Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computer Networks
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comnet

Using UE-VBS for dynamic virtual small cells deployment and backhauling in
5G Ultra-Dense networks
Kuna Venkateswararao a ,∗, Pravati Swain a , Christophoros Christophorou b , Andreas Pitsillides c
a
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, National Institute of Technology Goa, India
b
CYENS Centre of Excellence, Cyprus & CITARD Services LTD, Cyprus
c
Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Cyprus

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper builds on the UE-based Virtual Base Station (UE-VBS) concept, which enables the Smartphones
5G (i.e., UEs) of the general population to be enhanced with Base Station and Relay Node functionalities and be
UE-based Virtual Base Station (UE-VBS) embedded as an integral part of the Mobile Network Infrastructure, offering relief in stressful or overloaded
Virtual small cell
situations. This paper focuses on the selection process of eligible-UEs that will be activated on-the-fly into
Ultra-Dense network
UE-VBSs to complement and support the Mobile Network infrastructure, either as virtual small cells (VSCs) or
Multi-hop
Data offload
virtual relay nodes (VRNs). We adopt a Modified Affinity Propagation Clustering (MAPC) algorithm to select
Backhauling UE-VBSs to act as VSCs for capacity/data rate expansion in areas where the infrastructure is weak and a
more effective and agile network operation is needed. Additionally, to provide for a more spectrum efficient
backhauling of mobile data traffic from the VSCs towards the BS, the Multi-hop Load balanced Geographical
Path selection (MLGP) algorithm is proposed. The MAPC and MLGP algorithms are implemented and evaluated
in MATLAB and also validated using the NS3 network simulator, with mobile data traffic modeled as a non-
uniform distribution with respect to the time and space domain. The results demonstrated that the proposed
approaches improve the network performance in terms of throughput, delay and jitter.

1. Introduction
The 5G network is currently in its very early stages of deployment.
To meet the very ambitious goals related to energy consumption,
higher data rate, seamless coverage area, high bandwidth, minimum
delay and ability to support more users, research is still on-going. To
realize these goals, the deployment of a massive number of Small Base
Stations (SBSs) and formation of Small Cells everywhere supporting all
types of Radio Access Technologies (RATs) will play a pivotal role [1,
2]. However, small cell deployment at huge scales, as in emerging
ultra-dense HetNet environments, introduces significant deployment
challenges [3] that need to be addressed before realizing their full
potential in emerging 5G Networks.
Small Cells such as femtocell, picocell, microcell offer the possibility
of deployment in a wide range of locations, both indoor and outdoor.
They can be deployed in a more targeted manner for providing addi-
tional capacity to ease traffic congestion in densely populated areas
such as shopping malls, sports venues, airports and railway stations.
Small cells [4,5] reduce the physical separation between the UEs and
the BS, which leads to: (i) higher data rates and throughput; (ii) in-
creased spectral efficiency and higher capacity (as less UEs are in direct
communication with the Macro BS, thus reducing load and congestion
to the Macro BSs); (iii) reduced energy consumption (both from the UEs
and the BSs) by allowing UEs to communicate at a shorter range with
low signaling overhead); (iv) better management of interference; and
(v) enable the minimization of the power emitted by both the UEs and
the BSs and the total Electromagnetic Field exposure. Also, the manual
plug and play utility of some types of Small Cells can further boost the
on-demand capacity. As indicated by DellOro group [6], small cells are
the essential drivers of development in the 5G RAN system.
The deployment of small cells is dictated by network congestion
and service requirements such as traffic control, coverage area and
data rate [7,8]. However, currently the standard delivery of the SBS
is static (Femto, Pico, and Micro cells). Given the versatile mobile
traffic, which is asymmetrically conveyed in spatial and time domain
due to the dynamic activity and mobility of the human factor, a static
deployment of small cells will be inflexible and ineffective to cope
with the mobile traffic dynamics. Following in the same spirit of Small
Cells and targeting the major challenges that need to be addressed for
leveraging their potentials in emerging 5G Ultra-Dense networks, this

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kunavenkateswararao@nitgoa.ac.in (K. Venkateswararao), pravati@nitgoa.ac.in (P. Swain), c.christophorou@cyens.org.cy
(C. Christophorou), andreas.pitsillides@ucy.ac.cy (A. Pitsillides).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2021.107926
Received 1 August 2020; Received in revised form 25 January 2021; Accepted 6 February 2021
Available online 11 February 2021
1389-1286/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
K. Venkateswararao et al.
paper builds on the ideas of the UE-based Virtual Base Station (UE-VBS)
concept [9,10].
Specifically, with the UE-VBS concept, Smartphones (i.e., UEs) of
the general population are enhanced with Base Station and Relay
Node functionalities and embedded as a versatile VBS complementing
the Mobile Network Operators’ (MNO) infrastructure. A Smartphone
enhanced with the UE-VBS functionality (we refer to it as an eligible-
UE) can then be selected, based on the network needs, to serve as: (i)
a virtual small cell (VSC) used for coverage/capacity/data rates expan-
sion in stressed hot spot areas where the infrastructure is weak; and/or
(ii) as an intermediate virtual relay node (VRN) in a communication
path facilitating the effective and efficient flow of data within the Radio
Access Part [3].
Towards this end, capitalizing on the dense and ubiquitous distribu-
tion of the Mobile Users (owners of eligible-UEs) already present in our
physical environment, a new dynamic, highly flexible and cost-effective
virtual UE-VBS layer can be formed at the bottom layer of the E-UTRAN
architecture. The eligible-UEs can then be exploited on demand for on-
the-fly deployment of VSCs or VRNs at any time and at any location,
indoor and outdoor, i.e., anywhere their owners (i.e., the Mobile Users)
are located.
The focus of this paper is on the algorithms implementing the
logic needed for activating UE-VBSs at the ‘‘correct’’ locations (that is
close to where the consumption of data is taking place) and assigning
them the specific roles of VSC or VRN in a dynamic manner, so that
improved service quality will be delivered across the entire cell. This is
hard to achieve considering the dynamic activity of the human factor
as well as the user masses location preferences that changes through
time, making mobile traffic dynamic and asymmetrically distributed in
both spatial and time domains. To address this issue, two algorithms
are proposed in this paper, namely the Modified Affinity Propagation
Clustering (MAPC) and the Multi-hop Load balanced Geographical Path
selection (MLGP), each with its own aims but both having the same
objective: to use UE-VBSs for the dynamic deployment of Virtual Small
Cells or Virtual Relay Nodes at ‘‘proper’’ locations, at the time of need.
Hence, real time organization of the Mobile Infrastructure will always
be provided, adapted to the RAN stresses, extending data rates, capacity
and backhauling capabilities in a targeted and scalable manner.
More specifically, the eligible-UEs that will be used as UE-VBSs for
deploying Virtual Small Cells are selected using the proposed MAPC al-
gorithm. Additionally, for the Virtual Relay Nodes, specific eligible-UEs
will be selected using the MLGP algorithm. The aim of this algorithm
is to address the issue of backhaul availability, which can restrain
capacity and data rates for UE-VBSs deploying Virtual Small Cells not
within an effective communication range of the BS. Specifically, while
conventional BSs are typically connected through a high capacity wired
backhaul network, the same is not true for the UE-VBSs (acting as
Virtual Small Cells), which may have to be randomly and dynamically
deployed at any location, without having access to wired backhaul
connectivity. Thus, the MLGP algorithm is proposed to provide for a
more spectrum efficient backhauling of mobile data traffic from the UE-
VBSs acting as Virtual Small Cells towards the BS. The purpose of the
MLPG algorithm is to dynamically establish a communication path (if
any) through which the aggregated mobile data traffic will flow. This
can be accomplished via multiple eligible-UEs, selected to be activated
into UE-VBSs acting as Virtual Relay Nodes.
Following this introductory Section, the rest of the paper is or-
ganized as follows: Section 2 discusses related research work and
elaborates on our contribution. Section 3 presents the proposed system
model by providing a complete illustration of our proposed approaches.
Performance Evaluation is provided in Section 4. Finally, Section 5
concludes the paper with possible future directions.
2
Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926
2. Related work
To deal with the mobile traffic changes in an Ultra-Dense 5G
cellular system [11] and enhance the network infrastructure whenever
needed, several works are devoted to a UE functioning as a virtual
small cell [9,10,12,13]. Similarly, in [14], the UEs in the small cell
work like a personal femtocell BS (i.e., by providing UEs with e-NB
functionality). The personal cell allows UEs within the coverage area to
connect directly with each other without the required communication
path between the UEs. Another similar methodology, albeit limited to
direct Device to Device (D2D) communication within a cellular network
is proposed in patent [15]. The data offloading from a cellular network
may be transported over a D2D connection established between the
UE and a benefactor. The benefactor may relay the data from/to a
backhaul network and may receive a compensation for offloading the
data. Alternatively, a novel concept beyond the above approach is
based on the number of antenna elements and steering constraints of
the beam to form a VSC [16]. This approach first identifies the hotspots
in the macro cell and then verifies the steering constraints such as:
(i) distance, which is less than the defined space between the center
of the hotspot to the BS; and (ii) beam width, which is less than the
configurable sector.
In another approach, the authors propose K-Means clustering based
VSC formation (KVF) [17]. Here, the UEs send an HTTP request to
the BS, such as location information, type of data and the remaining
battery levels. Then, the BS collects and forwards the data to the VSC
formation server (VFS) through the content service provider. The VFS
forms clusters based on the received information from the BS, mainly
based on the type of data. Hence, the VSC formation depends on the
similarity of the type of data which are requested by the BS. This
leads to a situation where some of the clusters are heavily loaded
and some clusters are under loaded. Moreover, the authors did not
consider the constraints on the size of the virtual small cell formation
(e.g., number of Client UEs that can be connected to it) in terms
of a minimum and a maximum threshold. The minimum threshold
is seen as a tradeoff between the signaling overhead and the overall
benefit of BS’s distressing. The maximum threshold is dictated by the
number of the Client UEs and their expected load. Therefore, the overall
communication cost and energy consumption may be increased.
Similarly, the authors in [18] use the local context information
(LCI), such as energy and data type, to formulate the VSC. The VSC
formation approach selects a set of qualified UEs which receive higher
power assistance from the required UE. Then, the selected qualified
UEs provide QoS services to the other UEs in the VSC group. Here, the
authors consider the available battery power and higher signal strength
of the qualified UEs for the VSC formation. However, the authors did
not consider the size of the VSC or the coverage area of the VSC. As a
result, there is a great possibility of redundant VSCs forming, which is
not optimal with respect to the energy efficiency of the network.
The UE based Virtual Small Base Station (UE-VBS) concept proposed
in [9,19], formulates the dynamic deployment of VSCs in a scalable
and targeted manner. The UE-VBS idea solves the current small cell
static deployment problem in Ultra-Dense networks, using the UE of the
very population served by the Mobile network. The UE-VBS method is
agile, reduces the OPEX and CAPEX costs, provides additional capacity,
eases data traffic congestion and increases the throughput [9]. Due
to the ubiquitous, portable and convenient possession of the UE-VBS
Equipment (owned and carried by the masses), challenges related to
small cell deployment [3] can be vastly eliminated. More precisely,
this new type of UE-VBS Equipment can offer a simplified site solu-
tion and make small cell installation and set-up inexpensive, quickly
deployed/installed and unobtrusive. CAPEX is offloaded to the Mo-
bile Users whose Smartphones (i.e., UEs) can be exploited as Virtual
BS Equipment (akin to a sharing economy,1 as for example Airbnb
1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy.
K. Venkateswararao et al.
and Uber). In addition, there is no need for site acquisition (i.e., ne-
gotiations with site owners and fees paid for mounting the BSs in
the respective sites) or expensive installations, since the UE-VBSs are
‘‘mounted’’ on the Mobile Users. Moreover, the economic costs related
to Operation & Maintenance (O&M) are significantly reduced since
these will be offloaded to the Mobile Users which are the owners of the
UE-VBS Equipment. Furthermore, any restrains related to mobile traffic
dynamics are removed since the UE-VBSs are carried by the Mobile
Users, that as part of the crowd will always follow the crowd’s location
trends and location preferences, extending capacity in a targeted and
scalable manner and achieving higher revenues for the MNOs. Another
work also promoting the idea of having UEs functioning as BSs and
deploying VSCs appeared independently in [20]. However, their main
focus was in finding the optimum small cell density for minimizing the
communication links to the micro cells and hence increasing capacity.
The work in [9] proposed a set of UEs to act as virtual small BSs
(i.e., act as UE-VBSs), virtually splitting the macro cell into a number
of VSCs in this manner. Hence, Client UEs within the coverage region of
a UE-VBS can be connected to it through a short-range communication
technique, while the remaining UEs can stay connected directly to
the macro cell BS. To implement this idea, the assumption is that
there are some UEs which are eligible to become UE-VBSs based on
an agreement between the User and the network operator (named
eligible-UEs). Hence, the challenge is to wisely select a number of
these eligible-UEs to act as active UE-VBSs and provide virtual BS
functionalities to the other UEs. Note that the selection of UE-VBSs is
also addressed in [19], based on the Affinity Propagation Clustering
(APC) technique [21]. However, the authors in [19] did not consider
the constraints on the size of the VSC formation. Furthermore, [19] did
not address backhauling techniques.
There are two different approaches of mobile data offloading such
as Single-hop and Multi-hop [22,23]. Single-hop data offloading is
done directly between SBS and the BS. In multi-hop data offloading,
the data interchange between the Small Base Station (SBS) and BS is
carried out by one or more relay nodes. A novel architecture described
in [24] provides an infrastructure-less multipath communication in
a mixed heterogeneous network. Node co-operation is used for the
development of network communication. Node selection is based on
reinforced learning and the selected nodes are used for data forwarding,
relaying, switching and transmission in the network. In [25], the best
relay node selection (BRS) scheme is used for the selection of energy
harvested (EH) relay nodes. The BRS algorithm identifies the nearest
EH relay node from the source node and forwards data through it to the
destination. The BRS scheme improves the lifetime of the network and
maximizes spectral efficiency. Commonly, in this approach the number
of relay nodes are increased, as the aim of the approach is to find
the closest relay from the source node. This can result in increased
computational cost, signaling overhead and communication delay.
In [26], an algorithm based on Load Balancing is proposed to find
multipath routes to achieve D2D communications for Public Safety
over Heterogeneous Networks. The routing algorithm is referred to as
Load Balancing Based Selective Ad hoc On Demand Multipath Distance
Vector (LBS-AOMDV). In LBS-AOMDV, the source node first identifies
the neighboring nodes within the transmission range and checks if
the available bandwidth of the each node is greater than a predefined
threshold. Among those that the available bandwidth is greater than the
predefined threshold, the one with least available bandwidth is selected
for forwarding the data to the destination.
Similarly, in [27] Network Assisted Routing (NAR) provides D2D
communication for extending the coverage area of the small cells, when
the SBS is unable to connect with the BS. Here, the shortest path is
defined based on the channel quality between the SBS and BS. The
NAR algorithm acquires the channel quality of the neighboring small
cells from the source node and selects the nearest small cell based
on a predefined threshold. Then, the selected small cell uses the D2D
communication technique to connect the BS.
3
Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926
The authors in [26,27] described above, perform relay selection
based on the closest node from the source node. This approach causes
an increase in the number of relay nodes. The more number of relay
nodes can increase the communication cost, energy consumption and
delay.
Another similar approach is the Shortest Path Based Geographical
Routing (SBGR) algorithm which is proposed in [28] for wireless sensor
networks. In SBGR, communication is establish between the source and
destination nodes via multiple intermediate nodes (relay nodes). The
relay nodes that take an active part in data offloading are chosen based
on the shortest distance vector of the nodes from the shortest Euclidean
distance between the source–destination nodes. However, the traffic at
the relay nodes is not considered, which can cause a bottleneck in the
communication path to the BS. In addition, the SBGR selects the relay
node which is closer to the Euclidian distance line and the source node,
instead of the furthermost node in the transmission range and closer to
the Euclidian distance line.
Overall, the contribution of this paper is closely related to the UE-
based Virtual Base Station (UE-VBS) concept described above. More
specifically, in this paper we extend the work described in [9] and [19]
and propose two algorithms that allow the selection of those UE-VBSs
that will complement and support the Mobile Network, either as Virtual
Small Cells or Virtual Relay Nodes, in areas where the Infrastructure is
weak and a more effective and agile network operation is needed.
Specifically, in this paper:
– The Modified Affinity Propagation Clustering (MAPC) algorithm
is proposed for selection of the UE-VBSs that will serve as virtual
small cells. This selection is based on a service capacity constraint
that mainly relates to the minimum and maximum number of
UEs that can be served by a UE-VBS in a small cell network. The
gains provided by this algorithm are that it reduces the network
load at the BS, improves the small cell efficiency and the network
performance and reduces the number of active UE-VBSs needed
(i.e., reduces the cost for the Mobile Network Operators), whilst
accounting for signaling overhead.
– The Multi-hop load balanced geographical path selection (MLGP)
algorithm is proposed to establish a backhauling communication
path from a UE-VBS (serving as a virtual small cell) to the BS
through multiple eligible-UEs selected to serve as virtual relay
nodes; whenever the BS is not within a single-hop distance from
the UE-VBS virtual small cell. This algorithm reduces the commu-
nication gap between the UE-VBSs acting as virtual small cells and
the BS which in turn reduces the network workload and increases
the network throughput.
– Extensive evaluation is used: The proposed algorithms are devel-
oped in Matlab and the results are further validated concerning
networking performance metrics through the network simulation
NS3 [29].
3. Considered network definition and proposed algorithms
It is worth mentioning that the objective of the UE-VBS concept is
not to replace the real Base Stations (i.e., eNodeBs) but to dynamically
complement and support those in areas where the demands in coverage,
capacity and data rates are greater than what they can provide. Thus,
we consider a typical setting in 5G, focusing on a single cell supported
by an eNodeB, whereby a number of users (UEs) are connected to it at
any point in time. Note that at least conceptually, the generalization to
all BSs is trivial. It is also assumed that the BS is located at the center of
the cell with N UEs (Smartphones) distributed in a dense area (e.g., a
football stadium), by following the PCP model. Let M be a subset of the
N UEs, labeled as eligible-UEs, which can be activated on-the-fly into UE-
VBSs whenever stressful or overloaded situations occur. Also, let L be
a subset of these M eligible-UEs that are currently available (we refer
to these as available-UEs) to provide network services and efficiently
complement and support the Mobile Network infrastructure.
K. Venkateswararao et al.
Table 1
Notation and description for MAPC algorithm.
Notation Description
N Total number of UEs in the Cell
X,Y Coordinates of UEs
TP Transmission Power
M Number of eligible-UEs (subset of N) in the Cell
L Number of available-UEs (subset of eligible UEs)
AUE Number of UEs associated with the available-UE
(Cluster size of the available-UE)
U Number of available-UEs activated into UE-VBSs (subset of L)
S Similarity matrix
R Responsibility matrix
A Availability matrix
𝑆𝑁𝑅𝑖𝑗 SNR (dB) received by the 𝑖th UE from the 𝑗th eligible–UE
G channel Gain
𝑑𝑖𝑗 Euclidian distance from the 𝑖th UE to the 𝑗th eligible-UE
(m)
𝜎 Noise power
𝛼 Attenuation factor
The MAPC and the MLGP are described next. Note that in this paper,
to simplify the problem and demonstrate our ideas, we assume that
the locations of the UEs will remain static for the time of interest. The
extension to mobile users will be considered in future work.
3.1. Proposed MAPC algorithm
The proposed MAPC algorithm runs at the BS and is executed on
a per cell basis. The purpose of this algorithm is to select eligible-UEs
that will be activated into UE-VBSs and complement and support the
network infrastructure as VSCs (see Fig. 1). To optimize the overall
network performance, based on the network load and the anticipated
congestion at the BS, these eligible-UEs are selected in a dynamic
manner, that is at any time and at any location, indoor or outdoor,
wherever the Mobile Users (which are the owners of the eligible-UEs)
are located.
With our proposed system, it is assumed that the UEs are distributed
based on the Poisson Cluster Process (PCP) approach [30] in a dense
area. The PCP is more realistic in representing the activation of the UE-
VBSs and the deployment of virtual small cells in dense areas because it
models data points that are denser in certain areas, illustrating possible
hotspots. Table 1 summarizes the notation used in the definition of the
MAPC problem.
3.1.1. Flow of operation
The diagram illustrating the process of selecting and activating a
number of eligible-UEs into UE-VBSs for deploying virtual small cells is
presented in Fig. 2. Overall, the steps executed are listed below: (i) The
congested BS broadcasts a ‘‘UE-VBSs Request’’ message in its coverage
area requesting the assistance of the eligible-UEs for supporting the
Mobile Infrastructure, by deploying virtual small cells; (ii) In response,
the eligible-UEs that are available to provide network services reply
back to the BS indicating their availability. It is worth indicating again,
that in this work we assume that the eligible-UEs are static for a certain
time duration; (iii) Based on the reply messages received from the
available-UEs, the proposed MAPC algorithm selects those that will
become UE-VBSs (for more details see Section 3.1.3) and activation
messages are sent; (iv) The selected available-UEs are activated into
UE-VBSs and broadcast an association message to the UEs in their
proximity. In the broadcast message, the UE-VBS ID assigned to them
by the BS is included; and finally (v) The UEs reply back with an ACK
message to the UE-VBS with the highest SNR received, to complete the
formation of a virtual small cell.
4
Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926
3.1.2. The Similarity (S), the Responsibility (R) and the Availability (A)
matrices
As indicated above, the proposed MAPC algorithm (Algorithm. 1)
runs at the BS and is executed on a per cell basis. Its purpose is to select
the eligible-UEs that will be activated into UE-VBSs and complement
and support the congested BS’s cell area as virtual small cells. To do so,
based on messages exchanged between the N UEs and the M eligible-
UEs, the congested BS uses this algorithm to first compute the Similarity
(S), the Responsibility (R) and the Availability (A) matrices:
– The Similarity matrix S of size N × M, represents the similarity
between the N UEs and M eligible-UEs. More specifically, the
similarity of a UE 𝑖 (𝑖 ∈ N) and eligible-UE 𝑗 (𝑗 ∈ M) is
represented by the negative Euclidean distance between them.
This is calculated using Eq. (1). The values stored in matrix S
represents the value of the possibility of an eligible-UE to be
activated into a UE-VBS and deploy a virtual small cell to serve
the UEs.
𝑆(𝑖, 𝑗) = −𝑑𝑖𝑗 (1)
√
where, 𝑑𝑖𝑗 = (𝑋𝑖 − 𝑋𝑗 )2 + (𝑌𝑖 − 𝑌𝑗 )2
𝑋𝑖 , 𝑌𝑖 represent the geographical location of UEs that are in the
range of eligible-UEs.
𝑋𝑗 , 𝑌𝑗 represent the geographical location of eligible-UEs.
The Responsibility (R) and the Availability (A) matrices (both of
size 𝑁 × 𝑀) are computed based on two kinds of messages that are
exchanged between the UEs and the eligible-UEs (see Figs. 3a and 3b).
These are the responsibility value and the availability value, stored
in the Responsibility (R) and Availability (A) matrices, respectively.
However, before doing so, both matrices are initialized to zeros. More
specifically:
– The Responsibility value R(𝑖, 𝑗) is sent from a 𝑈 𝐸𝑖 to an eligible-
𝑈 𝐸𝑗 and reflects how well suited the eligible-𝑈 𝐸𝑗 is, to serve as
the cluster head for 𝑈 𝐸𝑖 . Other potential eligible-UEs for 𝑈 𝐸𝑖 ,
are also considered into account (see Fig. 3a). The Responsibility
(R) matrix is updated using Eq. (2) [19]. This R matrix, reflects
which of the eligible-UEs are more suitable, compared to the oth-
ers, to become cluster heads (i.e., to be activated into UE-VBSs
and deployed as a virtual small cell).
{ }
𝑅(𝑖, 𝑗) = 𝑆(𝑖, 𝑗) − 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑗 ′ 𝑠.𝑡 𝑗 ′ ≠𝑗 𝐴(𝑖, 𝑗 ′ ) + 𝑆(𝑖, 𝑗 ′ ) (2)
– The Availability value A(𝑖, 𝑗) is sent from a candidate cluster
eligible-𝑈 𝐸𝑗 to a 𝑈 𝐸𝑖 , and indicates to what degree the candi-
date eligible-𝑈 𝐸𝑗 is available to become a cluster head for the
𝑈 𝐸𝑖 (see Fig. 3a). The Availability (A) matrix is updated using
Eq. (3) [19]. This A matrix, to reflect the possible clusters. More
specifically, it indicates which UEs (i.e., cluster members) can
be connected to which eligible-UEs (i.e., cluster heads; possible
UE-VBSs selected to act as Virtual Small Cells).
{ ∑ { }}
𝐴(𝑖, 𝑗) = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 0, 𝑅(𝑗, 𝑗) + 𝑚𝑎𝑥 0, 𝑅(𝑖′ , 𝑗) (3)
𝑖′ 𝑠.𝑡 𝑖′ ≠(𝑖,𝑗)
3.1.3. Description of the MAPC algorithm
The MAPC algorithm is divided into two phases: These are the (i)
initial phase; and the (ii) Virtual Small Cell (VSC) formation phase.
Note that implementation details of this algorithm are provided in
Section 4.1.
Initial phase:
In the initial phase, the Similarity (S) matrix, the Availability (A)
matrix and the Responsibility (R) matrix are first calculated by the
BS based on Eqs. (1), (2) and (3), respectively. For more details see
Section 3.1.2. Then, the Availability (A) matrix is added with the
Responsibility (R) matrix resulting in the construction of a new matrix
K. Venkateswararao et al. Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926

Fig. 1. Formation of VSC among UEs.

Fig. 2. Flow diagram of Virtual Small Cell formation.

referred to as the E matrix (E = R + A). This E matrix indicates which calculation using Eq. (4) [31].
of the eligible-UEs will be finally considered as available-UEs. More
𝑆𝑁𝑅𝑖𝑗 = 𝑇 𝑃𝑖𝑗 ∗ 𝐺𝑖𝑗 ∕𝜎 (4)
specifically, if a 𝐸𝑖𝑗 value in the E matrix is more than zero (i.e., 𝐸𝑖𝑗 >
0), then the 𝑗th eligible-UE will be marked as an available-UE (𝑗 ∈ L). where, 𝐺𝑖𝑗 = 𝑑𝑖𝑗−𝛼
Note that if an eligible-UE is marked as an available-UE, then this can The outputs of this phase are: (i) the set L of the eligible-UEs marked
be activated into a UE-VBS and deployed as a virtual small cell to as available-UEs; and (ii) the list of the UEs that are associated to each
support UEs in its proximity. available-UE (AUE list). Clarifying notes for the VSC formation phase
are given below.
However, the decision whether an available-UE will be finally acti-
vated into a cluster head (i.e, a UE-VBS acting as a Virtual Small Cell) Virtual small cell formation phase:
as well as which UEs will be associated with it, will be taken in the In the Virtual Small Cell (VSC) formation phase, among the given
Virtual Small Cell (VSC) creation phase. Note that the association of set L of available-UEs (provided by the Initial Phase), those that will
UEs to available-UEs (cluster heads), is based on the SNR preference be activated into UE-VBSs are selected and the Virtual Small Cells are

5
K. Venkateswararao et al. Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926

Fig. 3. Messages exchanged between the UEs and eligible-UEs.

formed. However, this is done only when the minimum and maximum Algorithm 1: Modify Affinity Propagation Clustering (MAPC)
threshold values associated with the cluster size (i.e., the number of UEs Input: List of UEs N, eligible-UEs M
associated with the available-UE), are respected. More specifically, the Result: List of UE-VBSs (U) that will serve as VSCs.
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 value represents the minimum number of UEs that should Initialization: 𝑁𝐴𝑠𝑒𝑡 = ∅, 𝑀𝑈 𝐸 = ∅, 𝑅𝑈 𝐸𝑠 = ∅
be associated with an available-UE so as to justify its activation into a while 𝑁𝐴𝑠𝑒𝑡 ==empty do
UE-VBS and the formation of the virtual small cell. On the other hand, /* Initial Phase */
the 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 represents the maximum number of UEs allowed Calculate the Similarity, Responsibility and Availability matrix
to be supported by a UE-VBS acting as a virtual small cell. If these using Eqs. (1), (2) and (3)
thresholds are met, then the available-UE is activated into a UE-VBS 𝐸 =𝑅+𝐴
(which is then included in the U list), the virtual small cell is deployed 𝐸𝑖𝑗 > 0 ∀𝑖 ∈ N, ∀𝑗 ∈ M , select 𝑗th eligible-UE and add them
and the UEs associated with it are connected to it. More specifically, into L
the following cases are considered: for i to N do
for j to L do
• If the cluster size is less than the 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 value, the
if (i ! = j) then
available-UE will be removed from the available-UEs L list and 𝐴𝑈 𝐸𝑗 =Assign 𝑈 𝐸𝑖 to 𝐿𝑗 based on highest SNR
included in the eligible-UEs M list. Also the UEs associated to it preference
will be added to the Not Associated set (𝑁𝐴𝑠𝑒𝑡 ). end
• If the cluster size is greater than the 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 value, then the end
UEs within the cluster are sorted based on the SNR preference end
value in descending order. The top maximum number of UEs /* Virtual Small Cell Formation Phase */
(𝑀𝑈 𝐸 ) is selected and the available-UE of that cluster becomes for j to L do
the cluster head (i.e., a UE-VBS acting as a Virtual Small Cell). if (𝐴𝑈 𝐸𝑗 < = minThreshold) then
The remaining UEs (𝑅𝑈 𝐸 ) are added to the Not Associated set 𝐿𝑗 is remove from the available-UEs list, add them into
(𝑁𝐴𝑠𝑒𝑡 ). 𝑁𝐴𝑠𝑒𝑡
• The UEs included in the Not Associated set (𝑁𝐴𝑠𝑒𝑡 ) are associated Update the Eligible-UEs in M
to their next choice (based on the SNR received) of the 𝐿𝑗 else if (𝐴𝑈 𝐸𝑗 > = maxThreshold) then
available-UEs, only if the cluster size of the next available-UE is Sort 𝐴𝑈 𝐸𝑗 and identify the maxThreshold UEs (𝑀𝑈 𝐸 )
less than 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑. For those UEs that there is not an alter- from 𝐴𝑈 𝐸𝑗
native choice (i.e., there is no available-UE in their proximity), U = U ∪ 𝐿𝑗
then these UEs will be directly associated/connected with the BS. 𝑅𝑈 𝐸𝑗 = 𝑀𝑈 𝐸 − 𝐴𝑈 𝐸𝑗
• Thereafter, the MAPC algorithm runs until the Not associated set 𝑅𝑈 𝐸𝑠 are associated next choice of available-UE 𝐿𝑗
(𝑁𝐴𝑠𝑒𝑡 ) is empty. else
U=U ∪ 𝐿𝑗
end
The MAPC algorithm selects and activates UE-VBSs among the end
eligible-UEs to form the virtual small cells. Furthermore, the setting by if (𝑁𝐴𝑠𝑒𝑡 == 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 & 𝑅𝑈 𝐸𝑠 ≠ 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦) then
the network operator of the 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 and the 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 values The UEs are directly associated to the BS
for the small-cell size, trade-off signaling and loading for providing an end
effective utilization of the active UE-VBSs.
end
In the next section, we present an algorithm for the selection of
relay nodes, to multi-hop data traffic through the UE-VBSs to the BS
(backhauling), whenever needed.
MAPC algorithm to deploy a virtual small cell are not in an effective
3.2. Description of the MLGP algorithm communication range with the BS. In this case, the MLGP algorithm
will be adopted to dynamically setup (if any) an efficient multi-hop
As referred above, the Multi-hop Load balanced Geographical Path communication path between the virtual small cell and the BS. Multiple
selection (MLGP) algorithm is proposed to provide for a more spectrum eligible-UEs can be selected and activated into UE-VBSs to serve as
efficient backhauling of mobile data traffic from the Virtual Small Cells virtual relay nodes through which the aggregated mobile data traffic
formed towards the BS. More specifically, the MLGP algorithm is used will flow (i.e., backhaul). Note that with this algorithm the data traffic
for the cases where some of the UE-VBSs that were activated by the load of candidate relay nodes is also considered, as this can form a

6
K. Venkateswararao et al. Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926

Table 2 Algorithm 2: Multi-Hop Load Balanced Geographical Path Selection

Notation and description for MLGP algorithm.
(MLGP)
Notation Description
Input: Set of UE-VBSs 𝑆 𝑢𝑒 , Set of relay nodes 𝑅𝑢𝑒 , Coordinates of BS
𝑃𝑗𝑅 Total power consumption at the receiver
𝑅
Result: Short_Path
𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 Minimum non-zero output power of the receiver
𝑅
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum power of the receiver Initialization: Short_Path = ø
𝛥𝑝 Slope of the load Begin: Calculate state of the 𝑅𝑢𝑒𝑠 using Eq. (5).
𝑃𝑜𝑅 Power consumption of the 𝑗th relay node while destination is not reached do
𝑗

𝑃𝑖𝑆 Total power consumption at the transmitter for i to 𝑆 𝑢𝑒 do

𝑆
𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 Minimum non-zero output power of the transmitter Draw Euclidean line(𝐷𝐸 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 ) from 𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑒 to BS
𝑆
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum power of the transmitter
for j to 𝑅𝑢𝑒 do
𝑓𝑖 Data rate at the 𝑖𝑡ℎ node
𝐵𝑊𝑃 𝑅𝐵 log2 (1 + 𝑆𝑁𝑅) Spectral efficiency
𝐸𝐷𝑖𝑗 =Calculate ED from 𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑒 to 𝑅𝑢𝑒𝑗 .
𝑑𝑖𝑗 Euclidian distance from the 𝑖th UE to the 𝑗th if (state of 𝑅𝑢𝑒
𝑗 is On-Mode) &(𝐸𝐷𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑇 𝑅) then
eligible-UE (m) Add 𝐸𝐷𝑖𝑗 to 𝐷𝑠𝑒𝑡
𝑋1 , 𝑌1 Coordinates of the BS 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 =Calculate distance from 𝐷𝐸 𝑢𝑒
𝐸𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 to 𝑅𝑗 using
Eq. (9)
end
bottleneck in intermediate nodes along the backhauling communication if (Select 𝑚𝑎𝑥(𝐷𝑠𝑒𝑡 ) & 𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝐷𝐸 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 ) ) then
path to the BS. if ( 𝑅𝑢𝑒 𝑢𝑒
𝑗 energy ≥ 𝑆𝑖 energy) then
Consider 𝑆 𝑢𝑒 a set representing the list of UE-VBSs (acting as Virtual Short_Path =Short_Path ∪ 𝑅𝑢𝑒
𝑗
Small Cells) that are not in an effective communication range of the BS, Update the state of 𝑅𝑢𝑒
𝑗 using Eq. (6).
and 𝑅𝑢𝑒 a set representing the list of the eligible-UEs (𝑅𝑢𝑒 𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1...𝑀) end
that can be selected as virtual relay nodes. The MLGP algorithm is
else
used to find the optimal path between the UE-VBSs (𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑒 , 𝑖 = 1...𝑈 ) and Select the next 𝑅𝑢𝑒
𝑗 in list.
the BS. Each eligible-UE that belongs to 𝑅𝑢𝑒 set has two states/modes.
end
These are ‘‘On-mode’’ and ‘‘Off-mode’’ which is estimated (see Eq. (5))
based on the remaining energy/resources of the eligible-UE and the re- end
quired energy/resources needed by the eligible-UEs to offload the data end
of the UE-VBS (𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑒 ) (this relates to a minimum output power level). end
These are calculated using the equations presented in Eqs. (6), (7) and return Short_Path
(8) [32]. Table 2 summarizes the notations used in the definition of the End
MLGP problem.
The state of the eligible-UEs is defined as
Table 3
{
if 𝑅𝑒 (𝑅𝑢𝑒 𝑅 Notation and values.
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 =
𝑂𝑛 − 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒, 𝑗 ) ≥ 𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 (5) Variable Values
𝑂𝑓 𝑓 − 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒, otherwise
𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 6.8 (W)
The remaining energy of the eligible-UEs is defined as 𝛥p 4.0 (W)
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 130 (W)
𝑅
𝑅𝑒 = 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑃𝑗𝑅 (6) Bandwidth (𝐵𝑊𝑃 𝑅𝐵 ) 20 (0.18 PRB) (MHz)
Transmission Range (TR) 250 (m)
𝑃𝑗𝑅 = 𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑅
+ 𝛥𝑝𝑃𝑜𝑅 (7) Date rate (f) 1 Mbps
𝑗

𝑃𝑗𝑆
where, 𝑃𝑜𝑅 = 𝑅 .
𝑗 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝑃𝑖𝑆 = 𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑆
+ 𝛥𝑝𝑖 𝑃𝑜𝑆
𝑖
𝑃𝑆 ∑ 𝑓𝑖
where, 𝑃𝑜𝑆 = ( 𝑁 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) 𝑛∈𝑁 [ 𝐵𝑊𝑃 𝑅𝐵 log2 (1+𝑆𝑁𝑅) ]
𝑖 𝑃 𝑅𝐵𝑖
The Euclidean Distance is considered as the Euclidean Line between the
BS and a UE-VBS, given as
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡 = ((𝑌𝑗 − 𝑌1 )𝑋𝑗 + (𝑋𝑖 − 𝑋1 )𝑌𝑗 + 𝑋1 𝑌𝑖 − 𝑌1 𝑋𝑖 )∕𝑑𝑖𝑗
To dynamically setup an efficient backhauling multi-hop commu-
nication path between the UE-VBS acting as a Virtual Small Cell and
the BS, the MLGP algorithm (Algorithm 2) executes the following
steps. Note that the process described below continues until the BS
(destination) is reached. For the calculations and evaluation of the
different parameters used in this process, Eqs. (6), (7) and (8) as well as
the representative values given in Table 3 [32], have been considered.
Implementation details of this algorithm are provided in Section 4.2.
• Step 1: Draw an Euclidean line (𝐷𝐸𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 ) between the 𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑒 (UE-VBS
as source) and the BS (destination) and calculate the Euclidean
distance (ED) between the 𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑒 and the eligible-UEs (𝑅𝑢𝑒𝑠 ).
• Step 2: Select the 𝑅𝑢𝑒 where the state is ‘‘On-mode’’ and the
estimated Euclidean Distance (ED) is less than the Transmission
Range (TR) and add it to the Euclidean Distance set (𝐷𝑠𝑒𝑡 ).
(8) • Step 3: Calculate the distance between 𝐷𝐸𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 and the selected
𝑅𝑢𝑒𝑠 as 𝐸𝐷𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 by using Eq. (9). Select the 𝑅𝑢𝑒
𝑗 that has the maxi-
mum Euclidean distance (𝐷𝑠𝑒𝑡 ) from 𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑒 (within the transmission
range) and its closer to the 𝐸𝐷𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 .
• Step 4: If the remaining energy of the selected 𝑅𝑢𝑒𝑗 is equal to or
greater than to the 𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑒 energy, then 𝑅𝑢𝑒 𝑗 is treated as the next
(9) hop in the communication path from 𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑒 to BS. If so, update the
communication path and the remaining energy (using Eq. (6)) of
the 𝑅𝑢𝑒
𝑗 .
In the next section, the network performance is evaluated in terms
of network throughput, delay and jitter.
4. Performance evaluation
Implementation details of the proposed MAPC and MLGP algorithms
are discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. For the calculations needed for
the selection of the eligible-UEs that would be activated into UE-VBSs
for deploying Virtual Small Cells or for serving as Virtual Relay Nodes,
MATLAB was used. Moreover, the network performance in terms of
average throughput, delay, and jitter is investigated with respect to
different network sizes and UEs distributions and evaluated using the
networking simulator NS3 (Section 4.3).

7
K. Venkateswararao et al.
Fig. 4. Distribution of UEs using PCP.
4.1. Evaluation scenario of MAPC algorithm
A typical PCP distribution of 100 UEs in an area of 1100 × 1100 m2 ,
among which 25% high energy UEs are labeled as eligible-UEs, is
shown in Fig. 4. These 100 UEs, which include the 25 eligible-UEs,
are considered as input to the Initial phase of the proposed MAPC algo-
rithm. After the initial phase of the first recurrence of the algorithm, 10
clusters are created and the cluster heads (available-UEs) are identified
(see Fig. 5a).
Then, the algorithm enters the Virtual Small Cell (VSC) formation
phase. In this phase, the algorithm first checks for each cluster created,
the number of UEs associated with each cluster head (i.e., the available-
UEs selected in the initial phase) and performs the appropriate actions
(these are described in Section 3.1.3) in order to decide, based on the
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 and 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 values, which of the available-UEs
will be activated into UE-VBSs and serve as Virtual Small Cells, as
well as the UEs that will be associated which each (see Fig. 5b). More
specifically, the 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 value represents the minimum number
of UEs that should be associated with an available-UE so as to justify
its activation into a UE-VBS and the formation of the virtual small cell.
On the other hand, the 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 represents the maximum number
of UEs allowed to be supported by a UE-VBS acting as a Virtual Small
Cell. In this example it is assumed that the 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 value was set
12 and the 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑇 ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 value to 6.
In the example provided in Fig. 5, 10 cluster heads (i.e., available-
UEs) are identified in the initial phase (see Fig. 5a). However, during
the Virtual Small Cell Formation phase two of those clusters, cluster No.
7 and cluster No. 2 were found to be violating the threshold constraints
set above. In each case, actions were taken by the algorithm to reform
the violating clusters. More specifically:
• The size of cluster No. 7 (15 UEs) was found to be greater than the
maximum threshold allowed (i.e., 12 UEs). In this case, the UEs
associated with the cluster head (i.e., the available-UE) of cluster
No. 7 are sorted in descending order based on their SNR value.
The top 12 UEs are selected and the available-UE of that cluster
is selected to be activated into a UE-VBS and serve as a Virtual
Small Cell. The remaining three UEs (highlighted with a red circle
in Fig. 5b) are added in the Not Associated set. These will try
to associate with their next choice of available-UEs. However, as
these three UEs do not have any other alternative available-UE
in their proximity to be associated with, they will be associated
directly with the BS.
• The size of cluster No. 2 (5 UEs) was found to be lower than the
minimum threshold allowed (i.e., 6 UEs). In this case the cluster
8
Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926
head of Cluster No. 2 will be removed from the available-UEs list
and the UEs associated with it (highlighted with green circles) are
added in the Not Associated set. Then, these UEs are associated
with their next choice of available-UE that its cluster size is less
than the max threshold. In this example, the UEs are associated
with cluster heads No. 8 and No. 9.
At the end of the Virtual Small Cell formation phase, the selected
available-UEs are activated into UE-VBSs serving as Virtual Small Cells
the UEs associated with them (see Fig. 5b).
4.2. Evaluation scenario of MLGP algorithm
It is worth mentioning again that the MLGP algorithm is used for the
cases where some of the UE-VBSs activated by the MAPC algorithm to
deploy a virtual small cell, are not within an effective communication
range with the BS. In this case, the MLGP algorithm will be adopted
to dynamically setup, through multiple eligible-UEs serving as virtual
relay nodes, a multi-hop communication path (if any) between the UE-
VBS and the BS, through which the aggregated mobile data traffic
will flow (i.e., backhaul). It is important to indicate here that with
this algorithm, the data traffic load of candidate relay nodes is also
considered, as this can form a bottleneck in intermediate nodes in the
backhauling communication path to the BS.
In Fig. 6, the set of UE-VBSs (serving as Virtual Small Cells) which
are not in an ‘effective’ communication range with the BS is represented
as 𝑆 𝑢𝑒 , where 𝑆 𝑢𝑒 = {𝑆1𝑢𝑒 , 𝑆2𝑢𝑒 , 𝑆3𝑢𝑒 ..𝑆𝑢𝑢𝑒 }. On the other hand, the set of
eligible-UEs that can be selected as virtual relay nodes is represented
as 𝑅𝑢𝑒 , where 𝑅 = {𝑅𝑢𝑒 1
, 𝑅𝑢𝑒
2
, 𝑅𝑢𝑒
3
..𝑅𝑢𝑒
𝑚 }. The circles depicted in the
figures represent the coverage area of each UE-VBS included in set 𝑆 𝑢𝑒 .
The red color line represents the optimal path between the UE-VBS
(𝑆𝑖𝑢𝑒 ) to BS. Two instances of the same scenario have been simulated,
using the multi-hop path selection without overloaded relays (MHOR)
(defined for the purposes of comparison in this study) and our proposed
MLGP algorithm, respectively (see Figs. 6a and 6b). Both algorithms
have been exploited to find the optimal path between the source nodes
(𝑆1𝑢𝑒 , 𝑆2𝑢𝑒 ) and the BS.
The MHOR approach (similar to SBGR algorithm) is based on short-
est path routing, however its limitation is that it does not consider
the load at the relay nodes. This can be better seen in Fig. 6a. More
specifically, when the MHOR is employed to find the optimal path
between the UE-VBS 𝑆1𝑢𝑒 and 𝑆2𝑢𝑒 to the BS, both communication
paths established, pass through virtual relay node 𝑅𝑢𝑒 8
. This causes an
overload on the 𝑅𝑢𝑒 8
relay node, which in turn results in a bottleneck,
communication delay and degradation of the network performance.
The proposed MLGP algorithm on the other hand, avoids this over-
load on the 𝑅𝑢𝑒 relay node. This is better illustrated in Fig. 6b. More
8
specifically:
• From 𝑆1𝑢𝑒 , the algorithm performs a local search within its trans-
mission range and selects the eligible-UEs which have their state
as ‘‘On-mode’’. Note that the ‘‘On-mode’’ and ‘‘Off-mode’’ are
estimated (see Eq. (5)) based on the remaining energy/resources
of the 𝑅𝑢𝑒 and the required energy/resources needed by the 𝑅𝑢𝑒
to offload the data of the 𝑆 𝑢𝑒 . In this case is 𝑅𝑢𝑒 1
and 𝑅𝑢𝑒
4
and
the estimated mode for both is ‘‘On-mode’’. Then, the one that is
at maximum range from source 𝑆1𝑢𝑒 and closest to the Euclidean
line is selected. Hence, 𝑅𝑢𝑒 4
is selected as the next relay node and
is added to the path list. The same process is followed from 𝑅𝑢𝑒 4
and 𝑅𝑢𝑒8
is selected as the next relay node in the path. Finally, 𝑅𝑢𝑒
8
performs a local search within its transmission range and finds the
BS (destination) within its transmission range. Thus, the process
is stopped and the communication path is established.
• For 𝑆2𝑢𝑒 exactly the same process as described above is performed
with 𝑅𝑢𝑒 5
selected as the next relay node of the communication
path of 𝑆2𝑢𝑒 to the BS. Then from 𝑅𝑢𝑒 5
, the algorithm performs a
local search within its transmission range. In this case 𝑅𝑢𝑒 7
and
K. Venkateswararao et al. Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926

Fig. 5. Phases of MAPC algorithm. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

𝑅𝑢𝑒
8
are spotted. However, as 𝑅𝑢𝑒 8
is already used in the path of Table 4
Convergence time of MAPC, APC and KVF algorithms.
𝑆1 , its remaining energy/resources of the 𝑅𝑢𝑒
𝑢𝑒
8
are not enough
to offload the data of the 𝑆2𝑢𝑒 . This sets the estimated mode for Number of UEs MAPC APC KVF

𝑅𝑢𝑒
8
to ‘‘Off-mode’’. Hence, 𝑅𝑢𝑒
7
is selected as the next relay node 100 0.317414 0.348611 0.384521
200 1.519752 1.664768 1.881061
and is added to the path list. Finally, 𝑅𝑢𝑒 7
performs a local search
300 1.994137 2.304562 3.021372
within its transmission range, finds the BS (destination) within its 500 8.172628 10.265762 14.394517
transmission range and the communication path is finalized and 1000 42.103342 55.106009 76.194375
established.

4.3. Evaluation results of MAPC algorithm

To evaluate the performance of the Modified Affinity Propagation
Clustering (MAPC) algorithm, different instances of the same scenario,
with 100, 200, 300, 500 and 1000 of UEs, have been simulated using
the MAPC, the Affinity Propagation Clustering (APC) [19] and K-Means
clustering based virtual cell formation (KVF) [17]. The results collected
have been analyzed and compared in the sections below. It is worth
indicating again that in contrast to our proposed MAPC algorithm, the
APC and KVF techniques do not consider any constraints regarding
the number of UEs (minimum and maximum threshold) which can be
served by a UE-VBS.
As expected, for the scenarios described above, as more UEs are
connected to the BS the network performance is further decreased.
Gradually, the BS becomes unable to satisfy the user requirements, thus
needing to request the help of UE-VBSs. In the following sections, we
provide the comparative evaluation of APC, KVF and MAPC in these
kinds of scenarios. More specifically, a comparative convergence time
evaluation is given in Section 4.3.1. The total number of UE-VBSs acti-
vated by each approach is compared and analyzed in Section 4.3.2. The
network performance metrics related to the average throughput, delay
and jitter achieved by each approach are analyzed in Section 4.3.3.
4.3.1. Comparative convergence time evaluation
In this section the overall convergence time of our proposed MAPC
algorithm is compared with APC and KVF. Note that in this case the
size of the VSCs have not been considered. Also, these algorithms have
been executed on the same machine, an i5 Intel core processor with
8GB RAM. The results showing the MAPC, APC and KVF algorithms
convergence time (in seconds), are presented in Table 4.
As observed, for all scenarios simulated (i.e., 100, 200, 300, 500
and 1000 UEs), our proposed MAPC provides the best results in terms
of convergence time. More specifically:
• With scenarios where 100, 200 and 300 UEs are used, the con-
vergence time of MAPC (0.317414, 1.519752 and 1.994137 s,
respectively) is: (i) 8.5% to 13.5% less than the APC (0.348611,
1.664768 and 2.304562 s, respectively); and (ii) 17.5% to 34%
less than the KVF (0.384521, 1.881061 and 3.021372 s, respec-
tively).
• With scenarios where 500 and 1000 UEs are used, the con-
vergence time of MAPC (8.172628 and 42.103342 s, respec-
tively) is: (i) 20.4% to 23.6% less than the APC (10.265762 and
55.106009 s, respectively); and (ii) 43.3% to 44.7% less than the
KVF (14.394517 and 76.194375 s, respectively).
4.3.2. Comparative evaluation of the number of selected UE-VBSs
As the owners of the eligible-UEs that will be activated into UE-VBSs
will be rewarded by the MNOs for their services (based on an agreement
made with the MNO), an objective during the selection process is to
select an optimal (as less as possible) number of eligible-UEs to act as
UE-VBSs, without compromising network performance.
As observed, for all scenarios simulated (i.e., 100, 200, 300, 500
and 1000 UEs), our proposed MAPC algorithm provides the best re-
sults in terms of the number of eligible-UEs selected to be activated
into UE-VBSs. This reduces the financial burden of the MNO without
compromising network performance. The results are presented in Fig. 7.
More specifically:
• With scenarios where 100, 200 and 300 UEs are used, the number
of UE-VBSs needed to be activated by MAPC (11, 18 and 28,
respectively) is: (i) 8.3% to 13.5% less than the APC (12, 20 and
32, respectively); and (ii) 21.4% to 26.3% less than the KVF (14,
23 and 38, respectively).
• With scenarios where 500 and 1000 UEs are used, the number
of UE-VBSs needed to be activated by MAPC (43 and 79, re-
spectively) is: (i) 16.0% to 17.3% less than the APC (52 and 94,

9
K. Venkateswararao et al.
Fig. 6. Multi-hop path selection.
Fig. 7. Selected UE-VBSs from a given number of UEs within the range 100 to 1000
for KVF, APC and MAPC.
respectively); and (ii) 34.9% to 38.3% less than the KVF (79 and
94, respectively).
4.3.3. Comparative evaluation of the network performance
In this section the network performance achieved by our proposed
MAPC algorithm, in terms of average throughput, delay and jitter,
is compared with the APC and KVF algorithms, using the network
simulator NS3. The results are provided and analyzed below.
The average throughput achieved (in kbps) by each approach is
illustrated in Fig. 8. As observed, for all simulated scenarios, our
proposed MAPC algorithm provides the best results. More specifically:
• With scenarios where 1000, 500 and 300 UEs are used, the aver-
age throughput achieved by MAPC (59 167, 41 795 and 20 473
kbps, respectively) is: (i) 5.5% to 11.5% more than the APC
(55 917, 38 339 and 18 122 kbps, respectively); and (ii) 12.6%
10
Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926
to 17.5% more than the KVF (51 715, 35 981 and 16 879 kbps,
respectively).
• With scenarios where 200 and 100 UEs are used, the average
throughput achieved by MAPC (12 968 and 13 260 kbps, respec-
tively) is: (i) 21.8% to 26% more than the APC (10 134 and 9820
kbps, respectively); and (ii) 37.2% to 40.5% more than the KVF
(8147 and 7887 kbps, respectively).
The aforesaid improvements are achieved by our proposed MAPC
algorithm for the following reasons:
• Less interference is caused in the Cell as less UE-VBSs are acti-
vated into Virtual Small Cells (see Section 4.3.2).
• We constrain the number of UEs that can be supported by each
UE-VBS activated into a VSC with a minimum and maximum
threshold. More specifically with these thresholds set: (i) a VSC
is formed only if by doing this, improvements on the network
performance can be achieved; and (ii) A UE-VBS is not allowed to
support more UEs than its resources, in terms of both hardware
and available bandwidth can allow. This is done in order to
guarantee the reliability of communication (and thus improve
the throughput) and thus avoid any QoS degradation for the UEs
supported.
The average delay achieved (in ms) by each approach is illustrated
in Fig. 9. Again, as observed, for all scenarios simulated, our proposed
MAPC algorithm provides the best results. More specifically:
• With scenarios where 100, 200 and 300 UEs are used, the average
delay (in ms) achieved by MAPC (156, 178 and 185, respectively)
is: (i) 46.3% to 49.7% less than the APC (310, 341 and 388,
respectively); and (ii) 60% to 62.1% less than the KVF (412, 435
and 462, respectively).
• With scenarios where 500 and 1000 UEs are used, the average
delay achieved by MAPC (416 and 501, respectively) is: (i) 15.4%
to 20.8% less than the APC (525 and 592, respectively); and (ii)
34.6% to 30.9% less than the KVF (636 and 725, respectively).
The jitter (in ms) caused by each approach is illustrated in Fig. 10.
As observed, for all scenarios simulated, our proposed MAPC algorithm
provides the best results. More specifically:
K. Venkateswararao et al.
Fig. 8. Average throughput achieved by each approach (in kbps).
Fig. 9. Average delay achieved by each approach (in ms).
• With scenarios where 100, 200 and 300 UEs are used, the average
jitter (in ms) caused by MAPC (37, 41 and 44, respectively) is: (i)
46.4% to 52.2% less than the APC (69, 76 and 92, respectively);
and (ii) 55.4% to 64% less than the KVF (83, 95 and 112,
respectively).
• With scenarios where 500 and 1000 UEs are used, the average
delay achieved by MAPC (88 and 94, respectively) is: (i) 17%
to 24.8% less than the APC (106 and 125, respectively); and (ii)
29.6% to 33.3% less than the KVF (125 and 141, respectively).
4.4. Evaluation results of MLGP algorithm
To evaluate the performance of the Multi-hop Load balanced Geo-
graphical Path selection (MLGP) algorithm, different instances of the
same scenario, with 100, 200, 300, 500 and 1000 of UEs, have been
simulated. In each instance, the MLGP, SBGR [28] and NAR [27]
algorithms have been used for the establishment of the multi-hop
communication paths. Note that the purpose of the aforesaid algorithms
11
Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926
Fig. 10. Jitter caused by each approach (in ms).
Fig. 11. Average throughput achieved by each approach (in kbps) during multi-hop
communication.
is to establish a multi-hop communication path, between a UE-VBS
acting as a Virtual Small Cell and the BS, through which the mobile
data traffic will flow (i.e., backhaul). Results regarding the average
throughput and delay achieved by the communication path established
by each approach have been collected, compared and analyzed below.
More specifically, the average throughput achieved (in kbps) by each
approach is illustrated in Fig. 11. As observed, for all scenarios sim-
ulated, our proposed MLGP algorithm provides the best results. More
specifically:
• With scenarios where 100 to 300 UEs are used, the average
throughput achieved by MLGP (78 267, 81 667 and 84 117 kbps,
respectively) is: (i) 5.5% to 10.2% more than the SBGR (74 167,
75 573 and 76 321 kbps, respectively); and (ii) 8.9% to 22.5%
more than the NAR (71 900, 70 172 and 68 648 kbps, respec-
tively).
K. Venkateswararao et al.
Fig. 12. Average delay achieved by each approach (in ms) during multi-hop
communication.
• With scenarios where 500 and 1000 UEs are used, the average
throughput achieved by MLGP (87 631 and 89 142 kbps, respec-
tively) is: (i) 21% to 29.4% more than the SBGR (72 419 and
68 915 kbps, respectively); and (ii) 31.8% to 42.8% more than
the NAR (66 467 and 62 437 kbps, respectively).
The average delay (in ms) achieved by each approach is illustrated
in Fig. 12. Again, as observed, for all scenarios simulated, our proposed
MLGP algorithm provides the best results. More specifically:
• With scenarios where 100, 200 and 300 UEs are used, the delay
(in ms) achieved by MLGP (65, 76 and 91, respectively) is: (i)
9.7% to 11.7% less than the SBGR (72, 84 and 103, respectively);
and (ii) 17.3% to 20.7% less than the NAR (82, 92 and 110,
respectively).
• With scenarios where 500 and 1000 UEs are used, the average
delay achieved by MLGP (113 and 148, respectively) is: (i) 17%
to 29.2% less than the SBGR (136 and 209, respectively); and (ii)
25.2% to 37% less than the NAR (151 and 235, respectively).
The improvements on the communication path’s average through-
put and delay were achieved by our proposed MLGP algorithm for the
following reasons:
• The MLGP avoids establishing a path passing through overloaded
relay nodes (eligible-UEs), thus not causing bottleneck in a com-
munication path.
• The Relay Nodes are selected based on the maximum range
from the source node and closer distance to the Euclidean line.
By doing this, less number of relay nodes are selected in the
communication path, resulting in less energy consumption, less
delay and more spectrum efficient flows of data in the Radio
Access part.
5. Conclusion
This paper builds on the ideas of the UE-based Virtual Base Station
(UE-VBS) concept, that allows the Smartphones of the general popu-
lation to complement and support the Mobile Network Infrastructure,
either as VSCs or VRNs, in stressful or overloaded situations. More
specifically, this work proposed two algorithms, namely the MAPC and
MLGP algorithms, implementing the logic needed for activating UE-
VBSs at the ‘‘correct’’ locations, so that improved service quality will
12
Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926
be delivered across the entire cell. More specifically, the aim of these
algorithms is to select and activate UE-VBS into VSCs and VRNs at
‘‘proper’’ locations at the time of need, hence provide for real time
organization of the Mobile Infrastructure, always adapted to the RAN
stresses, extending data rates, capacity and backhauling capabilities
in a targeted and scalable manner. MAPC and MLGP algorithms have
been implemented in NS3 and compared with other related approaches
in the open literature. The results collected demonstrated that our
proposed algorithms outperform all others in terms of: (i) convergence
time (up to 23.6% less than APC and 44.7% less than KVF); (ii) number
of UE-VBSs needed to be activated (up to 17.3% less than APC and
38.3% less than KVF); (iii) throughput (up to 26% more than APC,
40.5% more than KVF, 29.4% more than SBGR and 42.8% more than
NAR); (iv) delay (up to 49.7% less than APC, 62.1% less than KVF,
29.2% less than SBGR and 37% less than NAR); and (v) jitter (up to
52.2% less than APC and 64% less than KVF). Future work will enhance
the MAPC and MLGP algorithms to consider real mobile environments
as well. UE-VBS related handover issues will also be investigated.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported in part by Ministry of Education, India.
Also this research is partially funded by the European Union’s Hori-
zon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement
N◦ 739578 and the government of the Republic of Cyprus through
the Directorate General for European Programmes, Coordination and
Development.
References
[1] S. Mollahasani, A. Eroğlu, I. Demirkol, E. Onur, Density-aware mobile networks:
Opportunities and challenges, Comput. Netw. (2020) 107271.
[2] I.F. Akyildiz, A. Kak, E. Khorov, A. Krasilov, A. Kureev, Arbat: A flexible network
architecture for qoe-aware communications in 5g systems, Comput. Netw. 147
(2018) 262–279.
[3] Small Cell Forum Document, Small cell siting and deployment challenges in
hyperdense networks, SFC192, 2017, https://scf.io/en/documents/192_Small_
cell_siting_challenges.php.
[4] R. Hou, K. Huang, H. Xie, K.-S. Lui, H. Li, Caching and resource allocation in
small cell networks, Comput. Netw. (2020) 107100.
[5] C.-C. Lin, C.-T. Tsai, D.-J. Deng, I.-H. Tsai, S.-Y. Jhong, Minimizing electro-
magnetic pollution and power consumption in green heterogeneous small cell
network deployment, Comput. Netw. 129 (2017) 536–547.
[6] Small cells and 5G to return ran market to growth, according to dell’oro
group, http://www.delloro.com/news/small-cells-5g-return-ran-market-growth-
according-delloro-group, accessed: 2017-07-18.
[7] V. Kumar, S. Yadav, D. Sandeep, S. Dhok, R.K. Barik, H. Dubey, 5g cellular:
Concept, research work and enabling technologies, in: Advances in Data and
Information Sciences, Springer, 2019, pp. 327–338.
[8] I.F. Akyildiz, S. Nie, S.-C. Lin, M. Chandrasekaran, 5G roadmap: 10 key enabling
technologies, Comput. Netw. 106 (2016) 17–48.
[9] C. Christophorou, A. Pitsillides, I. Akyildiz, Celec framework for reconfigurable
small cells as part of 5g ultra-dense networks, in: 2017 IEEE International
Conference on Communications (ICC), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–7.
[10] K. Venkateswararao, P. Swain, C. Christophorou, A. Pitsillides, Dynamic selection
of virtual small base station in 5g ultra-dense network using initializing matching
connection algorithm, in: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Advanced
Networks and Telecommunications Systems (ANTS), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6.
[11] A. Gotsis, S. Stefanatos, A. Alexiou, Ultradense networks: The new wireless
frontier for enabling 5G access, IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 11 (2) (2016) 71–78.
[12] L. Shan, O. Zhao, K. Temma, K. Hattori, H.-B. Li, F. Kojima, F. Adachi,
Experimental evaluation of energy efficiency for virtual small-cell networks using
smartphone test-bed, in: 2017 23rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications
(APCC), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–5.
[13] M. Condoluci, T. Mahmoodi, Softwarization and virtualization in 5g mobile
networks: Benefits, trends and challenges, Comput. Netw. 146 (2018) 65–84.
[14] Y.H. Kwon, System and method for device-to-device communication overlaid on
a cellular network, 2013, uS Patent App. 13/343, 554 (Jul. 4).
K. Venkateswararao et al.
[15] Q. Cheng, X. Chen, H. Bi, J. Liu, System and method for device-to-device (d2d)
assisted dynamic traffic control for cellular networks, 2015, uS Patent 8, 934,
632 (Jan. 13).
[16] A. Galindo-Serrano, S.M. Lopez, A. De Ronzi, A. Gati, Virtual small cells using
large antenna arrays as an alternative to classical hetnets, in: 2015 IEEE 81st
Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–6.
[17] X. Duan, Y. Liu, A.B. Sediq, G. Boudreau, X. Wang, Protocol conversion and
weighted resource allocation in virtual small cells of 5g ultra dense networks
for cost-effective service provisioning, in: 2017 IEEE 28th Annual International
Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC),
IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–6.
[18] M. Niu, Z. Fang, Y. Lin, H. Zhang, Dynamic virtual UE in ultra dense net-
works: Forming procedure and design insight, in: 2018 IEEE/CIC International
Conference on Communications in China (ICCC Workshops), IEEE, 2018, pp.
201–205.
[19] P. Swain, C. Christophorou, U. Bhattacharjee, C.M. Silva, A. Pitsillides, Selection
of UE-based virtual small cell base stations using affinity propagation clustering,
in: 2018 14th International Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing
Conference (IWCMC), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1104–1109.
[20] A. Behnad, X. Wang, Virtual small cells formation in 5G networks, IEEE Commun.
Lett. 21 (3) (2017) 616–619.
[21] B.J. Frey, D. Dueck, Clustering by passing messages between data points, Science
315 (5814) (2007) 972–976.
[22] A. Aijaz, H. Aghvami, M. Amani, A survey on mobile data offloading: technical
and business perspectives, IEEE Wirel. Commun. 20 (2) (2013) 104–112.
[23] F. Cadger, K. Curran, J. Santos, S. Moffett, A survey of geographical routing in
wireless ad-hoc networks, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 15 (2) (2012) 621–653.
[24] R.C. Voicu, J.A. Copeland, Y. Chang, Multiple path infrastructure-less networks
a cooperative approach, in: 2019 International Conference on Computing,
Networking and Communications (ICNC), IEEE, 2019, pp. 835–841.
[25] A. Andrawes, R. Nordin, M. Ismail, Wireless energy harvesting with cooperative
relaying under the best relay selection scheme, Energies 12 (5) (2019) 892.
[26] C. Tata, M. Kadoch, Multipath routing algorithm for device-to-device com-
munications for public safety over LTE heterogeneous networks, in: 2014 1st
International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for
Disaster Management (ICT-DM), IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–7.
[27] A.V. Bastos, C.M. Silva, D.C. da Silva, Assisted routing algorithm for d2d
communication in 5g wireless networks, in: 2018 Wireless Days (WD), IEEE,
2018, pp. 28–30.
[28] I. Banerjee, I. Roy, A.R. Choudhury, B.D. Sharma, T. Samanta, Shortest path
based geographical routing algorithm in wireless sensor network, in: 2012
International Conference on Communications, Devices and Intelligent Systems
(CODIS), IEEE, 2012, pp. 262–265.
[29] G.F. Riley, T.R. Henderson, The ns-3 network simulator, in: Modeling and Tools
for Network Simulation, Springer, 2010, pp. 15–34.
[30] M. Afshang, H.S. Dhillon, Spatial modeling of device-to-device networks: Poisson
cluster process meets Poisson hole process, in: 2015 49th Asilomar Conference
on Signals, Systems and Computers, IEEE, 2015, pp. 317–321.
[31] Y. Xu, P. Yang, J. Gong, K. Niu, A self-organizing base station sleeping strategy
in small cell networks using local stable matching games, in: International
Conference on Wireless Algorithms, Systems, and Applications, Springer, 2018,
pp. 545–556.
[32] E. Zola, A.J. Kassler, W. Kim, Joint user association and energy aware routing
for green small cell mmwave backhaul networks, in: 2017 IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–6.
Kuna Venkateswararao received his B.E. degree and
M.Tech. degree from Computer Science and Engineering
from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada,
India, in 2014 and 2017, respectively. He is currently pursu-
ing the Ph.D. degree with the Department of Computer Sci-
ence and Engineering, National Institute of Technology Goa.
His research interests include Wireless Software Defined
Networks, 5G Mobile Networks and Swarm Intelligence.
13
Computer Networks 189 (2021) 107926
Pravati Swain is an Assistant Professor in the department of
Computer Science and Engineering at National Institute of
Technology Goa (NIT Goa), India. Prior to NIT Goa, she was
research associate in the department of computer science
and electrical engineering at University of Missouri Kansas
City (UMKC), USA. She has a Ph.D. degree from Department
of computer Science and engineering, IIT Guwahati, India.
Swain has Master degree in Computer Science and Master
in Mathematics from Utkal University, Orissa, India. Her
present research focus is on Software Defined Network,
5G Cellular Network, Performance Modeling of Computer
Networks using Markov model, Game theory.
Christophoros Christophorou (M) completed his under-
graduate and graduate studies at the University of Cyprus
(B.Sc. in Computer Science and M.Sc. in Advanced Com-
puter Technologies, 2002 and 2005, respectively). He
received his Ph.D., also at the University of Cyprus, in
the area of Mobile/Wireless Networks, in 2011. His main
research interests and expertise are mostly concentrated
in the Telecommunications and Networking research fields
but also include Database Management Systems, Social
Collaborative Care Networks and Information and Com-
munication Technology (ICT) personalized solutions (for
various sectors including the eHealth domain). He has
published over 35 papers in journals, scientific conferences
and book chapters. Since 2004 he has been involved initially
as a researcher and later as a Project Manager in different
local (RPF-funded) and EU-funded research projects in the
domain of AAL and Aging Well such as FRAIL, SUCCESS,
MEMENTO, GrowMeUp, Miraculous-Life, SocialRobot, Co-
Living, and AgeingWell and in the mobile and wireless
networks domain, such as C-CAST, C-MOBILE, MOTIVE and
BBONE.
Andreas Pitsillides is a Professor in the Department of
Computer Science, University of Cyprus, codirector of the
Networks Research Laboratory (NetRL, http://www.NetRL.
cs.ucy.ac.cy), and appointed Visiting Professor at the Univer-
sity of the Witwatersrand (Wits), School of Electrical and
Information engineering, Johannesburg, South Africa. His
broad research interests include communication networks,
Software Defined Metamaterials (including Hypersurfaces
and intelligent communication surfaces), Nanonetworks,
Internet- and Web-of Things, and Smart Systems (e.g.
Smart Grid) and Smart Spaces (e.g. Home, City). He has
a particular interest in adapting tools from various fields
of applied mathematics such as adaptive non-linear con-
trol theory, computational intelligence, game theory, and
complex systems and nature inspired techniques, to solve
problems in communication networks. Published over 270
refereed to over 300 papers in flagship journals (e.g. IEEE,
Elsevier, IFAC, Springer), international conferences, and
book chapters, co-authored 2 books (1 edited), participated
as principal or co-principal investigator in over 40 Euro-
pean Commission and locally funded research projects with
over 6.6 million Euro, received several awards, including
best paper, presented several keynotes, invited lectures at
major research organizations, short courses at international
conferences and short courses to industry.