Representing Communication and Learning in Femtocell Pilot Power Control Algorithms

  • Erik HembergEmail author
  • Lester Ho
  • Michael O’Neill
  • Holger Claussen
Part of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation book series (GEVO)


The overall goal of evolving algorithms for femtocells is to create a continuous on-line evolution of the femtocell pilot power control algorithm to optimize their coverage. Two aspects of intelligence are used for increasing the complexity of the input and the behaviour, communication and learning. In this initial study we investigate how to evolve more complex behaviour in decentralized control algorithms by changing the representation of communication and learning. The communication is addressed by allowing the femtocell to identify its neighbours and take the values of its neighbours into account when making decisions regarding the increase or decrease of pilot power. Learning is considered in two variants: the use of input parameters and the implementation of a built-in reinforcement procedure. The reinforcement allows learning during the simulation in addition to the execution of fixed commands. The experiments compare the new representation in the form of different terminal symbols in a grammar. The results show that there are differences between the communication and learning combinations and that the best solution uses both communication and learning.

Key words

Femtocell Symbolic regression Grammatical evolution 



This research is based upon works supported by the Science Foundation Ireland under Grant No. 08/IN.1/I1868.


  1. Alba E, Chicano J (2006) Evolutionary algorithms in telecommunications. In: Electrotechnical Conference, 2006. MELECON 2006. IEEE Mediterranean, IEEE, pp 795–798Google Scholar
  2. Bentley P, Kumar S (1999) Three ways to grow designs: A comparison of embryogenies for an evolutionary design problem. In: Banzhaf W, Daida J, Eiben AE, Garzon MH, Honavar V, Jakiela M, Smith RE (eds) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, Orlando, Florida, USA, vol 1, pp 35–43, URL
  3. Byrne J, O’Neill M, McDermott J, Brabazon A (2010) An analysis of the behaviour of mutation in grammatical evolution. Genetic Programming pp 14–25Google Scholar
  4. Chandrasekhar V, Andrews J, Gatherer A (2008) Femtocell networks: a survey. Communications Magazine, IEEE 46(9):59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dempsey I, O’Neill M, Brabazon A (2009) Foundations in Grammatical Evolution for Dynamic Environments, Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 194. Springer, URL
  7. Fagen D, Vicharelli P, Weitzen J (2008) Automated wireless coverage optimization with controlled overlap. Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on 57(4):2395–2403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hemberg E, Ho L, O’Neill M, Claussen H (2011) A symbolic regression approach to manage femtocell coverage using grammatical genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation, ACM, pp 639–646Google Scholar
  9. Ho L, Ashraf I, Claussen H (2010) Evolving femtocell coverage optimization algorithms using genetic programming. In: Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, 2009 IEEE 20th International Symposium on, IEEE, pp 2132–2136Google Scholar
  10. Jain R, Chiu D, Hawe W (1984) A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination for resource allocation in shared computer system. Eastern Research Laboratory, Digital Equipment Corp.Google Scholar
  11. McKay R, Hoai N, Whigham P, Shan Y, O’Neill M (2010) Grammar-based Genetic Programming: a survey. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 11(3):365–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mingo J, Aler R (2007) Grammatical evolution guided by reinforcement. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2007. CEC 2007, pp 1475–1482Google Scholar
  13. Mitchell T (1997) Machine learning. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw HillzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Neill M, Ryan C (2003) Grammatical Evolution: Evolutionary Automatic Programming in an Arbitrary Language. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Pillay N, Banzhaf W (2008) A Developmental Approach to the Uncapacitated Examination Timetabling Problem p 285Google Scholar
  16. Russell S, Norvig P, Canny J, Malik J, Edwards D (1995) Artificial intelligence: a modern approachGoogle Scholar
  17. Siomina I, Varbrand P (2006) Automated optimization of service coverage and base station antenna configuration in umts networks. Wireless Communications, IEEE 13(6):16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sipper M, Sanchez E, Mange D, Tomassini M, Perez-Uribe A, Stauffer A (1997) A phylogenetic, ontogenetic, and epigenetic view of bio-inspiredhardware systems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1(1):83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spector L, Stoffel K (1996) Ontogenetic programming pp 394–399Google Scholar
  20. Sutton R, Barto A (1998) Reinforcement learning: An introduction, vol 1. Cambridge Univ PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Turney P, Whitley D, Anderson R (1996) Evolution, learning, and instinct: 100 years of the Baldwin effect. Evolutionary Computation 4(3)Google Scholar
  22. Valiant L (1984) A theory of the learnableGoogle Scholar
  23. Weiss G (1996) Adaptation and learning in multi-agent systems: Some remarks and a bibliography. Adaption and learning in multi-agent systems pp 1–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Hemberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lester Ho
    • 2
  • Michael O’Neill
    • 1
  • Holger Claussen
    • 1
  1. 1.Complex & Adaptive Systems Laboratory, School of Computer Science & InformaticsUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.Bell LaboratoriesAlcatel-LucentDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations