Abstract
This paper studies backhaul bandwidth aggregation in the context of a wireless local area network composed of two different types of access points: those with spare backhaul capacity (which we term providers) and those in shortage of it (beneficiaries); the aim is to transfer excess capacity from providers to beneficiaries. We model the system as a matching game with manytoone setting wherein several providers can be matched to one beneficiary and adopt the socalled deferred acceptance algorithm to reach an optimal and stable solution. We consider two flavors, when the beneficiaries are limited in their resource demands and when they are not, and two scenarios, when resources are abundant and when they are scarce. Our results show that the manytoone setting outperforms the onetoone case in terms of overall throughput gain, resource usage, and individual beneficiaries satisfaction by up to 50%, whether resources are scarce or abundant. As of the limited versus nonlimited case, the former ensures more fair sharing of spectral resources and higher satisfaction percentage between beneficiaries.
1. Introduction
The current and recent trends in mobile networks are towards exponential increase in the use of spectral resources. Although current capacity requirements seem to be containable, bandwidth consumption will continue to increase with future generations of wireless networks.
In the context of a heterogeneous small cellbased architecture, there are three basic areas of connectivity, namely, Personal Area Networks (PANS), wireless local area networks (WLANs), and cellular coverage. Under this umbrella, small cellbased mobile networks are principally used to bridge connections to the device by means of capillary networks. Meanwhile, traffic offload and local access is often covered by means of a shortrange wireless technology.
In this context, rather than deploying their own edging sites, operators trends are towards more efficient and costeffective solutions. The latter include using WiFi in the last mile coverage. In fact, WiFi WLANs will be responsible for offloading traffic from and to macrocells by traffic amounts up to 52% by 2018 (source: Cisco VNI Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast 2013–2018). Besides, voice traffic lost from LTE systems to WiFi networks will reach 53% by 2020 (source: Cisco VNI Mobile, 2016).
From this perspective, pressure is increasing on existing WiFi backhaul segments. This portion of the network that starts at the radio access network and ends in the mobile core network (see Figure 1) is the key answer to sustain traffic growth and relieve pressure off both mobile and wireless networks. This is where new ways to manage backhaul resources need to be considered.
In the context of wireless local area networks, a major research trend targets better management of the available backhaul resource at access points (APs) through the socalled backhaul bandwidth aggregation. With no major shortterm investments and no altering to network topology, this technique enables wireless clients to connect simultaneously to different APs and cumulate available backhaul capacities in order to improve their transmission rates (see Figure 2).
Backhaul bandwidth aggregation techniques can be broadly classified in two categories: clientoriented and APoriented. In the former, studies empowered wireless clients as the aggregation initiator, with several sophisticated aggregation mechanisms. Whether protocol, driver, or virtualization mechanisms, these upgrades enabled wireless clients to ask for and, if possible, acquire available shares of backhaul resources from nearby APs [1–3].
As for the APoriented approaches, the aggregation process is monopolized by access points. With proper signaling schemes between involved wireless clients, each AP builds its own image of the entire network and then decides how to manage its spare capacity among the entire set of reachable clients [4, 5].
Even though these solutions improve network performance in terms of overall throughput, they are still subject to several flaws. On one hand, recursive interactions between wireless clients and access points raise interoperability issues and lead to higher interference level and signaling overload, along with a cost challenging implementation due to the unpredictable nature of involved equipment (stations, smart phones, tablets, etc.).
On the methodological level, most approaches opted for conventional unilateral optimization methods [6] when it comes to backhaul resources allocation. These methods require an overall network description, a centralized control scheme, and a prediction model for the signal propagation. This yields higher complexity levels especially for combinatorial and integer programming problems such as resource allocation and user association [7].
For the aforementioned limitations, we proposed in [8] an alternate solution for backhaul capacity aggregation. Our approach defines a symmetric APexclusive protocol (no wireless clients involved) for available backhaul resource (ABR) allocation. The idea consists of dividing first the ensemble of APs into symmetric separate sets: () providers (PAP), with spare backhaul resources, and () beneficiaries (BAP), in need of more backhaul bandwidth. Based on the twosided nature of our system, we proposed to assign the available backhaul resources using a matching game.
We, however, restricted ourselves in [8] to onetoone matching wherein each player could be matched with one player at most. In this case, even though BAPs improve their transmission rates, access to backhaul resources was limited in a way that holds back most of them from fulfilling their needs in terms of required backhaul capacity.
In this paper, we propose to extend our work to the case of manytoone matching, wherein each beneficiary (BAP) has the right to access as many resources as possible. Providers (PAPs) are, however, still limited to one user at once so as to avoid higher complexity levels and signaling overhead.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe our system and model. In Section 3, we formulate our model based on a manytoone matching game and derive its solution. In Section 4, we display simulation results of the manytoone matching game for different scenarios. In Section 5, we conclude the paper and give some hints on future research steps.
2. System and Model
We consider an Extended Service Set (ESS) in an indoor area with a finite number of IEEE 802.11n capable APs distributed within a “” square area.
Let be the set of infrastructure Basic Services Sets (BSS), each connected to the core network via backhaul links (wired or wireless). Frequency bands in correspond to sub6 GHz Line of Sight (LOS) pointtopoint links and are subject to additive white Gaussian noise. In this band, as the antenna beams are much wider [9], the propagation is interference limited [10]. The Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR) level is function of the AP’s location, transmit power, propagation model of the carrier, and the link state information.
APs, at the head of each BSS, must share overlapping coverage area. With no spatial diversity involved, each AP handles a random set of primary wireless customers. The status of each AP is determined by the amount of backhaul capacity: either in excess, denoted by , or in shortage of it, denoted by , once it has served its primary clients. Let denoting the set of providing APs be the number of PAPs and the set of beneficiary APs.
According to our proposal, PAPs are willing to cede their available backhaul capacity to the rest of BAPs on a competitive basis between the latter. Here, represents an ABR equal to the ensemble of all spare backhaul bandwidth at each PAP:
For the described resource allocation problem, our purpose is to find optimal ABR allocation over PAPs to serve BAPs so as to maximize the overall throughput of beneficiary APs (see Figure 3).
The individual throughput gain at one given is in fact the achievable rate , determined by the following equation [11, 12]:where
Here, is the SINR between and [13]. (resp., ) is the Channel State Information at the Transmitter (CSIT) (resp., at the receiver, CSIR), estimated and quantized at the radio link between and .
and are the transmit power of a given and the variance of the receiver's Gaussian noise, respectively.
Considering a Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) to resources, we propose to assign one PAP's backhaul resource to only one BAP at once. On the other side, BAPs could have access to all backhaul resources within reach. This defines a manytoone association between PAPs and BAPs with the aim of maximizing the following function:
Here, is the overall throughput gain at the BAPs, expressed as follows:where is the achievable rate at from . is the corresponding ABR and is the ABR allocation variable, such that if allocates its ABR to and , otherwise.
And, so, the achievable backhaul rate for can be written as follows: where represents the SINR obtained from (3) and is again the available backhaul resource of .
Taking into account the SINR, which is function of the AP’s location, transmit power, propagation model of the carrier, and backhaul resource allocation, we can translate the optimization problem in (4) and (5) into an assignment problem where the available backhaul resource of a PAP is assigned to one given BAP . This problem is a 01 integer programming which is a satisfiability problem such as the one of Karp’s 21 NPcomplete problems, known to be difficult to solve via classical optimization approaches [14].
With the twosided nature of our system [15] (PAP versus BAP), we propose to address this problem with a distributed approach, as shown next.
3. AP Backhaul Aggregation as a ManytoOne Matching Game
3.1. Problem Formulation
A matching game is a twoside assignment problem. Each side represents a separate set of players seeking for their best match among the players of the other set.
In this framework, each beneficiary AP identifies its potential match among the providing APs and then initiates a selection process, as shown in Figure 4. This selection process is based on a preference relationship defined for each side, which we explicit next.
Definition 1. A preference relationship is defined as a complete, reflexive, and transitive binary relationship between elements of a given set.
In our context, we consider as the preference relationship of a over the set of backhaul resources of PAPs . We denote if prefers to given their respective available backhaul resources.
The preference of players (BAPs) over a set of choices (PAPs) is a decisive factor when it comes to the ultimate matching map. We refer here to a particular ordering of ABR resources based on their relative outcome or utility.
We define individual preference relationships using utility functions for BAPs and PAPs. And usually there is not a single utility function associated with one ABR, but rather an overall utility function defined to describe the outcome of the whole network, for example, the sum utility or proportional fair utility. Assuming our players (here we refer to APs) to be rational, as they are choosing to maximize their own payoffs, we define .
For the studied backhaul management problem, the preference of each player is crucial when it comes to the selection process [16] especially if it is restricted to a quota: we refer here to the number of simultaneous physical matches a player is allowed.
In a onetoone matching, players quotas prevented BAPs from achieving their required capacities. Even if extra resources are involved, BAPs wasted valuable opportunities to increase their outcome. To remedy this situation we propose to rise BAPs quota, , in terms of accessible ABR to .
And so, we introduce a twosided manytoone canonical matching game where PAPs are committed to cede their available backhaul capacity to the rest of BAPs. A manytoone matching can formally be described as follows [17].
Definition 2. Given the two disjoint finite sets of players and , a matching game is defined as a function from from which we have the following:(1), .(2), .(3) if and only if .Accordingly, we have , if is assigned to through a matching and , otherwise. The purpose of each BAP is to find its perfect match(es) , enabling it to achieve a maximal outcome, while respecting the PAPs available capacity. The ultimate matching aims to maximize the overall throughput. And so, we have again the following:Equations (9) imply that the outcome of a BAP is measured in terms of achievable throughput. In this case, the preference relationship of BAPs depends on link state information along with available backhaul bandwidth , at PAP’s level. Adequate utility functions, reflecting players preference on each side, are to be defined.
Let and denote, respectively, the utility functions of players in and . For a given , we define to be the set of available PAPs (within reach). Each BAP will be looking for the PAPs that provide the best overall achievable rate. So, a will yield a utility to based on achievable rate which is expressed as follows:From the opposite side, an access point from the providing set aims to allocate its ABR to the most profitable (whose achievable rate will be maximized).
Actually, both PAPs and BAPs agree on the same profit. And so, the utility function of a over BAPs is given by the following:
Once our model of a manytoone matching game is identified, our next step would be to introduce a solution that ensures a stable and optimal matching among different sets of APs.
3.2. Deferred Acceptance Algorithm as a Solution for the Matching Game
In a matching game, the major question is whether we can find a stable matching for all players involved in the game. Such issue was treated and positively answered in [17]. In fact, each matching problem has at least one stable matching thanks to the socalled deferred acceptance (DA) algorithm; this matching is also shown to be optimal.
There are two versions for the DA algorithm: user proposing versus resource proposing. Usually, the proposing set is more highly regarded since the outcome is more likely to be preferable to that set. We give precedence in this work to BAPs, because PAPs (and their wireless primary clients) are already satisfied in terms of resources, with or without matching.
The DA algorithm user proposing of a manytoone matching is detailed in Algorithm 1.

Prior to the DA algorithm, the BAPs obtain the channel state from the control signals sent by the PAPs, along with their available backhaul capacity .
As a start, each BAP broadcasts its status as beneficiary AP and then scans the wireless medium for potential PAPs. Accordingly, each initializes its quota and the set as the list of all PAPs may apply to.
In Stage 1, the BAPs rank the PAPs based on their utility . Next, each applies for its most preferred from the set , as long as its current matching size does not exceed its quota. And then, it removes from its preference list, in order to avoid applying for the same PAP multiple times.
In Stage 2, the PAPs receive the applications and calculate the corresponding utility values using . Each PAP accepts the most preferred and rejects previous as well as the rest of the applicants. If accepted by , gets to add the achievable rate from that link to its current rate. In case where has been accepted and then rejected by , subtracts the corresponding achievable rate from its total gain.
The algorithm terminates within a finite number of iterations: either when all users reach their quotas or when the list of preferences is drained: (every unmatched user has been rejected by every possible resource). The final stage reflects a stable matching where we can ensure that all BAPs are mapped to their optimal match(es).
Once matched, no longer forwards its excess traffic over its own backhaul link. In fact, PAPs grant a public access to their backhaul medium over the radio channel. The excess traffic will be forwarded from to over the ABR . Access to these resources is scheduled in TDMA basis, according to the preference order.
Accordingly, the BAP gets the sum of the acquired backhaul capacities as a potential throughput gain. This case is applicable if the wireless capacity of the BAP exceeds the offered backhaul capacity. Otherwise, the effective transmission rate will be ceiled to the radio channel width.
4. Results and Discussions
4.1. Simulation Settings
For our simulations, we consider an ESS in an indoor WLAN area with a finite number of APs. In such configuration, BAPs and PAPs are distributed randomly within a “” square area. The central frequency corresponds to that of the IEEE 802.11n standard, that is, 5 GHz. Simulation parameters are summarized in Table 1.
We simulate network response of the manytoone matching game in comparison with previously addressed onetoone matching game [18]. To do so, we consider several “” configurations where and denote, respectively, the number of BAPs and PAPs in each matching set.
Results include illustrative example of optimal matching maps and the overall acquired capacity ((12)) of from the set of its matches :We show also the ABR consumption in percentage ((13)) and the BAPs’ satisfaction percentage (BAPs which reached their threshold limit, ):
Depending on the size of opposite sets, we define two possible cases: () the “scarce” resource case, if BAPs outnumber PAPs, and () the “abundant” resource case, otherwise. Each case will be detailed separately as we proceed.
4.2. Scarce Resource Case
In a scarce resource case (), the matching proposals will not be entirely satisfied: one or more BAPs (the least preferable) will remain unmatched.
Figure 5 shows one particular realization of a matching between PAPs and BAPs for both onetoone and manytoone allocation modes: “” configuration.
Figures 6 and 7 show the resulting individual performance in terms of achievable rate , obtained after acquiring extra resources from the set of optimal matches (given by (8)) in comparison with related thresholds .
We observe that the mapping between matching sets differs with the allocation scheme. In fact, in a onetoone matching game with “” configuration case (), at least b beneficiaries get to be matched, since the quota of each player is ceiled to one (including PAPs). In this case, BAPs have almost equal chances to access available resources. And so, a larger number of BAPs involved in the matching process get a spare backhaul capacity added to their account. Still, in most cases, this one share of ABR is less than enough compared to the required capacity.
Added to that, some matched BAPs could be more of a “destructive” match with degraded link conditions and low SINR (e.g., BAP3 in Figure 6). And so, serving these BAPs not only curbs network response when it comes to communication quality but also fails to achieve BAPs needs in terms of required capacity (BAP2: 56% and BAP3: 79%).
In the context of a manytoone matching, the quota of each beneficiary equals to : the amount of available resources. Here, none of the PAPs is forced to jump over their first and obviously best choice to reach the remaining of its preference list. And so, each PAP engages only with privileged BAPs (better SINR) in the queue. This way, PAPs will be able to sustain better signal strength and optimal transmission rates.
On the other hand, free access to available resources enabled more BAPs to reach their required capacity. In this case, better satisfaction levels are ensured (50% versus 25% for the onetoone matching).
Still, one BAP could theoretically seize a majority of available resources. Most likely, such BAP would amply exceed its needs in terms of transmission capacity (e.g., 147% for BAP2). Meanwhile, other BAPs are left with no resources at all (BAP3 in Figure 7).
To remedy this issue, we will present in Section 4.4 one way to curb such BAPs greediness. To do so, access to available resources will be limited by a predetermined threshold beyond which a BAP withdraws from the selection process.
4.3. Abundant Resource Case
The abundant resource case arises when the number of PAPs exceeds the number of BAPs; that is, . Here, we consider a “” configuration as an illustrative example of the abundant resource case.
Figure 8 shows again the manytoone matching as opposed to the onetoone matching. The optimal matching shows that, even with extra resources involved, the onetoone rule precludes BAPs from acquiring further throughput, whereas the manytoone allocation leaves no resource unused.
Detailed results, shown in Figures 9 and 10, prove that manytoone distribution is more adequate for the abundant resource case.
In the case of onetoone matching scheme, a quotalimited access to resources holds BAPs from cumulating available backhaul capacity even with extra resources involved. And so, a onetoone association misses valuable resources on the way and substantially restrains one given BAP from fulfilling its required capacity. In the manytoone scheme, BAPs with higher SINR levels are free to establish a multiple match including several resources at once. Once satisfied, a BAP could withdraw from the beneficiary set to make room for other candidates.
We show in Figure 11 the average ABR consumption along with satisfaction numbers of these matching schemes, resulting from 10 realizations of optimal matchings. This illustrates the spectrum efficiency for both approaches.
(a)
(b)
On one hand, we observe a difference between the onetoone and manytoone schemes (from 10 to 40%, resp., for scarce and abundant resource case) in terms of resource consumption. The disparity is due to the partition strategy.
Actually, based on experiments which we do not display here, the gap between the two approaches is larger as the matching sets size gets larger. So, compared to the onetoone matching, the manytoone matching capitalizes more efficiently on available resources, especially for the abundant resource case.
On the other hand, results show that up to 20% for the scare resources case and 32% for the abundant resource case of involved BAPs reach satisfaction in onetoone scheme, when it comes to required capacity threshold, while up to, respectively, 35% and 73% of BAPs in manytoone context reach or even exceed their threshold of capacity. This way, fulfilled BAPs could be removed from the applicant list, and new matching opportunities arise for the rest of the BAPs. Such feature is crucial for an efficient resource allocation, especially, in the presence of a dynamic variation of APs’ status in a WLAN.
To summarize, compared to a onetoone scheme, the manytoone scheme fits better network requirements in terms of overall throughput gain (almost 180% better) and spectral efficiency.
In the onetoone matching, BAPs have no choice but to get this one “shot” and retire from the game even with abundant resource case. This way, BAPs chances of reaching their individual requirements drop considerably. On the other side, PAPs are in most cases pushed to serve the least preferable BAPs (BAP3 in Figure 9) knowing that better ones are already taken. This leads to a degraded link quality and lower achievable rates.
In the manytoone case, access to resources is driven by BAP’s needs and its position on the preference list. These factors push towards two major outputs: () higher transmission rate and better link quality, given that better placed BAPs are the one to be served, in priority, and () better satisfaction levels (66%), considering that each BAP is greedily and relentlessly seeking further backhaul resources as long as they are available.
However, as stated in the previous section as well, such a greedy allocation scheme leads sometimes to unfair allocation of backhaul resources by excluding less fortunate BAP from the selection process. For this, we introduce and evaluate next a limited approach for the manytoone based ABR allocation.
4.4. Limited versus Greedy ABR Allocation
In a fair, budgetlimited environment, backhaul resources are subject to physical and regulatory restrictions. And so, in order to ensure better fairness, we propose to set a limit on BAPs access to available resources.
In this context, for each BAP involved in the selection of ABR, we define a limit on its acquired capacity, , which is equal to the required capacity it is claiming. And so, each BAP which reaches its limit retires from the applicants side in order to give better chances for the remaining BAPs to fulfill their needs as well.
The DA algorithm user proposing for a limited allocation scheme is detailed in Algorithm 2.

In this case, before initiating the selection process, each fixes its own threshold to . And so, the number of applications per BAP (the number of iterations of the algorithm: i.e., Stage 3) is determined by the amount of ABR it has acquired. Hence, if the limit of is achieved or exceeded, this latter stops applying for more ABR so that other BAPs, still in the game, will be left with more available resources.
We now compare the performance of greedy versus limited allocation modes in the context of manytoone matching.
As shown before, resource abundance or scarcity impacts tremendously the system behavior with a onetoone matching game. In the manytoone allocation mode, however, abundant versus scarce distinction does not matter this much. With no restriction imposed on access resources, the same “” configuration could be abundant for some BAPs and scarce for others. Here, the factor that matters the most is the order of preferences among the opposite sets.
As an illustrative example, we opt for a symmetric “” configuration. Figure 12 shows one particular realization of a matching between PAPs and BAPs for both onetoone and manytoone allocation modes in a “” configuration. Figures 13 and 14 show the individual performance in terms of achievable rate compared to the required capacity.
We observe a noticeable difference between the greedy versus limited resource allocation in terms of optimal matching and the related achievable backhaul rates . The greedy selection approach enables BAPs to greedily maximize their acquired capacity (e.g., BAP3 with 250% more than its required capacity), while the limited access to resources ensures both a fair resource distribution among BAPs and better percentage of satisfaction (up to 75% of BAPs reach their thresholds).
Figure 15 shows slight difference in terms of bandwidth consumption. For the limited resource allocation, even with restriction, PAPs still retain the right to discard BAPs with lower SINR. This way, it could sustain signal strength and communication speed. And so, a limited resource distribution meets fairness requirement with close spectral efficiency level as for the greedy resource allocation.
(a)
(b)
In most cases, the best strategy would be to satisfy the maximum number of APs within their limited threshold so as to satisfy most primary customers. The limited distribution is one way to reach more stable environment, balance load among BAPs, and spare larger shares of ABR.
To summarize, the limited manytoone allocation outperforms the greedy one in terms of fairly distributed throughput gain and higher satisfaction percentage. Yet, it is noteworthy that some challenges could face our system even with such optimized approach. In some extreme cases, we could end up in a greedy allocation case if one or more of BAPs ask for a required capacity that goes largely beyond required capacities’ average; that is, . In this case, an alternate way to fix thresholds (based on traffic pattern, location history, operator preferences, etc.) could be envisaged.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we proposed a distributed backhaul management approach for aggregating resources between providing and beneficiary APs in wireless local area networks. We formulated the problem as a manytoone matching game and solved it using the DA algorithm obtaining a solution that is both optimal and stable.
Our simulation results showed that the manytoone allocation scheme outperforms the onetoone scheme in terms of throughput gain especially in the abundant resource case. Considering unlimited access to resources, the manytoone matching ensures higher satisfaction percentage yet unbalanced resource assignment. The limited case provide, however, a more fair setting for the sharing of resources between beneficiaries as well as higher satisfaction levels.
As a future work, we intend to extend the work to the more complex case of manytomany setting, where PAPs will be allowed to split their share of ABR to serve more than one BAP at once.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.