Joint Power Optimization for Device-to-Device Communication in Cellular Networks With Interference Control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For device-to-device (D2D) communication under laid in a cellular network with uplink resource sharing, both cellular and D2D pairs may cause significant inter-cell interference (ICI) at a neighboring base station (BS). In this paper, under optimal BS receive beamforming, we jointly optimize the power of a cellular user (CU) and a D2D pair for their sum rate maximization, while satisfying minimum SINR requirements and worst-case ICI limit in multiple neighboring cells. We solve this non-convex joint optimization problem in two steps. First, the necessary and sufficient condition for the D2D admissibility under given constraints is obtained. Finally, we consider joint power control of the CU and D2D transmitters. We propose a power control algorithm to maximize the sum rate. Depending on the severity of ICI that D2D and CU may cause, we categorize the feasible solution region into five cases, each of which may further include several scenarios based on minimum SINR requirements. The proposed algorithm is optimal when ICI to a single neighboring cell is considered. For multiple neighboring cells, we provide an upper bound on the performance loss by the proposed algorithm and conditions for its optimality. We further extend our consideration to the scenario of multiple CUs and D2D pairs, and formulate the joint power control and CU-D2D matching problem. We show how our proposed solution for one CU and one D2D pair can be utilized to solve this general joint optimization problem. Simulation demonstrates the effectiveness of our power control algorithm and the nearly optimal performance of the proposed approach in the setting of multiple CUs and D2D pairs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it