Streaming Transmission of Poisson Traffic
Won S. Yoon
Cambridge, MA 02142 USA
Email: wonsyoon@alum.mit.edu
Abstract— We study the potential benefits of stream codes
for delay-constrained transmission of random arrivals of data.
Stream codes operate in a continuous manner by allowing new
data to be encoded and decoded at any time. We develop a
random-coding formulation for streaming that generalizes the
traditional block-coding model, and obtain exponentially tight
expressions for optimal decoding error as a function of decoding
delay. For a single-user channel with Poisson arrivals of fixed-
length packets, we obtain bounds on the end-to-end delay of
rate-adaptive stream codes and show that simple greedy rate
control policies achieve nearly optimal performance.
I. I NTRODUCTION
In modern communication networks, data is typically trans-
mitted as independent blocks, or packets. Achieving high
throughput and low error requires encoding a large amount
of data into long codewords, thus reaping the well-known
information-theoretic benefits of joint-coding efficiency. If the
data traffic is bursty and random, however, this results in large
queueing delays as the encoder must wait to collect data.
A more general transmission strategy is to relax the block-
coding constraint and allow data to be encoded and decoded
at any time in a continuous stream. We refer to this general
strategy as stream coding. Streaming achieves the benefits
of joint-coding efficiency without suffering extra encoding
(queueing) delay. The tradeoff, however, is potentially larger
decoding (transmission) delay due to jointly decoding with
both the past and the future data in the stream.
The goal of our study is twofold: first, to analyze this
fundamental tradeoff and determine the potential delay benefits
of streaming; second, to design rate control strategies that
minimize end-to-end delay, subject to constraints on average
transmission power and average probability of decoding er-
ror. We first develop an information-theoretic random-coding
framework to model the tradeoff between reliability and de-
coding delay for stream codes. Then we focus on Poisson
arrivals of fixed length packets and use queueing theory to
analyze the resulting end-to-end delay at the network layer.
Streaming transmission has long been a common technique
in the realm of convolutional codes, in which data is encoded
continuously in a stream and decoded using either block-based
(ML) decoders or symbol-based (MAP) decoders. The error-
versus-delay performance of streaming convolutional codes
was first investigated in [1] and more recently in [2]. Our
approach is from a fundamentally cross-layer perspective, in
which we analyze the network-layer delay performance of
physical-layer stream codes.
At Ut Xt Yt ^
U t-d
Rate Channel
channel
Channel
Ctrl Encoder Decoder
Transmitter
Fig. 1. The General System Model
II. F ORMULATION OF THE P ROBLEM
The canonical model of rate-adaptive streaming transmis-
sion is shown in Figure 1. Assume a time-slotted system.
In slot t, At packets of length m bits arrive randomly into
the transmitter’s queue, and the rate control removes Mt
packets from the queue to create a message Ut of dimension
2Mt m . The encoder takes this message, stores it in memory
and creates a new channel symbol from the entire history of
messages, Xt = f (U1 , . . . , Ut ). The receiver observes the
resulting channel output Yt and attempts to decode all the
messages {Û1 , . . . , Ût } using parallel per-message MAP de-
coding. As soon as a message accumulates sufficient reliability,
it is decoded and forwarded.
It is evident that this is a generalization of the traditional
block-coding model, which has the additional constraint that
data may be encoded (Mt > 0) only when all previous data
have been reliably decoded. This implies that the resulting
performance of stream codes can be no worse than that of
block codes, and in some scenarios may be strictly better.
The cost of this improvement is increased code memory and
processing, without requiring any extra channel resources such
as power or bandwidth.
A. The Encoder
The stream encoder is a rate-adaptive convolutional shift-
register-based encoder. The dynamics of the encoder can be
represented by a code tree (Figure 2), which is defined by
two parameters: the branch length, which is the minimum
delay between branching points (minimum delay between
encodings), and the branch dimension, which is the maximum
number of outgoing edges from a branching point (maximum
number of bits per encoding). Traditional convolutional codes
assume a fixed branch length N and fixed branch dimension
M , so that the tree grows at a constant rate of log M/N
bits per slot. Recently, punctured codes have been designed
to adapt the branch length N by removing some symbols
from the encoder’s output {Xt }, while keeping the branch
dimension M fixed (i.e., constant input rate to the encoder).
 In our study, we adapt both the length and dimension of
branches by controlling the code input rate Mt . This results
in a tree that grows at a time-varying rate. More input packets
result in more branches, while fewer input packets result in
fewer branches (and zero input packets results in no branching,
or parallel branches). When all the packets in the encoder
have achieved sufficient reliability, then the encoder purges it
memory and resets the tree to a fixed initial state.
For simplicity, we assume a binary control of either one
packet (Mt = 1) or zero packets (Mt = 0) encoded per slot.
This binary assumption suffers little loss of optimality when
the channel is power-limited, in which case only a few bits of
reliability are transmitted per channel use anyways.
T
Ut 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
t
0 Fig. 3. A sample path of the number of undecoded packets N (t) in the
1
subtrees
0 with correct
time-T bit.
1
Fig. 2. A sample path of an adaptive-rate encoder with encoded bits Ut ,
and the subtrees corresponding to the time-T packet, UT = 1.
B. The Decoder
The decoder has its own version of the code tree, on which
it employs per-packet MAP decoding. For the packet encoded
at time t, the decoder compares the aggregate likelihoods of
groups of paths, each group containing all subtrees that share
the same time-t branch. Figure 2 shows a sample path of a tree
in which two groups of subtrees (corresponding to UT = 0 and
UT = 1) each contain two subtrees. The decoder compares the
aggregate likelihood of the two subtrees with UT = 1 versus
the aggregate likelihood of the two subtrees with UT = 0.
At stage t+d, the decoder makes a decision on a packet that
was transmitted back at stage t by choosing the branch whose
corresponding group of subtrees has maximum likelihood.
The probability of error for this single branch decision, as
a function of decoding delay d, is derived in the next section.
At any given time, there may be multiple packets in trans-
mission (awaiting decisions). As soon as a packet accumulates
enough reliability, it is decoded and released. The per-packet
nature of MAP decoding allows packets to depart out of order.
In contrast, sequential and ML algorithms decode the best
overall path through the entire tree, and therefore data must be
decoded in a serial first-in-first-out manner. For our assumption
of binary encoding, it turns out that MAP decoding is also
serial and therefore all three algorithms have the same error-
versus-delay performance. However, for general non-binary
variable-rate transmission, MAP decoding achieves smaller
delay than sequential and ML decoding by allowing a later
low-rate stage to be decoded before an earlier high-rate stage.
2
C. Idle Periods and Resetting the Trellis
If there is a long enough lull in the arrivals during which
time all packets have been reliably transmitted, then both the
encoder and decoder erase their memory and re-synchronize
their trees. As soon as a new packet arrives, the encoding
process re-starts from a known initial state. We refer to “time
0” as the most recent re-synchronization point, which is equal
to the first arrival time after an idle period (i.e., the start of
a new busy period). Therefore, the encoding process can be
viewed as alternating cycles of “busy” and “idle” periods.
N(t)
encoder and the corresponding dynamics of the code tree.
If the queueing system is stable (arrival rate is strictly less
than the channel capacity), then it is known that the busy
periods are finite with probability one. Since the number of
packets in memory at any time is bounded by the number
of packets transmitted in a busy period, we are guaranteed
that the required memory and computational time are finite
with probability one, although they may be arbitrarily large
finite values. In practice finite code memory can be handled
by switching to block-coding mode and holding new data in
queue until old data is reliably decoded.
III. E RROR P ERFORMANCE FOR S TREAM C ODES
A fundamental issue for stream codes is the behavior of er-
ror probability as a function of decoding delay. For maximum-
likelihood decoding, [1] showed that the error probability as a
function of decoding delay satisfies the block random coding
exponent. We show an analogous result for the case of time-
varying code inputs with per-packet MAP decoding.
A. Error-versus-Delay for Real-Time Codes
Before analyzing the error performance of stream codes,
we address the subtle but important concept of “error versus
delay”. Traditional random coding analysis assumes a fixed
code length and proves the existence of a good code for that
code length. However, this says nothing about the error perfor-
mance when the same code is used at different code lengths
(different decoding delays). This is an important constraint
because in practice, it is impractical to switch codes in the
middle of a transmission. Therefore, we need to show the
existence of codes that are uniformly good for all code lengths,
not just for one particular code length. Similar results have
been independently derived in [1] and [2].
Define a real-time optimal code (xT1 , . . . , xTM ), as having
the property that all truncations (xt1 , . . . , xtM ), t = 1, . . . , T
n
have a probability of error Pem that is upper-bounded by the
block random coding error exponent.
Proposition 3.1. There exists a code (xT1 , . . . , xTM ) with trun- The error contribution of each adversarial group can be upper-
cations (xt1 , . . . , xtM ), t = 1, 2, . . . , T , such that Pe,m
t
is bounded by the the random coding bound for block codes.
uniformly bounded for every block length t ≤ T and every Using Proposition 3.1, we know that there exists a single code
message m = 1, . . . , M , for which the probability of error is upper-bounded by the
t random coding bound, for each decoding delay. Taking a union
Pe,m ≤ exp −tEr (m/t) for t ≥ C log M
bound over all such adversarial paths, the overall probability
where m = log M , and Er (R) = maxρ∈[0,1] {E0 (ρ) − Rρ} of error for decoding stage t as a function of decoding delay
is Gallager’s reliability function for block codes and C = d is upper-bounded
E0 (ρ)/ρ is channel capacity. Ãd−1 !ρ ∞
à −1 !ρ
Y X Y
−dnE0
The proof uses the Markov inequality and the union bound Pe ≤ Mt+i e Mt+i e−knE0
i=0 k=1 i=−k
to show that, for a random ensemble of codes, there is ( )
∞
X −1
X
a probability strictly less than one that every code in the Pd−1
ρmt+i −dnE0
ensemble has a truncation that exceeds the average error = e i=0 e exp ρmt+i e−knE0
k=1 i=−k
probability by a specified amount. ∞
Pd−1 X P
−dnE0 + i=0 ρmt+i −knE0 + −1
i=−k ρmt+i
B. Error Exponents for Real-Time MAP Decoding = e e
k=1
We use the previous result to analyze the error-versus-delay
performance of stream codes. Assume infinite code memory Simplifying the notation yields a general expression for the
(infinite constraint length) for ease of analysis. probability of error for decoding stage t after a delay d,
At time t, we decode stage τ < t using the observations " Nt
#
X
−dj E( ρ)+jmρ
y1t = (y1 , . . . , yt ). Define the maximum a posteriori probabil- Pe,t,d ≤ 1 + e e−dE0 (ρ)+(1+Nd )mρ (1)
ity of stage τ as Λ(y1t ) = maxx Pr(Xτ = x|Y1t = y1t ). It can k=1
be shown that this is proportional to the sum of likelihoods A lower bound can be derived by only considering the worst-
for paths that share a common stage-t, case (highest-rate) past adversary. The difference between the
X X
Λ(y1t ) ∼ max ··· Pr(Y1t = y1t |X1t = xt1 ) upper and lower bounds appears as different multiplicative
xτ
x1 /xτ xt
coefficients in front of the exponential term. In the asymptotic
limit of large decoding delay, the differences in this coefficient
In other words, finding the Xτ that maximizes the a posteriori becomes negligible.
probability is equivalent to finding the Xτ that maximizes the The random variables Nt and Nd denote the total number
aggregate likelihoods of all subtrees that emanate from it. of packets encoded in the past [0, t) and in the future (t, t+d],
Consider making a decision about time t just before reach- respectively. The random variable dj is the backwards delay
ing time t + d (decoding delay of d slots). Let Mt denote to the j-th previous packet, which is the sum of j inter-arrival
the number of different inputs possible at time t (i.e., the total Pj
times, dj = i=1 τi .
number of branches in stage t), which is equal to Mt = 2Ut m , In order to guarantee an average probability of error no
where Ut is again the number of packets encoded at time t. greater than ², the transmission (decoding) delay d must satisfy
Assume that the correct path corresponds to an information the following reliability condition
sequence of all zeros. Although the comparison at time t is  
XNt
only amongst Ut −1 other paths, there are actually many more 1
paths that are potential adversaries. An adversarial path is one dE0 − mρ + Nd mρ + log e−dj E0 +jmρ  ≥ log
j=0
²
that diverged from the correct path at or before time t.
1) Stage t: there are Mt − 1Qbranches that diverge from the To simplify notation, define σ = log 1² /E0 , µ = Eρ0 , φ(dN
1 )=
t

d−1
correct path, each with i=1 Mt+i subsequent tails of 1
P Nt −dj E0 +jmρ
E0 log j=0 e and aggregate terms on the right-
length d − 1. The total number of length-d paths that hand side to get a simplified reliability condition,
diverged from theQcorrect path at time t is therefore · ¸
d−1
Wt = (Mt − 1) i=1 Mt+i , which is upper-bounded 1 Nd
Qd−1 d ≥ σ+ + + φ(dN 1 )
t
(2)
by Wt ≤ i=0 Mt+i . µ µ
2) Stage (t − 1): there are Mt−1 − 1 branches that diverge The previous definitions have a useful interpretation: σ rep-
from the correct path, each with Wt subsequent tails of resents a setup cost for each new transmission, µ1 represents
length d that are incorrect in stage t. The total number the payload of a single packet (therefore µ is the maximum
of diverging paths of length d + 1 that are incorrect in throughput of the channel in packets per slot), and φ represents
stage t is therefore Wt−1 = Q(M t−1 − 1)Wt , which is the workload due to past encodings in the stream.
d−1
upper-bounded by Wt−1 ≤ i=−1 Mt+i . Therefore, reliable transmission of packet t is achieved
3) In general, in stage (t−k): the total number of diverging when the decoding delay d exceeds a threshold. Examining
paths of length d+k that are incorrect in stage t is upper-
Qd−1 the three terms on the right-hand side of Equation 2 more
bounded by Wt−k ≤ i=−k Mt+i . carefully: the first bracketed term represents the workload of

3
a single packet in isolation; the second term represents the denote the smallest such k, the optimal block-coding policy
workload due to packets encoded in the past; the third term is to wait and collect k ∗ packets per codeword. This results
represents the workload due to packets encoded in the future. in a queueing³delay´ equal to half the transmission delay,
Note that if there is no data in the past nor the future σµ
∗
Dblock = 32 µ−λ .
(Nt = Nd = 0) then the workload on the right-hand side
of Equation 2 is that of a single packet; this is not surprising, B. Stream Codes
as there is only one branching point at the root of the tree and As in the block-coding scenario, small values of throughput
the stream decoder is comparing a set of completely disjoint λ < d11 imply that each packet can be reliably transmitted
paths, which are essentially codewords in a block code. As before the next packet arrives. In this case, stream codes
more packets are encoded in the past and future of the stream, essentially behave like block codes by transmitting each packet
the workload (and decoding delay) for packet t increases. ∗
independently with delay equal to Dstream = d1 .
C. A Queueing Model For larger values of throughput λ, it can be shown that the
optimal stream code transmits each packet immediately upon
Using the reliability condition of Equation 2, a packet arrival. We call such a policy “greedy” because it transmits
transmission can be described in queueing-theoretic terms: each packet as quickly as possible, with minimal queueing.
1) A new packet enters service with an initial workload of More precisely, for λ ≥ d11 , the reliability condition in Equa-
σ + µ1 + φ, where σ is a fixed setup cost, µ1 is the packet tion 2 can be evaluated with Nd = bdλc and dj = j/λ to yield,
1 1
payload and φ is the additional work due to existing log 1
∗
Dstream = σµ+1
µ−λ +
mρ
µ−λ
1−β
, where β = e− λ E0 +mρ is
packets already in service. the single-stage error probability. The last log term represents
2) The new packet causes all existing packets in service the extra delay due to joint decoding with the past (and turns
to incur an additional workload of µ1 , equal to the new out to be negligible).
packet’s payload. Figure 4 illustrates the necessity of a minimum number of
3) Every packet in service receives one unit of service per packet per encoding, for both block codes and stream codes. In
slot. When a packet accumulates sufficient service to both cases, a sufficiently large number of packets is required
satisfy Equation 2, it departs the system. per encoding in order to maintain stability for large values of
This model is somewhat reminiscent of the queueing-theoretic throughput. Namely, the encoder must ensure that k/λ > dk
notion of processor-sharing, but there are two key differences in order to guarantee that the number of undecoded packets
here: (1) the joint workload of packets is less than the sum of in the system does not grow unbounded.
their individual workloads, thanks to joint coding efficiency,
and (2) packets encoded in the future impose more workload unstable unstable stable

than packets encoded in the past. 1/λ 2/λ 3/λ

This queueing model highlights a fundamental delay trade-

off in stream codes: encoding more packets per slot reduces d1 d2 d3
the queueing delay for future packets, but at the expense of
increasing transmission delay for older packets. The goal of not yet not yet done
rate control is to find the optimal balance in this tradeoff. 1/λ 2/λ 3/λ

IV. D ETERMINISTIC A RRIVALS

We begin with the simple case in which one packet arrives
every fixed interval of 1/λ slots. This over-simplified example
is aimed at elucidating the fundamental issues.
A. Block Codes
Define dk as the delay required to reliably transmit k packets
in a single transmission: dk = σ + µk . If the packet arrival rate
is small enough (inter-arrival durations are large enough), then
each packet can be encoded and transmitted before the next
arrival. More precisely, if λ < d11 , then the optimal per-packet
∗
delay is simply its transmission delay: Dblock = d1 .
For larger values of arrival rate λ, the next packet arrives too
quickly and must be jointly-coded with the previous packet.
Due to the block-coding constraint, this implies that previous
packet(s) must be held in queue until a sufficient number of
packets arrive to achieve the necessary joint-coding efficiency.
More precisely, for fixed λ, stability requires that the number
of packets k per codeword satisfy: k ≥ λdk . Letting k ∗
d1 d2 d3
Fig. 4. Minimum number of packets required per encoding for block
codes (top) and stream codes (bottom).
Note that in the high-throughput regime, λ > d11 , stream
codes are continuously transmitting data with no idle periods.
This implies that the memory and processing of the system
must grow unbounded. This is an artifact of systems that are
perfectly deterministic. For random arrivals, a stable system
has idle periods that occur with infinite recurrence. Therefore,
the memory and computation is guaranteed not to grow
unbounded as long as the system is stable.
V. P OISSON A RRIVALS
Now assume that packets arrive randomly according to a
Poisson process. We derive upper and lower bounds on the
average packet delay, and show that greedy policies achieve

4

nearly-optimal performance. Furthermore, the results indicate
that stream codes achieve strictly smaller delay than block
codes, and that the difference grows larger in the power-
limited (wideband) regime. The analysis here closely mirrors
that of [3] for block codes.
A. Lower Bound on Delay
A simple lower bound is obtained by ignoring the queueing
delay and lower-bounding the streaming transmission delay
in Equation 2. Using the randomization technique from [3],
we assume that there exists a steady-state average number of
packets encoded per slot, Pr(packet encoded in a slot) = α
(where α > λ for stability of the queue itself). This results in
a random decoding delay in Equation 2, which we can take
the expected value of with respect to the encoding distribution.
On the right hand-side, we recognize that Nd = αd > λd and
ignore the log term to obtain the lower bound
∗ σµ + 1
E[Dstream ] ≥
µ−λ
B. Upper Bound on Delay
An upper bound is obtained by analyzing a particular
policy. Consider a greedy policy that encodes each packet
immediately upon arrival, with no queueing. The transmission
delay in Equation 2 is analyzed by substituting Nd = dλ,
h P
1 Nt −dj E0 +jmρ
σµ + 1 E log e
∗ mρ j=0
E[Dstream ] ≤ +
µ−λ µ−λ
The expected value is taken with respect to the distribution of
the inter-arrival times, τi , i = 1, . . . , j subject to the constraint
P • Showed that greedy rate control policies achieve nearly
j
i=1 τi = dj < t and the constraint that the interval [0, t)
must be a busy period. As in the case of deterministic arrivals,
this log term turns out to be negligible.
The results of these expressions are plotted for an AWGN
channel with different values of SNR. It can be seen that the
upper and lower bounds are very close, implying that greedy
policies are nearly optimal for Poisson arrivals. This is similar
to the result in [3], which showed that greedy policies are
nearly optimal for rate-adaptive block codes. For comparison,
we have independently obtained delay bounds for block codes,
3 3
2 σµ ∗ 2 (σµ + 1)
≤ E[Dblock ] ≤
µ−λ µ−λ
Our results appear to indicate that stream codes achieve strictly
smaller delay than block codes, and that the gap increases for
smaller values of SNR.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS AND D ISCUSSION
We have analyzed the use of streaming channel codes for
transmitting bursty data. We developed a general random
coding framework that encompasses both block codes and
stream codes, and derived the error exponent as a function of
delay for real-time MAP decoding. The fundamental quantity
that governs the real-time error exponent is the block coding
reliability function. This adds to the analogous results shown
50000
40000
30000
delay (slots)
20000
10000
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
utilization factor
Fig. 5. Greedy block codes (dashed) compared with greedy stream
codes (solid) for an AWGN channel with SNR A = 1, 0.1 and 0.01 from
right to left. The lower bound for stream codes (finely dotted) is also
plotted to show the near-optimality of greedy policies.
(3)
by other authors for ML decoding and sequential decoding,
and suggests that Gallager’s block coding error exponent
determines the fundamental behavior of error versus delay for
coding systems under a wide variety of decoding algorithms.
Under the assumptions that the packet arrival times have
either a deterministic or Poisson distribution, we have:
i • Obtained bounds on the optimal delay of stream codes,
and showed that they appear to be very tight.
• Analyzed the difference in delay between optimal stream
(4) codes and optimal block codes, and showed that the
difference is more significant in the power-limited regime.
optimal delay for stream codes.
In the result for greedy policies, Equation 4, the fact that the
log term (representing the delay due to jointly decoding with
the past) was negligible is likely due to the rather uniform
nature of deterministic and Poisson arrivals. For more bursty
arrivals with high probability of short inter-arrivals, we suspect
that this extra delay term will be more significant and degrade
the performance of greedy policies.
Finally, note that the common denominator appearing in
Equations 3 through 5 is proportional to E0 (ρ) − λmρ, which
is Gallager’s reliability function. This implies a fundamental
(5) relationship between physical-layer reliability and network-
layer delay: for a fixed channel coding strategy, the resulting
error exponent determines the gap between the arrival rate and
the system capacity, µ − λ, which is a fundamental measure
of performance in queueing theory. This is analogous to the
well-known information-theoretic fact that the error exponent
represents the gap between code rate and channel capacity.
R EFERENCES
[1] G.D. Forney, “Convolutional codes ii: maximum-likelihood decod-
ing,”Information and Control, 25:222-266, 1974.
[2] A. Sahai, “Why block length and delay are not the same thing,” submitted
2006 to IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, preprint arXiv: cs.IT/0610138.
[3] S. Musy and E. Telatar, “On the transmission of bursty sources,” Pro-
ceedings, 2006 Int. Symp. on Information Theory, Seattle, July 2006.