Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Q-Learning-Based Time-Critical Data Aggregation Scheduling in IoT

Van-Vi Vo, Tien-Dung Nguyen, Duc-Tai Le, Hyunseung Choo

TL;DR

The paper tackles latency-critical data aggregation in IoT by unifying aggregation-tree construction and scheduling into a single Q-learning framework. It models the problem as an MDP with hashed states to scale to larger networks and uses a greedy, collision-free batch mechanism guided by a reward $r=|T|^2$ to maximize throughput per time slot. Empirical results on static networks with up to 300 nodes show latency reductions up to $10.87\%$ compared to a state-of-the-art heuristic, with notable gains in asymmetric topologies. This approach offers a scalable, low-latency path for time-sensitive IoT data aggregation, while future work aims to extend to dynamic topologies and energy-aware objectives.

Abstract

Time-critical data aggregation in Internet of Things (IoT) networks demands efficient, collision-free scheduling to minimize latency for applications like smart cities and industrial automation. Traditional heuristic methods, with two-phase tree construction and scheduling, often suffer from high computational overhead and suboptimal delays due to their static nature. To address this, we propose a novel Q-learning framework that unifies aggregation tree construction and scheduling, modeling the process as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) with hashed states for scalability. By leveraging a reward function that promotes large, interference-free batch transmissions, our approach dynamically learns optimal scheduling policies. Simulations on static networks with up to 300 nodes demonstrate up to 10.87% lower latency compared to a state-of-the-art heuristic algorithm, highlighting its robustness for delay-sensitive IoT applications. This framework enables timely insights in IoT environments, paving the way for scalable, low-latency data aggregation.

Q-Learning-Based Time-Critical Data Aggregation Scheduling in IoT

TL;DR

The paper tackles latency-critical data aggregation in IoT by unifying aggregation-tree construction and scheduling into a single Q-learning framework. It models the problem as an MDP with hashed states to scale to larger networks and uses a greedy, collision-free batch mechanism guided by a reward to maximize throughput per time slot. Empirical results on static networks with up to 300 nodes show latency reductions up to compared to a state-of-the-art heuristic, with notable gains in asymmetric topologies. This approach offers a scalable, low-latency path for time-sensitive IoT data aggregation, while future work aims to extend to dynamic topologies and energy-aware objectives.

Abstract

Time-critical data aggregation in Internet of Things (IoT) networks demands efficient, collision-free scheduling to minimize latency for applications like smart cities and industrial automation. Traditional heuristic methods, with two-phase tree construction and scheduling, often suffer from high computational overhead and suboptimal delays due to their static nature. To address this, we propose a novel Q-learning framework that unifies aggregation tree construction and scheduling, modeling the process as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) with hashed states for scalability. By leveraging a reward function that promotes large, interference-free batch transmissions, our approach dynamically learns optimal scheduling policies. Simulations on static networks with up to 300 nodes demonstrate up to 10.87% lower latency compared to a state-of-the-art heuristic algorithm, highlighting its robustness for delay-sensitive IoT applications. This framework enables timely insights in IoT environments, paving the way for scalable, low-latency data aggregation.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 18 sections, 2 equations, 6 figures, 3 tables, 2 algorithms.

Figures (6)

  • Figure 1: An overall reinforcement learning model.
  • Figure 2: Example of network state transitions. State $S_0$ contains a root node. Next state includes all nodes from previous states.
  • Figure 3: Example topology with scheduled and unscheduled nodes. Dashed lines are communication links.
  • Figure 4: Data aggregation schedule for a 50-Node Network (Sink center).
  • Figure 5: Data aggregation schedule for a 100-Node Network (Sink center).
  • ...and 1 more figures