Wireless Networks

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-019-02107-2 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

Interference management in dense inband D2D network using spectral

clustering & dynamic resource allocation
Shahrukh Khan Kasi1 • Ijaz Haider Naqvi1 • Mumraiz Khan Kasi2 • Faisal Yaseen1

Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Device-to-device (D2D) communication has emerged as a promising concept to improve resource utilization in fifth
generation cellular networks. D2D network’s architectural capability to offload traffic from the backhaul network to direct
links enables it to be used for internet of things (IoT) services. In a densely deployed setting of IoT devices, D2D network
may experience critical interferences due to a limited number of spectral resources. To increase the overall signal-to-
interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) of the network while reducing the computational load on a macro base station, a novel
decentralized interference management methodology is proposed for dense in-band D2D underlay LTE-A network. The
proposed interference management scheme can decouple interference in a network into cross-cluster and intra-cluster
interference and tackle with them separately. To mitigate the cross-cluster interference in a dense D2D network we propose
dividing the densely deployed D2D user equipments (UEs) network into well-separated clusters using spectral clustering
with modified kernel weights. The proposed spectral clustering scheme obtains well-separated clusters with regards to
cross-cluster interference, that is, the UEs that offer maximum interference to each other are grouped into the same cluster.
Thereafter, a dynamic resource allocation algorithm is proposed within each cluster to reduce the intra-cluster interference.
The proposed dynamic resource allocation algorithm uses graph coloring to allocate resources in such a manner that after
each spectrum allocation, a small cell base station updates the interference graph and assigns the next largest interference
affected UE a spectrum resource that minimizes the overall intra-cluster interference the most. In conventional graph
coloring, the adjacent UEs are allocated different spectrum resources without taking into consideration if the allocated
spectrum resource might result in increased interference in the cluster. The simulation results show that the proposed
clustering strategy considerably reduces the average cross-cluster interference as compared to other benchmark clustering
algorithms such as K-means and KPCA. Moreover, the proposed resource allocation algorithm decreases the intra-cluster
interference in the network resulting in the overall SINR maximization of the network.

Keywords Device-to-device  Communication  Interference management  Spectral clustering  Dynamic resource

allocation

& Mumraiz Khan Kasi

1 Introduction
mumraiz.kasi@buitms.edu.pk
There has been an exponential increase in the user data
Shahrukh Khan Kasi
16060054@lums.edu.pk traffic as well as the data rate requirement for mobile
wireless networks in the last 1 decade. According to
Ijaz Haider Naqvi
ijaznaqvi@lums.edu.pk Ericsson mobility report 2018 [1], global total mobile data
traffic has grown from 8.8 ExaBytes in 2016 to 25 Exa-
Faisal Yaseen
14060033@lums.edu.pk Bytes per month in 2018. Also, the number of mobile-
connected devices is expected to increase up to 11.6 billion
1
Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, by the year 2022 [2]. This ever increasing consumer
Pakistan
demand for mobile data access and scarce frequency
2
Balochistan University of Information Technology,
Engineering, and Management Sciences, Quetta, Pakistan

123

resources calls for a more efficient design of the cellular
architecture.
D2D communication has emerged as one of the most
innovative technologies to improve the system level spec-
tral efficiency. In D2D communication, the UEs establish a
direct connection among themselves bypassing the cellular
network’s infrastructure. D2D communication is either
carried out over the licensed spectrum (in-band D2D) or
unlicensed spectrum (out-band D2D). In-band D2D allows
to transmit at a data rate up to 1 Gbps for distances up to
1000 meters [3]. According to LTE specifications, a set of
UEs in a network are allocated specific number of fre-
quency resources that are referred to as frequency resour-
ces blocks. As the number of frequency spectrum resources
are limited, frequencies are reused to serve large number of
users in space. Thus, frequency reuse forces UEs to share
same frequency resource blocks and cause interference to
each other.
D2D communication networks have particularly short
reuse distances due to their relatively low transmitting
powers that leads to a significant accumulative interference
in the network. These networks are therefore limited by
interference that must be managed to achieve the target
performance [4]. One of the key challenges in dense in-
band D2D communication networks is to manage inter-
ference caused by the simultaneous transmissions from
D2D user equipments. To accommodate communication
between densely deployed D2D devices, a base station
(BS) or eNodeB of fairly large capacity is required. Such a
network will introduce large delays in the communication
network [5].
To overcome this problem, the communications network
is divided into several clusters with each cluster having its
own BS to facilitate in-band D2D communication. The
conventional way of forming clusters that is typically used
in K-means or kernel principal component analysis
(KPCA) techniques is based on the distance measure rather
than the interference measure. However, distance only is
not an appropriate measure of interference in a network. As
interference between the UEs is not only a function of the
distance between the UEs, but it also depends on the
wireless channel conditions, the transmitting power of D2D
UEs and the path-loss model.
Resource allocation in D2D networks aims for mini-
mizing the interference which is a challenging nonlinear
optimization problem under most setups. Graph theory has
been used as an effective tool for modeling and analyzing
the connections in a wireless D2D network. A centralized
graph-theoretical framework for resource allocation to both
cellular and D2D users has been proposed in [6]. The
decision making for resource allocation for the entire dense
network is carried out at the macro base station. The results
are not optimal with regards to interference mitigation
123
Wireless Networks
because the adjacent UEs are allocated different frequency
resource without taking into consideration their impact on
the total interference in the network.
A graph theoretic framework for resource allocation in
ultra-dense networks has been proposed in [7]. Their pro-
posed algorithm, however, makes use of sub-optimal
channel assignment strategy that assigns channels to adja-
cent UEs randomly. The allocation of frequency resources
in a clustered environment [8–10] mostly assumes static/
non-dynamic environments. In most of the conventional
graph coloring methods [6–12], the graph connections are
created based on the distance between the UEs. Although
related, distance is not the only parameter that affects
interference. It also depends on the wireless channel con-
ditions between the UEs, path-loss and frequency alloca-
tion. Furthermore, resource allocation by a centralized
macro base station introduces large delays in the network.
To increase the overall SINR of the network while
reducing the computational load on a macro base station, a
novel decentralized interference management methodology
is proposed for dense in-band D2D underlay LTE-A net-
work. The proposed scheme makes use of spectral clus-
tering with modified kernel weights to obtain clusters such
that the cross-cluster interference is reduced. To the best of
our knowledge, the use of spectral clustering for interfer-
ence management has never been proposed in the litera-
ture. Subsequently, for the obtained number of clusters, the
performance of the proposed interference mitigation tech-
nique has been compared against conventional clustering
algorithms, that is, K-means and kernel principal compo-
nent analysis (KPCA).
Once the well-separated clusters are obtained, the
resource allocation problem has been devised to mitigate
the intra-cluster interference in each cluster (small cell)
separately. The proposed dynamic resource allocation
algorithm uses graph coloring to allocate resources in such
a manner that after each spectrum allocation, a small cell
BS updates interference graph and assigns the next largest
interference affected UE a spectrum resource that mini-
mizes the overall intra-cluster interference the most. The
simulations results show that the proposed dynamic
resource allocation approach outperforms the state of the
art algorithms with reduced cross-cluster and the overall
interference in the network.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2,
background of the work has been presented while Sect. 3
introduces the system model. Section 4 presents the pro-
posed clustering strategy with modified kernel weights
while Sect. 5 details dynamic resource allocation strategy
to solve the interference minimization problem. Finally,
Sect. 6 concludes this paper.
Wireless Networks
2 Background
In traditional networks, direct communication between
UEs is typically carried out in an unlicensed band at low
transmission energy [13]. There are numerous technologies
and standards that provide a low-cost service due to the
architecture that enables D2D communication in the unli-
censed spectrum. However, operating in unlicensed spec-
trum gives rise to interference in the network because of
the lack of a controlling entity. Thus, the network perfor-
mance deteriorates as the number of UEs increases. In
addition, the traditional networks have a much higher
energy consumption that leads to a faster drainage of the
batteries.
In contrast, D2D communication allows the UEs to
communicate in the licensed band allowing the central base
station to perform network management and resource
allocation. In the densely deployed environment, a single
large capacity macro base-station would incur huge delays
in the transmissions [5]. Hence, an effective approach is to
divide the geographic area into several clusters, each
classified as a small cell. These small cells can facilitate
load balancing, fault tolerance, energy efficiency and a
reduced delay in the network [14].
Spectral clustering has attracted significant attention in
the last few years in a number of diverse applications
including social network analysis and image segmentation
[15, 16]. Most of the algorithms for spectral clustering use
a subset of eigenvectors of the data matrix to perform
clustering [16, 17]. Spectral clustering outperforms the
conventional clustering approaches, such as K-means and
Hierarchical clustering, because it can be implemented
efficiently for large data sets and it does not make strong
assumptions about the shape of the clusters [18]. In gen-
eral, the similarity matrix for spectral clustering is only
contingent on the distance measure. However, as explained
earlier, there are numerous other factors that influence
interference in the network such as wireless channel con-
dition between the UEs, path-loss and frequency allocation.
To incorporate the effects of these parameters on the
interference, we propose to make use of modified kernel
weights to incorporate random channel conditions and
characterize the interference effectively.
Moreover, even when the densely deployed UEs are
grouped into well separated clusters using proposed spec-
tral clustering algorithm, the accumulative interference
caused by a densely deployed network comprising of large
number of UEs adversely affects the network performance
and fails to achieve the desired quality of service. In a
clustered environment that uses the same set of spectrum
resources for all clusters, the interference can be classified
into two types; intra-cluster and cross-cluster interference.
The UEs that are in the same cluster and share the same
frequency spectrum resource with another set of UEs that
are active in the same cluster experience intra-cluster
interference. Similarly, UEs from other clusters that make
use of the same resources interfere with each other and
cause cross-cluster interference.
3 System model
We consider an in-band dense D2D network with N num-
ber of UEs that are uniformly distributed in space. The
communication network is divided into G clusters each
having its own micro base station. Initially, any of the
micro base station is randomly chosen to form clusters
based on the proposed spectral clustering algorithm. This
allows semi-distributed resource allocation where most of
the traffic is offloaded to the micro LTE-A base stations
that are responsible for the service in their respective
clusters. There are a total of Z OFDM resource
blocks (RBs) to be allocated to the UEs. We assume that
each D2D UE can only be allocated one resource block.
Due to the limited number of RBs (Z\\N), they are
reused among the set of D2D UEs. However, before the
formation of clusters, we initialize by assuming that one
RB is allocated to all UEs (i.e., Z ¼ 1) to incorporate the
interference of all UEs (Fig. 1). By doing, our hypothesis is
that we will obtain clusters that are well separated in terms
of cross-cluster interference.
Thereafter, we apply spectral clustering to divide the
total coverage area into G clusters (Fig. 2) each with its
own base station. The proposed clustering methodology is
discussed in detail in Sect. 4. The model assumes that only
Fig. 1 Network initialization with 1 resource block for proposed
clustering strategy. Same color UE signifies the use of same resource
block for all UEs
123

Fig. 2 Intra-cluster & cross-cluster interference in a network. UEs in
green color are reusing resource block A, whereas UEs in blue are
sharing resource block B (Color figure online)
D2D communication takes place among these devices. The
formation of clusters enables resource allocation in a
decentralized manner where the base-station in each cluster
allocates RBs individually. It is assumed that interference
only impacts the UEs that share the same RB. Figure 2
illustrates the intra-cluster and cross-cluster interference in
a densely deployed D2D communications network where a
total of 2 RBs (RBA and RBB ) serve 7 UEs. Each D2D UE
is assumed to be a transmitter that has an associated
interference from other transmitters sharing the same
resource block. UE 1 experiences intra-cluster interference
from UE 5 and UE 7 because they have been allocated the
same resource by the Node B. Similarly, UE 1 is affected
by cross-cluster interference from UE 4.
4 Proposed clustering strategy
In order to minimize cross-cluster interference, we propose
spectral clustering with modified kernel weights. To the
best of our knowledge, spectral clustering has not been
proposed previously for interference analysis. In the fol-
lowing, we introduce spectral clustering methods followed
by the proposed clustering strategy and its impact on cross-
cluster interference.
4.1 Spectral clustering
An undirected weighted graph S ¼ ðN; E; AÞ is constructed
where E is the set of edges and A is the weighted similarity
123
Wireless Networks
matrix such that Aij ¼ Aji  0 is associated with the weight
of edge between UEs i and j. The similarity matrix, A, that
is used as the modified kernel in our work, is obtained by
computing
Aij ¼ pi dija gij bij ð1Þ
where dij and gij are the Euclidean distance and the channel
gain between the UEs i and j respectively, pi is the trans-
mitting power of the ith D2D UE, a is the path-loss
exponent that controls the distance related attenuation of
the ði; jÞth element of the similarity matrix A and bij is a
binary variable that indicates the channel sharing status of
D2D UEs

1; if D2D UE i and D2D UE j shares a channel
bij ¼
0; otherwise.
In the following, we discuss the spectral clustering tech-
nique that has been used in this work:
4.1.1 Ng, Jordan and Weiss with modified kernel
The Jordan and Weiss method is one of the most widely
used normalized clustering method. In contrast to the
typical use of Gaussian kernel (which only depends on a
distance metric), the kernel matrix that performs spectral
clustering has been modified. The clusters of the graph S
are obtained by using the eigen vectors of the Laplacian
matrix, constructed by the following equation
L ¼ D1=2 AD1=2 ð2Þ
where Aij ¼ pi dija gij is the proposed similarity matrix with
P
N
modified kernel weights and Dij ¼ Aij are the degree
j¼1
matrix elements that correspond to the total interference
caused to a UE from all other communication links
[19, 20]. The Laplacian matrix is known to be a positive
semi-definite matrix with positive real eigenvalues.
Through the eigen value decomposition of the Laplacian
matrix, matrix X ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ; :::::; xG  is formed by stacking
the eigen vectors corresponding to G largest eigenvalues of
the matrix L. Where each eigen vector xi 2 Rn represents
the location of each D2D UE. These unnormalized eigen-
vectors can be normalized to have unit lengths in the fol-
lowing manner
xi
yi ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P 2
n
ð3Þ
x ij
j¼1
where xij is the jth element of the vector xi . Then these
normalized eigenvectors are stacked to form matrix
Y ¼ ½y1 ; y2 ; :::; yG . Finally, each row of the matrix Y is
Wireless Networks

clustered into G clusters by considering it as a point in Rn (bij ¼ 1). The cross-cluster interference experienced by the
by K-means clustering. D2D UEs are assigned to cluster m ith D2D UE is computed in the following manner
if and only if row i of the matrix Y is assigned to cluster m.
if bij ¼ 1 & cij ¼ 0 then
4.2 Kernel principal component analysis G X
X Nk
CCIi ¼ Ij ð5Þ
k¼1 j¼1
To compare results obtained from our proposed spectral
clustering method, we discuss kernel principal component end if
analysis (KPCA) method. KPCA makes use of the kernel in where CCIi is the cross-cluster interference experienced by
the principal component analysis (PCA). PCA is widely the ith D2D UE from all G clusters, Nk is the number of
used in research for transforming the high-dimensional D2D UEs in the kth cluster and Ij ¼ pj djia gji is the inter-
input data to a lower dimensional data by using fewer eigen
ference caused from a UE that uses the shared resource
vectors of the input data’s co-variance matrix. The steps in
spectrum. As an example, for Fig. 2, the matrix CCI can be
implementation of dimensionality reduction with KPCA
written as:
are given below 2 3
I4
(i) In the first step, the kernel function is computed as 6 7
  6 I6 7
dij2 6 7
6 I6 7
Kij ¼ exp  2 6 7
2r 6 7
CCI ¼6 I1 þ I5 þ I7 7
6 7
where dij is the Euclidean distance between D2D 6 I4 7
6 7
UEs i and j, Kij is the ði; jÞth element of the kernel 6 7
4 I2 þ I3 5
matrix K and r2 is the environment related scaling I4
parameter.
(ii) Following that, the kernel matrix is substituted by where each row i of the matrix CCI represents the total
a Gram matrix as: cross-cluster interference offered to the D2D UE i.
 T  
0 1N  N 1N  N 4.4 Simulations results for cross-cluster
K ¼ I K I ð4Þ
N N interference
where 1N  N is a N  N matrix of 1s.
(iii) By eigenvalue decomposition of the Gram matrix, Extensive simulations have been carried out to validate the
matrix R ¼ fr1 ; r2 ; :::; rG g is formed by stacking performance of the proposed spectral clustering with
0
G largest eigenvectors of K corresponding to G modified kernel weights. Following that, the simulation
clusters. results are compared with the benchmark clustering tech-
niques such as K-means and KPCA [18].
To apply K-means algorithm, data of reduced dimension
matrix obtained from Gram matrix is used. The remaining 4.4.1 Network model for simulations
procedure to obtain clusters from KPCA is similar to what
is used in spectral clustering. For our simulations, D2D UEs are randomly distributed
through a uniform distribution. Note that we got similar
4.3 Cross-cluster interference results with Poisson distribution but we present the results
for the uniform distribution only in the interest of space. To
To analyze the cross-cluster interference in the proposed investigate the impact of clustering on cross-cluster inter-
spectral clustering algorithm against KPCA and K-means ference, only one resource block is allocated to all D2D
clustering, a binary variable cij is defined that represents UEs. Some of the simulation parameters have been
the cluster sharing status of each D2D UE. described in Table 1.

1; if UE i and UE j are in the same cluster To validate the results for a generalized number of
cij ¼ clusters, appropriate number of clusters for K-means,
0; otherwise.
KPCA and spectral clustering are calculated. The allowed
The UEs that contribute toward the cross-cluster interfer- number of clusters are kept between 2 and 15. For all
ence have cij ¼ 0 and they share the same resources i 2 f2; :::; 15g, the appropriate number of clusters are
computed using the gap statistics method for K-means [21]

123
 Wireless Networks

and Eigen-separation gap method for the spectral clustering

and KPCA [18].
The Gap statistics method returned a value of 6 clusters
for K-means clustering, whereas, Eigen-separation gap
method called for 11 clusters for spectral-clustering and
KPCA for which the clustering is most stable. To observe
the cross-cluster interference performance, the number of
clusters are varied from 2 to 15 for K-means, KPCA and
spectral-clustering. Note that, in the interest of space, the
results shown in Fig. 4(a), (b) are only for 6 and 11 clus-
ters, for all other cluster numbers, a similar results are
achieved for the allowed range of clusters.

4.4.2 Observations

At first, the graphical representation of clusters obtained

from K-means clustering, KPCA and spectral clustering
with modified kernel weights is shown in Fig. 3, where a
dot (.) represents a D2D UE and an asterisk (*) represents a
cluster center. For the same number of UEs and similar UE
distribution, it can be observed that the clusters obtained
are visibly different. The computation of cross-cluster
interference (see Fig. 4) proves that the clusters obtained
using the proposed approach are well-separated as com-
pared to K-means and KPCA clustering. Please note that
the separation of clusters shown in Fig. 3(c) is not con-
tingent on the distance between the UEs, so even when any
two UEs are in close proximity to each other, if their
interference connection is loose, they might be kept in
different clusters.
Figure 4(a), (b) shows the comparison for cross-cluster
interference (CCI) with these schemes. It can be seen that
the performance of the proposed spectral clustering
scheme with modified kernel is significantly better than
KPCA and K-means clustering. For 6 clusters, the CCI
with spectral clustering is almost 1=2 dB superior to
K-means clustering. With KPCA, although the perfor-
mance is sometimes better than K-means, still spectral
clustering has a considerable performance gain as com-
pared to KPCA clustering. With 11 clusters, the

Table 1 Simulation parameters

Parameters Values Fig. 3 Distribution of D2D UEs in a 10  10 m area

User distribution Uniform performance is similar albeit the gain is smaller with
Number of D2D UEs 800–1000 spectral clustering (see Fig. 4(b)).
Maximum D2D Tx power (dBm) 30 To sum up, through the use of spectral clustering with
Path loss model 40 log10 (d) ? 148 modified kernel, it is shown that the cross-cluster inter-
Fading Rayleigh ference reduces considerably, thus, enabling the allocation
Max number of resource blocks 1 of spectrum resources in a semi-distributed manner rather
than a centralized way. This proves the utility of using
spectral clustering for interference management.

123
Wireless Networks
Fig. 4 Cross-cluster interference
5 Dynamic resource allocation
Once we have formed clusters that minimizes cross-cluster
interference, we focus our attention to resource allocation
method for minimizing the intra-cluster interference. To
investigate intra-cluster interference, we define intra-clus-
ter degree vector by stacking interference at each UE in a
vector corresponding to the weights of the edges of the
interference graph. The degree vector corresponds to the
accumulative intra-cluster interference at each UE for a
given cluster g and RSB z. Contrary to the calculation of
cross-cluster interference, the intra-cluster interference is
computed by finding the UEs in each cluster that share the
same RBs.
If the devices with in a cluster (cij ¼ 1) share the same
resources (bij ¼ 1), then the intra-cluster interference in
each of the cluster is computed as:
if bij ¼ 1 & cij ¼ 1 then
X
Nk
ICDgz ¼ Ij
j¼1
end if
where the ICDgz is the intra-cluster degree vector for
cluster g and entry (i)th represents the total intra-cluster
interference offered to the D2D UE i for spectrum resource
z. For instance in Fig. 2, degree vectors RSB A and RSB
B in cluster 1 is given as,
ð6Þ
ð7Þ
where ICD1A and ICD1B is the intra-cluster degree vector
for cluster 1 and entry (i)th represents the total intra-cluster
interference offered to the D2D UE i for RSB A and RSB
B, respectively.
Once the degree vectors has been formed, an opti-
mization problem is formulated for minimizing the intra-
cluster interference that would result in the maximization
of SINR in the network.
minimize Tr ðICDgz Þ
subjectto TrðICDgz Þ  ICDmin ðiÞ
UEi ¼ 1; 8i in cluster g ðiiÞ
Z  Zmax ðiiiÞ
where constraint (i) ensures that the total intra-cluster
interference in any cluster should be greater than the
minimum interference threshold and constraint (ii) ensures
that each UE is allocated only one resource channel.
Constraint (iii) restricts the number of channels in a
specific range.
In a dense D2D inband network, the number of spectrum
resources is much less than the number of UEs, therefore,
our objective is to reduce the intra-cluster interference in
each cluster (independent of other clusters) such that the
number of resource blocks for each cluster is limited. We
assume that unless we have Z ¼ N, that is, a different
spectrum resource for each UE, intra-cluster interference
cannot be completely diminished. Therefore, we define an
arbitrary threshold ICDmin that defines the minimum
123
 Wireless Networks

amount of intra-cluster interference that can be achieved
while number of resource blocks is Z.
5.1 Resource allocation algorithm
As the above formulated is non-differentiable over Z,
therefore, it is a non-linear optimization problem and is
generally non-convex in nature. To solve it, a heuristic
resource allocation algorithm is formulated that minimizes
the intra-cluster interference for each cluster independently.
algorithm, graph edges are iteratively updated after each
resource allocation and resource allocation is not random
that assists in achieving the best sub-optimal reduced intra-
cluster interference as shown in our results section.
The resource allocation continues until the intra-cluster
interference cannot be minimized any further. As shown in
Fig. 5, after the implementation of our resource allocation
algorithm, the intra-cluster interference reduces

In the resource allocation algorithm (see Algorithm 1),

from statement (3) to statement (5), intra-cluster vectors
(ICDg;z ) are formed that represents the interference
between D2D UEs for resource allocation z and cluster g as
formed in vectors 6 and 7 for the scenario shown in Fig. 2.
Statement (14)–(15) in Algorithm 1 is a procedural step to
begin resource allocation with the UE and channel that has
the largest intra-cluster interference on it within a cluster.
Statement (8) using the exhaustive search, chooses the
best channel for the D2D UE that minimizes the intra-
cluster interference the most. At the expense of computa-
tion, the best channel is selected. In previous research [6]
and [7], the channel allocation is not optimal because their
proposed algorithms allocate channels without knowing the
effect of channel allocation in the network. They update
graph edges only once during the initialization step that
limits the scope of the resource allocation algorithm to
achieve lessen interference. In our resource allocation Fig. 5 Intra-cluster interference comparison

123
Wireless Networks
Table 2 Simulation parameters
Parameters Values
Number of D2D UEs 100–140
Max number of resource blocks 10
significantly as compared to the results obtained from the
reviewed paper. The complexity order for edge formation
and graph coloring of our proposed algorithm is
OðG  Z Nk Þ, where Nk is the number of UEs in kth cluster
and Nk \\N. Whereas, the complexity of resource allo-
cation algorithm proposed in [7] for edge formation and
graph coloring is of the order of OðG  Z  N 2 Þ and
OðN 2 Þ, respectively.
5.2 Simulations and results
5.2.1 Network model for simulations
Simulation model used is similar to that used in obtaining
the results for spectral clustering with just few modifica-
tions (see Table 2). In spectral clustering simulations, the
allowed number of RBs was limited to only 1, but for
dynamic resource allocation simulations this number is
increased to 10. Also, the allowed range of the number of
D2D UEs for dynamic resource allocation simulations is
specified to be from 100 to 140.
5.2.2 Observations
Figure 5 shows the intra-cluster interference comparison
for a number of RBs from 2 to 6. From the Fig. 5, it can be
observed that the intra-cluster interference for our proposed
resource allocation (RA) algorithm is less than the algo-
rithm in [7]. As the number of RBs is increased, the gain in
the interference reduction is also increased. For 2 RBs, the
interference comparison in Fig. 5(a) shows that the dif-
ference in proposed RA, that uses dynamic resource allo-
cation, is approximately 1 dB less than the interference in
the RA proposed in [7]. This interference reduction gap is
widened as the number of RBs are increased; from 1 dB for
2 RBs to 6 dB, 7 dB for 4, and 6 RBs, respectively.
In Fig 6, we show the SINR performance with the
proposed spectral clustering and dynamic resource alloca-
tion against the resource allocation used in [7]. As antici-
pated, the gap in the performance improvement widens as
the number of resource blocks are increased. SINR is cal-
culated as,
pi d a gi;j
SINR ði ; jÞ ¼ P i;j a g
No W þ k2N;k6¼i pk dk;j i;j
Fig. 6 Signal to interference and noise ratio
where pi is the power of it h D2D UE, gi;j is the channel
gain of a communication link, W ¼ 10 MHz is the band-
width, and No ¼ 7 dB is the noise spectral density.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, the effect of different clustering algorithms
on interference management of D2D network is investi-
gated. To support dense D2D communications in an
interference-limited environment, spectral clustering algo-
rithm is proposed to minimize the cross-cluster interfer-
ence. The proposed spectral clustering method with
modified kernel incorporates the edge weights that are
proportional to the interference in the network. The per-
formance is then compared with benchmark clustering
algorithms like K-means and KPCA clustering. The sim-
ulations have shown that the proposed algorithm can
reduce the cross-cluster of the D2D communications net-
work. Further, to reduce the intra-cluster interference, the
dynamic resource allocation-algorithm is formulated using
graph coloring that reduces the intra-cluster interference in
the network considerably.
References
1. Ericsson mobility report. Ericsson. [online]. Available: https://
www.ericsson.com/assets/local/mobility-report/documents/2019/
emr-q4-update-2018.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2019.
2. Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic forecast
update, 2017–2022 white paper. Cisco. [online]. Available:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provi
der/visual-networking-index-vni/white-paper-c11-738429.html.
Accessed 18 Feb 2019.
3. Mach, P., Becvar, Z., & Vanek, T. (2015). In-band device-to-
device communication in OFDMA cellular networks: A survey
and challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials,
17(4), 1885–1922.
123
 Wireless Networks

4. Noura, M., & Nordin, R. (2016). A survey on interference Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology),
management for device-to-device (D2D) communication and its 63(2), 411–423.
challenges in 5G networks. Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, 71, 130–150. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
5. Jerew, O., & Al Bassam, N. (2019). Delay tolerance and energy jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
saving in wireless sensor networks with a mobile base station.
Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2019,
3929876. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3929876. Shahrukh Khan Kasi received the
6. Zhao, L., Wang, H., & Zhong, X. (2018). Interference graph M.S. degree in Electrical Engi-
based channel assignment algorithm for D2D cellular networks. neering from the School of
IEEE Access, 6, 3270–3279. Science and Engineering,
7. Lin, Y., Zhang, R., Li, C., Yang, L., & Hanzo, L. (2018). Graph- LUMS, Lahore, Pakistan. He is
based joint user-centric overlapped clustering and resource allo- currently working toward the
cation in ultradense networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Ph.D. degree in the Department
Technology, 67(5), 4440–4453. of Electrical and Computer
8. Lin, S., Ni, W., Tian, H., & Liu, R. P. (2015). An evolutionary Engineering, Michigan State
game theoretic framework for femtocell radio resource manage- University, East Lansing, USA.
ment. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 14(11), He was the Team lead of this
6365–6376. project. His research interests
9. Chun, Y. J., Hasna, M. O., & Ghrayeb, A. (2015). Modeling include resource management
heterogeneous cellular networks interference using Poisson in dense 5G communication
cluster processes. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Commu- networks and similar projects as
nications, 33(10), 2182–2195. well.
10. Dai, J., & Wang, S. (2016). Clustering-based interference man-
agement in densely deployed femtocell networks. Digital Com- Ijaz Haider Naqvi received the
munications and Networks, 2(4), 175–183. B.Sc. degree in electrical engi-
11. Zhang, Y., Zheng, J., Lu, P.-S., & Sun, C. (2017). Interference neering from the University of
graph construction for cellular D2D communications. IEEE Engineering and Technology
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 66(4), 3293–3305. Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan, the
12. Hassan, Y., Hussain, F., Hossen, S., Choudhury, S., & Alam, M. Master’s degree in radio com-
M. (2017). Interference minimization in D2D communication munications from SUPELEC
underlaying cellular networks. IEEE Access, 5, 22471–22484. Paris, France and the Ph.D.
13. Gandotra, P., Jha, R. K., & Jain, S. (2017). A survey on device-to- degree in electronics and
device (D2D) communication: Architecture and security issues. telecommunications from
Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 78, 9–29. IETR-INSA Rennes, France in
14. Handy, M. J., Haase, M., & Timmermann, D. (2002). Low energy 2003, 2006, and 2009, respec-
adaptive clustering hierarchy with deterministic cluster-head tively. He is currently an Asso-
selection. In 4th international workshop on mobile and wireless ciate Professor at the School of
communications network (pp. 368–372). IEEE. Science and Engineering,
15. Qiao, Y., Shi, C., Wang, C., Li, H., Haberland, M., Luo, X., et al. LUMS, Lahore, Pakistan
(2019). Uncertainty quantification for semi-supervised multi-
class classification in image processing and ego-motion analysis Mumraiz Khan Kasi is an assis-
of body-worn videos. In Proceedings on electronic imaging tant professor of computer sci-
2019. ence at the Balochistan
16. Newman, M. E. J., Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (2002). Ran- University of IT, Engineering
dom graph models of social networks. Proceedings of the and Management Science
National Academy of Sciences, 99(1), 2566–2572. [online]. (BUITEMS), Pakistan. He
17. Kannan, R., Vempala, S., & Vetta, A. (2004). On clusterings: received the Ph.D. degree in
Good, bad and spectral. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 51(3), computer science from the
497–515. University of Waikato, New
18. Von Luxburg, U. (2007). A tutorial on spectral clustering. Zealand, a master’s degree from
Statistics and Computing, 17(4), 395–416. University of Adelaide, Aus-
19. Jabłoński, I. (2017). Graph signal processing in applications to tralia and a bachelor’s degree
sensor networks, smart grids, and smart cities. IEEE Sensors from the Government College
Journal, 17(23), 7659–7666. University, Lahore, Pakistan.
20. Van Mieghem, P. (2010). Graph spectra for complex networks.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Tibshirani, R., Walther, G., & Hastie, T. (2001). Estimating the
number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic. Journal of the

123
Wireless Networks

Faisal Yaseen received the M.S.

degree in Electrical Engineering
from the School of Science and
Engineering, LUMS, Lahore,
Pakistan. He is currently work-
ing as a research associate at
School of Science and Engi-
neering, LUMS, Lahore,
Pakistan.

123