A Network Decomposition

We consider a decomposition of the following network utility optimization problem


Here each route r\in{\mathcal R} had a utility U_r(\Lambda_r) for rate \Lambda_r. We then maximize the aggregate of these utilities subject to the condition that the rates using a resource j\in{\mathcal J} do not exceed the capacity of that resource C_j.

Here, we saw two examples of queueing systems which implicitly optimized a network utility optimization: a closed queueing network, optimizing a \log function; and TCP Reno, optimizing an inverse square function. The closed queueing network just naively stored-and-forwarded packets on each route. TCP Reno had an internal network which, just like the closed network, stored-and-forwarded packets but also included a congestion controllers on the each route which controlled the number of packets on each route. In other words, adding the congestion controllers changed the optimization from a log utility function to an inverse square function. We now wish to mathematically describe that how that change in the optimization occurred.

In addition to the system optimization , we consider the following two further optimization problems:





  • The network optimization represents the rate allocated by a queueing network.
  • The user optimization represents the optimization conducted by a congestion controller.

We show that the system optimization can be decomposed into the network and the users sub-problems.

Decomposition: a quick discussion

Consider the following optimization

  • Here for each route r\in{\mathcal R}, u_r is a concave function and each {\mathcal C}_r is a convex set.

It is fairly, immediate that this is equivalent to each route, r\in{\mathcal R}, solving the optimization, i.e.

In this way the optimization is decomposed in to smaller problems that can be solved for each route in {\mathcal R}.

The Network Decomposition: further discussion

Unfortunately, the optimization does not in general have the nice product structure discussed above. So, instead, let’s look at it’s Lagrangian function:

[Network Decomposition] Given U'_r(0)=\infty, there exists variables \Lambda^*=(\Lambda^*_r: r\in{\mathcal R}), w^*=(w^*_r:r\in{\mathcal R}), q^*=(q^*_r:r\in{\mathcal R}) where \Lambda^* optimizes (w^*), w_r optimizes USR_r(p_r^*) for r\in{\mathcal R}, and LIN_r holds iff \Lambda^* optimizes SYS.

Let’s see what conditions w^* must satisfy in order for NET(w^*) to have a solution that is also optimal for SYS.

After adding slack variables, z, and Lagrange multipliers, q, the Lagrangian of NET(w^*) is

Here, we use the shorthand p_r=\sum_{j\in r} q_j. The Lagrangian for SYS differs having U_r(\Lambda_r) in place of w_r\log \Lambda_r. The (KKT) conditions for optimality are complementary slackenss, dual/primal feasiblity, and stationarity. The complementary slackness and dual/primal feasibility conditions: q^*_jz^*_j=0 and, q^*_j\geq 0, \sum_{r:j\in r} \Lambda^*_r \leq C_j j\in{\mathcal J}, are the same for NET(w^*) and SYS. Thus, the optimality condition that differs is stationarity. For the NET(w^*) and SYS problem, this is

Due to the first equality, we can equivalently express w^*_r in terms of p_r^* in the second equality

Notice the first term is LIN_r, and the second term is precisely the optimality condition for USR_r(p^*_r). In otherwords, the conditions which w^* must satisfy for the optimal solution to NET(w^*) to be optimal for SYS are precisely to satisfy LIN_r and optimality of USR_r(p_r^*). So, we can use NET(w^*), USR_r(p_r^*) and LIN_r to construct a solution to SYS.

Conversely, we know an optimal solution to SYS exists. As discussed, this satisfies the same complementary slackness and feasibility conditions as NET(w) [for any w]. The SYS problem must also satisfy the stationarity condition U_r(\Lambda^*_r)=p^*_r. So we can just define a variable w_r^*:=\Lambda_r^*p^*_r. Thus we have LIN_r and the stationarity condition for NET(w^*) and, as argued between and , w^*_r is also an optimal solution to USR_r(q^*_r). Thus the optimality of SYS implies the existence of solutions simultaneously solving (w^*), USR_r(p_r^*) and LIN_r.

  • Decomposition results often rely on some form of separability. Eg. \max_{x_1\in{\mathcal X}_1, x_2\in{\mathcal X}_2 } L(x_1)+L(x_2)=\max_{x_1\in{\mathcal X}_1}L(x_1) + \max_{x_2\in{\mathcal X}_2 } L(x_2) where L is an objective function or a Lagrangian. This decomposition is somewhat different: it considers what conditions the parameters of certain sub-optimizations must satisfy to solve a global optimization.

In the context of a queueing network, we interpret this result as follows. A congestion controller on each route r, chooses a number of packets to send across the network w_r. As we saw for a closed queueing network, the network solves the optimization (w^*) the packets receive rate \Lambda_r and delay/loss q_r satisfying LIN_r. On receiving q_r, the controller updates w_r to optimize USR_r(q_r). This feedback loop optimizes SYS by respectively solving NET, USR and LIN. In the context of allocating resources, we interpret w_r as wealth decided to be spent by route r and p_r the price per unit of resource \Lambda_r.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s