Composite Technology Challenge System for Optimization in 5G Communications

Abstract

The significance of approaches for improvement of systems/products has been increased. In the article, a modular technology challenge system is proposed as a basis for the system improvement process. The combinatorial framework for designing a modular technology challenge system is described: (1) collection of information items (literature sources on technology challenges/key technologies); (2) designing a hierarchy over the set of information items; (3) selection of the sub-hierarchy while taking into account the specified topic(s); (4) composition of a required information item configuration as technology challenge system. The composition stage is based on morphological design. An applied realistic numerical example illustrates the usage of the proposed framework to design a 5G technology challenge system as a set of the selected related optimization actions.

Introduction

Preliminaries

In recent decades, the significance of the following two processes has been increased: (1) improvement of existing systems/products and (2) movement from an existing system/product generation to the next system/product generation (i.e., paradigm shift). Many research efforts are targeted to descriptions and studies of the processes above: technological challenges, possible prospective system/product changes. Evidently, the above-mentioned efforts are based on information analysis of the corresponding applied domains. Fig. 1 illustrates the system/product improvement stage and its information support. Thus, dynamic analysis of research topics is widely used in many domains, for example: (a) information sciences [141], (b) software product lines [88], (c) knowledge-based systems [213], (d) operations research [112], (e) applied intelligence [211].

Fig. 1
figure1

Illustration for system improvement

In this paper, a combinatorial framework of structuring a set of technological challenges for a certain research domain is examined. The framework consists of four basic stages: (1) collection of information items on the basis of literature sources (e.g., papers and patents which correspond to key technologies or technological challenges); (2) designing a hierarchy over the set of information items; (3) selection of the sub-hierarchy while taking into account the specified topic(s); (4) designing a technology challenge system as a configuration of the selected and related information items (i.e., technology challenges). The suggested combinatorial framework is illustrated by consideration of a 5G technology challenge system (while taking into account optimization methods). Note, combinatorial evolution of communication technology generations (i.e., 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, 6G) is described in [119]. Scheme of the research is shown in Fig. 2. This paper is based on a preliminary technical report [120].

Generalized Combinatorial Framework

The examined combinatorial framework was proposed in [120] (Fig. 3):

  1. 1.

    Generation of an initial set of information items (information sources as papers, patents, etc.):  \(A = \{ a_{1}, \ldots ,a_{i} \ldots , a_{n}\}\)  (Fig. 4).

  2. 2.

    Design of a hierarchy over the set of information items:  \(H = \{ H_{1}, \ldots ,H_{j} \ldots ,H_{m}\}\), \( \bigcup _{j=1}^{m} \quad H_{j} = A\)  (Fig. 5).

  3. 3.

    Selection of the sub-hierarchy: the item subsets by the specified topic(s):  \({\widetilde{H}} = \{ {\widetilde{H}}_{1}, \ldots ,{\widetilde{H}}_{j} \ldots ,{\widetilde{H}}_{m}\}\)  where  \( {\widetilde{H}}_{j} \subseteq H_{j} \)   \(\forall j = \overline{1,m}\)  (Fig. 6).

  4. 4.

    Composition of a required information item configuration:  \(S = < h_{11} \star \cdots \star h_{mk_{m}}>\)  (Fig. 6).

Fig. 2
figure2

Scheme of the research

Fig. 3
figure3

Framework for designing a technology challenge system

Fig. 4
figure4

Retrieval and collection of initial information items

Fig. 5
figure5

Basic hierarchy of information items

Fig. 6
figure6

Selected information items (by specified topic), item configuration

Basic Auxiliary Optimization Approaches

Recently, optimization approaches (mainly, combinatorial optimization [42, 49, 63, 78, 117]) are widely studied and used in communications systems (e.g., [42, 80, 81, 113, 120, 133, 134, 140, 159, 166, 195]). The set of the corresponding basic auxiliary optimization approaches (i.e., problems, frameworks) is listed in Table 1. The optimization approaches are often related (e.g., by problem formulations, by applications, by solving frameworks). Note, composite optimization frameworks based of several optimization problems (e.g., selection-allocation, location-routing, scheduling and allocation, placement, and topology optimization) are used as well (e.g., [23, 66, 93, 183, 208]).

Table 1 Optimization approaches in communications (i.e., problems, models, frameworks)

Morphological Design

Morphological analysis is a power tool for composition of multi-part (composite, modular) systems. The approach is widely used for many application domains (e.g., system design, technological forecasting, management, information retrieval) (e.g., [17, 98, 116, 117, 163, 216]). A simplified evolution scheme of morphological analysis based design approaches is shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7
figure7

Evolution of morphological analysis approaches

Here the combinatorial framework (as combinatorial modular morphological design) is based on Hierarchical Multicriteria Morphological Design (HMMD) method (e,g., [115,116,117]). A basic simplified version of HMMD is used. In HMMD method (combinatorial synthesis), the considered system consists of the following: (1) systems parts or components (modules) and corresponding design alternatives (DAS) for each component; (2) interconnection/compatibility (IC) of DAs which are included into the same system or the system part. The basic assumptions of HMMD are the following: (a) a tree-like structure of the system; (b) a composite estimate for system quality that integrates components (subsystems, parts, modules) qualities and qualities of IC (compatibility) across subsystems; (c) monotonic criteria for the system and its components (parts, modules); and (d) quality estimates of system components and IC are evaluated by the same ordinal scales. The designations are:  (1) design alternatives (DAs) for nodes of the model;  (2) priorities of DAs (\(r=\overline{1,k}\); 1 corresponds to the best level of quality);  (3) an ordinal compatibility estimate for each pair of DAs (\(w=\overline{0,l}\); l corresponds to the best level of quality). The phases of HMMD are:

Phase 1 Design of the tree-like system model.

Phase 2 Generation of DAs for leaf nodes of the model.

Phase 3 Hierarchical selection and composing of DAs into composite DAs for the corresponding higher level of the system hierarchy.

Phase 4 Analysis and improvement of composite DAs (i.e., composite system solutions).

Thus, system S consisting of m parts (components) \(P(1),\ldots ,P(i),\ldots ,P(m)\) is considered. A set of design alternatives (DAs) is generated for each system part above (i.e., leaf node). The problem is:

Find composite design alternative   \(S=S(1)\star \cdots \star S(i)\star \cdots \star S(m)\): one representative design alternative S(i) for each system component/part  P(i) (\(i=\overline{1,m}\)) with non-zero  IC estimates between the representative DAs.

A discrete domain of the integrated system excellence is based on the vector:   \(N(S)=(w(S);n(S))\),  where w(S) is the minimum of pairwise compatibility between DAs which correspond to different system components (i.e., \(\forall \quad P_{j_{1}}\) and \( P_{j_{2}}\), \(1 \le j_{1} \ne j_{2} \le m\)) in S,  \(n(S)=(n_{1},\ldots ,n_{r},\ldots n_{k})\),  where \(n_{r}\) is the number of DAs of the rth quality in S  (\(\sum ^{k}_{r=1} n_{r} = m\)). Nondominated by N(S) composite solutions are searched for (i.e., Pareto-efficient solutions). The problem is NP-hard and enumerative methods may be used (e.g., while taking into account a reduced dimension by problem partition/decomposition) and heuristics. A simplified numerical example of morphological design is shown in Fig. 8: ordinal estimates of DAs are depicted in parentheses in Fig. 8a, positive ordinal compatibility estimates are depicted in Fig. 8b. The Pareto-efficient solutions are: \(S_{1}=X_{2}\star Y_{1}\star Z_{2}\), \(N(S_{1}) = (2;2,0,1)\); \(S_{2}=X_{3}\star Y_{1}\star Z_{3}\), \(N(S_{2}) = (3;1,1,1)\). \(S_{3}=X_{3}\star Y_{2}\star Z_{1}\), \(N(S_{3}) = (1;3,0,0)\).

Note, HMMD approach versions and their applications by various real-world examples are described in many publications (e.g., [116, 117]).

Fig. 8
figure8

Illustrative example of hierarchical morphological design

Example of Composite Challenge System

Figure 9 illustrates the design scheme of challenge system for 5G technology (while taking into account the topic “optimization methods”). The scheme solving components are based on heuristic (engineering) methods.

Fig. 9
figure9

General design scheme of challenge system for 5G technology

5G Technology Challenges

Table 2 contained an illustrative list of basic literature sources on 5G systems and corresponding challenges/key technologies. In addition, it may be reasonable to point out some basic resources in contemporary communication systems, for example: (a) time, (b) energy, (c) spectrum, and (d) cost. The corresponding design/management problems are the following: (1) sharing/location/allocation (e.g., devices, channels, frequency, energy), (2) caching, (3) configuration/reconfiguration (e.g., network topology), (4) adaptation (e.g., utilization modes), and (5) selection of the best modes, components, subsystems: selection of radio access technology, network node(s) (relay node(s), devices, channel, basic station, cloud, data center, access network, handoff/ handover strategies, etc).

Note, key requirements for 5G communication technology are described in [10, 52]: (1) high data rates, (2) low latency, (3) low energy consumption, (4) high stability, (5) improved connectivity and reliability, and (6) improved security. The following main network quality criteria (criteria or objective functions) are usually considered [184]: (1) peak data rate, (2) geographical area coverage, (3) spectral efficiency, (4) QoS, (5) QoE, (6) easy of connectivity, (7) energy-efficiency, (8) latency, (9) reliability, (10) fairness of users, (11) implementation complexity, and (12) system lifetime (maximization).

Table 2 Survey publications on 5G systems (challenges/key technologies, related issues)

Four integrated lists of challenges for 5G technology (based on recent literature) are presented in Table 3. Note, our basic illustrative set of information items as technology challenges for 5G communications was described in [120]. An examined general hierarchical structure of composite 5G challenge system is depicted in Fig. 10 [120].

Table 3 Challenges for 5G technology and CloudIoT
Fig. 10
figure10

General hierarchical structure of composite 5G challenge system

Optimization Based Composite 5G Challenge System

Tables 4 and 5 contain the selected 5G challenges (local DAs) based on topic “optimization”. Here, the illustrative estimates are based on expert judgment: (1) ordinal scale [1, 2, 3] for DAs, (2) ordinal scale [0, 1, 2, 3] for DAs compatibility. Note, the high values of DAs compatibility correspond to the case when the challenges are based on the same (or close) optimization model/approach.

The examined structure of the composite (modular) system is (Fig. 11, design alternative \(X_{0}\) corresponds to the absence of an activity, illustrative ordinal estimates of DAs are shown in parentheses as priorities in Tables 4 and 5):

0.\(S^{I} = A^{1} \star A^{2}\star A^{3} \star A^{4}\star A^{5} \) :

1.\( A^{1} = B^{1} \star B^{2} \):

1.1.\(B^{1}\) (IoT):  \(B^{1}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{1}_{1}(2)\), \(B^{1}_{2}(2)\), \(B^{1}_{3}(3)\), \(B^{1}_{4}(2)\), \(B^{1}_{5}(2)\), \(B^{1}_{6}(2)\), \(B^{1}_{7}(1)\), \(B^{1}_{8}(3)\), \(B^{1}_{9}(1)\);

1.2.\(B^{2}\) (D2D):  \(B^{2}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{2}_{1}(2)\), \(B^{2}_{2}(2)\), \(B^{2}_{3}(2)\), \(B^{2}_{4}(1)\), \(B^{2}_{5}(2)\), \(B^{2}_{6}(1)\), \(B^{2}_{7}(2)\), \(B^{2}_{8}(2)\), \(B^{2}_{9}(2)\), \(B^{2}_{10}(2)\).

2.\( A^{2} = B^{3} \) (RAT):  \(B^{3}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{3}_{1}(1)\), \(B^{3}_{2}(3)\), \(B^{3}_{3}(2)\), \(B^{3}_{4}(2)\), \(B^{3}_{5}(2)\).

3.\( A^{3} = B^{4} \star B^{5} \):

3.1.\(B^{4}\) (W-SDN):  \(B^{4}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{4}_{1}(1)\), \(B^{4}_{2}(1)\), \(B^{4}_{3}(2)\), \(B^{4}_{4}(2)\);

3.2.\(B^{5}\) (NFV):  \(B^{5}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{5}_{1}(2)\), \(B^{5}_{2}(2)\), \(B^{5}_{3}(2)\), \(B^{5}_{4}(2)\), \(B^{5}_{5}(2)\), \(B^{5}_{6}(2)\), \(B^{5}_{7}(2)\), \(B^{5}_{8}(2)\), \(B^{5}_{9}(2)\), \(B^{5}_{10}(1)\).

4.\( A^{4} = B^{6} \star B^{7} \):

4.1.\(B^{6}\) (Big Data and Mobile Cloud Computing):  \(B^{6}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{6}_{1}(1)\), \(B^{6}_{2}(2)\), \(B^{6}_{3}(2)\), \(B^{6}_{4}(3)\), \(B^{6}_{5}(2)\), \(B^{6}_{6}(2)\), \(B^{6}_{7}(1)\), \(B^{6}_{8}(2)\), \(B^{6}_{9}(1)\), \(B^{6}_{10}(2)\);

4.2.\(B^{7}\) (Mobile edge computing):  \(B^{7}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{7}_{1}(3)\), \(B^{7}_{2}(2)\), \(B^{7}_{3}(3)\), \(B^{7}_{4}(3)\), \(B^{7}_{5}(1)\).

5.\( A^{5} = B^{8} \star B^{9} \star B^{10} \star B^{11} \):

5.1.\(B^{8}\) (Green Communication):  \(B^{8}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{8}_{1}(3)\), \(B^{8}_{2}(3)\), \(B^{8}_{3}(1)\), \(B^{8}_{4}(3)\), \(B^{8}_{5}(2)\), \(B^{8}_{6}(3)\), \(B^{8}_{7}(3)\), \(B^{8}_{8}(3)\), \(B^{8}_{9}(2)\);

5.2.\(B^{9}\) (Massive MIMO):  \(B^{9}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{9}_{1}(3)\), \(B^{9}_{2}(3)\), \(B^{9}_{3}(3)\), \(B^{9}_{4}(2)\), \(B^{9}_{5}(1)\), \(B^{9}_{6}(2)\), \(B^{9}_{7}(2)\), \(B^{9}_{8}(2)\);

5.3.\(B^{10}\) (UDN):  \(B^{10}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{10}_{1}(1)\), \(B^{10}_{2}(2)\), \(B^{10}_{3}(2)\), \(B^{10}_{4}(2)\), \(B^{10}_{5}(2)\);

5.4.\(B^{11}\) (Millimeter Wave and TeraHertz):  \(B^{11}_{0}(3)\), \(B^{11}_{1}(1)\), \(B^{11}_{2}(2)\), \(B^{11}_{3}(3)\), \(B^{11}_{4}(2)\).

Illustrative ordinal estimates of DAs pair compatibilities (based on author expert judgment) are contained in Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

Fig. 11
figure11

Morphological hierarchical structure of composite 5G challenge system

Table 4 5G alternative improvement activities based on optimization approaches, part 1
Table 5 5G alternative improvement activities based on optimization approaches, part 2

The following Pareto-efficient composite DAs for system parts are obtained:

  1. 1.

    For subsystem \(A^{1}\)\(A^{1}_{1}= B^{1}_{7}\star B^{2}_{6}\), \(N(A^{1}_{1}) = (3; 2,0,0)\).

  2. 2.

    For subsystem \(A^{2}\)\(A^{2}_{1}= B^{3}_{1}\).

  3. 3.

    For subsystem \(A^{3}\)\(A^{3}_{1}= B^{4}_{1}\star B^{5}_{10}\), \(N(A^{3}_{1}) = (3; 2,0,0)\).

  4. 4.

    For subsystem \(A^{4}\)\(A^{4}_{1}= B^{6}_{1}\star B^{7}_{5}\), \(N(A^{4}_{1}) = (3; 2,0,0)\); \(A^{4}_{2}= B^{6}_{9}\star B^{7}_{5}\), \(N(A^{4}_{2}) = (3; 2,0,0)\).

  5. 5.

    For subsystem \(A^{5}\)\(A^{5}_{1}= B^{8}_{3} \star B^{9}_{5} \star B^{10}_{1} \star B^{11}_{1} \), \(N(A^{5}_{1}) = (1;4,0,0)\); \(A^{5}_{2}= B^{8}_{8} \star B^{9}_{7} \star B^{10}_{5} \star B^{11}_{2} \), \(N(A^{5}_{2}) = (3;0,3,1)\).

Figure 12 illustrates quality of two Pareto-efficient solutions for subsystem \(A^{5}\). Further, compatibility estimates are not used for composition of the resultant system solutions. The obtained resultant solutions (composite 5G challenge systems based on optimization approaches) are:

$$ S^{I}_{1}= A^{1}_{1} \star A^{2}_{1} \star A^{3}_{1} \star A^{4}_{1} \star A^{5}_{1};$$
$$ S^{I}_{2}= A^{1}_{1} \star A^{2}_{1} \star A^{3}_{1} \star A^{4}_{1} \star A^{5}_{2};$$
$$ S^{I}_{3}= A^{1}_{1} \star A^{2}_{1} \star A^{3}_{1} \star A^{4}_{2} \star A^{5}_{1}; {\text{ and}} $$
$$ S^{I}_{4}= A^{1}_{1} \star A^{2}_{1} \star A^{3}_{1} \star A^{4}_{4} \star A^{5}_{2}.$$
Fig. 12
figure12

Quality of \(A^{5}\)

Conclusion

This paper describes a combinatorial framework for selection and composition of technology challenges/key technologies based on optimization methods to design a composite technology challenge system. A numerical illustrative example for an optimization based modular technology challenges system in 5G communications is presented.

Note, the paper suggests firstly an important step to structuring the processes of the system improvement and/or system paradigm shift to design a hierarchical modular technology challenge system (instead of listing the prospective challenges and key technologies). Evidently, the suggested approach can be used for complex technological systems in various domains.

It may be reasonable to consider the following future research directions: (1) investigation of technology challenge systems in various computer science/engineering domains; (2) special study for designing a hierarchy (or ontology) of technology challenges; (3) examination of the combinatorial framework under uncertainty; (4) designing a special computer-aided system to support the suggested combinatorial framework; (5) study of composite innovations as combination of modular innovation activities (e.g., challenges/key technologies); (6) study of multi-stage composite technology challenge(s) systems; and (7) using the suggested combinatorial framework and its applications in computer science/engineering education (e.g., for student projects).

Table 6 Estimates of ordinal compatibility between DAs for \(A^{1} = B^{1} \star B^{2}\)
Table 7 Estimates of ordinal compatibility between DAs for \(A^{3} = B^{4} \star B^{5}\)
Table 8 Estimates of ordinal compatibility between DAs for \(A^{4} = B^{6} \star B^{7}\)
Table 9 Estimates of ordinal compatibility between DAs for \(A^{5} = B^{8} \star B^{9} \star B^{10} \star B^{11} \), part 1
Table 10 Estimates of ordinal compatibility between DAs for \(A^{5} = B^{8} \star B^{9} \star B^{10} \star B^{11}\), part 2
Table 11 Estimates of ordinal compatibility between DAs for \(A^{5} = B^{8} \star B^{9} \star B^{10} \star B^{11}\), part 3

References

  1. 1.

    Abbas N, Zhang Y, Taherkordi A, Skeie T. Mobile edge computing: a survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 2018;5(1):450–65.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Abrol A, Jha RK. Power optimization in 5G networks: a step towards green communication. IEEE Access. 2016;4:1355–74.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Abrol A, Jha RK, Jain S, Kumar P. Joint power allocation and relay selection strategy for 5G network: a step towards green communication. Telecommun. Syst. 2017;68(2):201–15.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Agarwal S, Malandrino F, Chiasserini C-F, De S. Joint VNF placement and CPU allocation in 5G. In: 2018 IEEE conference on computer communications (INFOCOM) 2018. IEEE; 2018. p. 1943–1951.

  5. 5.

    Agarwal S, Malandrino F, Chiasserini C-F, De S. VNF placement and resource allocation for the support of vertical services in 5G networks. Electr prepr, 2018; Dec 29. arXiv:1812.11365 [cs.NI]

  6. 6.

    Agiwal M, Roy A, Saxena N. Next generation 5G wireless networks: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2016;18(3):1617–55.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ahmad M, Azam M, Naeem M, Iqbal M, Anpalagan A, Haneef M. Resource management in D2D communication: an optimization perspective. J Netw Comput Appl. 2017;93:51–75.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ai Y, Peng M, Zhang K. Edge computing technology for Internet of Things: a primer. Digit Commun Netw. 2018;4(2):77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Akkaya K, Younis M. A survey on routing protocols for wireless sensor networks. Ad Hoc Netw. 2005;3:325–49.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Akyildiz IF, Nie S, Lin S-C, Chandrasekaran M. 5G roadmap: 10 key enabling technologies. Comput Netw. 2016;106:17–48.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Al-karaki JN, Kamal AE. Routing techniques in wireless sensor networks: a survey. IEEE Wirel Commun. 2004;11:6–28.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ali MS, Tabassum H, Hossain E. Dynamic user clustering and power allocation for uplink and downlink non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) systems. IEEE Access. 2016;4:6325–43.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Al-Kinani A, Wang C-X, Zhou L, Zhang W. Optical wireless communication measurements and models. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2018;20(3):1939–62.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Alleg A, Ahmed T, Mosbah M, Riggo R, Boutaba R. Delay-aware VNF placement and chaining based on a flexible resource allocation approach. In: 2017 13th international conference on network and service management (CNSM). IEEE; 2017. p. 1–7.

  15. 15.

    Andreev S, Petrov V, Huang K, Lema MA, Dohler M. Dense moving fog for intelligent IoT: key challenges and opportunities. Electr prepr; 2018. arXiv:1812.08387 [cs.NI]

  16. 16.

    Asadi A, Wang Q, Mancuso V. A survey on device-to-device communication in cellular networks. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2014;16(4):1801–19.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ayres RU. Technological forecasting and long-time planning. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Baqrcelo M, Correa A, Llorca J, Tullino AM, Vicario JL, Morell A. IoT-cloud service optimization in next generation smart environments. IEEE J Sel Area Commun. 2016;34(12):4077–90.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Basagni S. Finding a maximal weighted independent set in wireless networks. Telecommun Syst. 2001;18(1–3):155–68.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Basta A, Kellerer W, Hoffmann M, Morper H, Hoffmann K. Applying NFV and SDN to LTE mobile core gateways, functions placement problem. In: 4th workshop on all things cellular: operations. Applications, and challenges. ACM; 2014. p. 33–38.

  21. 21.

    Basta A, Blenk A, Hoffmann K, Morper HJ, Hoffmann M, Kellerer W. Towards a cost optimal design for a 5G mobile core network based on SDN and NFV. IEEE Trans Netw Serv Man. 2017;14(4):1061–75.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bastug E, Bennis M, Debbah M. Living on the edge: the role of proactive caching in 5G wireless networks. IEEE Commun Mag. 2014;52(8):82–9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Baumgartner A, Reddy VS, Bauschert T. Combined virtual mobile core network function placement and topology optimization with latency bounds. EWSDN. 2015;2015:97–102.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Bauschert T, Busing C, D’Andreagiovanni F, Koster AMCA, Kutschka M, Steglich U. Network planning under demand uncertainty with robust optimization. IEEE Commun Mag. 2014;52(2):178–85.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Beck MT, Maier M. Mobile edge computing: challenges for future virtual network embedding algorithms. In: 8th international conference advance engineering computer application in Sci (ADVCOMP); 2014. p. 65–70.

  26. 26.

    Beloglazov A, Abawajy J, Buyya R. Energy-aware resource allocation heuristics for efficient management of data centers for cloud computing. Future Gen Comput Syst. 2012;28(5):755–68.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ben-Shimol Y, Ben-Moshe B, Ben-Yehezkel Y, Dvir A, Segal M. Automated antenna positioning algorithms for wireless fixed-access networks. J Heuristics. 2007;13(3):243–63.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bernardos CJ, de la Oliva A, Serrano P, Banchs A, Contreras LM, Jin H, Zuniga JC. An architecture for software defined wireless networking. IEEE Wirel Commun. 2014;21(3):52–61.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bisio I, Braccini C, Delucchi S, Lavagetto F, Marchese M. Dynamic multi-attribute network selection algorithm for Vertical Handover procedures over mobile ad hoc networks. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC). IEEE; 2014. p. 342–347.

  30. 30.

    Bittencourt L, Immich R, Sakellariou R, Foneseca N, Madeira E, Curado M, Villas L, DaSilva L, Lee C, Rana O. The internet of things, fog and cloud continuum: integration and challenges. Internet Things. 2018;3–4:134–55.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Bjornson E, Sanguinetti L, Hoydis J, Debbah M. Optimal design of energy-efficient multi-user MIMO systems: is massive MIMO the answer? IEEE Trans Wirel Commun. 2015;14(6):3059–75.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Blum J, Ding M, Thaeler A, Cheng X. Connected dominating set in sensor networks and MANETs. In: Du D-Z, Pardalos PM, editors. Handbook of combinatorial optimization. Berlin: Springer; 2005. p. 329–69.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Boccardi F, Health RW, Lozano A, Marzetta TL, Popovski P. Five disruptive technology directions for 5G. IEEE Commun Mag. 2014;52(2):74–80.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Botta A, de Donato W, Persico V, Pescape A. Integration of cloud computing and internet of things: a survey. Future Gen Comput Syst. 2016;56:684–700.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Brinkmann G, Crevals S, Fry J. An independent set approach for the communication network of the GPS III system. Discrete Appl Math. 2013;161:573–9.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Budzisz L, Ganji F, Rizzo G, Marsan MA, Meo M, Zhang Y, Koutitas G, Tassiulas L, Lambert S, Lannoo B, Pickavet M, Conte A, Haratcherev I, Wolisz A. Dynamic resource provisioning for energy efficiency in wireless access networks: a survey and an outlook. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2014;16(4):2259–85.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Cavendish D, Gerla M. Routing optimization in communication networks. In: Cheng MX, Li Y, Du D-Z, editors. Combinatorial optimization in communication networks. Berlin: Springer; 2006. p. 505–47.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Chang Z, Wang Z, Guo X, Han Z, Ristaniemi T. Energy-efficient resource allocation for wireless powered massive MIMO system with imperfect CSI. IEEE Trans Green Commun Netw. 2017;1(2):121–30.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chen T, Zhang H, Chen X, Tirkkonen O. Softmobile: control evolution for future heterogeneous mobile networks. IEEE Wirl Commun. 2014;21(6):70–8.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Chen S, Qin F, Hu B, Li X, Chen Z. User-centric ultra-dense network for 5G: challenges, methodologies, and directions. IEEE Wirl Commun. 2016;23(2):78–85.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Chen S, Qin F, Hu B, Li X, Liu J. Ultra-dense network architecture and technologies for 5G. In: Xiang W, Zheng K, Shen X, editors. 5G mobile communications. Berlin: Springer; 2017. p. 403–429.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Cheng MX, Li Y, Du D-Z, editors. Combinatorial optimization in communication networks. Berlin: Springer; 2006.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Chiang M, Zhang T. Fog and IoT: an overview of research opportunities. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016;3(6):854–64.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Chiaraviglio L, Cianfrani A, Coiro A, Listanti M, Polverini M. Green routing/switching and transport. In: Samdanis K, Rost P, Maeder A, Meo M, Verikoukis C, editors. Green communications. Principles, concepts and practice. Chichester: Wiley; 2015. p. 257–75.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Chin WH, Fan Z, Haines R. Emerging technologies and research challenges for 5G wireless networks. IEEE Wirl Commun. 2014;21(2):106–12.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Chowdhury NMK, Boutaba R. Network virtualization: state of the art and research challenges. IEEE Commun Mag. 2009;47(7):20–6.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Chu Z, Zhou F, Zhu Z, Hu RQ, Xiao P. Wireless powered sensor networks for internet of things: maximum throughput and optimal power allocation. IEEE Internet Things J. 2018;5(1):310–21.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Colistra G, Pilloni V, Atzori L. The problem of task allocation in the internet of things and the consensus based approach. Comput Netw. 2014;73:98–111.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL. Introduction to algorithms. 3rd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2009.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Coro F, D’Angelo G, Pinotti CM. Adding edges for maximizing weighted reachability. Algorithms. 2020;13(3):68.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Cui M, Hu B-J, Li X, Chen H, Hu S, Wang Y. Energy-efficient power control algorithms in massive MIMO cognitive radio networks. IEEE Access. 2017;5:1164–77.

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Dahlman E, Mildh G, Parkvall S, Peisa J, Sachs J, Selen Y, Skold J. 5G wireless access: requirements and realization. IEEE Commun Mag. 2014;52(12):42–7.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Dao N-N, Park M, Kim J, Cho S. Adaptive MCS selection and resoruce planning for energy-effcient communication in LTE-M based IoT sensing platform. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0182527.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Dao N-N, Lee J, Vu D-N, Paek J, Keumn C, Kim J, Cho S, Cho J, Chung K-S. Adaptive resource balancing for serviceability maximization in fog radio access networks. IEEE Access. 2017;5:14548–59.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Dao N-N, Park M, Kim J, Paek J, Cho S. Resource-aware relay selection for inter-cell interference avoidance in 5G heterogeneous networks for internet of things systems. Fut Gen Comput Syst. 2019;93:877–87.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Dastjerdi AV, Buyya R. Fog computing: helping the internet of things realize its potential. Computer. 2016;49:112–6.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Demestichas P, Georakopoulos A, Karvounas D, Tsagkaris K, Stavroulaki V, Lu J, Xiong C, Yao J. 5G on the horizon: key challenges for the radio-access network. IEEE Veh Technol Mag. 2013;8(3):47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Diaz M, Martin C, Rubio B. State-of-the-art, challenges, and open issues in the integration of internet of things and cloud computing. J Netw Comput Appl. 2016;67:99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Ding S, He X, Wang Z. Multiobjective optimization model for service node selection based on a tradeoff between quality of service and resource consumption in mobile crowd sensing. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017;4(1):258–68.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Ding W, Niu Y, Wu H, Li Y, Zhong Z. QoS-aware full-duplex concurrent scheduling for millimeter wave wireless backhaul networks. Electr prepr; 2018. arXiv:1812.11326 [cs.NI]

  61. 61.

    Dinitz Y, Dolev S, Khankin D. Make & Activate-Before-Break: policy preserving seamless routes replacement in SDN. In: International colloquium on structural information and communication complexity (SIROCCO 2018). LNCS 11085. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Do TX, Kim Y. Usage-aware protection plan for state management functions in service-based 5G core network. IEEE Access. 2018;6:36906–15.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Du D-Z, Pardalos PM, editors. Handbook of combinatorial optimization. Berlin: Springer; 2005.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Du D-Z, Hu X. Steiner tree problems in computer communication networks. Singapore: World Scientific; 2007.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Dubov YA, Travkin SI, Iakimets VN. Multiobjective models for formation and choice of systems variants. Nauka; 1986 (in Russian).

  66. 66.

    Elsersy M, Elfouly TM. Joint optimal placement, routing, and flow assignment in wireless sensor networks for structural health monitoring. IEEE Sens J. 2016;16(12):5095–106.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Estmat HH, Elmesalawy MM, Ibrahim II. Uplink resource allocation and power control for D2D communications underlaying multi-cell mobile networks. Int J Electron Commun (AEU). 2018;93:163–71.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Fang G, Jin S. Coverage problems in wireless sensor network: survey. J Netw. 2010;5(9):1033–40.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Ferdouse L, Ejaz W, Raahemifar K, Anpalagan A, Markandaier M. Interference and throughput aware resource allocation for multi-class D2D in 5G networks. Commun IET. 2017;11(8):1241–50.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Fernando N, Loke SW, Rahayu W. Mobile cloud computing: a survey. Future Gen Comput Syst. 2013;29(1):84–106.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Francois J, Cholez T, Engel T. CNN traffic optimization for IoT. In: 2013 fourth international conference on the network of the future (NOF); 2013. p. 1–5.

  72. 72.

    Fu Y, Wang S, Wang C-X, Hong X, McLaughlin S. Artificial intelligence to manage network traffic of 5G wireless networks. IEEE Netw. 2018;32(6):58–64.

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Gai K, Qiu M, Zhao H. Energy-aware task assignment for mobile cyber-enabled applications in heterogeneous cloud computing. J Parallel Distr Comput. 2018;111:126–35.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Gandotra P, Jha RK. Device-to-device communication in cellular networks: a survey. J Netw Comput Appl. 2016;71:99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Gandotra P, Jha RK, Jain S. A survey on device-to-device (D2D) communication: architecture and security issues. J Netw Comput Appl. 2017;78:9–29.

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Gandotra P, Jha RK, Jain S. Sector-based radio resource allocation (SBRRA) algorithm for better quality of service and experience in device-to-device (D2D) communication. Electr prepr; 2018. arXiv:1801.06866 [cs.NI]

  77. 77.

    Garcia-Rois J, Gomez-Cuba F, Riza Akdeniz M, Gonzalez-Castano F, Burguillo-Rial J, Rangan S, Lorenzo B. On the analysis of scheduling in dynamic duplex multihop mmWave cellular systems. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun. 2015;14(11):6028–42.

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Garey MR, Johnson DS. Computers and intractability. San-Francisco: W.H. Freeman; 1979.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Ge X, Chen J, Wang C-X, Thompson J, Zhang J. 5G green cellular networks considering power allocation schemes. Sci Chin Inf Sci. 2016;59(2):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Ge X, Tu S, Mao G, Lau VKN, Pan L. Cost efficiency optimization of 5G wireless backhaul networks. IEEE Trans Mob Comput. 2019;18(12):2796–810.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Gibowski M, Gacanin H, Moscholios I, Zwierzykowski P, editors. Special Issue “Design, Dimensioning, and Optimization of 4G/5G Wireless Communication Networks”. Mobile Information Systems; 2017.

  82. 82.

    Gotsis A, Stefanatos S, Alexiou A. UltraDense networks: the new wireless frontier for enabling 5g access. IEEE Veh Technol Mag. 2016;11(2):71–8.

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Govindarajan R, Rengarajan S. Buffer allocation in regular dataflow networks: an approach based on coloring circular-arc graph. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on high performance computer (HiPC). IEEE; 1996. p. 419–424.

  84. 84.

    Gu J, Yoon H-W, Lee J, Bae SJ, Chung MY. A resource allocation scheme for device-to-device communications using LTE-A uplink resources. Perv Mob Comput. 2015;18:104–17.

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Gupta A, Jha RK. A survey of 5G network: architecture and emerging technologies. IEEE Access. 2015;3:1206–32.

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Gupta A, Jha RK. Power optimization using massive MIMO and small cells approach in different deployment scenarios. Wirel Netw. 2017;23(3):959–73.

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Han B, Gopalakrishnan V, Ji L, Lee S. Network function virtualization: challenges and opportunities for innovation. IEEE Commun Mag. 2015;53(2):90–7.

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Heradio R, Perez-Morago H, Fernandez-Amoros D, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E. A bibliometric analysis of 20 years of research on software product lines. Inf Soft Technol. 2016;72:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Herrera JG, Botero JF. Resource allocation in NFV: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Trans Netw Serv Manag. 2016;13(3):518–32.

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Hossain E, Hasan M. 5G cellular: key enabling technologies and research challenges. IEEE Instrum Meas Mag. 2015;18(3):11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Huang D, Wu H. Mobile cloud computing: foundations and service models. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Imran A, Zoha A. Challenges in 5G: how to empower SON with big data for enabling 5G. IEEE Netw. 2014;28:27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Jabeen S, Ho PH. A benchmark for joint channel allocation and user scheduling in flexible heterogeneous networks. IEEE Trans Veh Technol. 2019;68(9):9233–44.

    Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Jagadeesan NA, Krishnamachari B. Software-defined networking paradigms in wireless networks: a survey. ACM Comput Surv. 2015;47(2):1–11 (art. 27).

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Jensen TR, Toft B. Graph coloring problems. New York: Wiley; 1990.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Jin S, Wang J, Sun Q, Matthaiou M, Gao X. Cell coverage optimization for the multicell massive MIMO uplink. IEEE Trans Veh Techn. 2015;64(12):5713–27.

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Jo M, Maksymyuk T, Strykhalyuk B, Cho C-H. Device-to-device-based heterogeneous radio access network architecture for mobile cloud computing. IEEE Wirel Commun. 2015;22(3):50–8.

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Jones JC. Design methods. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Kadir EA, Shamsuddin SM, Rahman TA, Ismail AS. Big data network architecture and monitoring use wireless 5G technology. Int J Adv Soft Comput Appl. 2015;7(1):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Kaewpuang R, Niyato D, Wang P, Hossain E. A framework for cooperative resource management in mobile cloud computing. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun. 2013;31(12):2685–700.

    Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Kazmi SM, Tran NH, Saad W, Han Z, Ho TM, Oo TZ, Hong CS. Mode selection and resource allocation in device-to-device communications: a matching game approach. IEEE Trans Mob Comput. 2017;16(11):3126–41.

    Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Kellerer H, Pferschy U, Pisinger D. Knapsack problems. Berlin: Springer; 2004.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Khalil EA, Ozdemir S, Tosun S. Evolutionary task allocation in internet of things-based application domains. Future Gen Comput Syst. 2018;86:121–33.

    Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Khalili S, Simeone O. Inter-layer per-mobile optimization of cloud mobile computing: a message-passing approach. Electr prepr. 2015. arXiv:1509.01596 [cs.DC]

  105. 105.

    Khan AR, Othman M, Madani SA, Khan SU. A survey of mobile cloud computing application models. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2014;16(1):393–413.

    Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Kiani A, Ansari N. Toward hierarchical mobile edge computing: an auction-based profit maximization approach. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017;4(6):2082–91.

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Kreutz D, Ramos FM, Verissimo PE, Rothenberg CE, Azodol-molky S, Uhlig S. Software-defined networking: a comprehensive survey. Proc IEEE. 2015;103(1):14–76.

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Ksentini A, Bagaa M, Taleb T. On using SDN in 5G: the controller placement problem. In: 2016 IEEE global communications conference (GLOBECOM). IEEE; 2016. p. 1–6.

  109. 109.

    Kuo T-W, Liou B-H, Lin KC-J, Tsai M-J. Deploying chains of virtual network functions: on the relation between link and server usage. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw. 2018;26(4):1562–76.

    Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Kwak J, Kim Y, Lee J, Chong S. DREAM: dynamic resource and task allocation for energy minimization in mobile cloud systems. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun. 2015;33(12):2510–23.

    Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    La QD, Ngo MV, Dinh TQ, Quek TQS. Enabling intelligence in fog computing to achieve energy and latency reduction. Digit Commun Netw. 2019;5(1):3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Laengle S, Merigo JM, Miranda J, Slowinski R, Bomze I, Borgonovo E, Teunter R. Forty years of the European journal of operational research: a bibliometric overview. Eur J Oper Res. 2017;262(3):803–16.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Larsson C. 5G networks: planning. Design and optimization. New York: Elsevier; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Lei L, Zhong Z, Zheng K, Chen J, Meng H. Challenges on wireless heterogeneous networks for mobile cloud computing. IEEE Wirel Commun. 2013;20(3):34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Levin MS. Combinatorial engineering of decomposable systems. Berlin: Springer; 1998.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Levin MS. Composite systems decisions. Berlin: Springer; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Levin MS. Modular system design and evaluation. Berlin: Springer; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Levin MS. Bin packing problems (promising models and examples). J Commun Technol Electr. 2018;63(6):655–66.

    Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Levin MS. On combinatorial models of generations of wireless communication systems. J Commun Technol Electr. 2018;63(6):667–79.

    Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Levin MS. Towards combinatorial framework for composite 5G communication challenge system. Preprint (techn. report). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10684.49284

  121. 121.

    Levin MS. Note on decision support platform for modular systems. Inf Process. 2019;19(2):132–41.

    Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Lhazmir S, Kobbane A, Ben-Othman J. Channel assignment for D2D communication: a regret matching based approach. In: 2018 14th international wireless communication mobile computer conference (IWCMC 2018). IEEE; 2018. p. 322–327.

  123. 123.

    Li XY, Wan PJ, Frieder P. Coverage in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks. IEEE Trans Comput. 2003;52(6):753–63.

    Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Li S, Xu LD, Zhao S. 5G internet of things: a survey. J Ind Inf Integr. 2018;10:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Li S, Zhai D, Du P, Han T. Energy efficient task offloading, load balancing, and resource allocation in mobile edge computing enabled IoT networks. Sci China Inf Sci. 2019;62(2):29307.

    Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Liaskos C, Tsioliaridou A, Pitsillidesz A, Ioannidis S, Akyildizyz IF. Using any surface to realize a new paradigm for wireless communications. Electr prepr. 2015. arXiv:1806.04585 [cs.NI]

  127. 127.

    Liaskos C, Nie S, Tsioliaridou A, Pitsillidesz A, Ioannidis S, Akyildizyz IF. A new wireless communication paradigm through software-controlled metasurfaces. IEEE Commun Mag. 2018;56(9):162–9.

    Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Liu W, Zappone A, Yang C, Jorswieck E. Global EE optimization of massive MIMO systems. In: 2015 IEEE 16th international workshop on signal processing advances in wireless communications (SPAWC). IEEE; 2015. p. 221–225.

  129. 129.

    Liu J, Zhang J, Letaief KB. Delay-optimal computation task scheduling for mobile-edge computing systems. In: 2016 IEEE international symposium information theory (ISIT). IEEE; 2016. p. 870–874.

  130. 130.

    Liu Y, Fieldsend JE, Min G. A framework of Fog computing: architecture, challenges, and optimization. IEEE Access. 2017;5:25445–54.

    Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Liyanage M, Abro AB, Ylianttila M, Gurtov A. Opportunities and challenges of software-defined mobile networks in network security. IEEE Secur Priv. 2016;14(4):34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Lodi A, Martello S, Monaci M, Cicconetti C, Lenzini L, Mingozzi E, Eklund C, Moilanen J. Efficient two-dimensional packing algorithm for mobile WiMAX. Manag Sci. 2011;57:2130–44.

    Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Mahmood A, Kiah MLM, Zaba MR, Qureshi AN, Kassim MSS, Hasan ZHA, Kakarla J, Amiri IS, Azzuhri SR. Capacity and frequency optimization of wireless backhaul network using traffic forecasting. IEEE Access. 2020;8:23264–76.

    Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Malandrino F, Chiasserini C-F, Casetti C, Landi G, Capitani M. An optimization-enhanced MANO for energy-efficient 5G networks. Electr prepr; 2019. arXiv:1907.10669 [cs.NI]

  135. 135.

    Mao Y, You C, Huang K, Letaief KB. Mobile edge computing: survey and research outlook. Electr prepr; 2017. arXiv:1701.01090 [cs.IT]

  136. 136.

    Mao Y, Zhang J, Letaief KB. Joint task offloading scheduling and transmit power allocation for mobile-edge computing systems. Electr prepr; 2017. arXiv:1701.05055 [cs.IT]

  137. 137.

    Mao Y, You C, Zhang J, Huang K, Letaief KB. A survey on mobile edge computing: the communication perspective. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2017;19(4):2322–58.

    Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Marsch P, Da Silva I, Bulakci O, Tesanovic M, El Ayoubi SE, Rosowski T, Kaloxylos A, Boldi M. 5G radio access network architecture: design guidelines and key considerations. IEEE Commun Mag. 2016;54(11):24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Mastelic T, Oleksiak A, Claussen H, Brandic I, Pierson J-M, Vasilakos AV. Cloud computing: survey on energy efficiency. ACM Surv. 2015;47(2):33.

    Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Matalatala M, Deruyck M, Shikhantsov S, Tanghe E, Plets D, Goudos S, Psannis KE, Martens L, Joseph W. Multi-objective optimization of massive MIMO 5G wireless networks towards power consumption, uplink and downlink exposure. Appl Sci. 2019;9:4974.

    Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Merigo JM, Pedrycz M, Weber R, De la Sotta C. Fifty years of information sciences: a bibliometric overview. Inf Sci. 2018;432:245–68.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Mijumbi R, Serrat J, Gorricho J-L, Bouten N, De Turck F, Boutaba R. Network function virtualization: state-of-the art and research challenges. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2016;18(1):236–62.

    Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Mijumbi R, Serrat J, Gorricho J-L, Latre S, Charalambides M, Lopez D. Management and orchestration challenges in network functions virtualization. IEEE Commun Mag. 2016;54(1):98–105.

    Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Mitra RN, Agrawal DP. 5G mobile technology: a survey. ICT Express. 2015;1(3):132–7.

    Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Mohamed SM, Hamza HS, Saroit IA. Coverage in mobile wireless sensor networks (M-WSN): a survey. Comput Commun. 2017;110:133–50.

    Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Morgado A, Huq KMS, Mumtaz S, Rodriguez J. A survey of 5G technologies: regulatory, standardization and industrial perspectives. Digit Commun Netw. 2018;4(2):87–97.

    Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Munoz O, Piserte A, Vidal J. Joint optimization of radio and computational resources for multicell mobile-edge computing. IEEE Trans Sign Inf Proc Over Netw. 2015;1(2):89–103.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Nath S, Seal A, Banerjee T, Sarkar SK. Optimization using swarm intelligence and dynamic graph partitioning in IoE infrastructure: fog computing and cloud computing. In: Mandal J, Dutta P, Mukhopadhyay S, editors. Comput Intel Comm Bus Anal CICBA 2017. Berlin: Springer; 2017. p. 440–52.

    Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Nawaz F, Asadabadi MR, Janjua NK, Hussain OK. An MCDM method for cloud service selection using a Markov chain and the best-worst method. Knowl Based Syst. 2018;159:120–31.

    Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Nguyen XT, Tran HT, Bartaki H, Geiths K. Optimization of non-functional properties in internet of things applications. J Netw Comput Appl. 2017;89:120–9.

    Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Nguyen V-G, Brunstrom A, Grinnemo K-J, Taheri J. SDN/NFV-based mobile packet core network architecture: a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2017;19(3):1567–602.

    Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Noura M, Nordin R. A survey on interference management for device-to-device (D2D) communication and its challenges in 5G networks. J Netw Comput Appl. 2016;71:130–50.

    Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Pai S, Pemmaraju SV. Connectivity lower bounds in broadcast congested clique. Electr prepr; 2019. arXiv:1905.09001 [cs.DC]

  154. 154.

    Palattella MR, Dohler M, Grieco A, Rizzo G, Torsner J, Engel T, Ladid L. Internet of things in the 5G era: enablers, architecture, and business models. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun. 2016;34(3):510–27.

    Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Panwar N, Sharma S, Singh AK. A survey on 5G: the next generation of mobile communication. Phys Commun. 2016;18(2):64–84.

    Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Papagianni C, Leivadeas A, Papavassiliou S, Maglaris V, Cervello-Pastor C, Monje A. On the optimal allocation of virtual resources in cloud computing networks. IEEE Trans Comput. 2013;62:1060–71.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Paul A. Graph based M2M optimization in an IoT environment. In: Suen CY, Aghdam AG, Guo M, Hong J, Nadimi ES, editors. 2013 Research in Adap and Converg Syst (RACS), ACM; 2013. p. 45–46.

  158. 158.

    Pemmaraju SV, Raman R, Varadarajan KR. Buffer minimization using max-coloring. In: 15th Ann ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discr Alg (SODA’04); 2004. p. 562–571.

  159. 159.

    Penttinen JTJ. 5G explained: security and deployment of advanced mobile communications. New York: Wiley; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Prim R. Shortest connection networks and some generalizations. Bell Syst J. 1957;36:1389–401.

    Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Qi Y, Imran MA, Tafazolli R. Energy-efficient mobile network design and planning. In: Samdanis K, Rost P, Maeder A, Meo M, Verikoukis C, editors. Green communications. Principles: concepts and practice. New York: Wiley; 2015. p. 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Qian M, Wang Y, Zhou Y, Tian L, Shi J. A super base station based centralized network architecture for 5G mobile communication systems. Digit Commun Netw. 2015;1(2):152–9.

    Google Scholar 

  163. 163.

    Ritchey T. Wicked problems/social messes: decision support modelling with morphological analysis. Berlin: Springer; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Roman R, Lopez J, Mambo M, et al. Mobile edge computing, fog: a survey and analysis of security threats and challenges. Electr prepr; 2016. arXiv:1602.00484 [cs.CR]

  165. 165.

    Rostami AS, Badkoobe M, Mohanna F. Survey on clustering in heterogeneous and homogeneous wireless sensor networks. J Supercomput. 2018;74(1):277–323.

    Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Sachan R, Choi TJ, Ahn CW. A genetic algorithm with location intelligence method for energy optimization in 5G wireless networks. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2016; 2016 (Art. ID 5348203).

  167. 167.

    Sardellitti S, Scutari G, Barbarossa S. Joint optimization of radio and computational resources for multicell mobile cloud computing. Electr prepr; 2014. arXiv:1412.8416 [cs.NI]

  168. 168.

    Seruffo M, Frances C, Santana A, Vijaykumar M. Heuristic algorithm based on multicriteria analysis for selection of first mile access in standard integrated services digital broadcast terrestrial. IET Commun. 2012;6(7):2933–40.

    Google Scholar 

  169. 169.

    de Souza PA, Abdallah AS, Bueno EF, Cardoso KV. Virtualized radio access networks: centralization allocation and positioning of resources. In: 2008 IEEE international conference of communication workshops (ICC Workshops); 2018. p. 1–6.

  170. 170.

    Steffen G et al., Demonstrating the optimal placement of virtualized cellular network functions in case of large crown events. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference SIGCOMM; 2014. p. 359–360.

  171. 171.

    Takechi R, Ogawa K, Okuda M. Use of self-organizing networks to optimize radio access networks. Fujitsu Sci Technol J. 2012;48(1):83–8.

    Google Scholar 

  172. 172.

    Taksande PK, Jha P, Karamdikar A. Dual connectivity support in 5G networks: an SDN based approach. Electr prepr; 2018. arXiv:1812.11825 [cs.NI]

  173. 173.

    Taleb T, Bagaa M, Ksentini A. User mobility-aware virtual network function placement for virtual 5G network infrastructure. In: 2015 IEEE international conference communications (ICC). IEEE; 2015. p. 3879–3884.

  174. 174.

    Tan F, Lv T, Yang S. Power allocation optimization for energy efficient massive MIMO aided multi-pair decode-and-forward relay systems. IEEE Trans Commun. 2017;65(6):2368–81.

    Google Scholar 

  175. 175.

    Tan F, Lv T, Huang P. Global energy efficiency optimization for wireless-powered massive MIMO aided multiway AF relay networks. IEEE Trans Sign Proc. 2018;66(9):2384–98.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  176. 176.

    Tannenbaum AS, Wetherrall DJ. Computer networks. 5th ed. London: Pearson; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  177. 177.

    Tandon R, Simeone O. Harnessing cloud and edge synergies: toward an information theory of fog radio access networks. IEEE Commun Mag. 2016;54(8):44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  178. 178.

    Tata S, Mohamed M, Megahed A. An optimization approach for adaptive monitoring in IoT environments. In: 2017 IEEE international conference service computation (SCC). IEEE; 2017. p. 378–385.

  179. 179.

    Tehrani M, Uysal M, Yanikomeroglu H. Device-to-device communication in 5G cellular networks: challenges, solutions, and future directions. IEEE Commun Mag. 2014;52(5):86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  180. 180.

    Tesema FB, Awada A, Viering I, Simsek M, Fettweis G. Evaluation of context-aware mobility robustness optimization and multi-connectivity in intra-frequency 5G ultra dense networks. IEEE Wirel Commun Lett. 2016;5:608–11.

    Google Scholar 

  181. 181.

    Tongaonkar A, Torres R, Iliofotou M, Keralapura R, Nucci A. Towards self adaptive network traffic classification. Comput Commun. 2015;56:35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  182. 182.

    Vaquero LM, Rodero-Merino L. Finding your way to fog: toward a comprehensive definition of fog computing. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev. 2014;44(5):27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  183. 183.

    Venturino L, Prasad N, Wang X. Coordinated scheduling and power allocation in downlink multicell ofdma networks. IEEE Trans Veh Technol. 2009;58(6):2835–48.

    Google Scholar 

  184. 184.

    Wang C-X, Haider F, Gao X, You X, Yang Y, Yuan D, Aggoune HM, Haas H, Fletcher S, Hepsaydir E. Cellular architecture and key technologies or 5G wireless communication networks. IEEE Commun Mag. 2014;52(2):122–30.

    Google Scholar 

  185. 185.

    Wang X, Chen M, Taleb T, Ksentini A, Leung VC. Cache in the air: exploiting content caching and delivery techniques for 5G systems. IEEE Commun Mag. 2014;52(2):131–9.

    Google Scholar 

  186. 186.

    Wang Y, Chen I-R, Wang D-C. A survey of mobile cloud computing applications: perspectives and challenges. Wirl Pers Commun. 2015;80(4):1607–23.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  187. 187.

    Wang C, Ren K, Wang J. Secure optimization computation outsourcing in cloud computing: a case study of linear programming. IEEE Trans Comput. 2016;65(1):216–29.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  188. 188.

    Wang L, Lu Z, Wen X, Knopp R, Gupta R. Joint optimization of service function chaining and resource allocation in network function virtualization. IEEE Access. 2016;4:8084–94.

    Google Scholar 

  189. 189.

    Wang R, Zhang J, Song SH, Letaief KB. QoS-aware joint mode selection and channel assignment for D2D communications. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on communication ICC 2016; 2016. p. 1–6.

  190. 190.

    Wang R, Zhang J, Song SH, Letaief KB. Optimal QoS-aware channel assignment in D2D communications with partial CSI. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun. 2016;15(11):7594–609.

    Google Scholar 

  191. 191.

    Wang X, Muxuan L, Xianglu L, Jiangian S. Multiple spectra allocation based on software defined wireless network. In: 2016 2nd international conference computer and communications (ICCC 2016). IEEE; 2016. p. 1460–1466.

  192. 192.

    Wang G, Zhao Y, Huang J, Wang W. The controller placement problem in software defined networking: a survey. IEEE Netw. 2017;31(5):21–7.

    Google Scholar 

  193. 193.

    Wang T, Ma C, Sun Y, Zhang S, Wu Y. Energy efficient maximized resource allocation for opportunistic relay-aided OFDMA downlink with subcarrier pairing. Wirel Commun Mob Comput. 2018;2018:9046847.

    Google Scholar 

  194. 194.

    Wang C-X, Bian J, Sun J, Zhang W, Zhang M. A survey of 5G channel measurements and models. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2018;20(4):1939–62.

    Google Scholar 

  195. 195.

    Wang M, Karakoc N, Ferrari L, Shantharama P, Thyagaturu AS, Reisslein M, Scaglione A. A multi-layer multi-time scale network utility maximization framework for the SDN-based LayBack architecture enabling wireless backhaul resource sharing. Electronics. 2019;8:937.

    Google Scholar 

  196. 196.

    Wieselthier JE, Nguen GD, Ephremides A. Energy-efficient broadcast and multicast trees in wireless networks. Mob Netw Appl. 2002;7(6):481–92.

    Google Scholar 

  197. 197.

    Xiang W, Zheng K, Shen X, editors. 5G mobile communications. Berlin: Springer; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  198. 198.

    Xu J, Wang J, Zhu Y, Yang Y, Zheng X, Wang S, Liu L, Homeman K, Teng Y. Cooperative distributed optimization for the hyper-dense small cell deployment. IEEE Commun Mag. 2014;52(5):61–7.

    Google Scholar 

  199. 199.

    Xu H, Li Q, Wang J, Luo G, Zhu C, Sun W. An optimization routing algorithm for green communication in underground mines. Sensors. 2018;18(6):1950.

    Google Scholar 

  200. 200.

    Yang G, Ho CK, Zhang R, Guan YL. Throughput optimization for massive MIMO systems powered by wireless energy transfer. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun. 2015;33(8):1640–50.

    Google Scholar 

  201. 201.

    Yang L, Cao J, Liang G, Han X. Cost aware service placement and load dispatching in mobile cloud systems. IEEE Trans Comput. 2016;65(5):1440–52.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  202. 202.

    Yan Y, Gao H, Lv T, Lu Y. Energy-efficient resource allocation in ultra-dense networks with massive MIMO. In: 2017 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps). IEEE; 2017. p. 1–7.

  203. 203.

    Yang Z, Jiang W, Li G. Resource allocation for green cognitive radios: energy efficiency maximization. Wirel Commun Mob Comput. 2018;2018:7906957.

    Google Scholar 

  204. 204.

    Yao X-W, Wang W-L, Yang S-H. Joint parameter optimization for perpetual nanonetworks and maximum network capacity. IEEE Trans Mol Biol Multi Scale Commun. 2015;1(4):321–30.

    Google Scholar 

  205. 205.

    You X, Zhang C, Tan X, Jin S, Wu H. AI for 5G: research directions and paradigms. Sci China Inf Sci. 2019;62(2):021301.

    Google Scholar 

  206. 206.

    Yu C-H, Doppler K, Ribeiro CB, Tirkkonen O. Resource sharing optimization for device-to-device communication underlaying cellular networks. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun. 2011;10(8):2752–63.

    Google Scholar 

  207. 207.

    Yu J, Wang N, Wang G, Yu D. Connected dominating sets in wireless ad hoc an sensor networks: a comprehensive survey. Comput Commun. 2013;36(2):121–34.

    Google Scholar 

  208. 208.

    Yu G, Xu L, Feng D, Yim R, Li GY, Jiang YY. Joint mode selection and resource allocation for device-to-device communications. IEEE Trans Commun. 2014;62(11):3814–24.

    Google Scholar 

  209. 209.

    Yu R, Ding J, Maharjan S, Gjessing S, Zhang Y, Tsang D. Decentralized and optimal resource cooperation in geo-distributed mobile cloud computing. IEEE Trans Emerg Top Comput. 2015;6(1):72–84.

    Google Scholar 

  210. 210.

    Yu X, Shen J-C, Zhang J, Letaief KB. Alternative minimization algorithms for hybrid precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems. J Sel Top Sign Proc. 2016;10(3):485–500.

    Google Scholar 

  211. 211.

    Yu D, Xu Z, Fujita H. Bibliographic analysis on the evolution of applied intelligence. Appl Intell. 2019;49:449–62.

    Google Scholar 

  212. 212.

    Zhang R, Li Y, Wang C-X, Ruan Y, Zhang H. Energy efficient power allocation for underlaying mobile D2D communications with peak/average interference constraints. Sci China Inf Sci. 2016;61(8):0893011–3.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  213. 213.

    Zhang Y, Chen H, Lu J, Zhang G. Detecting and predicting the topic change of knowledge-based systems: a topic-based bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2016. Knowl Based Syst. 2017;133:255–68.

    Google Scholar 

  214. 214.

    Zhang W, Zhang Z, Chao H-C, Guizani M. Toward intelligent network optimization in wireless networking: an auto-learning framework. Electr prepr; 2018. arXiv:1812.08198 [cs.NI]

  215. 215.

    Zhao B, Friderrikos V. Towards delay-tolerant cognitive cellular networks. In: Samdanis K, Rost P, Maeder A, Meo M, Verikoukis C, editors. Green communications. Principles, concepts and practice. New York: Wiley; 2015. p. 199–216.

    Google Scholar 

  216. 216.

    Zwicky F. Discovery invention. Research through the morphological approach. New York: McMillan; 1969.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was done at Institute for Information Transmission Problems of Russian Academy of Sciences (IITP RAS) and supported by the Russian Government (Contract No 14.W03.31.0019).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Sh. Levin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levin, M.S. Composite Technology Challenge System for Optimization in 5G Communications. SN COMPUT. SCI. 1, 221 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-00235-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Combinatorial framework
  • Technology challenge system
  • Heuristic
  • 5G communications