Joint Power Control and Routing in Multihop D2D Assisted Cellular Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers a cellular system with multihop device-to-device (D2D) communications to extend the coverage of a cell, for user equipment (UEs) experiencing service outage. The D2D system we consider is an inband underlay system. The target is to perform power control and routing to minimize the expended UE energy while satisfying the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) requirements on the downlink connections on every pre-allocated resource block (RB), signal-to-interference-plus- noise-ratio (SINR) requirements for every D2D sidelink connection on every pre-allocated RB, and a maximum allowable interference at the base- station (BS) receiver on all uplink frame RBs. An optimization problem is formulated that turns out to be a mixed integer non-linear program. We propose the generalized Benders decomposition which breaks down the formulation to a master sub-problem, an auxiliary sub-problem and a feasibility sub-problem. In this paper, we focus on finding efficient solution methods for the auxiliary sub-problem that is necessary for generating under-estimators to one of two types of Benders' cuts. These cut-of infeasible power allocations in a relaxed version of the master problem, and tighten the lower bounds on the optimal objective function value. Simulations are conducted to show how multihop D2D routing improves the cell coverage, by reducing the probability of service outage. The simulation results also show the effect of the requirements of SNR, SINR and interference at the BS on the expended UE energy.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".