ADC Project

Reliable Relay: Autonomous Social D2D Paradigm for 5G LoS

Communications
PART:I
Overview:
INTRODUCTION:
D2D
Device-to-Device (D2D) communication is considered as a promising technique in 5G cellular
network technologies.D2D communication in cellular network refers to the direct
communication between the mobile users without the involvement of Base Station (BS) or the
core network elements. In 3G network D2D communication is used in unlicensed band using
Bluetooth and WLAN. Cellular networks are categorized into two types Network centric and
Device centric. Network centric means communication between mobile users depends on the
network infrastructure and is mainly used in 1G to 4G networks. Device centric means network
setup is managed by the proximate device itself and it will be considered as the core technology
in 5G cellular network.

D2D in cellular network has the following expectations:

• Enhanced system capacity
• Increased spectral efficiency
• Better throughput
• Reduced Latency

Introduction of Proposed Paper:

Next generation 5G networks based on mm Waves tends to offer a high data rates.However the
communication via mm-Waves requires the line-of-sight synchronization among the transmitter
and the receiver. Consequently raising the issue of limited coverage area.In the paper the solution
of the mentioned issue is addressed via a scheme of “Reliable Relay”.The proposed scheme is
basically a fusion of different relations of SIoT and Device-to-Device Communication (D2D) in
order to develop the factor of trustworthiness among devices in a network.A device in outage
would be able to communicate with the reliable relay without the danger of compromising its
privacy and thus increasing the coverage area of a network. The NS3 based simulations
conducted in the paper demonstrate that communication through the reliable relay increases the
throughput and the capacity gain of the network with minimum additional delays.

SIOT & Relationships:

The SIoT envisions a social network of smart devices,where devices autonomously communicate
and establish social relationships which lead to an independent, autonomous and trustworthy
network of devices, analogous to Social Network Services (SNS). The SIoT devices utilize
proximity based communications and establish relationships for trust calculation.
Existing relationships are:
1. Co-Location Object Relationship(CLOR): established among objects (either
homogeneous or heterogeneous) used always in the same place (as in the case of
sensors,actuators, and augmented objects used in the same environment such as a smart
home or a smart city). Observe that, in certain cases, such C-LORs are established
between objects that are unlikely to cooperate with each other to achieve a common goal.
Nevertheless, they are still useful to fill the network with ‘‘short’’links.
2. Co-Work Object Relationship (CWOR): established whenever objects collaborate to
provide a common IoT application (as in case of objects that come in touch to be used
together and cooperate for applications such as emergency response, telemedicine, etc.).
3. Owner Object Relationship (OOR): established among heterogeneous objects which
belong to the same user (mobile phones, music players, game consoles, etc.).
4. Social Object Relationship (SOR): established when objects come into contact,
sporadically or continuously, because their owners come in touch with each other during
their lives (e.g., devices and sensors belonging to friends, classmates, travel companions,
colleagues)
5. Parental Object Relationship (POR): established among objects belonging to the same
production batch, i.e usually homogeneous objects originated in the same period by the
same manufacturer.

PART:II

2
PROPOSED SYSTEM: RELIABLE RELAY

A.TRUSTWORTHINESS GRAPH FORMATION:

The main focus is the design of a dynamic trust model for assessing the trustworthiness level
of nodes in a Social Internet of Things, which helps in selecting the nodes in the data
transmission.
Consider a Communication graph G(V, ε), of V = {v1, v2, … ,Vn} nodes thats are forming
edges ε = {ε1, ε2, . . . , εM}, since each device is independent of each other, thus computing trust
within each nodes will be autonomous, computed as

𝜓𝜓,𝜓 = (1 − θ − φ)𝜓𝜓,𝜓 + θ𝜓𝜓,𝜓 + φ𝜓𝜓𝜓𝜓

𝜓,𝜓 (trust value b/w node i and j) → Eq(1)

where 𝜓𝜓,𝜓 is Centrality of device, 𝜓𝜓,𝜓 & 𝜓𝜓𝜓𝜓

𝜓,𝜓 is value of previous direct and indirect
transactions saved as history of node.
1.Centrality: Centrality gives the measure of importance of a node in a network.It is further
classified into three measures:
i) Degree: The no. of edges connected to a node.It measures the exposure of a node to the
network, opportunity to directly influence.
ii) Betweenness: Extent to which a particular node lies on the shortest path between other nodes.
It accounts informal power, gate keeping, control flow of information.
iii) Closeness: The average of the shortest distances to all other nodes in the graph.It estimates
time to hear information, indirect influence etc.

Now the graph formation process is divided into three phases:

3
a. Communication Plane: The devices discover other devices via capillary communication
,which in this paper is via Wi-Fi, and computes graph as shown below

the communication plane includes devices that fall under the capillary
communication range.
b. Social Plane: After the formation of the communication plane, each device
communicates with its neighbouring device to compute trust value among each other in
order to form social edges which leads to the formation of social graph.

c. Social Communication Plane: Trustworthiness communication is started when a device

in outage lets say Vi requires a relay Vj.This leads to the formation of social-
communication plane.The mentioned plane is only formed between two devices if there
exists a communication and social edges.Mathematically:

4
All the three above mentioned steps are carried through an algorithm which is given as below:

B. RELAY SELECTIONS:
In the decode-and-forward (DF) relaying networks, there are two typical relay-selection
strategies
1. Reactive relay selection: For the RRS,the relaying nodes which can
successfully decode the received signals in the first hop form a decoding set, from
which the relay that delivers the highest signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio
(SINR) at the destination is chosen as the best relay to re-encode and forward the
source’s signals to the destination.Mathematically speaking, the index n1 of the
best relay, Rn1 , is chosen according to the criterion:

eq(1)
C represents the set of relays successfully decoding the received signal
during the first transmission phase (from source to relay) where Γr,D refers to the
received SINR corresponding to the second-hop link from relay r to destination
D.This criteria is also known as maximium-link
2. Proactive Relay Selection: In the PRS strategy, the relay which
maximizes the minimum between the SINRs received at the first and second hops
is chosen to be the best relay.The chosen relay, after decoding the received source
signal successfully, re-encodes it and forwards it to the destination.During these
two consecutive transmission phases, the other relays always keep silent. Thus,
the index of the best relay,denoted n2, is determined as per the following rule:

eq(2)

5
where ΓS,Rn and ΓRn,D denote the received SINRs corresponding
to the first-hop link (S → Rn) and the second-hop link(Rn → D), respectively.This criteria is also
termed as Max-Min.
3. Comparison between RRS and PRS: Since the RRS strategy needs to transmit to all
relays at the first hop whereas the PRS transmits only to the chosen best relay, it is clear that the
latter decreases the requirement on spectral bandwidth if the relays work with different
frequency bands, and improves the energy efficiency as only the best relay is active while the
others remain idle. However, the RRS needs only local channel state information (CSI) at the
second hop when performing relay selection, whereas the PRS requires global CSI (i.e., both the
first and second hops) to make decision, which is hard to be collected in real-world networks
with large number of branches.

C.Reliable Relay Communication:

In the reliable relay based communication, the node has to choose among the two relay selection
schemes of reactive (RRS) and pro-active (PRS) as discussed in the relay selection portion. In
the PRS, the relay initiates the process by broadcasting a relay offer to all nodes which lie in the
social plane (V`).In response the devices send their data to the relay if there exists a social-
communication edge among them .On the other hand in the RRS scheme, the node in outage
broadcasts the relay request to all of the relays.The relays having value higher than the threshold
value,responds and from which that one is selected which has higher trustworthiness
. The algorithm for the relay based communication is given as:

6
 In the above algorithm at line-13, the unavailability of any relay causes the node to run the
graph formation algorithm and form fresh edges.However, in case of no social communication
node, the algorithm ends.
The proposed relay based communication solemnly depends upon the number of trustworthy
devices where the value of trust depends upon the SIot relationships which are discussed in the
SIoT Relationships.In the paper, five scenarios are defined w.r.t to the different values of the
SIoT relationships which is given as follow:

The probability of a trustworthy device is calculated as:

7
 →eq(3)
where is the number of different SIot relations and .
For example the trust probability for scenario 1 (1/10+1/3+1/7+1/5) comes out be the maximum
which is 77.8% and similarly minimum for scenario 5 with 15.5%.

If a relay𝛼 has𝜓𝜓 number of devices then the number of trustworthy devices, keeping in mind
the trust probability, can be computed as:

eq(4)
a. Comparison between Reliable Relay (RR) & Legacy Mode:
Consider a device having power P, transmitting over a quasi-static Rayleigh fading channel with
gain g and AWGN . The uplink SINR via competing with N other devices can be calculated
as:

eq(5)
Similarly for the Reliable relay scheme it would be:

eq(6)
Note that for RR a relay is transmitting for C no. of devices as a result of it has a less interference
value when compared with legacy.
The data rate for both can be calculated as:

eq(7&8)

b. Complexity Analysis via Big-O Notation:

Big-O notation helps to determine the efficiency of an algorithm in-terms of the run time
of that particular algorithm w.r.t to the input.Using Big-O notation, the run time for an
PRS algorithm comes out to be O(L) where L is the number of devices that relay has to

8
 transmit. Whereas for the RRS, the value comes out to be O(1) due to the fact that a
candidate relay responds and is subsequently is selected. For a complex case the PRS
value remain the same (O(L)) but for RRS its comes out to be O(L)+ O(N)+ O(count (Li
∩ L j )), where N is the number of possible relays and count (Li ∩ L j ) represents
number of common neighbors used in trust calculation. The complexity for periodic edge
update for graph maintenance (in both pro-active and re-active) can be estimated as the
sum of multicast to trustworthy devices (V ) and their responses, i.e. O(1)+ O(V )=O(1+
V). However, the aforementioned complexity is taken into account in order to avoid
complete outage.

D.Outage Probability Calculations:

To understand completely that nodes are able to select their relays for transmission we are
require to know when the node is in Outage or Non-Outage, since we are dealing with Reliable
relay where the SINR 𝜓𝜓 threshold and trust 𝜓𝜓 threshold both are taken into account for Outage
calculation.
𝜓
𝜓𝜓𝜓 = P (𝜓𝜓 < 𝜓𝜓 ) =∏𝜓
𝜓=1 (1 − 𝜓𝜓𝜓 (− 𝜓𝜓 )) eq(9)
𝜓

(trust outage Probability)(𝜓𝜓 = arg𝜓𝜓𝜓𝜓=1,...,𝜓 (𝜓𝜓 , 𝜓𝜓 )

Successively, considering independent and identical distribution fading and mutually exclusive
nature of events, the outage probability of Reliable Relay with relay selection schemes can be
derived as:
Both schemes of PRS(max-min) and RRS(max-link)

eq(10)

eq(11)

9
The value of weighing factor ξ impacts outage probability to incline towards an only trustworthy
(ξ = 1) or only SINR (ξ = 0) relay selection strategies. An equal distribution (ξ = 0.5) causes
outage probability to be equally distributed between trustworthy and high signal scheme.

PART:III
PERFORMANCE/RESULTS OF RELIABLE RELAY COMPARISONS:
a. Devices Quantity vs capacity gain:

The above graph depicts that the scenario-1, having the max. value of
probability of trust 77.8% has the highest value of capacity gain while
scenario-5 with probability of 15.5% comes out to be lowest among all five
scenarios.

10
b. Devices Quantity δt vs Data rate:

The graph shows that in comparison with the legacy mode, the scenario-5
achieves a data rate of 0.25 Mbps whereas for legacy mode it comes out to be
0.06 Mbps. Also if we increase the number of devices then due to the
interference the data rate shows a decline in the trend.

c. SINR threshold vs Outage Probability:

11
The outage probability of both max-min and maxlink blended with proposed
Reliable Relay scheme using Equation (10) and Equation (11) against δτ
(SINR threshold) is shown in above figure.

weighing factor ξ 0.5

available relays λ 10

Trust ψi, j [0, 1]

SINR Thresholdδj, BS [−80, 20],

Considering using random distribution. An increase in 𝝍𝝍 increases the

outage probability, which infers less availability of trustworthy devices
with high signal leads to outage. The 𝝍𝝍 defines a trade-off between relay
credibility (high 𝝍𝝍 ) and availability (low 𝝍𝝍 ).
As a whole, the outage probability is more for mixed scenario due to
multi-threshold dependency which is the tradeoff for a trustworthy and
reliable communications.

12
d. Avg Uplink throughput & Delay-Coverage Comparison

From the above two bar charts, the reliable relay scheme has an eminent edge in terms of the avg
uplink throughput (2-4 Mbps) and coverage area (50-100 m extension) over the legacy scheme.
However the value of delay is high in RR that is approx. 15 ms in comparison with legacy mode.
PART:IV

CONCLUSIONS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. SIoT relations assignment to devices should be done in a dynamic fashion, instead of
allocating static values to each node, which in tradeoff will require more complex
algorithm.

13