Interference management for D2D‐enabled HetNets with imperfect channel estimation

Quality of service optimisation of device‐to‐device communications underlaying cellular networks

“…As we can observe, the traditional CM, which is based on the communication through BS, has lower performance in terms of EE than D2D mode and coop-D2D, while when the distance between D2D link exceeds 55 m the noncooperative transmission (DM) has lower EE than the cooperative transmission (coop-D2D). On the other hand, when the transmission distance is beyond 55 m, D2D mode becomes inefficient; this prove the concept presented in different previous studies [7,12,24] that the maximum transmission distance between any D2D links is between 10-50 m. So that the coop-D2D communication using one branch with two relays (K = 1, n = 2) per branch is superior to the direct D2D transmission scheme, using the relay nodes between D2D links decrease the distance between sender and receiver and increase the link reliability. In the second scenario, we assume that the distance between any D2D links is fixed at 80 m and the transmission distance between CUE-BS varies from 10 to 500 m as depicted in Figure 2(b).…”

“…Addressing the co‐channel interference issue by developing an appropriate interference management scheme is crucial for maintaining the QoS of D2D and cellular networks. Therefore, [12] studied cross‐tier interference management for underlay D2D users in a heterogeneous macro‐small cell network assuming imperfect channel state (ICS) information to maximise the coverage probability and the signal‐to‐interference‐noise ratio (SINR) for both D2D link and CU. On the other hand, for improving the QoS at the BS, a D2D mode selection scheme was proposed to manage the intra‐cell interference inside a finite cellular network region [13].…”