5822
12, DECEMBER 2009
Optimal Spectrum-Efficient Routing in Multihop Wireless Networks
Mohamed Saad, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper addresses the problem of finding the
route with maximum end-to-end spectral efficiency, under the
constraint of equal bandwidth sharing, in multihop wireless
networks. This problem has been addressed recently in the litera-
ture, and only exhaustive search with exponential computational
complexity or suboptimal heuristics are known. This paper closes
the algorithmic gap by introducing two algorithms that provide
provably optimal solutions to the problem in polynomial-time.
The proposed algorithms rely on the iterative use of a shortest
path procedure. Our computational results further illustrate the
efficiency of the proposed approach.
Index Terms—Multihop wireless networks, spectrum-efficient
routing, polynomial-time algorithms, divide-and-conquer.
I. I NTRODUCTION
M ULTIHOP wireless networks consist of a set of
wireless devices that communicate with each other
over multiple wireless hops, with participating nodes col-
laboratively forwarding ongoing traffic. Wireless multihop
relaying/forwarding is the foundation for the development
and deployment of emerging technologies such as in-
frastructure wireless mesh networks [1] (where wireless
routers/access points are interconnected to provide an infras-
tructure/backbone for clients) or IEEE 802.16j relay-based
networks [6] (where a number of fixed relays can be used
to extend the coverage area of a base station, and/or increase
the capacity of a wireless access system).
The study of wireless multihop relaying (including routing
as a special case) has received considerable attention in
two research communities: the information theory community
and the networking community. The foremost contribution of
information-theoretic studies (see, e.g., [7] and [11]) is the
understanding of the fundamental limits on network perfor-
mance measures, e.g., transport capacity. These information-
theoretic studies have led to several relaying protocols that
are order-optimal as the number of nodes goes to infinity.
These protocols, however, are typically too complex to be
implemented in practical systems [2].
Studies within the networking community on wireless mul-
tihop routing focus mainly on the design of new routing
metrics, and the modification of existing routing protocols
to incorporate new metrics (see, e.g., [3] and [5]). These
studies, however, are often built on link-level abstractions
of the network without fully considering the impact of the
physical layer [2].
Manuscript received April 19, 2009; revised August 22, 2009; accepted
October 19, 2009. The associate editor coordinating the review of this letter
and approving it for publication was F.-N. Pavlidou.
The author is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE (e-mail: msaad@sharjah.ac.ae).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TWC.2009.12.090546
1536-1276/09$25.00 ⃝
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO.
Studies on routing that combine tools from information
theory and networking do exist. See, e.g., [2] and [10]. In
particular, [10] considers joint routing and resource allocation
in wireless multihop networks, such that a network-wide
objective (e.g., delay) is optimized. The recent study in [2]
introduces the problem of finding the path with maximum
spectral efficiency in multihop wireless networks, under the
constraint of equal bandwidth sharing. On the one hand, the
authors of [2] note that simple shortest path algorithms cannot
be used to solve the problem because the resulting routing
metric is neither isotonic nor monotone [8]. On the other hand,
exhaustive search has an exponential computational complex-
ity because it involves pre-computing all paths joining a given
node pair. Therefore, the study in [2] proposes two efficient,
yet sub-optimal spectrum-efficient routing heuristics. The goal
of this paper, however, is to study efficient (polynomial-time)
algorithms that are able to provide exact optimal solutions to
the problem.
The contribution of this paper can be summarized as fol-
lows.
∙ We close the algorithmic gap by showing (in Section III)
that a provably optimal solution to the spectrum-efficient
routing problem can be obtained in polynomial-time. In
particular, we show that, using the divide-and-conquer
principle, a provably optimal solution to the problem
can be obtained by iteratively solving a sequence of
relaxations. This leads to a polynomial-time algorithm
that relies entirely on the iterative use of a shortest path
procedure.
∙ We present (in Section IV) a technique that further re-
duces the average complexity of the proposed algorithm.
Our computational results (in Section V) illustrate the
efficiency of the proposed approach.
II. P ROBLEM D EFINITION
A multihop wireless network is modeled as a graph 𝐺 =
(𝑉, 𝐸), where 𝑉 represents the set of nodes (vertices) and 𝐸
represents the set of links (edges). We let 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 signify a link
in the network. We also let 𝑁 = ∣𝑉 ∣ and 𝑀 = ∣𝐸∣ denote the
number of nodes and links, respectively.
Following [2], we consider the setting in which all transmit
devices are constrained by the same symbol-wise average
transmit power 𝑃 , and assume that all devices transmit with
power 𝑃 when transmitting. A possible justification for this
assumption is that nodes in infrastructure wireless mesh
networks are mostly immobile and connected with abundant
power supplies. Therefore, for a link 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸, the signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR) is given by:
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
𝑆𝑁 𝑅𝑙 = , (1)
𝑁0 𝐵
c 2009 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2009 5823

where 𝐺𝑙 is the path gain from the sender of link 𝑙 to the solved by searching over all possible values of 𝛼(𝐿). In
receiver of link 𝑙, 𝑁0 is the normalized one-sided power particular, (5) can be solved using the following procedure:
spectral density of the additive white Gaussian noise (at any
receiver in the network), and 𝐵 is the finite bandwidth of the Procedure 1: { }
wireless channel. ∙ For every 𝑎 ∈ log(1 +
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
𝑁0 𝐵 ) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 , solve:
The spectral efficiency 𝑅(𝐿) of an arbitrary path 𝐿 in the
network is defined as the bandwidth-normalized end-to-end 𝛼(𝐿)
rate, i.e., 𝑅(𝐿) = 𝐶𝐿 /𝐵 (in bps/Hz), where 𝐶𝐿 is the end-to- max . (6)
𝐿∈ℒ𝑠𝑑 :𝛼(𝐿)=𝑎 ∣𝐿∣
end achievable rate (in bps) and 𝐵 is the channel bandwidth (in
Remark 1. Let path 𝐿∗ be the optimal solution to (5),
Hz) [2]. Following [2], it is assumed that a common channel
and let 𝑅(𝐿∗ ) denote its spectral efficiency, i.e., 𝑅(𝐿∗ ) is
is shared among all nodes using time division multiple access
the optimal
{ objective function} value of (5). Also, for a given
(TDMA) without spatial reuse, i.e., each node transmits in 𝑃 𝐺𝑙
its own unique time slot (justifications for this assumption 𝑎 ∈ log(1 + 𝑁 0𝐵
) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 , let path 𝐿𝑎 be the optimal
can be found in Sections II.C and VI of [2]). The medium solution to (6), and let 𝑅(𝐿𝑎 ) denote its spectral efficiency. In
access control (MAC) layer of the IEEE 802.16 mesh protocol, other words, 𝑅(𝐿𝑎 ) is the optimal objective function value of
for example, is based on TDMA (see, e.g., [4]). Under the (6). Since the union of the{sets {𝐿 ∈ ℒ𝑠𝑑 : 𝛼(𝐿) } = 𝑎} across
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
constraint of equal bandwidth sharing, the end-to-end spectral all possible values of 𝑎 ∈ log(1 + 𝑁 0𝐵
) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 covers the
efficiency 𝑅(𝐿) of a path 𝐿 is given by [2] set of paths ℒ𝑠𝑑 , and by the divide and conquer principle [9],
1 𝑃 𝐺𝑙 the following is true:
𝑅(𝐿) = min log(1 + ), (2)
𝑙∈𝐿 ∣𝐿∣ 𝑁0 𝐵 𝑅(𝐿∗ ) = max 𝑅(𝐿𝑎 ), (7)
𝑎∈𝐴
where ∣𝐿∣ is the number of links (hops) in path 𝐿. Note that { }
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
the factor 1/∣𝐿∣ results from the sharing of bandwidth equally where the set 𝐴 = log(1 + 𝑁 0𝐵
) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 .
among relay links [2]. Moreover, by substituting 𝛼(𝐿) = 𝑎 in the objective
For a given path 𝐿, we define function, it is easily seen that (6) is equivalent to the following
𝑃 𝐺𝑙 problem:
𝛼(𝐿) = min log(1 + ). (3) 𝑎
𝑙∈𝐿 𝑁0 𝐵 max . (8)
𝐿∈ℒ𝑠𝑑 :𝛼(𝐿)=𝑎 ∣𝐿∣
By combining (2) and (3), the end-to-end spectral efficiency
Instead of solving (8) directly, we consider its relaxation
of any path 𝐿 is given by
in which 𝛼(𝐿) = 𝑎 is replaced with the relaxed constraint
𝛼(𝐿) 𝛼(𝐿) ≥ 𝑎. Now, consider the following modified procedure
𝑅(𝐿) = . (4)
∣𝐿∣ to solve (5):
Given a source-destination (𝑠-𝑑) pair of nodes (𝑠, 𝑑) ∈ 𝑉 × 𝑉 , Procedure 2: { }
the problem of finding the route with maximum end-to-end 𝑃𝐺
∙ For every 𝑎 ∈ log(1 + 𝑁 𝐵𝑙 ) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 , solve:
0
spectral efficiency under the constraint of equal bandwidth
𝑎
sharing can, thus, be expressed as the following optimization max . (9)
𝐿∈ℒ𝑠𝑑 :𝛼(𝐿)≥𝑎 ∣𝐿∣
problem:
𝛼(𝐿) Problem (9) is a relaxation of (8) in the sense that any
max , (5)
𝐿∈ℒ𝑠𝑑 ∣𝐿∣ feasible solution (path) for (8) is also feasible for (9).
Remark 2. Let the paths 𝐿𝑎 and 𝐿 ˆ 𝑎 be the optimal solutions
where ℒ𝑠𝑑 is the set of all paths 𝐿 connecting the source-
destination pair of nodes (𝑠, 𝑑) ∈ 𝑉 × 𝑉 . to problems (8) and (9), respectively. Since 𝐿𝑎 is optimal for
(8), it is also feasible for (9). Therefore, 𝑎/∣𝐿𝑎 ∣ ≤ 𝑎/∣𝐿 ˆ 𝑎∣ .
As noted in [2], Bellman-Ford or Dijkstra shortest path
algorithms cannot be used to solve (5) directly because the This implies that
ˆ 𝑎 ∣ ≤ ∣𝐿𝑎 ∣.
∣𝐿 (10)
routing metric 𝛼(𝐿)/∣𝐿∣ is neither isotonic nor monotone [8].
Problem (5), however, can be solved by an exhaustive search The main result follows. { }
over all (possibly exponentially many) paths. This exponential Proposition 1: For a given 𝑎 ∈ log(1 + 𝑁 𝑃 𝐺𝑙
) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 ,
0𝐵
complexity makes exhaustive search prohibitive in networks ˆ 𝑎 denote the optimal solution to (9), and let 𝑅(𝐿 ˆ 𝑎) =
with a moderate-to-large number of nodes. The study in let path 𝐿
𝛼(𝐿ˆ𝑎)
[2] presents two efficient algorithms that provide suboptimal ˆ𝑎∣
∣𝐿
denote its spectral efficiency. Also, let path 𝐿∗ be the
solutions to (5). In what follows, however, we show that 𝛼(𝐿∗ )
optimal solution to (5), and let 𝑅(𝐿∗ ) = ∣𝐿∗ ∣ denote its
provably optimal solutions to the problem can be obtained spectral efficiency. Then
in polynomial-time.
𝑅(𝐿∗ ) = max 𝑅(𝐿 ˆ 𝑎 ), (11)
𝑎∈𝐴
III. O PTIMAL P OLYNOMIAL -T IME A LGORITHM { }
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
The main idea of the proposed algorithm is the fact that, where 𝐴 = log(1 + 𝑁 0𝐵
) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 .
for any path 𝐿, 𝛼(𝐿) takes one of finite possible values. In Proof: The following is true:
particular,{ it is easily seen from } the definition in (3) that 𝛼(𝐿ˆ𝑎) 𝑎
𝑃 𝐺𝑙 ˆ 𝑎) =
𝑅(𝐿 ≥ , (12)
𝛼(𝐿) ∈ log(1 + 𝑁 0𝐵
) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 . Consequently, (5) can be ˆ 𝑎∣
∣𝐿 ˆ 𝑎∣
∣𝐿
5824 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2009

where the inequality follows from the fact that 𝛼(𝐿 ˆ𝑎) ≥ 𝑎 IV. R EDUCED C OMPLEXITY A LGORITHM
ˆ
because path 𝐿𝑎 is the optimal solution to (9). Now, let path In this section, we explore a possibility for reducing the
𝐿𝑎 denote the optimal solution for problem (8), and let 𝑅(𝐿𝑎 ) complexity of our proposed Algorithm A. We begin with the
denote its spectral efficiency. Thus, following observation.
𝑎 𝑎 Proposition 2: Let path 𝐿𝑠 denote the minimum-hop path
𝑅(𝐿𝑎 ) = ≤ ˆ 𝑎 ).
≤ 𝑅(𝐿 (13)
∣𝐿𝑎 ∣ ˆ 𝑎∣
∣𝐿 in the network from source 𝑠 to destination 𝑑. Also, let path
𝐿∗ be the optimal solution to (5), i.e., the path with maximum
Note that the equality follows from the fact that 𝛼(𝐿𝑎 ) = 𝑎 spectral efficiency. Then 𝛼(𝐿∗ ) ≥ 𝛼(𝐿𝑠 ).
because 𝐿𝑎 is optimal for (8). The first inequality follows from Proof: Since 𝐿∗ is the path with maximum spectral
Remark 2, and the second inequality follows from (12). efficiency, then 𝑅(𝐿∗ ) ≥ 𝑅(𝐿𝑠 ). Equivalently,
Combining Remark 1 and (13), leads to: 𝛼(𝐿∗ ) 𝛼(𝐿𝑠 )
≥ . (15)
ˆ 𝑎 ) ≥ 𝑅(𝐿∗ ), ∣𝐿∗ ∣ ∣𝐿𝑠 ∣
max 𝑅(𝐿 (14)
𝑎∈𝐴
Moreover, 𝐿𝑠 is the path with the minimum number of hops.
{ } Therefore,
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
where 𝐴 = log(1 + 𝑁 ) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 . Note that among all
∗
0𝐵 ∣𝐿𝑠 ∣ ≤ ∣𝐿∗ ∣. (16)
paths 𝐿 ∈ ℒ𝑠𝑑 , 𝑅(𝐿 ) is the maximum possible spectral
efficiency. For any 𝑎 ∈ 𝐴, 𝐿 ˆ 𝑎 ∈ ℒ𝑠𝑑 , i.e., 𝐿
ˆ 𝑎 is a feasible Combining (15) and (16) completes the proof.
path for problem (5). Therefore, (14) must hold with strict In light of Proposition 2, we need to search only over values
equality. of 𝛼(𝐿) that are at least as large as 𝛼(𝐿𝑠 ), with 𝐿𝑠 being the
Now, the only remaining issue is to show how to solve (9). minimum-hop path between the given 𝑠-𝑑 pair. Algorithm A
For any given value for 𝑎, maximizing 𝑎/∣𝐿∣ is equivalent to can, thus, be modified as follows:
minimizing ∣𝐿∣. Consequently, problem (9) is equivalent to Algorithm B: Modified Optimal
finding the minimum-hop path 𝐿 from source 𝑠 to destination Spectrum-Efficient Routing:
𝑑, such that 𝛼(𝐿) ≥ 𝑎. It can be seen from (3) that the value ∙ Find 𝐿𝑠 , the minimum-hop path from
of 𝛼(𝐿) for any path 𝐿 is determined by its bottleneck link. source 𝑠 to destination { 𝑑. }
Therefore, problem (9) can be solved, for a given 𝑠-𝑑 pair and Let 𝛼(𝐿𝑠 ) = min𝑙∈𝐿𝑠 log(1 + 𝑁 𝑃 𝐺𝑙
) , and let
0𝐵
a given value for 𝑎, as follows: 𝛼(𝐿𝑠 )
𝑅(𝐿𝑠 ) = ∣𝐿𝑠 ∣ .
∙
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
Remove all links 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 for which log(1 + 𝑁 ) < 𝑎. In { }
0𝐵 𝑃 𝐺𝑙
the remaining graph, obtain the minimum-hop path using ∙ For every 𝑎 ∈ log(1 + 𝑁0 𝐵 ) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 , do:
Dijkstra or Bellman-Ford algorithms. – If 𝑎 = 𝛼(𝐿𝑠 ) then 𝑅(𝐿 ˆ 𝑎 ) = 𝑅(𝐿𝑠 ).
In light of the above discussion, Procedure 2 becomes – If 𝑎 > 𝛼(𝐿𝑠 ), do
equivalent to the following algorithm: ∗ Remove all links 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 for which
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
Algorithm A: Optimal Spectrum-Efficient log(1 + 𝑁 0𝐵
) < 𝑎.
Routing: ∗ In the remaining graph, find 𝐿 ˆ 𝑎,
{ }
𝑃𝐺 the minimum-hop path from 𝑠 to
∙ For every 𝑎 ∈ log(1 + 𝑁 𝐵𝑙 ) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 , do:
0
𝑑. Let 𝑅(𝐿 ˆ 𝑎 ) = 𝛼(𝐿ˆ 𝑎 ) .
ˆ ∣
∣𝐿
– Remove all links 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 for which 𝑎

𝑃 𝐺𝑙 ∙ Return the path with largest 𝑅(𝐿 ˆ 𝑎 ).

log(1 + 𝑁 0𝐵
) < 𝑎.
– In the remaining graph, find 𝐿 ˆ 𝑎,
the minimum-hop path from source 𝑠
ˆ 𝑎 ) = 𝛼(𝐿ˆ 𝑎 ) .
to destination 𝑑. Let 𝑅(𝐿
ˆ𝑎∣
∣𝐿
∙ ˆ 𝑎 ).
Return the path with largest 𝑅(𝐿
It was noted in [2] that (5) cannot be solved directly by a
shortest path algorithm. We have seen, however, that (5) can
be solved using an iterative use of a shortest path procedure.
Remark 3. By Proposition 1, and since Algorithm A and
Procedure 2 are equivalent, the path returned by Algorithm A
is an optimal solution for the original problem (5). Moreover,
each iteration of the algorithm finds a minimum-hop path. If
Dijkstra algorithm is used, the computational complexity of
each iteration is 𝑂(𝑁 2 ), where 𝑁 = ∣𝑉 ∣ is the number of
network nodes. The total number of iterations is 𝑀 , where
𝑀 = ∣𝐸∣ is the number of network links. Consequently, the
overall complexity of the algorithm is 𝑂(𝑁 2 𝑀 ). Since an 𝑁 -
node network has at most 𝑁 (𝑁 − 1) directed links, the worst
case complexity of Algorithm A is 𝑂(𝑁 4 ).
Note that Algorithm B will only call a shortest path
procedure if 𝑎 ≥ 𝛼(𝐿𝑠 ). Therefore, the number of shortest-
path iterations of Algorithm B is expected to be lower than
that of Algorithm A. It is easily seen, however, the worst-
case complexities of Algorithms A and B are both equal to
𝑂(𝑁{4 ). This worst-case scenario
} occurs if all elements of the
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
set log(1 + 𝑁0 𝐵 ) : 𝑙 ∈ 𝐸 are at least as large as 𝛼(𝐿𝑠 ).
Our numerical results, however, illustrate that the average
running time of Algorithm B is considerably less than that
of Algorithm A.
Note also that Algorithm B (respectively, Algorithm A) is
based entirely on an iterative use of a shortest path procedure.
Since each iteration finds a minimum-hop path, all link
distances are unity. To implement Algorithm B (respectively,
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
Algorithm A), however, the value of log(1 + 𝑁 0𝐵
) has to be
known for each link 𝑙. In practice, the link SNR (𝑃 𝐺𝑙 /𝑁0 𝐵)
can be directly measured by received signal strength indicators
available on most devices [2], and fed back to the transmitters.
Nodes can then exchange their knowledge about the values
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2009 5825

0.15 0.09
Algorithm A

Average Algorithm Running Time (in seconds)

Algorithm B 0.08
Algorithm A
Algorithm Running Time (in seconds)

0.07 Algorithm B

0.1 0.06

0.05

0.04

0.05 0.03

0.02

0.01

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
Network Realization Network SNR (dB)

Fig. 1. Reduced running time of Algorithm B as compared to Algorithm A. Fig. 2. Reduced average running time of Algorithm B relative to Algorithm A
for different network SNRs. Every point in the figure is obtained by averaging
over 104 random (and independent) network realizations.
𝑃 𝐺𝑙
of log(1 + 𝑁0 𝐵 ) for their outgoing links using a link-state
1
protocol. 10
Algorithm A

Average Algorithm Running Time (in seconds)

Algorithm B

V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
0
We consider multihop wireless networks, in which the nodes 10

are located at random positions in a 100 m × 100 m two-

dimensional area. It is assumed that there exists a link between
two nodes if the distance between the nodes is at most 25 m. −1
10
For each link 𝑙, it is assumed that the path gain is given by
−4
𝐺𝑙 = 𝑐 ⋅ 𝐴𝑙 ⋅ (𝑑𝑙 /𝑑0 ) , where 𝑑𝑙 is the length of link 𝑙, 𝑑0 is
the reference distance, 𝐴𝑙 is a log-normally distributed random
−2
variable (with 0-dB mean and 8-dB log-variance) that reflects 10

shadowing, and 𝑐 is a constant. Without loss of generality, we

set 𝑑0 = min𝑙 {𝑑𝑙 } and 𝑐 = 1/𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑙 {𝐴𝑙 }. The resulting path
gains have, thus, non-negative values smaller than one. We test
our proposed algorithms on random and independent network
realizations, where in each realization the horizontal and
vertical coordinates of each node are chosen randomly (and
independently) according to a uniform distribution between 0
and 100 m, and the path gains are generated randomly (and
independently) according to the above-described model. More-
over, two arbitrary nodes are chosen as the 𝑠-𝑑 pair. All results
were obtained using Matlab implementations performed on a
1.86 GHz IntelⓇ Core2 processor and 1 GB of memory.
First, we consider 20-node network realizations. Without
loss of generality, the network SNR (𝑃/𝑁0 𝐵) is assumed to
be 40 dB. We generate 100 random network realizations. For
each realization, the path from 𝑠 to 𝑑 with maximum spectral
efficiency is chosen using both Algorithm A and Algorithm
B. Our main focus is the spectral efficiency of the obtained
paths, and the running time of the algorithms. As theoretically
justified by Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, the spectral
efficiencies attained by Algorithm A and Algorithm B were
identical in every experiment. In particular, both algorithms
result in the provably optimal spectral efficiency. The running
time results are depicted in Fig. 1. Obviously, the running time
of Algorithm B is consistently lower than that of Algorithm
A. In particular, the average running time was 0.0921 seconds
for Algorithm A, and 0.0085 seconds for Algorithm B. In
−3
10
10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of Nodes
Fig. 3. Reduced average running time of Algorithm B relative to Algorithm
A for different numbers of nodes. Every point in the figure is obtained by
averaging over 104 random (and independent) network realizations.
other words, Algorithm B reduced the average running time
by 90.77% as compared to Algorithm A.
Note also that, averaged over 104 additional random net-
work realizations, the running time was 0.0982 seconds for
Algorithm A, and 0.0094 seconds for Algorithm B. In other
words, Algorithm B reduced the average running time by
90.43% relative to Algorithm A.
Fig. 2 depicts the running time of Algorithm A and Algo-
rithm B, respectively, when the network SNR (𝑃/𝑁0 𝐵) is
varied from -20 dB to 20 dB. In particular, for each network
SNR value, the running time of each algorithm is obtained
by averaging over 104 random 20-node network realizations.
Algorithm B reduced the average time to obtain an exact
optimal path by 91.72% – 92.57% relative to Algorithm A.
Fig. 3 depicts the running times of the algorithms when
the number of nodes 𝑁 is varied from 10 to 60. For each
value for 𝑁 , the running time of each algorithm is obtained
5826
70
Relative Gap to Optimality (in %) Caused by DSER
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 We closed the algorithmic gap by introducing a polynomial-
0 20 40
Network Realization
Fig. 4. Relative gap to optimality (in %) caused by the distributed spectrum-
efficient routing (DSER) algorithm introduced in [2].
by averaging over 104 random network realizations. Without
loss of generality, we assume that the network SNR is 20 dB
in all experiments. Again, the running time of Algorithm B is
considerably (and consistently) lower than that of Algorithm
A. In particular, Algorithm B reduced the average time to
obtain an exact optimal path by 89.08% – 94.26% relative to
Algorithm A.
Finally, it is worth noting that the average running time
of Algorithm B, in addition to the fact that it is entirely
shortest-path-based, may suggest that the algorithm is suitable
for practical use. Furthermore, Algorithm B can be used as
an efficient (polynomial-time) benchmark against which the
performance of sub-optimal heuristics can be assessed, espe-
cially for a moderate-to-high number of nodes. We generate
100 random 60-node network realizations, where the network
SNR is set to 40 dB. For each realization, the optimal spectral
efficiency is obtained using Algorithm B, and an approximate
solution is obtained using the distributed spectrum-efficient
routing (DSER) algorithm introduced in [2]. DSER [2] oper-
ates by simply finding a shortest path from the source to the
destination using (1+2𝛾 /𝑆𝑁 𝑅𝑙 ) as the link metric, where 𝛾 is
the path-loss exponent. Here, 𝛾 = 4. Fig. 4 depicts the relative
gap to optimality introduced by DSER. On average, DSER
produced paths within 28% of the optimal spectral efficiency.
In particular, the relative sub-optimality introduced by DSER
ranged from 0 to 68.75%. Moreover, for 104 additional random
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2009
network realizations, the relative sub-optimality introduced by
DSER ranged from 0 to 83.9%, with an average of 27.68%.
The results signify the importance of our proposed algorithms
in assessing the sub-optimality caused by heuristics, especially
for a moderate-to-high number of nodes, i.e., when exhaustive
search is prohibitive.
VI. C ONCLUSION
This paper addressed the problem of finding the path with
maximum end-to-end spectral efficiency in multihop TDMA
wireless networks with equal bandwidth sharing. This problem
was introduced recently in the literature, and only exponential-
time exhaustive search or suboptimal heuristics were known.
60 80 100 time algorithm that provides provably optimal solutions to
the problem, while relying entirely on the iterative use of
a shortest path procedure. We also proposed an improved
version of the algorithm that reduced the average computation
time by more than 90% in most numerical experiments. An
interesting line of future inquiry is joint optimal routing
and MAC layer scheduling/resource allocation for maximum
spectral efficiency, while explicitly considering spatial reuse
and/or power control.
R EFERENCES
[1] I. F. Akyildiz, X. Wang, and W. Wang, “Wireless mesh networks: a
survey,” Computer Networks, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 445–487, Mar. 2005.
[2] D. Chen, M. Haenggi, and J. N. Laneman, “Distributed spectrum-
efficient routing algorithms in wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 5297–5305, Dec. 2008.
[3] D. S. J. De Couto, A. J. Bicket, and R. Morris, “A high-throughput path
metric for multihop wireless routing,” in Proc. ACM MOBICOM, 2003.
[4] P. Djukic and S. Valaee, “Delay aware link scheduling for multi-hop
TDMA wireless networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 17, no.
3, pp. 870–883, June 2009.
[5] R. Draves, J. Padhye, and B. Zill “Routing in multi-radio, multi-hop
wireless networks,” in Proc. ACM MOBICOM, 2004.
[6] V. Genc, S. Murphy, Y. Yu, and J. Murphy, “IEEE 802.16j relay-based
wireless access networks: an overview,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag.,
vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 56–63, Oct. 2008.
[7] P. Gupta and P. R. Kumar, “The capacity of wireless networks,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 388-404, Mar. 2000.
[8] J. L. Sobrinho, “Algebra and algorithms for QoS path computation and
hop-by-hop routing in the Internet,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol.
10, no. 4, pp. 541–550, Aug. 2002.
[9] L. A. Wolsey, Integer Programming. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1998.
[10] L. Xiao, M. Johansson, and S. P. Boyd, “Simultaneous routing and
resource allocation via dual decomposition,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol.
52, no. 7, pp. 1136-1144, July 2004.
[11] F. Xue, L.-L. Xie, and P. R. Kumar, “The transport capacity of wireless
networks over fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no.
3, pp. 834-847, Mar. 2005.