IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 69, NO.
1, JANUARY 2020
Flexible DRX Optimization for LTE and 5G
Farnaz Moradi , Emma Fitzgerald , Michał Pióro , and Björn Landfeldt
Abstract—With the advancement of the next generation of cel-
lular systems, flexible mechanisms for Discontinuous Reception
(DRX) are needed in order to save energy. 5G will bring hetero-
geneous packet sizes and traffic types, as well as an increasing
need for energy efficiency. The current static DRX mechanism is
inadequate to meet these needs. In this paper we exploit channel
prediction to develop integer programming models. We aim to
minimize the energy usage of user devices while streaming video, as
well as to create extended sleep opportunities, while simultaneously
preventing buffer underflows. We also develop an online algorithm
to obtain an efficient solution robust to prediction errors. Our
results show that using a variable DRX cycle length can reduce
the energy usage by up to 60 percent and 40 percent, in the offline
and online cases, respectively, compared with a static DRX configu-
ration. Our proposed online algorithm can also reduce the number
of buffer underflows by up to 97 percent compared to the offline
case. Both our online and offline solutions can provide extended
DRX opportunities, which is required in 5G scenarios.
Index Terms—5G, DRX, integer programming, resource
allocation, video streaming, energy efficiency.
I. INTRODUCTION
Y 2022, it is expected that video will account for 79 percent
B of the world’s mobile data traffic [1]. Many 5G scenar-
ios, such as Internet of Things (IoT) applications, rescue and
emergency scenarios, and surveillance cameras, will use video
transmission. However, video transmission is one of the most
energy-demanding applications. Thus, energy saving mecha-
nisms are needed to enhance energy efficiency, and prolong the
battery life of future mobile devices.
Manuscript received July 24, 2018; revised February 6, 2019, May 10, 2019,
July 16, 2019, and September 6, 2019; accepted October 8, 2019. Date of
publication November 8, 2019; date of current version January 15, 2020. The
work of F. Moradi was supported in part by “Excellence Center at Linkping-Lund
in Information Technology, Sweden”. The work of E. Fitzgerald was sup-
ported by National Science Centre, Poland, under Grant 2017/25/B/ST7/02313,
“Packet routing and transmission scheduling optimization in multi-hop wireless
networks with multicast traffic,” in part by the CELTIC-NEXT Project 5G
PERFECTA under Grant C2017/3-1, in part by the Swedish Foundation for
Strategic Research project SEC4FACTORY under Grant SSF RIT17-0032, and
in part by the “Excellence Center at Linkping-Lund in Information Technology,
Sweden”. The work of M. Pióro was supported by the National Science Centre,
Poland, under Grant 2017/25/B/ST7/02313, “Packet routing and transmission
scheduling optimization in multi-hop wireless networks with multicast traf-
fic”. The work of Björn Landfeldt was supported by “Excellence Center at
Linkping-Lund in Information Technology, Sweden”. The review of this article
was coordinated by Dr. X. Ge. (Corresponding author: Farnaz Moradi.)
F. Moradi and B. Landfeldt are with the Department of Electrical and In-
formation Technology, Lund University, 22100 Lund, Sweden (e-mail: farnaz.
moradi@eit.lth.se; bjorn.landfeldt@eit.lth.se).
E. Fitzgerald is with the Department of Electrical and Information Technology,
Lund University, 22100 Lund, Sweden, and also with the Institute of Telecom-
munications, Warsaw University of Technology, 00-661 Warsaw, Poland (e-mail:
emma.fitzgerald@eit.lth.se).
M. Pióro is with the Institute of Telecommunications, Warsaw University of
Technology, 00-661 Warsaw, Poland (e-mail: m.pioro@tele.pw.edu.pl).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2019.2952251
0018-9545 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
607
DRX was introduced as an energy saving mechanism in
4G Long-Term Evolution (4G-LTE) to save energy of User
Equipments (UEs) by allowing them to switch to sleep mode,
and wake up occasionally to listen to the channel and check
for incoming data. The conventional DRX mechanism uses a
fixed, network-wide combination of DRX parameters for all UEs
in the network. However, this kind of DRX configuration can
lead to either long packet delays due to too-long sleep cycles,
or high energy usage due to unnecessarily frequent transitions
between the sleep and active modes. DRX is expected to play
an even more important role in 5G [2]. However, due to the
heterogeneous application mix in 5G, the conventional DRX
mechanism with its predefined configuration, would not be
efficient in 5G [3]. Thus, in future networks, there will be a
greater demand for variable and flexible DRX configuration.
In this paper, we utilize channel capacity predictions to jointly
optimize resource allocation and DRX configuration for video
streaming applications. The objective is to use the channel pre-
dictions in order to minimize the energy usage of UEs, and create
longer sleep opportunities, while preventing video interruptions
(interruptions due to buffer underflow).
After solving this optimization problem offline, we perform
an analytical study of the impact of channel prediction errors,
prediction window size, and buffer threshold on offline DRX
optimization. Then, in order to overcome the problem of buffer
underflows in the presence of prediction errors, and in order
to have an online solution, we propose a lightweight, online,
heuristic algorithm. The algorithm can modify DRX config-
urations dynamically, in order to maintain smooth streaming
and robustness against prediction errors. Moreover, it creates
extended sleep opportunities, allowing UEs to switch to the
RRC-idle state if needed. Both our offline and online schemes
increase network capacity by scheduling UEs in good channel
conditions and allowing them to buffer data. UEs can then switch
to the sleep mode while they use the buffered data. To the best of
our knowledge, no previous work proposes an online algorithm
for joint optimization of resource allocation and DRX that is
robust against prediction errors. We also provide an analytical
study about the impact of channel prediction window size,
prediction errors, and buffer thresholds of UEs. Our analytical
study provides significant insight into the impact of various
network parameters on the sleep opportunity of UEs and buffer
underflows.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
discusses background and related work. Our system model is
discussed in Section III. Section IV presents the optimization
problem. The implementation of the optimization problem and
our investigation of the impact of window size and buffer
threshold are presented in Section V. Sections VI and VII present
608 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 69, NO. 1, JANUARY 2020
the proposed online algorithm, and its implementation and
results, respectively. Section VIII, provides a brief discussion
about the results. Finally, Section IX concludes the paper.
II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
The importance of DRX for 5G is discussed in [2]–[11],
among others. There are two important issues to address when
considering DRX for 5G. First, in 5G, traffic profiles and packet
sizes can vary significantly, which raises the need to develop
new variable DRX cycles. Second, considering the enormous
number of 5G devices, it is not feasible to keep all devices in
RRC-connected all the time [6]. Therefore, it is important to
create longer sleep opportunities for UEs, which allows them
to switch to RRC-idle mode sometimes, leading to increased
capacity and efficiency of the network.
The problem of adjustable DRX configuration has been stud-
ied in a large body of existing work [12]–[14]. In [13], users
are scheduled for reception based on their DRX cycles and
buffer occupancies. However, DRX is not optimized and channel
capacity predictions are not utilized. Instead, data transmission
is scheduled according to DRX cycles, which can result in high
delay and UEs can still starve. In [15], the authors propose a
traffic regulation scheme together with DRX, where only high
priority traffic is able to wake up the device and lower priority
traffic never disturbs the sleep duration of UEs. However, in
their work, delay can increase due to traffic buffering and time
slicing. Also, only static (conventional) DRX is used. In [16],
online learning-based DRX for machine type communication
is proposed, where DRX is set at each time slot. However,
channel prediction is not used and the chance of extended sleep
opportunities (more than one time slot) is reduced. In [17], the
authors propose a traffic-based DRX configuration that uses
traffic estimations to decide on DRX parameters. However,
video is not their concern. Moreover, they do not utilize channel
predictions when configuring DRX parameters. In [3], the DRX
configuration is selected based on the traffic profiles of the
UEs. This approach is based on creating a set of suitable DRX
configurations for different traffic models and then selecting
the best configuration from the set. Although this approach
reduces energy usage, it does not utilize channel information.
In fact, different UEs with different channel quality and buffer
occupancy use the same DRX settings, which does not provide
the required flexibility.
Despite some enhancement in energy usage, the above ap-
proaches leave several issues unsatisfactorily addressed. For
example, buffer underflows are possible and their occurrence
depends heavily on the DRX cycle length. Furthermore, most
of these studies focus on adjusting a fixed combination of DRX
parameters within the bounds of the available sleep opportunity,
rather than creating (extended) sleep opportunities.
In this work, we instead utilize channel bandwidth predictions
in order to jointly optimize DRX and resource allocation, which
leads to longer sleep opportunities for the UEs. The idea of
bandwidth prediction based on location-bandwidth look-up ta-
bles is well established and investigated thoroughly in [18]–[21].
We focus on the particular case of video streaming and protect
Fig. 1. Sample channel model. The red curve shows instantaneous channel
capacity, while the blue curve represents average channel capacity over its
coherence time.
against buffer underflows, while taking into account users’ chan-
nel quality in order to maximize their sleep opportunities.
Our work in this paper builds on our previous work in [22].
In [22], we utilized the knowledge of future channel capacities
to minimize the energy usage of UEs, and introduced two novel
DRX schemes, namely DRXset and variable-DRX (VDRX).
However, in that work, channel capacities are randomly gen-
erated, rather than being based on the UEs’ mobility patterns.
Moreover, the problem formulation in [22] does not consider the
order of reception for UEs when multiple UEs are scheduled in
one time slot. It is important to consider this ordering because it
affects frequency of scheduling and selection of DRX cycles.
Our current paper extends [22] by calculating channel ca-
pacities based on UEs’ mobility patterns. Also, the optimization
problem is extended to consider the order of scheduling for mul-
tiple UEs. Moreover, our current paper proposes the following
novel contributions:
r The impact of the prediction errors, the size of the pre-
diction window, and the value of the buffer threshold is
studied.
r An online algorithm is proposed to increase robustness
against prediction errors, and to provide a dynamically
adjustable solution.
III. SYSTEM MODEL
In this section we describe the channel prediction based on the
UE’s mobility pattern, briefly discuss three DRX schemes that
we use throughout the paper, and explain our resource allocation
scheme.
A. Mobility Pattern and Channel Prediction
The UEs’ mobility is modeled as the UE directly approaching
the base station (BS) at a constant speed, and then moving away
from it in the same way, within one cell. Fig. 1 illustrates a sample
channel model for one of the UEs, where the blue curve is the
average channel capacity that we will use throughout this paper.
Moreover, it is assumed that the average capacity of the channel
MORADI et al.: FLEXIBLE DRX OPTIMIZATION FOR LTE AND 5G 609

is constant during a coherence time. For a vehicular speed of

70 km/h, this coherence time is approximately 1 second [21].
The BS-UE distance is calculated in intervals of one second
(i.e. the coherence time). This distance is then fed into P L =
P (d0 ) − 10n log10 (d) (in decibels), where P (d0 ) is the received
power at a reference distance d0 , n is the path loss exponent,
and d is the BS–UE distance in kilometers [23]. The received
power and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) are then calculated us-
ing Pr = Pt − P L and SN R = Pr − N oise, respectively (in
decibels), where Pt and Pr represent transmitted and received
power, respectively. Finally we calculate the average capacity of
the channel during the coherence time using Shannon’s capacity
formula: Fig. 2. Utilization of sleep opportunities using (a) static DRX (b) DRXset,
and (c) variable DRX.
C = Tc W log2 (1 + SN R), (1)

where C is the average capacity of the channel at a specific

BS-UE distance during the coherence time, Tc is the coherence
time, W is bandwidth (in Hertz), and SN R is converted from
decibels to Watts as required for the Shannon formula.

B. DRX
DRX incorporates several configurable parameters such as
DRX on-duration, DRX inactivity timer, long and short DRX
cycle length, and short cycle timer. After data reception, the
UE starts an inactivity timer. If no data arrives and the inactivity
timer expires, the UE switches to short DRX cycles. After several
short DRX cycles, if there is still no data, the UE starts long DRX
cycles. During short and long DRX cycles, the UE wakes up in
predefined periods, called on-duration, to check the Physical
Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) for incoming data. Pack-
ets that arrive during the sleep time will be buffered in the BS
until the next on-duration [24]. In this work we consider three
DRX schemes: Static DRX (SDRX, a conventional static DRX
configuration), DRXset, and VDRX, which are preliminarily
Fig. 3. Resource allocation policy (a) mini slot (b) conventional resource
studied in [22]. allocation (c) our proposed cumulative allocation.
In the conventional DRX scheme, the length of the DRX
cycles are fixed and predefined. DRXset follows the same pattern
as SDRX, which means that the UE is forced to have an on
This eliminates the need for the inactivity timer and short DRX
duration after each sleep cycle. However, DRXset selects the
cycles.
best cycle length from a set of admissible values of DRX cycles.
Fig. 2 illustrates how the three DRX schemes utilize sleep
Also, DRXset can select different cycle lengths for different
opportunities within one time slot. Here the duration of the time
UEs. However, once a value is selected from the set, it will be
slot is 1000 ms and data reception starts at time 250 ms and lasts
used for that specific UE for the whole prediction window.
until 500 ms. As can be seen in Fig. 2, in the case of SDRX and
In VDRX, the length of the sleep cycle can vary. Even in one
DRXset, if the remaining time to the end of the slot is insufficient
time slot, two sleep cycles with different lengths can occur, one
for a full DRX cycle, the UE must stay in active mode without
before data reception and one after. In this paper, the knowledge
data reception. This period is called waste time hereafter. The
of channel predictions makes it possible to decide when and for
data reception period and the waste period are the most energy-
how long each UE receives data. This means that UEs do not
hungry modes of DRX. However, VDRX can utilize any sleep
need to have unnecessary on-durations to listen to the channel for
opportunity due to its flexible sleep duration.
incoming data. Therefore, in the case of VDRX, the on-duration
happens directly before data reception.
C. Resource Allocation
In this work, we only use long DRX cycles without any
inactivity timer. This is possible thanks to our two assumptions: In this paper, as in [22], resource allocation is based on mini
first, channel predictions are available, and second, data is stored slots. As shown in Fig. 3, each mini slot is defined as one
inside the radio access network. Based on these assumptions, transmission time interval (TTI) in duration (the length of one
the BS can decide when and how much data to send to each UE. LTE resource block pair, i.e. 1 millisecond) and 20 MHz in
610 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 69, NO. 1, JANUARY 2020

TABLE I
NOTATION USED IN THE PROBLEM FORMULATION

Fig. 4. Impact of ordering constraints on scheduling decisions. With ordering

constraints, more scheduling occasions are required, which increases the UE’s
energy usage.

frequency. Instead of conventional allocation of resource block

(RB) pairs, here, entire mini slots are allocated to UEs. If a mini
slot is allocated to a user, then the total number of RBs during
that TTI is dedicated to that user. In each time slot, either all mini
slots or a fraction of them can be allocated to each user, but once
a mini slot is allocated to a given user, no other users may share
it. The reason for this type of contiguous resource allocation is
that it wakes up each UE at most once during each time slot. This
provides more sleep opportunity for UEs by avoiding frequent
transitions between sleep and active modes. Also, this method
of resource allocation makes the optimization problem more
tractable as it reduces the number of variables and constraints
needed.

IV. PROBLEM FORMULATION

Before formulating our optimization problem, we first need to
consider the order of reception when multiple UEs are scheduled
in one time slot. In the example in Fig. 4, when considering order
of reception, the UE is scheduled in a total of ten slots, while
without ordering, it is only scheduled in four slots. This shows
that, including the order of reception changes the solution of the
optimization problem. Although the total data received is the
same, depending on the DRX cycle length, there can be waste
time in each scheduled slot, which costs more energy. Hence it
is important to include this order of scheduling in the problem
formulation.
Table I summarizes the notation used in our formulation.
The channel prediction window is composed of S (time) slots
and each slot s ∈ S (where S = {1, 2 . . . , S} denotes the set
of slots) is composed of T mini slots. Each user c ∈ C (where
C = {1, 2 . . . , C} denotes the set of users) is characterized by
the following (given) parameters: D(c) denotes the video display
rate, Q(c) is the lower threshold of the buffer content, H(s, c) is
the average capacity of the channel for user c in slot s (which is
assumed to be known as per Section III-A). There are K different
DRX cycles, and the duration of cycle k ∈ K is specified by
τ (k) (where τ (k) ≤ T and K = {1, 2 . . . , K} denotes the set
of allowable cycles). The amount of received data (in bits) Rcs
for user c at slot s is expressed as follows:
Rcs = H(s, c)Ncs , (2)
where Rcs is the amount of received data in bits, H(s, c) is the
average channel capacity, and Ncs is the number of allocated mini
slots. Higher data rates can be achieved either by transmitting
during good channel states or by allocating more mini slots
(airtime). Scheduling UEs during their best channel conditions
reduces the reception time, which increases the DRX sleep
opportunity.
The basic variables to be optimized are Ncs (the integer
variables specifying the number of mini slots assigned to each
user c in each slot s) and yck (the binary variables selecting the
DRX cycle k for each user c). Aside from these, the problem
formulation makes use of integer variables Zcs (the number of
mini slots in each slot s during which each user c is active without
data reception), msck (equal to the number of DRX cycles that
have taken place for each user c in each slot s; this number
is equal to zero if yck = 0 and can be greater than 0 only
MORADI et al.: FLEXIBLE DRX OPTIMIZATION FOR LTE AND 5G 611

for yck = 1), jcks

(the number of DRX cycles that have taken no reception (the second term, considered as a waste period),
place before reception for each user c in each slot s), tsck (the and DRX cycles (the third term). The energy usage during
exact time at which each user c starts reception in slot s), and DRX on-duration and transition between different DRX states is
qcs (the buffer occupancy of each user c at the beginning of each included in E(3). Constraint (3b) ensures that the total number
slot s; qc0 is a given initial buffer occupancy for user c). The of mini slots (airtime) dedicated to user c in slot s does not
problem formulation also uses binary variables xsc (equal to 1 exceed T (where T is the slot duration). Next, equation (3c)
if user c receives any data in slot s and 0 otherwise) and uscd defines (recursively) the buffer occupancies at the beginning of
(equal to 1 if user c receives data before user d in slot s and 0 consecutive slots, while inequality (3d) prevents qcs from falling
otherwise). The problem is formulated as the following integer below Q(c). This constraint forces the BS to transmit data to
program, in which constraints (3a)–(3f) and (3p) are taken from users whose buffer is very close to Q(c), even if they do not
the formulation in [22]. The rest of the constraints are new for have good channel conditions. The BS can avoid this situation
the current work. by filling the buffer when the channel state is good and making
  sure that the transmitted data is enough for the buffer to last until
 
min E = E(1)Ncs + E(2)Zcs + E(3) msck the next good channel state. This means that neither the BS nor
c∈C s∈S k∈K
the UE have to waste energy by transmitting under bad channel
(3a) conditions.
 While managing the buffer, the BS should also decide on the
Ncs ≤ T, s ∈ S (3b) best DRX cycle length to minimize energy usage. Constraint
c∈C (3e) indicates whether or not DRX cycle k will be used by user
qcs = qcs−1 + H(s − 1, c)Ncs−1 − D(c), c, and inequality (3f) allows msck , the number of DRX cycles
that have taken place for user c in each slot s, to be greater than
c ∈ C, s ∈ S (3c)
0 only for the (unique) cycle k selected by yck = 1. This part is
Q(c) ≤ s ∈ S, c ∈ C
qcs , (3d) a general formulation for all three DRX approaches. Of course,

yck = 1, c ∈ C, k ∈ K (3e) in SDRX and VDRX, yck will not be used: for SDRX the DRX
k∈K
cycle length is a constant parameter, while for VDRX, all time
in the slot that is not used for reception is used for DRX cycles
T
msck ≤ yck , s ∈ S, c ∈ C, k ∈ K (3f) of arbitrary length.
τ (k) In constraint (3g) integer variable jcks
is introduced to count
T the number of DRX cycles before the start of data reception. tsck
s
jck ≤ yck , s ∈ S, c ∈ C, k ∈ K (3g)
τ (k) in constraint (3h) indicates when (in which mini slot) user c starts
 receiving. Constraint (3i) forces binary variable xsc to be one only
tsck = τ (k)jck
s
, s ∈ S, c ∈ C, k ∈ K (3h) if user c receives in slot s and zero otherwise. Inequalities (3j)
k∈K and (3k) together make sure that ucd is set to zero if at least one
Ncs of the users c or d is not receiving in slot s. Constraints (3l) and
≤ xsc ≤ Ncs , s ∈ S, c ∈ C (3i)
T (3m) together make sure that if both users c and d are receiving
uscd ≤ xsc , c, d ∈ C, s ∈ S, c = d (3j) in slot s, then one of them receives before the other (either ucd
or udc must be one). (If neither of them is receiving then both
uscd ≤ xsd , c, d ∈ C, s ∈ S, c = d (3k) ucd and udc will be zero.)
uscd + usdc ≤ 1, c, d ∈ C, s ∈ S, c = d (3l) Constraint (3n) makes sure that the sum of the time spent
before and during the reception period does not exceed the
uscd + usdc ≥ xsc + xsd − 1, c, d ∈ C, s ∈ S, c = d duration of the time slot. Constraint (3o) requires that if both
(3m) users c and d are receiving in slot s then user c finishes its
tsck + Ncs ≤ T, s ∈ S, c ∈ C, k ∈ K, c = d (3n) reception period before user d starts. In this case according to
the previous constraints mentioned above, ucd is set to one,
tsck + Ncs ≤ tsdk + T (1 − ucd ), so the second term of the right hand side (T (1 − ucd )) will
c, d ∈ C, s ∈ S, k ∈ K, c = d (3o) be canceled. If only one or none of the users receives data in
 slot s then ucd is set to zero (by the preceding constraints),
Ncs + Zcs + τ (k)msck = T, c ∈ C, s ∈ S, k ∈ K and then constraints (3o) and (3n) together make sure that
k∈K user c will finish its reception period in time before the end
(3p) of the slot. Finally, Equation (3p) ensures that the reception,
waste, and DRX durations for each user sum up to the slot
Ncs , Zcs , qcs , jck
s
, tsck , msck ∈ Z+ , c ∈ C, s ∈ S, k ∈ K duration.
(3q)
yck , xsc , ucd ∈ B, c, d ∈ C, s ∈ S, k ∈ K. (3r) V. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
The objective (3a) is to minimize the total UE energy usage, E, We implemented formulation (3) in the AMPL [25] mod-
during the three states of reception (the first term), active with eling language and solved it using the CPLEX [26] integer
612
TABLE II
PARAMETERS USED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
Fig. 5. Energy usage, optimal solution to formulation (3), 10 UEs.
programming solver for different video display rates. Our sce-
nario assumes UEs with vehicular speed of 70 km/h moving
inside a cell. During the simulations each UE changes directions
several times, by moving towards the BS and then away from it.
This movement pattern is repeated during the whole prediction
window. The time slot duration, T , is set to match the channel
coherence time, during which average channel capacity does not
change significantly. We therefore set T to 1 second.
The channel prediction window size can be set according to
the scenario. Here it is set to 240 time slots (seconds), which is
reasonable in terms of accuracy of prediction. Meanwhile 240
time slots is not too long, so it eliminates the risk of waste of
resources if a user stops watching. Table II summarizes the im-
plementation parameters used. These are identical to those used
in our previous work [22]. As mentioned earlier, the path loss
parameters, P (d0 ) and n (received power at a reference distance
and path loss exponent, respectively) are as specified by the 3rd
Generation Partnership Project model for macro cells [23]. The
values of E(1), E(2), and E(3) are taken from [27].
Figure 5 shows the mean energy usage per UE per time
slot, for the DRX variants, with the 95% confidence intervals.
As expected, and consistent with the results in [22], VDRX
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 69, NO. 1, JANUARY 2020
TABLE III
SCALABILITY OF VDRX, FOR 1200 Kbps VIDEO DISPLAY RATE
outperforms both DRXset and SDRX in terms of energy usage.
The difference to the results in [22] is that here the channel
prediction is based on mobility pattern, and order of reception is
considered in the optimization problem. This means that VDRX
can reduce energy usage while maintaining smooth streaming
(i.e. without buffer underflows). However these results assume
perfect channel predictions. Therefore, it is worthwhile to in-
vestigate the performance in the presence of prediction errors,
which is discussed in the next section.
A. Scalability
In order to investigate the scalability of the optimization
problem, we solved it for 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 UEs. For this,
the bandwidth needed to be changed from 20 MHz to 80 MHz in
order to make the problem feasible while keeping it consistent
with the same starting conditions as we used for smaller numbers
of users. Although this is not a realistic choice of bandwidth in
LTE, it is used as an illustrative example to show how the solution
time scales with the number of users. Table III shows the time
complexity of VDRX, for a 1200 kbps video display rate.
As is typical for this kind of optimization problem, the so-
lution time scales exponentially with the number of users, in
particular since we have constraints and variables relating to
each pair of users. With a scheduling period of 240 s, the solution
time is reasonable for 60 users, however with 80 users it is more
than double the scheduling period, and for 100 users it increases
to approximately 19 minutes — far too long in relation to the
channel prediction horizon. These times may be expected to
reduce somewhat with the solver running on more powerful
hardware, but nonetheless indicate a need for a more efficient,
online solution when there is a large number of concurrent
users. To address this, we will introduce an online algorithm
in Section VI.
B. Variable Prediction Errors
In order to study the impact of channel prediction errors
on the performance of different DRX schemes, we added a
normally distributed random noise component, η ∼ N (0, σ 2 ),
to the channel prediction matrix, and then tested different values
of the noise variance, σ 2 . Therefore, while the BS assumes that
each user c receives an amount of data equal to H(s − 1, c)Ncs−1 ,
as in constraint (3c), the real dynamics of the buffer are calcu-
lated as qcs = qcs−1 + He (s − 1, c)Ncs−1 − D(c), where He =
H(s, c) + η is the channel matrix with added noise.
MORADI et al.: FLEXIBLE DRX OPTIMIZATION FOR LTE AND 5G
Fig. 6. mean number of buffer underflows, optimal solution to the optimization
problem, 10 UEs.
Since the optimization problem is run once for the whole
prediction window, the BS cannot use the feedback about buffer
occupancies of the UEs. Thus, the prediction errors do not affect
the energy usage here, but they affect the number of buffer
underflows. Fig. 6 shows the number of buffer underflows in
the presence of channel prediction errors. Buffer underflows are
counted for each slot, that is, if a UE’s buffer drops below the
threshold in a given slot and remains low for multiple slots,
each slot until the buffer again returns to above the threshold is
counted as a separate buffer underflow instance.
As can be seen in Fig. 6, VDRX has the highest number of
buffer underflows. The flexibility of the sleep cycles of VDRX is
the main reason for this. When VDRX is used, if the channel is
predicted to improve in the coming slots, then the BS sends only
the exact amount of data that is necessary for the UE to keep
its buffer above the threshold Q, and allows the UE to sleep
for the rest of the time slot. This approach continues as long
as the channel is improving. In other words, the UEs whose
channels are improving have to wake up in each slot and receive
the necessary amount of data. This can easily result in buffer
underflows if there is any error in the channel prediction data.
In this case the BS assumes that the UE has enough data in its
buffer to survive until it reaches a good channel, but in fact some
or all of the data has been lost due to channel errors.
In the case of SDRX and DRXset, the sleep cycles are not
flexible. (In our implementation, the DRX cycle for SDRX
was set to 100 ms and for DRXset 500 and 1000 ms were
selected by the solver.) Therefore the UEs may experience waste
periods as explained previously. In other words, after every data
reception period, if the remaining time to the end of the slot is
not enough for a complete DRX cycle, the UE needs to stay
awake. This means that it is not energy efficient for a UE to be
scheduled as frequently as when using VDRX. Thus, at each
scheduling occasion, the BS allocates a large number of RBs to
each UE in order to reduce the waste periods and frequency of
scheduling occasions, and so each time the UEs receive more
data than is strictly necessary. This provides a buffer margin
613
Fig. 7. Resource allocation for different DRX settings, for one UE.
that protects the UEs from buffer underflows in the presence of
channel prediction errors. In the case of DRXset, for higher video
display rates, the amount and frequency of scheduling have to
increase in order to keep the buffer above Q. This means that the
margin is maintained well even under higher loads (1200 kbps).
This behavior can be observed in Fig. 7, which shows resource
allocation (frequency and amount of resources allocated) for
different DRX settings for an example UE.
For SDRX, since the DRX cycles are smaller than for DRXset,
the waste period is reduced. Although a buffer margin is still
maintained, for the same reason as for DRXset, smaller waste
periods make it possible to schedule the UEs more frequently.
This way the UE can receive less data during poor channel
conditions and wait for a good channel to receive more. This
means that the buffer margin with SDRX is smaller than with
DRXset, which increases the sensitivity of SDRX to prediction
errors under higher loads compared to DRXset.
C. Constant Prediction Errors
In this section we investigate the impact of constant, sys-
tematic prediction errors, where the error reduces the channel
capacity in all time slots by 10, 30, and 50 percent. As such,
in this case errors are always detrimental. This could represent,
for example, a scenario in which unexpected shadowing occurs,
reducing the channel quality for all users in a given region over
a longer time. Figs. 8–10 show the number of buffer underflows
for different constant prediction errors.
As shown in Figs. 8–10, the behavior of the DRX variants
under constant prediction error is the same as under variable
errors. However, the number of buffer underflows in all cases
in dramatically increased compared to the variable prediction
error, which was expected because here the errors are always
detrimental.
However, the interesting result in case of constant errors is
that at high loads, all DRX variants need to schedule frequently,
and DRXset loses its advantage as can be seen in Fig. 8. As the
error increases, so much data is lost that buffer underflows can
no longer be mitigated by DRXset’s infrequent scheduling.
As explained above, using VDRX provides promising energy
saving, however it shows high sensitivity to prediction errors.
614
Fig. 8. Number of buffer underflows with 10% constant prediction error.
Fig. 9. Number of buffer underflows with 30% percent constant prediction
error.
In order to better understand the problem of buffer underflows
in the presence of prediction errors, in the following sections
we first provide a numerical study by varying the size of the
prediction window and values of the buffer threshold under
different variances of the prediction error. It is expected that
increasing the buffer threshold and/or reducing the size of the
prediction window can reduce the number of buffer underflows.
Furthermore, in order to mitigate the adverse effect of prediction
errors, we propose an online algorithm that utilizes a feedback
loop to keep track of the buffer occupancies, and is able to react
to prediction errors in time.
D. Impact of Window Size and Buffer Threshold on Energy
Although VDRX shows the weakest performance in terms
of the number of buffer underflows in the presence of channel
prediction errors, there are nonetheless several reasons to prefer
VDRX over SDRX and DRXset, as shown in Section V-B.
First, VDRX reduces the energy usage up to 60 and 47 percent
compared to SDRX and DRXset, respectively. Second, VDRX
is better suited to the demands of 5G, due to its flexibility and
extended sleep opportunities, as discussed in Section II.
Therefore, in this section, we investigate the performance
of VDRX further under different conditions. Specifically, we
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 69, NO. 1, JANUARY 2020
Fig. 10. Number of buffer underflows with 50% percent constant prediction
error.
consider the effect of the chosen prediction window size and
buffer threshold. Table IV shows the per-device energy usage
for different window sizes and buffer thresholds, for VDRX
with a video display rate of 1200 kbps, and 10 UEs. The results
presented in previous sections employ a prediction window of
240 time slots, and the optimization problem was solved once for
the whole prediction window. Here, we perform the optimiza-
tion over the same period, but broken into multiple windows,
such that the problem is solved at regular intervals during the
240 seconds. The results given here are in the presence of channel
prediction errors.
As can be seen in Table IV, the energy usage increases dramat-
ically as the window size is reduced. This is because, regardless
of the window size, formulation (3) solves the problem for the
whole window at once, and each window is considered sepa-
rately. It should also be noted that according to the formulation,
the BS transmits enough data to each UE to ensure its buffer
does not fall under Q up until the end of the window. In the
last slot of each window, the buffer occupancy will therefore be
equal to Q, since sending more data than required will always
increase the UE’s energy usage. When the next window starts,
in the presence of channel prediction errors, multiple UEs may
experience buffer occupancy less than Q. In this case, the BS
needs to schedule these UEs for several time slots to meet the
buffer occupancy constraint, even if some UEs are in poor chan-
nel conditions. This increases the energy usage during the next
window.
Table V shows the impact of the window size and buffer
threshold on the number of buffer underflows in the presence
of prediction errors. The window size itself does not have a
clear impact, however increasing the buffer threshold reduces
the number of buffer underflows for each window size. Fig. 11
illustrates the impact of increasing the variance of the prediction
error on the number of buffer underflows.
As shown in the figure, increasing the variance of the error
increases the number of buffer underflows substantially. Increas-
ing the buffer threshold at each window size, on the other hand,
reduces the number of buffer underflows for all cases. However,
MORADI et al.: FLEXIBLE DRX OPTIMIZATION FOR LTE AND 5G
TABLE IV
MEAN ENERGY USAGE (JOULE) PER DEVICE, FOR DIFFERENT PREDICTION WINDOW SIZES AND BUFFER THRESHOLDS. Q: BUFFER THRESHOLD,
D: VIDEO DISPLAY RATE (BPS), RX MECHANISM: VDRX-OPT
TABLE V
MEAN NUMBER OF BUFFER UNDERFLOWS, FOR DIFFERENT PREDICTION
WINDOW SIZES, Q: BUFFER THRESHOLD, D: VIDEO DISPLAY RATE (BPS),
DRX MECHANISM: VDRX-OPT
Fig. 11. Mean number of buffer underflows for different error variances,
window sizes, and buffer thresholds, DRX mechanism: VDRX-Opt.
again, the window size does not show a clear effect. For example,
the number of buffer underflows increases when the window size
is reduced to 120 s, but decreases again when the window size is
further reduced to 60 s, except for the highest error variance. This
non-monotonic behavior can be explained by the BS needing to
615
serve several starving UEs at the beginning of each window. In
the case of a 120 s window, the number of starving UEs can be
higher at the end of the first window compared to when using a
window of 60 s. Hence, the BS may not be able to fulfill the buffer
requirements, which results in repeated buffer underflows for the
starving UEs. In the case of high error variance, even smaller
windows cannot compensate for the low buffer levels caused by
channel errors.
From the results presented above, we can conclude that for
VDRX, increasing the buffer threshold can reduce the number
of buffer underflows without any significant change in energy
usage. However, even higher buffer thresholds are sensitive to
higher error variances. Moreover, reducing the window size
leads to a dramatic increase in energy usage, but the impact
on the number of buffer underflows is not straightforward. This
implies that choosing the right window size and buffer threshold
is a challenging task in itself. In the next section, we propose an
online algorithm to address the shortcomings of the optimization
method used thus far.
VI. ONLINE ALGORITHM
In the previous sections we observed that although the prob-
lem of sensitivity to the prediction error for VDRX can be
mitigated by tuning the buffer threshold, it is still sensitive to
increasing error variance. In addition, finding the optimal buffer
threshold and window size is difficult. However, since many 5G
scenarios require online modifications of DRX configurations
and resource allocation, we here propose a lightweight online
algorithm for joint resource allocation and DRX configuration.
The algorithm, VDRX-Online, utilizes the UEs’ channel pre-
dictions to reduce their energy usage, while maintaining smooth
streaming and providing robustness against prediction errors.
By using two buffer thresholds, VDRX-online is able to identify
data losses and react before they cause severe buffer underflows.
Table VI describes the notation used, and the algorithm itself is
given in Algorithm 1.
In order to be consistent with the optimization, the online
algorithm, VDRX-online, also performs the same cumulative
and contiguous resource allocation as previously described in
Section III-C and Fig. 3. Otherwise, in the online algorithm,
616 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 69, NO. 1, JANUARY 2020

TABLE VI
PARAMETERS USED IN THE VDRX-ONLINE ALGORITHM Algorithm 1: VDRX-Online.
1: for s ∈ S do
2: RBShare = 0
3: sumRB = 0
4: ΔCH = H(s + 1, c) − H(s, c)
5: sumHlow = 0
6: sumHbtw = 0
7: for c ∈ C do
8: DRXc = 0
9: Tremain = q(s,c)
D
10: for c ∈ C do
11: if qcs ≤ Qlow then
12: sumHlow += H(s, c)
13: else
14: if Qlow ≤ qcs ≤ Qhigh then
15: sumHbtw += H(c, s)
16: for c ∈ C do
17: if qcs ≤ Qlow then
18: RBShare = (Hcs /sumHlow ) × 1000
19: Ncs = min(RBShare, (Qlow − qcs )/Hcs )
20: if Ncs ≤ 0 then
21: Ncs = 0
22: DRXslot = T − Ncs
23: DRXc = floor(max(0, Tremain − ( QD low
))
24: qc += Nc
s s

25: sumRB += Ncs

26: if sumRB ≥ T then
it would be possible to choose full mini slot allocation, or
27: continue
allocation of only part of each mini slot. As for the optimization
28: for c ∈ C do
problem, we assume that the data is stored inside the radio access
29: if qcs > Highbuf f er or ΔCH > 0 then
network, which makes it possible for the BS to transmit as much
30: continue
data as needed.
31: N 2cs =
VDRX-online makes scheduling decisions based on the buffer
(qbtwcs /sumHbtw s
)(1000 − sumRB s )
occupancy and channel quality of the UEs. Two buffer thresh-
32: DRXslot = T − (Ncs + N 2c )
olds, a higher and a lower threshold, are used to ensure smooth
33: DRXc = floor(max(0, Tremain − ( QD low
))
streaming. Each slot is considered in turn. After the initialization
34: qc += N 2c
s s
steps in lines 2–8, VDRX-online then categorizes the UEs based
35: sumRB += N 2cs
on their buffer occupancies into three groups (lines 9–12): those
with remaining buffer less than or equal to the lower threshold,
those with remaining buffer between the two thresholds, and
those with remaining buffer greater than or equal to the higher This helps it to react to any data losses in time to prevent buffer
threshold. The first group is prioritized to receive data regardless underflows.
of the channel quality. The goal is to keep the buffer levels After calculating the number of allocated RBs for each UE in
between the higher and lower thresholds. a given time slot, the algorithm decides on the length of the DRX
After increasing the buffer of the first group to a satisfactory cycle for the UE. After any data reception period, each UE can
level (lines 13–21), if there are available RBs remaining, the utilize the remaining time up to the end of the slot to switch to
algorithm schedules UEs whose channel is going to decrease sleep mode. Moreover, UEs with buffer occupancies greater than
(lines 23–28). Then the final number of RBs that need to be the higher threshold can stay in sleep mode for several time slots
allocated to each UE in the current slot is calculated and allocated (this can be tens of seconds). This extended DRX cycle provides
contiguously. the opportunity to switch to RRC-idle mode, as required by 5G.
In both of the above stages, if there are multiple UEs to sched- The extended DRX cycle is even possible for UEs whose buffer
ule, the algorithm performs resource allocation proportional to occupancy is between the higher and lower threshold. These
channel qualities. This means that UEs with better channel will UEs will not be scheduled as long as their channel quality is
receive more RBs. This allows faster data delivery for UEs with improving and their buffer is between the two thresholds. This
good channels and releases more RBs to be used by other UEs. is because we prefer to wait and schedule UEs during a better
It should be noted that the buffer occupancy of each UE is fed quality channel, which reduces energy usage and releases RBs
back to the BS and is known at the beginning of each time slot. earlier.
MORADI et al.: FLEXIBLE DRX OPTIMIZATION FOR LTE AND 5G 617

Fig. 12. Energy usage comparison between online algorithm and optimal
offline solution, 10 UEs.
Fig. 13. Effect of increasing error variance on mean number of buffer un-
derflows, comparison between optimal solutions and online algorithm- video
display rate: 1200 kbps.

A. Computational Complexity
TABLE VII
Algorithm 1 consists of an outer, main loop that iterates |S| THE NUMBER AND LENGTH OF EXTENDED DRX OPPORTUNITIES
times, within which are four inner loops in series, each of which FOR AN EXAMPLE UE

iterates |C| times. Since the statements within each loop consist
of only basic arithmetic operations, the complexity of VDRX-
online is low at O(SC), where S is the number of slots and C
is the number of users.

VII. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED

VDRX-ONLINE ALGORITHM
In this section we investigate the performance of the online
algorithm in terms of energy usage, its ability to create extended
sleep opportunities, and BS airtime saving compred to the opti-
mal solutions. A worst case scenario and a comparison between
our proposed online algorithm and two baseline resource allo-
cation schemes are also presented in this section.
B. Impact of Prediction Error
A. Energy Usage Fig. 13 shows the impact of prediction errors on the number
of buffer underflows for our proposed VDRX-online algorithm
Fig. 12 shows the energy usage of VDRX-online for different
compared to the other three DRX schemes. The effect of increas-
video bit rates and DRX settings. Under low load (low video
ing error variance is also shown. VDRX-online is robust against
bitrates), VDRX-online performs close to VDRX-optimal (and
prediction errors even for high error variances. Even the small
overlaps with DRXset), but under high loads it deviates from
deviation from zero for VDRX-online in higher error variances
optimal. Higher energy usage under high loads is due to the
can be removed by proper tuning of buffer thresholds.
two buffer thresholds used in VDRX-online to ensure smooth
streaming. This results in more scheduling occasions during high
loads to keep the buffer occupancies between the two thresholds. C. Extended DRX Opportunities
In order to provide a better insight into the performance of our As mentioned earlier, it is not feasible to keep the large
online algorithm, we also plotted SDRX-Online as an additional numbers of 5G UEs in RRC-connected mode all the time, and so
online benchmark. SDRX-Online illustrates the situation when extended DRX opportunities are required to allow UEs to switch
we use SDRX instead of VDRX in our online algorithm. Fig. 12 to RRC-idle. We define extended DRX opportunities as the
shows that although the energy usage of the online algorithm number of consecutive time slots in which a UE is not receiving
is higher than the offline optimal cases at high loads, it is any data and therefore can stay in sleep mode during the entire
still better than SDRX in an online situation. However, as was slot. (The required signaling and state models to achieve these
shown in previous sections, in the offline cases, VDRX-Opt extended sleep cycles are out of the scope of this paper.) The
outperforms SDRX-Opt and DRXset-Opt. Hence, from now on, sleep times within each time slot where data is received are
we only focus on the performance of VDRX-Online rather than thus not included in the extended DRX opportunities. Table VII
SDRX-online. shows the number and length of the extended DRX opportunities
618
Fig. 14. Number of empty slots (where no UE receives data), comparison
between optimal solutions and online algorithm.
for one example UE, using VDRX-Opt and VDRX-Online. It
should be mentioned that the channel model is the same for all
UEs in our simulations, but the UEs’ locations in the cell are
different. Thus, all UEs experience more or less the same DRX
opportunities but at different times. As shown in the table, our
proposed VDRX-Online creates three large DRX opportunities,
while VDRX-Opt creates several small periods and (in this case)
two large periods.
D. BS Airtime Saving
As mentioned earlier, scheduling during good channel con-
ditions decreases the reception time for UEs and reduces the
number of occupied resources (or the duration of busy periods
for resources at the BS). This not only saves energy (airtime) of
the BS, but also increases the capacity of the network. Although
our optimization problem focuses on UEs’ energy rather than
the BS’s airtime saving, it is nonetheless interesting to observe
BS airtime saving for different DRX schemes.
Fig. 14 shows the number of empty slots (when no UEs
receive data) for each DRX scheme. The number of empty slots
translates to airtime saving for the BS, because during these time
slots, it does not allocate any RBs to UEs. As shown in Fig. 14,
DRXset and SDRX save more BS airtime because of their less
frequent scheduling (see Fig. 7). The performance of VDRX-Opt
and VDRX-Online under low load is quite similar, with slightly
better airtime saving for VDRX-Online. However under high
load, VDRX-online scheduling is much more frequent than
VDRX-Opt. This is because for high display rates, UEs consume
the buffered video faster and their buffers do not last as long. As
soon as the buffer falls between the higher and lower thresholds,
VDRX-online reacts by scheduling the UEs, leading to less
airtime saving.
E. Worst Case Scenario
In order to provide a worst-case performance evaluation of
the energy usage of VDRX-Online when compared with VDRX-
Opt, we changed the channel model of each UE to a step function.
This means that the channel capacity is at its maximum for A
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 69, NO. 1, JANUARY 2020
consecutive time slots, and then falls to its minimum for the next
A time slots.
We assume Qlow = D(c), where Qlow is the lower threshold
of the UE’s buffer, and D(c) is the amount of data that each
UE consumes in one time slot, in bits. This means that when
UEs have the minimum channel quality Hmin , the algorithm
needs to schedule them every time slot in order to prevent
buffer underflow. We also have Qhigh as the upper threshold
of the buffer. We assume that in the beginning all buffers are
either below Qlow or between Qlow and Qhigh . Since the initial
phase channel model is identically and independently distributed
across the UEs, we can assume that at any given time, on average
half of the UEs have good channel quality (Hmax ) and the other
half have poor channel quality (Hmin ).
At each time slot, each UE has some data in its buffer. We
define Kcs as the number of time slots that the current buffer
of UE c can last without receiving new data, starting from time
slot s, where s ranges through the entire channel step function
qcs
duration under consideration. Kcs is calculated as K = D(c) ,
where qcs is the current buffer occupancy in slot s and D(c) is
the amount of data that UE c consumes in each slot (in bits).
At each time slot, the VDRX-Online algorithm first schedules
the UEs whose buffer is below Qlow to make sure their buffers
can last at least one time slot. If any RBs are still available,
the rest of the UEs with good channels will be scheduled. The
numbers of mini slots needed in order to deliver enough data to
last for one time slot during Hmax and Hmin are given by
D(c) D(c)
Ncsmax = and Ncsmin = , (4)
Hmax Hmin
s
where Nc−max s
and Nc−min are the number of mini slots needed
to deliver D(c) bits to a UE during Hmax and Hmin , respectively,
and as previously given D(c) is the amount of data that UE c
consumes in each slot (in bits).
As mentioned above, in each channel step (of duration A),
some UEs may have accumulated a buffer that can last for a
while. However, as soon as their buffer falls under Qlow , UEs
will be scheduled regardless of their channel condition. In this
case, a UE first receives enough data to last for one time slot.
Then, if the UE has channel quality Hmax and there are available
RBs, it receives more data. For UEs in Hmin with low buffer,
only the minimum amount of data (enough to last for one time
slot) will be delivered at each slot. Therefore, we need to know
for how many time slots each UE’s accumulated buffer can last.
The proportion of time (out of the step duration) that user c needs
s
to receive data is calculated as TRXmax = A−K c
, where Kcs is
A
calculated at the moment of transition between Hmax and Hmin .
The number of used mini slots at each time slot in order to
serve all users whose buffers are below Qlow is:
 
D(c) A − Kcsmax C
s
Nmax = , (5)
Hmax A 2
 
D(c) A − Kcsmin C
s
Nmin = , (6)
Hmin A 2
and the total number of the required mini slots to serve all UEs
with low buffer is then NQs
low
= Nmax
s
+ Nmin
s
.
MORADI et al.: FLEXIBLE DRX OPTIMIZATION FOR LTE AND 5G 619

s
After allocating NQ low
mini slots to the users with low buffer,
we allocate the rest of the available RBs (if any) to the UEs with
channel quality Hmax , as long as their buffer is between Qlow and
Qlow . The number of available mini slots at each time slot after
serving UEs with low buffer is calculated as Nas = T − NQ s
low
,
s
where Na is the number of available mini slots after serving UEs
with low buffer, and T is the total number of mini slots per time
slot. The amount of data that can be delivered to users in Hmax
is calculated as follows:
 s

s Na
Rc = min (Qhigh − qc ),
s
Hmax , (7)
C
C
2
Rcs
s
Ntotal = s
NQ low
+ , (8) Fig. 15. Energy usage comparison between VDRX-Opt and VDRX-online,
Hmax 2-level (step) channel model, A = 40.
c=1

where C is the total number of UEs whose channel quality is

Hmax . Finally, the energy usage of the VDRX-online algorithm simplified to be calculated as follows.
is given by
D(c) C D(c) C

S Ncsmax = , and Ncsmin = , (14)
Hmax 2 Hmin 2
Eonline = s
Ntotal E(1), (9)
s=1
s
Ntotal = Nmax
s
+ Nmin
s
, (15)
where E(1) is the UEs’ energy usage in the data reception mode, 
S

defined in Table I and Table II. Eonline = s

Ntotal E(1). (16)
In the case of the optimal solution, we assume that UEs are s=1

scheduled only during slots in which they have good channel In order to experimentally evaluate the worst case perfor-
quality. Therefore, the number of used mini slots in each time mance, we numerically evaluated the step channel scenario with
slot is given by the following. A = 40 (s). This provides enough time for the optimal solution
  to schedule all the UEs during good channel periods (Hmax ) and
T
Rcs = min (QsA − qcs ), Hmax , (10) let them sleep when they have poor channels (Hmin ). Therefore,
C every 40 seconds, the channel quality switches between Hmax
where QA is the amount of data needed to until the next time and Hmin . This pattern repeats for 240 time slots. With this
the channel quality reaches Hmax and C is the total number of channel behavior, VDRX-Online frequently schedules UEs to
UEs whose channel quality is Hmax . QA is calculated as receive data when they have poor channel quality. However,
since VDRX-Opt has access to channel information for the entire
QsA = D(θ2 − θ1 ), (11) prediction window, it schedules UEs only when the channel is
at its maximum, and transmits enough data to make sure the
where θ1 is the current time and θ2 is the time slot in which the UEs’ buffer lasts until the next maximum channel. We also set
channel quality will next reach Hmax . Qhigh = 10D(c).
Then, the total number of used mini slots per time slot can be Fig. 15 shows the energy usage comparison between VDRX-
calculated as Opt and VDRX-online for a step channel capacity model. In the
C figure, we can see that the performance gap between VDRX-
2
Rcs
s
Nopt = . (12) Online and VDRX-Opt increases linearly with increasing load,
c=1
Hmax up to approximately three times the mean energy usage at a
video bitrate of 1200 kbps. Since here we take the worst case
Hence the energy usage for the optimal solution is given by conditions for VDRX-Online, and a real channel cannot vary

S discontinuously as in the step function used here, actual energy
Eopt = s
Nopt E(1). (13) usage under realistic conditions should remain below this level.
s=1

Finally the difference between the optimal solution and that
given by our proposed online algorithm in the worst case will
be Dif f = E_{online} − E_{opt}.
However, this worst case scenario depends on the configu-
ration of Qlow and Qhigh . The most detrimental configuration
for the online algorithm would be if Qlow = Qhigh . In this case,
the difference between VDRX-Opt and VDRX-Online can be
F. Comparison With Baseline Resource Allocation Schemes
Our proposed online algorithm first allocates the minimum
required number of resource blocks to the UEs that are about
to experience a buffer underflow. Then, it allocates the rest of
the RBs proportionally to the UEs’ channel capacity, to those
UEs whose buffer occupancy is less than the higher threshold.
In order to examine the performance of our online algorithm,
620
Fig. 16. Mean number of buffer underflows with increasing error vari-
ance, comparison between VDRX-Online and two baseline resource allocation
schemes: Equal Share and Rate Proportional. Video display rate: 1200 kbps.
we compare it with two baseline resource allocation schemes,
equal Share and rate proportional. Equal share divides the RBs
equally among all UEs in each time slot, while the rate pro-
portional scheme allocates RBs according to the UE’s average
channel capacity, without considering the buffer occupancies
as RBSharesc = RBtotal CH(s,c) , where RBSharesc is the
i=1 H(s,c)
number of RBs that are allocated to user c in slot s, RBtotal is
the total number of RBs in each time slot, and H(s, c) is the
average channel capacity of user c in time slot s.
We compare the performance in terms of energy, number of
buffer underflows, and BS airtime saving. Since the equal share
and rate proportional schemes both allocate all RBs in each
time slot to UEs, there is no airtime saving for them. Moreover,
allocating all RBs increases mean energy usage dramatically.
Mean energy usage increases to 0.0498 J for both the equal
share and rate proportional schemes. The reason for the similar
values for energy usage (regardless of video bitrate) is that, as
discussed in previous sections, the energy usage is defined as the
number of allocated RBs multiplied by the amount of energy
that a UE spends when it is receiving data (E(1)). However,
the number of buffer underflows are highly affected by the
resource allocation schemes. As shown in Fig. 16, our proposed
VDRX-online method, due to its resource allocation strategy,
outperforms the two baseline schemes in terms of sensitivity to
channel prediction errors.
VIII. DISCUSSION
The results of our performance analysis show that in the
presence of prediction errors, the online algorithm outperforms
offline methods by reducing buffer underflows up to 97 per-
cent at a much lower energy cost compared with an online
SDRX. Both online and offline approaches could successfully
provide extended DRX opportunities, which is required for 5G
scenarios. It is important to note that in the case of the buffer
underflow constraint, our online heuristic algorithm is even
more conservative than the offline optimal solution. This means
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 69, NO. 1, JANUARY 2020
that the proposed online algorithm is a feasible solution to the
optimization problem.
According to the presented results, we can conclude that
both offline and online configurations have benefits for different
situations. For example, for scenarios where UEs have low
mobility and there is no or very low prediction error, offline
approaches can be used. In this case, there can be a trade-off
between energy usage and buffer underflows. If energy saving is
more important than buffer underflows, VDRX is a good choice,
while DRXset is suitable for cases where buffer underflows
are more important. In scenarios where channel prediction is
affected by errors, or online configuration of DRX is required
(for example when network slicing is performed) the proposed
online algorithm is a better choice. Additionally, the proposed
online and offline DRX configurations can provide different BS
airtime savings and extended DRX opportunities, which make
them suitable for different situations.
IX. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE WORK
In this work we utilized channel predictions to jointly optimize
resource allocation and DRX cycle length, taking into account
ordering constraints on the scheduling of UEs. The impact of the
size of the channel prediction errors on different DRX settings
was investigated. We then introduced an online algorithm that
performs resource allocation and variable DRX cycle selection
dynamically, adjusting for channel prediction errors as they oc-
cur. Our results showed that using an online variable DRX length
is more energy efficient and robust against prediction errors,
while an offline implementation of the optimization problem
results in high sensitivity to prediction errors. However, offline
implementations can still be helpful for specific scenarios where
the channel and traffic patterns are highly stable.
We also showed that utilizing channel predictions signifi-
cantly increases sleep opportunity, which results in extended
DRX opportunities, where UEs remain in sleep mode for entire
time slots. In contrast, conventional methods for configuring
DRX, based on previously experienced channel or packet inter-
arrival times, provide DRX opportunities in the range of tens
of milliseconds. The extended DRX cycles created using our
proposed algorithms can allow UEs to switch to RRC-idle,
needed to manage the large number of devices expected in 5G
systems. The behavior of different DRX settings under different
channel conditions and their sensitivity to prediction errors, as
investigated in this paper, can also be useful in the design of
future DRX mechanisms.
There are interesting future directions based on this work. BS
energy usage can also be considered in the problem formulation,
in order to obtain the overall energy efficiency for the network.
Considering channel prediction and DRX, specific 5G use cases
such as dynamic network slice sharing or device-to-device peer
selection are other important research directions.
REFERENCES
[1] C. V. N. I. Cisco, “Global mobile data traffic forecast update, 2017–2022,”
White Paper, 2019.
[2] M. K. Maheshwari, M. Agiwal, N. Saxena, and A. Roy, “Hybrid direc-
tional discontinuous reception (HD-DRX) for 5G communication,” IEEE
Commun. Lett., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1421–1424, Jun. 2017.
MORADI et al.: FLEXIBLE DRX OPTIMIZATION FOR LTE AND 5G
[3] D. Corcoran, L. Andimeh, A. Ermedahl, P. Kreuger, and C. Schulte, “Data
driven selection of DRX for energy efficient 5G RAN,” in Proc. 13th Int.
Conf. Netw. Service Manag., Nov. 2017, pp. 1–9.
[4] H. Ferng and T. Wang, “Exploring flexibility of DRX in LTE/LTE-A:
Design of dynamic and adjustable DRX,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput.,
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 99–112, Jan. 2018.
[5] S. Xu, Y. Liu, and W. Zhang, “Grouping-based discontinuous reception for
massive narrowband Internet of Things systems,” IEEE Internet Things J.,
vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1561–1571, Jun. 2018.
[6] I. L. D. Silva, G. Mildh, M. Sily, and S. Hailu, “A novel state model for
5G radio access networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops,
May 2016, pp. 632–637.
[7] M. Agiwal, M. K. Maheshwari, N. Saxena, and A. Roy, “Directional-
DRX for 5G wireless communications,” Electron. Lett., vol. 52, no. 21,
pp. 1816–1818, 2016.
[8] C. H. Ho, A. Huang, P. J. Hsieh, and H. Y. Wei, “Energy-efficient
millimeter-wave M2M 5G systems with beam-aware DRX mechanism,”
in Proc. IEEE 86th Veh. Technol. Conf., Sep. 2017, pp. 1–5.
[9] S. Huang, G. Feng, L. Liang, and S. Qin, “Power-saving coercive sleep
mode for machine type communications,” in Proc. 23rd Asia-Pacific Conf.
Commun., Dec. 2017, pp. 1–6.
[10] M. S. Mushtaq, S. Fowler, and A. Mellouk, “Power saving model for
mobile device and virtual base station in the 5G era,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Commun., May 2017, pp. 1–6.
[11] A. Mukherjee, “Energy efficiency and delay in 5G ultra-reliable low-
latency communications system architectures,” IEEE Netw., vol. 32, no. 2,
pp. 55–61, Mar. 2018.
[12] S. Khwandah, B. Mohamad, J. Cosmas, P. Lazaridis, and Z. Zaharis,
“Video performance using adaptive DRX switching for LTE-A,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Symp. Broadband Multimedia Syst. Broadcast., Jun. 2017,
pp. 1–5.
[13] Y. Chen and G. Liu, “Playout buffer and DRX aware scheduling scheme
for video streaming over LTE system,” IET Commun., vol. 10, no. 15,
pp. 1971–1978, Oct. 2016.
[14] C.-W. Chang and J.-C. Chen, “Adjustable extended discontinuous recep-
tion cycle for Idle-state users in LTE-A,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 20,
no. 11, pp. 2288–2291, Nov. 2016.
[15] M. Li and H. Chen, “Energy-efficient traffic regulation and scheduling
for video streaming services over LTE-A networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile
Comput., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 334–347, Feb. 2019.
[16] J. H. Zhou, G. Feng, T. P. Yum, M. Yan, and S. Qin, “Online learning based
discontinuous reception (DRX) for machine-type communications,” IEEE
Internet Things J., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5550–5561, Jun. 2019.
[17] K. Feng, W. Su, and Y. Yu, “Design and analysis of traffic-based dis-
continuous reception operations for LTE systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 8235–8249, Dec. 2017.
[18] Z. Lu and G. De Veciana, “Optimizing stored video delivery for mobile
networks: The value of knowing the future,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM,
2013, pp. 2706–2714.
[19] J. Yao, S. S. Kanhere, and M. Hassan, “Improving QoS in high-speed
mobility using bandwidth maps,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 11,
no. 4, pp. 603–617, Apr. 2012.
[20] H. Abou-zeid, H. S. Hassanein, and S. Valentin, “Energy-efficient adaptive
video transmission: Exploiting rate predictions in wireless networks,”
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 2013–2026, Jun. 2014.
[21] H. Abou-Zeid and H. S. Hassanein, “Predictive green wireless access: Ex-
ploiting mobility and application information,” IEEE Wireless Commun.,
vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 92–99, Oct. 2013.
[22] F. Moradi, M. Karaca, E. Fitzgerald, M. Pióro, R. Ljung, and B. Land-
feldt, “Optimizing DRX for video delivery over LTE: Utilizing channel
prediction and in-network caching,” in Proc. 15th Int. Symp. Model. Optim.
Mobile, Ad Hoc, Wireless Netw., May 2017, pp. 1–6.
[23] 3GPP, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Further
advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects,” 3rd Generation Part-
nership Project, Sophia Antipolis, France, Tech. Rep. 3GPP TR 36.814,
Mar. 2010.
[24] 3GPP, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); medium
access control (MAC) protocol specification,” 3rd Generation Partnership
Project, Sophia Antipolis, France, Tech. Rep. 3GPP TS 36.321, Nov. 2014.
[25] R. Fourer, D. M. Gay, and B. W. Kernighan, “AMPL: A modeling language
for mathematical programming,” Cengage Learning, 2002.
[26] IBM, 2013 IBM ILOG CPLEX 12.6 User Manual IBM Corp. 2013.
[Online]. Available: https://ampl.com/products/solvers/solvers-we-sell/
cplex/
[27] Nokia, “DRX parameters in LTE,” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting,
vol. R2-071285, no. XP003023549, pp. 1–7, 2007.
621
Farnaz Moradi received the M.S. degree in network
design from the Iran University of Science and Tech-
nology, Tehran, Iran, in 2014. She has been work-
ing toward the Ph.D. degree at the Department of
Electrical and Information Technology, Lund Univer-
sity, Lund, Sweden, since 2015. Her research interests
include mobile network performance with focus on
energy efficiency.
Emma Fitzgerald received the Ph.D. degree from
the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, in 2013.
She then joined the Department of Electrical and In-
formation Technology, Lund University, as a Postdoc
in 2014 for two years, after which she has continued
there as a Researcher. Her research interests include
cooperative networking and network performance,
with particular focus on wireless medium access con-
trol and the Internet of Things.
Michał Pióro is a Full Professor with the Institute
of Telecommunications, Faculty of Electronics and
Information Technology, Warsaw University of Tech-
nology, Warsaw, Poland. He is an Author of an inter-
nationally recognized monograph in that area, as well
as numerous research papers presented in telecommu-
nications and operations research journals, and con-
ference proceedings. His research interests include
modeling, optimization, and performance evaluation
of communication and computer networks.
Björn Landfeldt received the B.Sc. equivalent
from the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of
New South Wales, Sydney NSW, Australia, in 2000.
In parallel with his studies in Sweden, he was running
a mobile computing consultancy company and after
his studies he joined Ericsson Research in Stockholm
as a Senior Researcher where he worked on mobility
management and QoS issues. In 2001, he took up
a position as a CISCO Senior Lecturer in Internet
Technologies with the Schools of Electrical and Infor-
mation Engineering and the School of Information Technologies, the University
of Sydney. In 2012, he took up the Professorial position of Chair of Network
Architectures with Lund University, Sweden, where he is heading the Networks
and Systems research group. In addition, he was the Director of the Mobile and
Pervasive Research Institute of Lund, an institute instigated by SONY Mobile
and Lund University. He was awarded 15 patents in the U.S. and globally.
He has authored and coauthored more than 100 publications in international
conferences, journals and books and been awarded many competitive grants
such as ARC discovery and linkage grants. His research interests include mo-
bility management, QoS, performance modeling, wireless systems, and service
provisioning. He was a Research Associate for National ICT Australia from 2004
to 2012. He is a Program Chair or member of many international conferences
such as Association for Computing Machinery, MSWIM, and IEEE International
Conference on Computer Communications and Networks.