“…From Figure 3, it can be seen that the performance of the random algorithm (RA) is the worst, and the performance of the exhaustive algorithm (EA) is the best. From Figures 3 and 4, compared with the genetic Input: PAR min , PAR max , HMCR min , HMS, g n , MAXI, d, U min , U max , L, α Output: we use C(U x ), P average or EE as the results (1) Step 1: initialization and coding (2) Step 2: generate new solutions and update the harmony memory bank (3) While g n <� MAXI (4) For j � 1 : K (5) For i � 1 : M (6) If rand < HMCR then (7) index1 � roultte(fitness function) (8) index2 � roultte(fitness function) (9) If index1 < index2 (10) index � index2 (11) Else (12) index � index1 (13) End (14) If rand < PAR (15) If rand < d (16) Newharmony(i) � HM(index, i) + bw (17) Else (18) Newharmony (i) � HM(index, i) − bw (19) End (20) Else (21) Newharmony (i) � HM(index, i); 6 Mobile Information Systems algorithm (GA) which has good performance in the eld of D2D resource allocation, the improved harmony search algorithm (IHSA) has superior global search performance by dynamically adjusting algorithm parameters. erefore, the improved harmony search algorithm proposed in this paper is closer to the result of the exhaustive algorithm.…”