Different user preferences and physical states affect subjective scores. For example, users who prefer high-quality videos may give stricter subjective scores than those who do not require high video quality. Generally, many users found sitting to provide more comfort than standing, as indicated by a higher UCR in most seated scenarios. However, it’s important to note that individual differences were observed, and this trend did not hold true for all participants.
To summarize, extensive simulation results above confirm the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm.
X Conclusion
In this paper, we optimize the system utility-cost ratio (UCR) for the Metaverse over wireless networks. The optimization variables include the allocation of both communication and computation resources as well as the resolutions of virtual reality (VR) videos. Our human-centric utility measure represents users’ subjective assessment of the VR video quality, and is supported by real datasets.
We tackle the non-convex system UCR optimization by proposing a novel technique for fractional programming. Our computationally efficient algorithm for the system UCR optimization is validated by extensive simulations. Three future directions are as follows. Firstly, since the current paper solves the optimization problem via alternating optimization (AO) of video frame resolution and other variables, a future task is to see whether we can optimize all variables simultaneously to obtain the globally optimal solution. Secondly, we may incorporate the priorities of different users into computing the system utility (e.g., using a weighted sum with weights representing users’ priorities), and investigate the impact of such formulation on the optimization. Thirdly, while the current paper contains extensive simulation results to support the analysis, we can implement real-world systems to evaluate the performance of our proposed algorithm in practice.
Acknowledgement
This research is partly supported by the Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund under Grant Tier 1 RG90/22, Grant Tier 1 RG97/20, Grant Tier 1 RG24/20 and Grant Tier 2 MOE2019-T2-1-176; and partly by the Nanyang Technological University (NTU)-Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP) Joint Project.
References
[1]
Y. Wang, Z. Su, N. Zhang, R. Xing, D. Liu, T. H. Luan, and X. Shen, “A survey
on Metaverse: Fundamentals, security, and privacy,” IEEE
Communications Surveys & Tutorials (COMST), 2022.
[2]
D. Mourtzis, N. Panopoulos, J. Angelopoulos, B. Wang, and L. Wang, “Human
centric platforms for personalized value creation in Metaverse,”
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 65, pp. 653–659, 2022.
[3]
M. Xu, W. C. Ng, W. Y. B. Lim, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, D. Niyato, Q. Yang, X. Shen,
and C. Miao, “A full dive into realizing the edge-enabled Metaverse:
Visions, enabling technologies, and challenges,” IEEE Communications
Surveys & Tutorials (COMST), 2022.
[4]
S. Luo, X. Chen, Q. Wu, Z. Zhou, and S. Yu, “HFEL: Joint edge association
and resource allocation for cost-efficient hierarchical federated edge
learning,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 19,
no. 10, pp. 6535–6548, 2020.
[5]
Y. Zhan, P. Li, L. Wu, and S. Guo, “L4L: Experience-driven computational
resource control in federated learning,” IEEE Transactions on
Computers, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 971–983, 2021.
[6]
X. Zhou, J. Zhao, H. Han, and C. Guet, “Joint optimization of energy consumption and completion time in federated learning,” in IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2022,
pp. 1005-1017.
[7]
Z. Yu, Y. Gong, S. Gong, and Y. Guo, “Joint task offloading and resource
allocation in UAV-enabled mobile edge computing,” IEEE Internet of
Things Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 3147–3159, 2020.
[8]
Y. Lu, X. Chen, Y. Zhang, and Y. Chen, “Cost-efficient resources scheduling
for mobile edge computing in ultra-dense networks,” IEEE Transactions
on Network and Service Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 3163–3173, 2022.
[9]
L. P. Qian, Y. Wu, B. Ji, and X. S. Shen, “Optimal ADMM-based spectrum and
power allocation for heterogeneous small-cell networks with hybrid energy
supplies,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 20, no. 2, pp.
662–677, 2019.
[10]
M. Elwardy, H.-J. Zepernick, and Y. Hu, “SSV360: A dataset on subjetive
quality assessment of 360° videos for standing and seated viewing on an
hmd,” in IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces
Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), 2022.
[11]
Y. Jong, “An efficient global optimization algorithm for nonlinear
sum-of-ratios problem,” Optimization Online, pp. 1–21, 2012.
[12]
K. Shen and W. Yu, “Fractional programming for communication systems-Part I:
Power control and beamforming,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, 2018.
[13]
J. Jiang, M. Dianati, M. A. Imran, R. Tafazolli, and Y. Chen, “On the relation
between energy efficiency and spectral efficiency of multiple-antenna
systems,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 62, no. 7,
pp. 3463–3469, 2013.
[14]
J. Zhao, X. Zhou, Y. Li, and L. Qian, “Optimizing utility-energy efficiency
for the Metaverse over wireless networks under physical layer security,”
to appear in ACM International Symposium on Theory, Algorithmic Foundations, and Protocol Design for Mobile Networks and Mobile Computing (MobiHoc),
2023. https://arxiv.longhoe.net/abs/2303.04683
[15]
Z. Hu, F. Zeng, Z. Xiao, B. Fu, H. Jiang, and H. Chen, “Computation efficiency
maximization and QoE-provisioning in UAV-enabled MEC communication
systems,” IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering,
vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1630–1645, 2021.
[16]
H. Hu, W. Song, Q. Wang, R. Q. Hu, and H. Zhu, “Energy efficiency and delay
tradeoff in an MEC-enabled mobile IoT network,” IEEE Internet of
Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 17, pp. 15 942–15 956, 2022.
[17]
Z. Meng, C. She, G. Zhao, and D. De Martini, “Sampling, communication, and
prediction co-design for synchronizing the real-world device and digital
model in Metaverse,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications (JSAC), 2022.
[18]
W. Yu, T. J. Chua, and J. Zhao, “Asynchronous hybrid reinforcement learning
for latency and reliability optimization in the Metaverse over wireless
communications,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications
(JSAC), 2023. https://arxiv.longhoe.net/abs/2212.14749
[19]
J. Wang, H. Du, Z. Tian, D. Niyato, J. Kang, and X. Shen, “Semantic-aware
sensing information transmission for Metaverse: A contest theoretic
approach,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications (TWC), 2023.
[20]
Y. Jiang, J. Kang, D. Niyato, X. Ge, Z. Xiong, C. Miao, and X. Shen, “Reliable
distributed computing for Metaverse: A hierarchical game-theoretic
approach,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2022.
[21]
Y. Ren, R. Xie, F. R. Yu, T. Huang, and Y. Liu, “Quantum collective learning
and many-to-many matching game in the Metaverse for connected and
autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology,
2022.
[22]
D. P. Palomar and M. Chiang, “A tutorial on decomposition methods for network
utility maximization,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1439–1451, 2006.
[23]
X. Chen, X. Gong, L. Yang, and J. Zhang, “A social group utility maximization
framework with applications in database assisted spectrum access,” in
IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), 2014, pp.
1959–1967.
[24]
F. P. Kelly, A. K. Maulloo, and D. K. H. Tan, “Rate control for communication
networks: Shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability,”
Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 49, pp. 237–252,
1998.
[25]
N. Heydaribeni and A. Anastasopoulos, “Distributed mechanism design for
network resource allocation problems,” IEEE Transactions on Network
Science and Engineering, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 621–636, 2019.
[26]
L. Gu, D. Zeng, S. Tao, S. Guo, H. **, A. Y. Zomaya, and W. Zhuang,
“Fairness-aware dynamic rate control and flow scheduling for network utility
maximization in network service chain,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas
in Communications, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1059–1071, 2019.
[27]
X. Wang, Z. Fei, J. A. Zhang, J. Huang, and J. Yuan, “Constrained utility
maximization in dual-functional radar-communication multi-uav networks,”
IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 2660–2672,
2020.
[28]
X. Gong, X. Chen, K. Xing, D.-H. Shin, M. Zhang, and J. Zhang, “From social
group utility maximization to personalized location privacy in mobile
networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 25, no. 3, pp.
1703–1716, 2017.
[29]
Y. Chen, K. Wu, and Q. Zhang, “From QoS to QoE: A tutorial on video
quality assessment,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,
vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1126–1165, 2014.
[30]
J. Cao, K.-Y. Lam, L.-H. Lee, X. Liu, P. Hui, and X. Su, “Mobile augmented
reality: User interfaces, frameworks, and intelligence,” ACM Computing
Surveys, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 1–36, 2023.
[32]
D. Yang, G. Xue, X. Fang, and J. Tang, “Crowdsourcing to smartphones:
Incentive mechanism design for mobile phone sensing,” in ACM
International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), 2012,
pp. 173–184.
[33]
X. Deng, J. Li, L. Shi, Z. Wei, X. Zhou, and J. Yuan, “Wireless powered mobile
edge computing: Dynamic resource allocation and throughput maximization,”
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 2271–2288,
2020.
[34]
F. Lyu, P. Yang, H. Wu, C. Zhou, J. Ren, Y. Zhang, and X. Shen,
“Service-oriented dynamic resource slicing and optimization for
space-air-ground integrated vehicular networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2021.
[35]
J. Feng, L. Liu, Q. Pei, and K. Li, “Min-max cost optimization for efficient
hierarchical federated learning in wireless edge networks,” IEEE
Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2021.
[36]
J. Zhao, L. Qian, and W. Yu, “Human-centric resource allocation in the
Metaverse over wireless communications,” 2023, full version of this paper
and available online at
https://personal.ntu.edu.sg/JunZhao/JSAC2023.pdf
[37]
R. Zhou and D. P. Palomar, “Solving high-order portfolios via successive
convex approximation algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, vol. 69, pp. 892–904, 2021.
[38]
S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[39]
A. Fonda and P. Gidoni, “Generalizing the Poincaré–Miranda theorem: The
avoiding cones condition,” Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata
(Annals of Pure and Applied Mathematics), vol. 195, no. 4, pp. 1347–1371,
2016.
[41]
Q. Liu, S. Huang, J. Opadere, and T. Han, “An edge network orchestrator for
mobile augmented reality,” in IEEE INFOCOM, 2018.
[42]
E. Bastug, M. Bennis, M. Médard, and M. Debbah, “Toward interconnected
virtual reality: Opportunities, challenges, and enablers,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 110–117, 2017.
Jun Zhao
(Member, IEEE) received a bachelor’s degree in Information Engineering from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, in July 2010, and a Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), USA, in May 2015, (advisors: Virgil Gligor and Osman Yagan; collaborator: Adrian Perrig), affiliating with CMU’s renowned CyLab Security & Privacy Institute. He is currently an Assistant Professor in the School of Computer Science and Engineering (SCSE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Before joining NTU as a Faculty Member, he was a Postdoctoral Researcher under the supervision of Xiaokui Xiao at NTU. Before that, he was a Postdoctoral Researcher at Arizona State University as an Arizona Computing Post-Doctoral Researcher Best Practices Fellow (advisors: Junshan Zhang and Vincent Poor).
Liangxin Qian received bachelor’s and master’s degrees in communication engineering from the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China, in 2019 and 2022, respectively. He is currently working toward his Ph.D. at the School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interests include Metaverse, mobile edge computing, and communication theory.
Wenhan Yu
(Student Member, IEEE) received his B.S. degree in Computer Science and Technology from Sichuan University, Sichuan, China in 2021. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. degree in the School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. His research interests cover wireless communications, deep reinforcement learning, optimization, and Metaverse.
-AProving the relationship between FP-minimization in (10) and minimizing subject to and , stated in Section IV on Pages IV and I
Recall that FP-minimization in (10) means minimizing subject to in a convex set , for convex and concave .
We now consider alternating optimization (AO) of and to minimize subject to and , where , and denotes the set of positive numbers. We will show that
(112)
The AO process is as follows: We start with a randomly initialized . Then we optimize with being to minimize , and denote the obtained as . Given as , we optimize to minimize , and denote the obtained as . Given as , we optimize to minimize , and denote the obtained as . The above process continues iteratively. The -th iteration includes the following two steps:
•
Given as , we optimize to minimize , and denote the obtained as .
•
Given as , we optimize to minimize , and denote the obtained as .
The above AO process converges when the relative difference between and is smaller than a predefined small error tolerance.
To examine the AO process of minimizing , we will analyze 1) optimizing given , and 2) optimizing given . Optimizing given means minimizing with respect to for each ; i.e., letting be . If such is substituted back to , then will become the desired . Moreover, we now show that the partial derivative of with respect to at being is the same as the derivative of with respect to . In fact, we have
Using (116) and (117), we now show (112). The AO process of minimizing is non-decreasing. Specifically, we have . For lower-bounded , we know converges as the iteration number . Supposing the variable solution of the AO process converges to , we know that
①
is the optimal for minimizing given as (i.e., ), and
②
is the optimal for minimizing given as .
Result “②” means that satisfies the KKT conditions for optimizing to minimize subject to . Suppose is -dimensional, and means
Then with and denoting the multipliers,
the KKT conditions mean
(118e)
(118i)
(118k)
(118m)
Using (116) in (118e), we know that (118e)–(118m) are equivalent to
(118doe)
(118doi)
(118dok)
(118dom)
The above (118doe)–(118dom) mean that is a stationary point for optimizing to minimize subject to ; i.e., is a stationary point of FP-minimization in (10). Hence, we have proved (112).∎
-BProving that the left-hand side of (72) is non-increasing with respect to
With defined by , clearly is non-increasing with respect to . Then , denoting the positive root satisfying , is non-increasing with respect to . Thus, the left-hand side of (72) is non-increasing with respect to . ∎
-CProving that the left-hand side of (82) is non-increasing with respect to
From (77), we know (i) is positive and decreasing in , where “” denotes “”. In addition, (ii) the function is increasing and positive for since the derivative is positive for , and at equals . From the above Results “(i)” and “(ii)”, we obtain (iii) is positive and decreasing in .
We also have (iv) the function is decreasing for since the derivative is negative due to Result “(ii)” above. From the above Results “(i)” and “(iv)”, we obtain (v) defined in (78) is increasing in . Since the utility function is concave and non-decreasing in , is non-negative and non-increasing in . Then (vi) is positive and non-increasing in . From the above Results “(v)” and “(vi)”, we obtain (vii) is positive and non-increasing in .
From the above Results “(iii)” and “(vii)”, the left hand side of (82) is decreasing as increases. ∎
-DFurther explanations of the step-by-step analysis in (54) on Page 54 for Problem , which will be useful for Appendices -E, -F, and -H
In this part, we provide further explanations of the step-by-step analysis in (54) on Page 54 for Problem , which will be useful to prove the results in Appendices -E, -F, and -H later.
As shown at the beginning of Section VI on Page VI, belongs to convex optimization, and denote the Lagrange multipliers for (7a), (7b), (7d), (7e), and (11a), respectively.
Suppose we already know . We move and (11a) to the objective function, and construct the following problem (recall that for an optimization problem , we use to denote its objective function):
s.t.
We define
•
Statement :
, and
•
Statement :
.
By checking the KKT conditions of and , we build the following relationship between
and :
Statement
(118doeb)
In , the optimizations of , and are independent and thus separable. This independence holds because is already given for . We do not have such independence in optimizing where is not decided yet. Hence, is equivalent to the combination of , , and defined below:
(118doeg)
(118doel)
Then after defining
•
Statement :
,
•
Statement :
, and
•
Statement :
we obtain
Statement
(118doex)
(118dofc)
where the last step means can be neglected since (24) induces the objective function of to be always .
Now we analyze Problem .
Note that is the Lagrange multiplier for (7b). Suppose we already know . We move and (7b) to the objective function, and construct the following problem:
(118dofe)
(118doff)
where denotes the objective function of Problem .
Then after defining
•
Statement :
and checking the KKT conditions of and , we have
Statement
(118dofm)
Now we analyze Problem .
Note that is the Lagrange multiplier for (7a). Suppose we already know . We move and (7a) to the objective function, and construct the following problem:
(118dofo)
where denotes the objective function of Problem .
Then after defining
•
Statement :
is a globally optimal solution to Problem ,
and checking the KKT conditions of and , we get
Statement
(118dofs)
-EProving that the left-hand side of (86) is non-increasing with respect to
From the conditions of Proposition 1.2.1 and Proposition 1.2.2.1, setting as
satisfies ; i.e., the KKT conditions
of convex optimization .
Hence,
(118dofv)
To prove the desired result, we consider the case where equals , and the case where equals , respectively, for arbitrarily chosen and . Due to Result (118dofv) above, for denoting the objective function of Problem , we obtain
Since equals from (118doff), the term inside the first “” of (118dogh) equals , and the term inside the second “” of (118dogh) equals . Then we obtain
(118dogk)
(118dogl)
i.e., . Hence, , i.e., the left-hand side of (86), is non-increasing as increases. ∎
-FProving that the left-hand side of (84) is non-increasing with respect to
From Proposition 1.2.1’s condition, setting as
satisfies ; i.e., the KKT conditions
of convex optimization .
Hence,
(118dogo)
To prove the desired result, we consider the case where equals , and the case where equals , respectively, for arbitrarily chosen and . Due to Result (118dogo) above, for denoting the objective function of Problem , we obtain
From Lemma 3 to be presented in Appendix -I, is non-increasing as increases. For defined in (89), given and , we either have (89a) or (89b). In either case, “” or “” defined for is non-increasing as increases. Hence, is non-increasing as increases, given and . ∎
-HProving that the left-hand side of (108) is non-increasing with respect to
From
Lemma 3 to be presented in Appendix -I below, we can prove that ; i.e., the left-hand side of (108) is non-increasing with respect to . The proof is similar to those in Appendices -E and -F. ∎
From Proposition 1.2’s condition, setting as
satisfies ; i.e., the KKT conditions
of convex optimization .
Hence,
(118dogv)
To prove the desired result, we consider the case where equals , and the case where equals , respectively, for arbitrarily chosen and . Due to Result (118dogv) above, after
defining
then with denoting the objective function of Problem , we obtain
Note that is given by (118doeg). Then the term inside the first “” of (118dogy) equals , and the term inside the second “” of (118dogy) equals . Then we obtain
From Proposition 1.1’s condition, setting as
satisfies ; i.e., the KKT conditions
of convex optimization .
Hence,
(118dohc)
To prove the desired result, we consider the case where equals , and the case where equals , respectively, for arbitrarily chosen and . Due to Result (118dohc) above, after
defining
then with denoting the objective function of Problem , we obtain
Note that is given by (118doel). Then the term inside the first “” of (118dohf) equals , and the term inside the second “” of (118dohf) equals . Then we obtain
(118dohk)
namely, . Therefore, is non-increasing as increases.
Proving Lemma 3’s Result “iii)”: From (3), is the sum of and . Then the desired result clearly follows from Lemma 3’s Results “i)” and “ii)”. ∎