Large-Scale Convex Optimization for C-RANs

doi:10.1017/9781316529669.009

7 - Large-Scale Convex Optimization for C-RANs

from Part II - Physical-Layer Design in C-RANs

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2017

Edited by

Tony Q. S. Quek ,

Mugen Peng ,

Osvaldo Simeone and

Wei Yu

Show author details

Tony Q. S. Quek: Affiliation:
Singapore University of Technology and Design
Mugen Peng: Affiliation:
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
Osvaldo Simeone: Affiliation:
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Wei Yu: Affiliation:
University of Toronto

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

7.1.1 C-RANs

The proliferation of “smart” mobile devices, coupled with new types of wireless applications, has led to an exponential growth in wireless and mobile data traffic. In order to provide high-volume and diversified data services, C-RAN [1, 2] has been proposed; it enables efficient interference management and resource allocation by shifting all the baseband units (BBUs) to a single cloud data center, i.e., by forming a BBU pool with powerful shared computing resources. Therefore, with efficient hardware utilization at the BBU pool, a substantial reduction can be obtained in both the CAPEX (e.g., via low-cost site construction) and the OPEX (e.g., via centralized cooling). Furthermore, the powerful conventional base stations are replaced by light and low-cost remote radio heads (RRHs), with the basic functionalities of signal transmission and reception, which are then connected to the BBU pool by high-capacity and low-latency optical fronthaul links. The capacity of C-RANs can thus be significantly improved through network densification and large-scale centralized signal processing at the BBU pool. By further pushing a substantial amount of data, storage, and computing resources (e.g., the radio access units and end-user devices) to the edge of the network, using the principle of mobile edge computing (i.e., fog computing) [3], heterogeneous C-RANs [4], as well as Fog-RANs and MENG-RANs [5] can be formed. These evolved architectures will further improve user experience by offering on-demand and personalized services and location-aware and content-aware applications. In this chapter we investigate the computation aspects of this new network paradigm, and in particular focus on the large-scale convex optimization for signal processing and resource allocation in C-RANs.

7.1.2 Large-Scale Convex Optimization: Challenges and Previous Work

Convex optimization serves as an indispensable tool for resource allocation and signal processing in wireless networks [6-9]. For instance, coordinated beamforming [10] often yields a convex optimization formulation, i.e., second-order cone programming (SOCP) [11]. The network max-min fairness-rate optimization [12] can be solved through the bisection method [11], in polynomial time; in this method a sequence of convex subproblems needs to be solved.

Type: Chapter
Information: Cloud Radio Access Networks
Principles, Technologies, and Applications
, pp. 149 - 178

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316529669.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

China Mobile, “C-RAN: the road towards green RAN,” White Paper, ver. 3.0, December 2013.

Shi, Y., Zhang, J., and Letaief, K. B., “Group sparse beamforming for green Cloud-RAN,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 2809–2823, May 2014.Google Scholar

Bonomi, F., Milito, R., Natarajan, P., and Zhu, J., “Fog computing: a platform for internet of things and analytics,” in Big Data and Internet of Things: A Roadmap for Smart Environments, Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 169–186.

Peng, M., Li, Y., Jiang, J., Li, J., and Wang, C., “Heterogeneous cloud radio access networks: a new perspective for enhancing spectral and energy efficiencies,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 126–135, December 2014.Google Scholar

Shi, Y., Zhang, J., Letaief, K., Bai, B., and Chen, W., “Large-scale convex optimization for ultra-dense cloud-ran,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 84–91, June 2015.Google Scholar

Gershman, A. B., Sidiropoulos, N. D., Shahbazpanahi, S., Bengtsson, M., and Ottersten, B., “Convex optimization-based beamforming: from receive to transmit and network designs,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 62–75, May 2010.Google Scholar

Luo, Z.-Q., Ma, W.-K., So, A.-C., Ye, Y., and Zhang, S., “Semidefinite relaxation of quadratic optimization problems,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 20–34, May 2010.Google Scholar

Björnson, E. and Jorswieck, E., “Optimal resource allocation in coordinated multi-cell systems,” Found. Trends Commun. Inf. Theory, vol. 9, nos. 2–3, pp. 113–381, January 2013.Google Scholar

Palomar, D. P., and Eldar, Y. C., Convex Optimization in Signal Processing and Communications. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Dahrouj, H. and Yu, W., “Coordinated beamforming for the multicell multi-antenna wireless system,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1748–1759, September 2010.Google Scholar

Boyd, S. P., and Vandenberghe, L., Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Zakhour, R. and Hanly, S. V., “Base station cooperation on the downlink: large system analysis,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 2079–2106, April 2012.Google Scholar

Shen, C., Chang, T.-H., Wang, K.-Y., Qiu, Z., and Chi, C.-Y., “Distributed robust multicell coordinated beamforming with imperfect CSI: an ADMM approach,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2988–3003, June 2012.Google Scholar

Shi, Y., Zhang, J., and Letaief, K., “Robust group sparse beamforming for multicast green cloud-ran with imperfect csi,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 63, no. 17, pp. 4647–4659, September 2015.Google Scholar

Cheng, J., Shi, Y., Bai, B., Chen, W., Zhang, J., and Letaief, K., “Group sparse beamforming for multicast green Cloud-RAN via parallel semidefinite programming,” IEEE Int. Conf. Communications, London, 2015.

Shi, Y., Zhang, J., and Letaief, K., “Optimal stochastic coordinated beamforming for wireless cooperative networks with CSI uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 960–973, February 2015.Google Scholar

Sturm, J. F., “Using SeDuMi 1.02, a MATLAB toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones,” Optim. Methods Softw., vol. 11, no. 1–4, pp. 625–653, 1999.Google Scholar

Toh, K.-C., Todd, M. J., and Tütüncü, R. H., “SDPT3 – a MATLAB software package for semidefinite programming, version 1.3,” Optim. Methods Softw., vol. 11, nos. 1–4, pp. 545–581, 1999.Google Scholar

Andersen, E. D., and Andersen, K. D., “The mosek interior point optimizer for linear programming: an implementation of the homogeneous algorithm,” in High Performance Optimization, Springer, 2000, pp. 197–232.

Nesterov, Y., Nemirovskii, A., and Ye, Y., Interior-Point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex Programming. SIAM, 1994, vol. 13.

CVX Research, Inc., “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.0 (beta),” 2013. Online. Available at http://cvxr.com/cvx/

Lofberg, J., “YALMIP: a toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Computer-Aided Control Systems Design, Taipei, September 2004, pp. 284–289.

Chu, E., Parikh, N., Domahidi, A., and Boyd, S., “Code generation for embedded second-order cone programming,” in Proc. 2013 European Control Conf., July 2013, pp. 1547–1552.Google Scholar

Shi, Y., Zhang, J., and Letaief, K., “Scalable coordinated beamforming for dense wireless cooperative networks,” in Proc. IEEE Global Communications Conf., Austin, TX, December 2014, pp. 3603–3608.

Bjornson, E., Bengtsson, M., and Ottersten, B., “Optimal multiuser transmit beamforming: a difficult problem with a simple solution structure [lecture notes],” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 142–148, July 2014.Google Scholar

Liao, W.-C., Hong, M., Liu, Y.-F., and Luo, Z.-Q., “Base station activation and linear transceiver design for optimal resource management in heterogeneous networks,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 15, pp. 3939–3952, August 2014. Online. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4138 Google Scholar

Boyd, S., Parikh, N., Chu, E., Peleato, B., and Eckstein, J., “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,” Found. Trends Mach. Learn., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–122, July 2011.Google Scholar

Joshi, S. K., Codreanu, M., and Latva-aho, M., “Distributed resource allocation for MISO downlink systems via the alternating direction method of multipliers,” EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw., vol. 2014, no. 1, pp. 1–19, January 2014.Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Chen, R., Andrews, J. G., Ghosh, A., and Heath, R. W., “Networked MIMO with clustered linear precoding,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1910–1921, April 2009.Google Scholar

Yoo, T. and Goldsmith, A., “On the optimality of multiantenna broadcast scheduling using zero-forcing beamforming,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 528–541, March 2006.Google Scholar

Shi, Y., Zhang, J., O'Donoghue, B., and Letaief, K., “Large-scale convex optimization for dense wireless cooperative networks,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 63, no. 18, pp. 4729–4743, September 2015.Google Scholar

Smith, E., “On the optimal design of continuous processes,” Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (University of London), 1996.

Grant, M. C., and Boyd, S. P., “Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs,” in Recent Advances in Learning and Control, Springer, 2008, pp. 95–110.

Ye, Y., Todd, M. J., and Mizuno, S., “An O (√nL)-iteration homogeneous and self-dual linear programming algorithm,” Math. Oper. Res., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 53–67, 1994.Google Scholar

Wiesel, A., Eldar, Y., and Shamai, S., “Linear precoding via conic optimization for fixed MIMO receivers,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 161–176, January 2006.Google Scholar

Shi, Y., Zhang, J., and Letaief, K., “Group sparse beamforming for green cloud radio access networks,” in Proc. IEEE Global Communications Conf., Atlanta, GA, December 2013, pp. 4635–4640.

Jindal, N. and Lozano, A., “A unified treatment of optimum pilot overhead in multipath fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 2939–2948, October 2010.Google Scholar

Love, D. J., Heath, R. W., Lau, V. K., Gesbert, D., Rao, B. D., and Andrews, M., “An overview of limited feedback in wireless communication systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1341–1365, October 2008.Google Scholar

Maddah-Ali, M. A. and Tse, D., “Completely stale transmitter channel state information is still very useful,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 4418–4431, July 2012.Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Heath, R. W., Kountouris, M., and Andrews, J. G., “Mode switching for the multi-antenna broadcast channel based on delay and channel quantization,” Proc. EURASIP Conf., J. Adv. Signal Process, Special Issue on Multiuser Lim. Feedback, vol. 2009, Article ID 802548, 15 pp., 2009.Google Scholar

Björnson, E., Zheng, G., Bengtsson, M., and Ottersten, B., “Robust monotonic optimization framework for multicell MISO systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 2508–2523, May 2012.Google Scholar

Hong, L. J., Yang, Y., and Zhang, L., “Sequential convex approximations to joint chance constrained programs: a Monte Carlo approach,” Oper. Res., vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 617–630, May–June 2011.Google Scholar

Davis, T. A., Direct Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2006. Online. Available at http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1.9780898718881.Google Scholar

Chu, E., O'Donoghue, B., Parikh, N., and Boyd, S., “A primal–dual operator splitting method for conic optimization,” 2013. Online. Available at www.stanford.edu/boyd/papers/pdos.html.Google Scholar

O'Donoghue, B., Chu, E., Parikh, N., and Boyd, S., “Conic optimization via operator splitting and homogeneous self-dual embedding,” 2013. Online. Available at arxiv.org/abs/1312.3039.Google Scholar

Goldstein, T., O'Donoghue, B., Setzer, S., and Baraniuk, R., “Fast alternating direction optimization methods,” SIAM J. Imaging Sci., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1588–1623, 2014. Online. Available at dx.doi.org/10.1137/120896219.Google Scholar

Vanderbei, R., “Symmetric quasidefinite matrices,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 100–113, 1995. Online. Available at dx.doi.org/10.1137/0805005.Google Scholar

Golub, G. H., and Van Loan, C. F., Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012, vol. 3.

Eckstein, J. and Bertsekas, D. P., “On the douglas–rachford splitting method and the proximal point algorithm for maximal monotone operators,” Math. Progr., vol. 55, no. 1-3, pp. 293–318, 1992.Google Scholar

Parikh, N. and Boyd, S., “Proximal algorithms,” Found. Trends Optim., vol. 1, no. 3, January 2014. Online. Available at www.stanford.edu/boyd/papers.Google Scholar

Halko, N., Martinsson, P.-G., and Tropp, J. A., “Finding structure with randomness: probabilistic algorithms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions,” SIAM Review, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 217–288, 2011.Google Scholar

Mahoney, M. W., “Randomized algorithms for matrices and data,” Found. Trends Mach. Learn., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 123–224, 2011. Online. Available at dx.doi.org/10.1561/2200000035.Google Scholar

Woodruff, D. P., “Sketching as a tool for numerical linear algebra,” Found. Trends Theoret. Computer Sci., vol. 10, no. 1-2, pp. 1–157, 2014. Online. Available at dx.doi.org/10.1561/0400000060.Google Scholar

Poulson, J., Marker, B., van de Geijn, R. A., Hammond, J. R., and Romero, N. A., “Elemental: a new framework for distributed memory dense matrix computations,” ACM Trans. Math. Softw., vol. 39, no. 2, p. 13, February 2013.Google Scholar

Fettweis, G., “The tactile internet: applications and challenges,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 64–70, March 2014.Google Scholar

Mattingley, J. and Boyd, S., “CVXGEN: a code generator for embedded convex optimization,” Optim. Engineering, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2012.Google Scholar

Mattingley, J. and Boyd, S., “Real-time convex optimization in signal processing,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 50–61, May 2010.Google Scholar

Domahidi, A., Chu, E., and Boyd, S., “ECOS: an SOCP solver for embedded systems,” in Proc. 2013 European Control Conf., IEEE, 2013, pp. 3071–3076.

Diamond, S., Chu, E., and Boyd, S., “CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization, version 0.2,” May 2014.Google Scholar

Zhang, J. and Andrews, J. G., “Adaptive spatial intercell interference cancellation in multicell wireless networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1455–1468, December 2010.Google Scholar

Peel, C. B., Hochwald, B. M., and Swindlehurst, A. L., “A vector-perturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multiuser communication – Part I: channel inversion and regularization,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 195–202, January 2005.Google Scholar

Rusek, F., Persson, D., Lau, B. K., Larsson, E., Marzetta, T., Edfors, O., “Scaling up MIMO: opportunities and challenges with very large arrays,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 40–60, January 2013.Google Scholar

Absil, P.-A., Mahony, R., and Sepulchre, R., Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds. Princeton University Press, 2009.

Shi, Y., Zhang, J., and Letaief, K. B., “Low-rank matrix completion via Riemannian pursuit for topological interference management,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Information Theory, Hong Kong, 2015.