Optimized Distributed Inter-Cell Interference Coordination (ICIC) Scheme Using Projected Subgradient and Network Flow Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we tackle the problem of multi-cell resource scheduling, where the objective is to maximize the weighted sum-rate through inter-cell interference coordination (ICIC). The blanking method is used to mitigate the inter-cell interference, where a resource is either used with a predetermined transmit power or not used at all, i.e., blanked. This problem is known to be strongly NP-hard, which means that it is not only hard to solve in polynomial time, but it is also hard to find an approximation algorithm with guaranteed optimality gap. In this work, we identify special scenarios where a polynomial-time algorithm can be constructed to solve this problem with theoretical guarantees. In particular, we define a dominant interference environment, in which for each user the received power from each interferer is significantly greater than the aggregate received power from all other weaker interferers. We show that the originally strongly NP-hard problem can be tightly relaxed to a linear programming problem in a dominant interference environment. Consequently, we propose a polynomial time distributed algorithm that is not only guaranteed to be tight in a dominant interference environment, but which also computes an upper bound on the optimality gap without additional computational complexity. The proposed scheme is based on the primal-decomposition method, where the problem is divided into a master-problem and multiple subproblems. We solve the master-problem iteratively using the projected-subgradient method. We also show that each subproblem has a special network flow structure. By exploiting this network structure, each subproblem is solved using the network-based optimization methods, which significantly reduces the complexity in comparison to the general-purpose convex or linear optimization methods. In comparison with baseline schemes, simulation results of the International Mobile Telecommunications-Advanced (IMT-Advanced) scenarios show that the proposed scheme achieves higher gains in aggregate throughput, cell-edge throughput, and outage probability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".