2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11235-017-0391-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adaptive resource allocation framework for user satisfaction maximization in multi-service wireless networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Comparing the curves F(30)+TSM and F(30)+PF, the handover procedure and flow control algorithm are equal, such that the gains obtained come only from the proposed resource allocation. The gains occur because the proposed solution aims at maximizing the user satisfaction by allocating the resources based on their QoS level using a well-designed utility function [44]. It is important to mention that the highest performance obtained by both TSM and PF happened when the flow control algorithm was F(30), i.e., when the MeNB transmitted only 30% of the data to each user and sent the other 70% to the SeNB.…”
Section: Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Comparing the curves F(30)+TSM and F(30)+PF, the handover procedure and flow control algorithm are equal, such that the gains obtained come only from the proposed resource allocation. The gains occur because the proposed solution aims at maximizing the user satisfaction by allocating the resources based on their QoS level using a well-designed utility function [44]. It is important to mention that the highest performance obtained by both TSM and PF happened when the flow control algorithm was F(30), i.e., when the MeNB transmitted only 30% of the data to each user and sent the other 70% to the SeNB.…”
Section: Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, it would not be fair to use those algorithms for comparison. Besides that, the performance of the algorithms from [28] was beaten in previous studies by the traditional PF algorithm [43], [44], which is used as the baseline for the algorithm used as benchmarking in this study. Therefore, only the cross-carrier PF [13] was used for comparison, which is a modified version of the well-known PF algorithm that attempts to guarantee fairness in scenarios with DC by modifying the scheduling metric.…”
Section: A Simulation Assumptionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Let us now describe in more detail the proposed scheduling framework. We assume that there are two RATs in the system, i.e, N = 2 and that user u can be connected to one BS from each RAT n, i.e, l j,n = 1, ∀j, n. x n,b, j can be specialized to be several types of QoS metrics, such as throughput, packet delay or buffer size [19]. For instance, if x n,b, j is the throughput T n,b, j of user j on BS b of RAT n, it is given by:…”
Section: Unified Framework For Nsa 5g With DCmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This algorithm solves the problem of network utility maximization by using Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions. In [10], a unified user satisfaction function is proposed, which normalizes multiple network parameters into the same function for calculation. However, these researches are studied in wireless network.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%