| Literature DB >> 30373268 |
Xiong Luo1,2, Zhijie He3,4, Zhigang Zhao5,6, Long Wang7,8, Weiping Wang9,10, Huansheng Ning11, Jenq-Haur Wang12, Wenbing Zhao13, Jun Zhang14.
Abstract
Currently, there is a growing demand for the use of communication network bandwidth for the Internet of Things (IoT) within the cyber-physical-social system (CPSS), while needing progressively more powerful technologies for using scarce spectrum resources. Then, cognitive radio networks (CRNs) as one of those important solutions mentioned above, are used to achieve IoT effectively. Generally, dynamic resource allocation plays a crucial role in the design of CRN-aided IoT systems. Aiming at this issue, orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) has been identified as one of the successful technologies, which works with a multi-carrier parallel radio transmission strategy. In this article, through the use of swarm intelligence paradigm, a solution approach is accordingly proposed by employing an efficient Jaya algorithm, called PA-Jaya, to deal with the power allocation problem in cognitive OFDM radio networks for IoT. Because of the algorithm-specific parameter-free feature in the proposed PA-Jaya algorithm, a satisfactory computational performance could be achieved in the handling of this problem. For this optimization problem with some constraints, the simulation results show that compared with some popular algorithms, the efficiency of spectrum utilization could be further improved by using PA-Jaya algorithm with faster convergence speed, while maximizing the total transmission rate.Entities:
Keywords: Internet of Things (IoT); Jaya algorithm; cognitive radio networks (CRNs); orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM); resource allocation
Year: 2018 PMID: 30373268 PMCID: PMC6263991 DOI: 10.3390/s18113649
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Structure of population and individuals designed for the power allocation problem.
Figure 2Flowchart of the PA-Jaya algorithm for the cognitive orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) radio network power allocation model.
Model parameters.
| Description | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|
| BER |
| |
| Transmit BER |
| 5 dB |
| Noise spectral density power |
| |
| Interference factor |
| |
| Subcarrier bandwidth |
| 0.315 |
| Total system upper power limit |
| 1−30 W |
| User-acceptable maximum interference limit |
| |
| The number of secondary users |
| 8 |
| Population size |
| 30 |
| Total number of subcarriers |
| 64 |
| The number of subpopulations |
| 3 |
| The iteration interval of subpopulation communicate |
| 10 |
| The number of inner loop |
| 10 |
| Total number of iterations |
| 200 |
Controlled parameters of PA-Jaya and other comparative algorithms.
| Parameter | SA | GA | PSO | DE | ICO | Jaya | PA-Jaya |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial temperature | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Reannealing interval | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Population size | – | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| Scaling factor | – | – | – | 0.3 | – | – | – |
| Crossover factor | – | 0.3 | – | 0.1 | 0.3 | – | – |
| Mutation factor | – | 0.1 | – | – | 0.1 | – | – |
| Initial inertia weight | – | – | 0.9 | – | – | – | – |
| Convergence inertia weight | – | – | 0.4 | – | – | – | – |
| Local acceleration constant | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – |
| Global acceleration constant | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – |
| Cloning proportion | – | – | – | – | 0.2 | – | – |
Figure 3Performance comparison of different Jaya algorithms.
Figure 4Relationship between the number of iterations and the total system transmission rate.
Figure 5Relationship between the bit error rate (BER) and the total system transmission rate.
Optimal solutions of the total system transmission rate during iterations.
| Generation | GA | PSO | ICO | SA | DE | Jaya | PA-Jaya |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 28.35 | 25.83 | 26.68 | 15.75 | 26.15 | 26.90 | 27.04 |
| 20 | 31.53 | 31.19 | 27.37 | 32.45 | 30.24 | 37.23 | 38.43 |
| 40 | 32.76 | 32.45 | 29.23 | 32.45 | 34.02 | 38.02 | 40.01 |
| 60 | 32.76 | 33.08 | 32.19 | 36.86 | 36.23 | 38.27 | 41.27 |
| 80 | 32.76 | 33.08 | 33.74 | 36.86 | 37.49 | 38.40 | 41.90 |
| 100 | 32.76 | 33.08 | 34.30 | 36.86 | 37.80 | 38.78 | 42.21 |
| 120 | 32.76 | 33.08 | 34.50 | 36.86 | 38.12 | 39.00 | 42.53 |
| 140 | 32.76 | 33.08 | 34.50 | 37.80 | 38.12 | 39.22 | 42.84 |
| 160 | 32.76 | 33.08 | 34.52 | 37.80 | 38.12 | 39.34 | 42.84 |
| 180 | 32.76 | 33.08 | 34.52 | 37.80 | 38.12 | 39.53 | 42.84 |
| 200 | 32.76 | 33.08 | 34.52 | 37.80 | 38.12 | 39.63 | 42.84 |
Figure 6Relationship between the interference threshold and the total system transmission rate.
Figure 7Comparison of different algorithm effects under normalized rate proportional constraint.
Figure 8Comparison of different algorithms for the fairness indicator with different user numbers.
Figure 9Comparison of different algorithms for capacity with different user numbers.