pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.02182 · v2 · pith:VNDBR77Lnew · submitted 2019-07-04 · 💻 cs.NI

Wireless Network Slicing: Generalized Kelly Mechanism Based Resource Allocation

Yan Kyaw Tun , Nguyen H. Tran , Duy Trong Ngo , Shashi Raj Pandey , Zhu Han , Choong Seon Hong This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 09:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI
keywords wireless network slicinggeneralized Kelly mechanismresource allocationMVNOInPKKT conditionsinter-slice isolationintra-slice isolation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A generalized Kelly mechanism allocates wireless resources between infrastructure providers and MVNOs without the seller knowing bidders' true valuations, while KKT conditions enforce isolation at the user level.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines a two-level resource allocation problem in wireless network slicing that logically separates infrastructure providers from mobile virtual network operators. At the upper level a generalized Kelly mechanism handles bidding and allocation between the provider and operators so that the seller does not need to know the operators' true valuations. At the lower level each operator solves its own allocation to users with KKT conditions to guarantee both inter-slice and intra-slice isolation. The overall goal is efficient sharing of base-station resources such as bandwidth while preserving the isolation properties required for virtualization.

Core claim

The two-level allocation problem in network slicing is solved by applying the generalized Kelly mechanism to the interaction between an infrastructure provider and multiple MVNOs, which removes the need for the provider to learn true valuations, and by deriving the optimal per-user allocation inside each slice via KKT conditions; bandwidth is then assigned accordingly, and simulations confirm the resulting isolation and utilization.

What carries the argument

Generalized Kelly mechanism for upper-level bidding between InP and MVNOs, where allocation occurs without the seller knowing true valuations; KKT conditions for lower-level per-MVNO optimization to its users.

If this is right

  • Infrastructure providers can allocate resources to multiple MVNOs through bidding without learning private valuations.
  • Each MVNO obtains an optimal bandwidth assignment to its users that enforces intra-slice isolation.
  • Inter-slice isolation holds because the upper-level mechanism separates the slices before lower-level assignment occurs.
  • The two-level structure yields efficient overall resource utilization while satisfying both isolation requirements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same bidding-plus-KKT pattern could be tested on other shared wireless resources such as power or antennas.
  • If the mechanism scales to time-varying channels, it might reduce signaling overhead in dynamic slicing deployments.
  • Operators could explore whether the absence of valuation disclosure lowers the barrier for new MVNO entry.

Load-bearing premise

The generalized Kelly mechanism produces the desired allocation and isolation when the standard Kelly assumptions hold for wireless resource blocks.

What would settle it

An experiment in which the generalized Kelly allocation either leaks interference between slices or requires the infrastructure provider to obtain the MVNOs' true valuations would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02182 by Choong Seon Hong, Duy Trong Ngo, Nguyen H. Tran, Shashi Raj Pandey, Yan Kyaw Tun, Zhu Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A model of wireless network slicing. We also observe that our proposed solution framework achieves near Optimal solution. Further, we also demon￾strate the allocated bandwidth to each user of MVNO under KKT conditions. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II summarizes related works. The system model and wireless network slicing framework are introduced in Section III. Sec￾tion IV presen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Generalized Kelly Mechanism. A. Upper-level Problem Depending on the number of users and their QoS requirement, each MVNO decides the required wireless bandwidth. Let us define the valuation function vm(rm(b)), b = {b1, b2, . . . , bM} is the vector of the bidding value, as the satisfaction of the MVNO m ∈ M. Assumption 1 : The valuation function vm(rm(b)) is strictly increasing, concave and continuous ove… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Bandwidth allocation to each MVNO under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the achieved valuation for (a) MVNO-1, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Convergence of valuation of MVNOs in the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bandwidth allocation to each user of (a) MVNO-1, (b) M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Aggregate valuation of MVNOs for different number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Aggregate valuation of MVNOs under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Rate achieved by each MVNO with respect to different o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Power allocation at MVNOs. From (42), R − r ∗ m(b) M − 1 = q ∗ m PM m=1 q ∗ m R. (50) Inspired by the optimal condition in (50), we iteratively update the penalty of each MVNO m ∈ M using the information of the previous iteration. Therefore, at each iteration, the InP updates the penalty of each MVNO according to q k m = q k−1 m + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Power allocation to each user of (a) MVNO-1, (b) MVNO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of achieved valuation under multiple re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Convergence of valuation of MVNOs for multiple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Wireless network slicing (i.e., network virtualization) is one of the potential technologies for addressing the issue of rapidly growing demand in mobile data services related to 5G cellular networks. It logically decouples the current cellular networks into two entities; infrastructure providers (InPs) and mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs). The resources of base stations (e.g., resource blocks, transmission power, antennas) which are owned by the InP are shared to multiple MVNOs who need resources for their mobile users. Specifically, the physical resources of an InP are abstracted into multiple isolated network slices, which are then allocated to MVNO's mobile users. In this paper, two-level allocation problem in network slicing is examined, whilst enabling efficient resource utilization, inter-slice isolation (i.e., no interference amongst slices), and intra-slice isolation (i.e., no interference between users in the same slice). A generalized Kelly mechanism (GKM) is also designed, based on which the upper level of the resource allocation issue (i.e., between the InP and MVNOs) is addressed. The benefit of using such a resource bidding and allocation framework is that the seller (InP) does not need to know the true valuation of the bidders (MVNOs). For solving the lower level of resource allocation issue (i.e., between MVNOs and their mobile users), the optimal resource allocation is derived from each MVNO to its mobile users by using KKT conditions. Then, bandwidth resources are allocated to the users of MVNOs. Finally, the results of simulation are presented to verify the theoretical analysis of our proposed two-level resource allocation problem in wireless network slicing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines a two-level resource allocation problem in wireless network slicing. It decouples infrastructure providers (InPs) from mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) and proposes a generalized Kelly mechanism (GKM) to solve the upper-level allocation between InP and MVNOs (so the seller need not know bidder valuations) while using KKT conditions to solve the lower-level allocation from each MVNO to its users. The framework is claimed to achieve efficient utilization together with inter-slice isolation (no interference among slices) and intra-slice isolation (no interference among users within a slice), with simulation results presented to verify the theoretical claims.

Significance. If the modeling of wireless interference is shown to be compatible with the GKM equilibrium, the work would usefully import mechanism-design tools into network slicing, addressing information asymmetry at the InP-MVNO interface while retaining convex-optimization guarantees at the MVNO-user interface. The combination of GKM (which relaxes the need for true valuations) with KKT is a concrete strength when the isolation properties survive realistic SINR models.

major comments (2)
  1. [GKM upper-level formulation] The application of GKM to the upper level (abstract and the section introducing the two-level problem) invokes the standard Kelly equilibrium without deriving how MVNO utility functions incorporate wireless interference. Standard Kelly results require quasi-linear utilities over perfectly divisible, non-interfering resources; once cross-slice interference enters the effective rate via SINR, the equilibrium allocation need not preserve the claimed zero-interference inter-slice isolation. This modeling gap is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Lower-level KKT derivation] The lower-level KKT derivation (section on MVNO-to-user allocation) states that optimal bandwidth allocation is obtained via KKT conditions but supplies neither the explicit optimization problem (objective, power or interference constraints) nor the resulting closed-form allocation rule. Without these steps it is impossible to verify that intra-slice isolation is enforced once realistic channel gains are included.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Simulation results] The simulation section should report the precise channel model (path-loss exponent, shadowing variance, noise power) and the number of Monte-Carlo runs used to claim isolation; current description is too terse to reproduce the isolation results.
  2. [GKM description] Notation for the bid vector and the allocation rule in the GKM section should be introduced once and used consistently; several symbols appear without prior definition.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to address the identified gaps in derivation and modeling clarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [GKM upper-level formulation] The application of GKM to the upper level (abstract and the section introducing the two-level problem) invokes the standard Kelly equilibrium without deriving how MVNO utility functions incorporate wireless interference. Standard Kelly results require quasi-linear utilities over perfectly divisible, non-interfering resources; once cross-slice interference enters the effective rate via SINR, the equilibrium allocation need not preserve the claimed zero-interference inter-slice isolation. This modeling gap is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation is needed to connect the SINR-based wireless model to the GKM utilities. In our framework, the InP enforces inter-slice isolation by allocating orthogonal resource blocks (or equivalent non-overlapping spectrum) to MVNOs at the physical layer before the GKM bidding occurs; thus the resources entering the upper-level mechanism are non-interfering by construction. Each MVNO's effective utility is then defined over its isolated slice capacity (bandwidth times average rate under its own users' channels), preserving the quasi-linear form required by GKM. The equilibrium therefore inherits the isolation property. To make this rigorous, the revised manuscript will add a dedicated subsection deriving the MVNO utility from the post-isolation SINR expression and confirming that the GKM equilibrium allocation remains orthogonal. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Lower-level KKT derivation] The lower-level KKT derivation (section on MVNO-to-user allocation) states that optimal bandwidth allocation is obtained via KKT conditions but supplies neither the explicit optimization problem (objective, power or interference constraints) nor the resulting closed-form allocation rule. Without these steps it is impossible to verify that intra-slice isolation is enforced once realistic channel gains are included.

    Authors: The lower-level problem maximizes the sum of logarithmic user utilities (proportional fairness) subject to the MVNO's total allocated bandwidth and per-user minimum-rate constraints; intra-slice isolation is enforced by orthogonal subcarrier assignment within the slice, so each user's rate depends only on its own channel gain and allocated bandwidth (no intra-slice interference term). The KKT conditions then produce a closed-form water-filling allocation for bandwidth. The revised version will state the exact optimization problem, form the Lagrangian, and derive the closed-form solution explicitly, allowing direct verification that isolation holds under realistic channel gains. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: GKM and KKT imported as external mechanisms

full rationale

The paper's two-level allocation uses a generalized Kelly mechanism for the InP-MVNO upper level and KKT conditions for the MVNO-user lower level. These are invoked as established results from mechanism-design and convex-optimization literature rather than derived or fitted inside the paper. No equation reduces the claimed inter-slice or intra-slice isolation to a parameter defined by the allocation itself, no self-citation chain bears the central premise, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior author work. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the standard assumptions of the generalized Kelly mechanism (quasi-linear utilities and equilibrium bidding) and on the applicability of KKT conditions to the per-MVNO utility maximization; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Quasi-linear utility functions and truthful equilibrium bidding hold for MVNOs in the wireless resource market
    Invoked when the paper claims the GKM solves the upper-level allocation without requiring true valuations.
  • standard math KKT conditions yield the optimal intra-slice allocation under the stated isolation constraints
    Used to derive the lower-level solution for each MVNO.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5854 in / 1431 out tokens · 28303 ms · 2026-05-25T09:19:43.531034+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wireless network virtualization: A survey, some research issues and challenges,

    C. Liang and F. R. Y u, “Wireless network virtualization: A survey, some research issues and challenges,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 358–380, First Quarter 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    NVS: A substrate for virtualizing wireless resources in cellular networks,

    R. Kokku, R. Mahindra, H. Zhang, and S. Rangarajan, “NVS: A substrate for virtualizing wireless resources in cellular networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1333–1346, Oct 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Challenges in resour ce allocation in network virtualization,

    A. Haider, R. Potter, and A. Nakao, “Challenges in resour ce allocation in network virtualization,” in 20th ITC Specialist Seminar , vol. 18, 20 May 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    5G white paper,

    N. Alliance, “5G white paper,” Next generation mobile networks, white paper, pp. 1–125, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Network slicing for 5G with sdn/ nfv: Con- cepts, architectures, and challenges,

    J. Ordonez-Lucena, P . Ameigeiras, D. Lopez, J. J. Ramos- Munoz, J. Lorca, and J. Folgueira, “Network slicing for 5G with sdn/ nfv: Con- cepts, architectures, and challenges,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 80–87, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Softmobile : Control evolution for future heterogeneous mobile networks,

    T. Chen, H. Zhang, X. Chen, and O. Tirkkonen, “Softmobile : Control evolution for future heterogeneous mobile networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 70–78, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Flexran: A flexible and programmable platform for software- defined radio access networks,

    X. Foukas, N. Nikaein, M. M. Kassem, M. K. Marina, and K. Ko nto- vasilis, “Flexran: A flexible and programmable platform for software- defined radio access networks,” in Proceedings of the 12th International on Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Techn ologies. ACM, 2016, pp. 427–441

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Pran: Programma ble radio access networks,

    W. Wu, L. E. Li, A. Panda, and S. Shenker, “Pran: Programma ble radio access networks,” in Proceedings of the 13th ACM W orkshop on Hot Topics in Networks . ACM, 2014, p. 6

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    Wirele ss network virtualization with sdn and c-ran for 5G networks: Requirem ents, opportunities, and challenges,

    E. J. Kitindi, S. Fu, Y . Jia, A. Kabir, and Y . Wang, “Wirele ss network virtualization with sdn and c-ran for 5G networks: Requirem ents, opportunities, and challenges,” IEEE Access , vol. 5, pp. 19 099–19 115, 2017

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Etsi gs nfv 001 v1. 1.1 (2013-10 ),

    N. F. V . NFV and U. Cases, “Etsi gs nfv 001 v1. 1.1 (2013-10 ),” 2013

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Towards modeling cross-domain network slices for 5G,

    R. A. Addad, T. Taleb, M. Bagaa, D. L. C. Dutra, and H. Flin ck, “Towards modeling cross-domain network slices for 5G,” in 2018 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–7

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Scalable virtualization and offloa ding-based software-defined architecture for heterogeneous statisti cal qos provision- ing over 5G multimedia mobile wireless networks,

    X. Zhang and Q. Zhu, “Scalable virtualization and offloa ding-based software-defined architecture for heterogeneous statisti cal qos provision- ing over 5G multimedia mobile wireless networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 2787–2804, 2018

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Generalized resource sharing for multiple operators in cellular wireless networks,

    I. Malanchini, S. V alentin, and O. Aydin, “Generalized resource sharing for multiple operators in cellular wireless networks,” in Proc. IEEE Inter- national Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Con ference (IWCMC), Nicosia, Cyprus, 4-8 Aug. 2014, pp. 803–808

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    A dynamic embe dding algorithm for wireless network virtualization,

    J. V an De Belt, H. Ahmadi, and L. E. Doyle, “A dynamic embe dding algorithm for wireless network virtualization,” in Proc. IEEE 80th V ehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall) , V ancouver, BC, Canada, 14-17 Sept. 2014, pp. 1–6

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    LTE wireless networ k virtual- ization: Dynamic slicing via flexible scheduling,

    M. I. Kamel, L. B. Le, and A. Girard, “LTE wireless networ k virtual- ization: Dynamic slicing via flexible scheduling,” in Proc. IEEE 80th V ehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall) , V ancouver, BC, Canada, 14-17 Sept. 2014, pp. 1–5

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    An elastic sub-carrier and power allocation algorithm enabling wireless network virtualiz ation,

    X. Lu, K. Y ang, and H. Zhang, “An elastic sub-carrier and power allocation algorithm enabling wireless network virtualiz ation,” Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 1827–1849, April 2014

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Efficient resource allocation and consolidat ion with selfish agents: An adaptive auction approach,

    R. T. Ma, “Efficient resource allocation and consolidat ion with selfish agents: An adaptive auction approach,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing System , Nara, Japan, 27-30 June 2016, pp. 497–508

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Price differentiation a nd control in the kelly mechanism,

    Y . Y ang, R. T. Ma, and J. C. Lui, “Price differentiation a nd control in the kelly mechanism,” Performance Evaluation, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 792–805, Oct 2013

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Charging and rate control for elastic traffic ,

    F. Kelly, “Charging and rate control for elastic traffic ,” Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 33–37, Feb 1997

    work page 1997

  20. [20]

    Computationally feasible VCG me chanisms,

    N. Nisan and A. Ronen, “Computationally feasible VCG me chanisms,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 29, pp. 19–47, May 2007

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Network slicing landscape: A holistic architectural approach, orchestration and management wit h applicability in mobile and fixed networks and clouds,

    A. Galis and K. Makhijani, “Network slicing landscape: A holistic architectural approach, orchestration and management wit h applicability in mobile and fixed networks and clouds,” 2018

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    End-to-end network slicing for 5G mobile netw orks,

    A. Nakao, P . Du, Y . Kiriha, F. Granelli, A. A. Gebremaria m, T. Taleb, and M. Bagaa, “End-to-end network slicing for 5G mobile netw orks,” Journal of Information Processing , vol. 25, pp. 153–163, 2017

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Tech. Rep. [Online]. Available: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi ts/123500 123599/123502/15.02.00 60/ts 123502v150200p.pdf

    work page

  24. [24]

    Efficiency loss in a netw ork resource allocation game,

    R. Johari and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Efficiency loss in a netw ork resource allocation game,” Mathematics of Operations Research , vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 407–435, Nov 2004

    work page 2004

  25. [25]

    The pr ice of anarchy of the proportional allocation mechanism revisite d,

    J. R. Correa, A. S. Schulz, and N. E. Stier-Moses, “The pr ice of anarchy of the proportional allocation mechanism revisite d,” in Proc. International Conference on W eb and Internet Economics . Springer, Dec 2013, pp. 109–120

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    On resource management for cloud users: A Generalized Kelly me chanism approach,

    R. Ma, D. M. Chiu, J. C. Lui, V . Misra, and D. Rubenstein, “ On resource management for cloud users: A Generalized Kelly me chanism approach,” Electrical Engineering, Tech. Rep , 2010

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Composable and efficient me chanisms,

    V . Syrgkanis and E. Tardos, “Composable and efficient me chanisms,” in Proceedings of the forty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theor y of computing, Palo Alto, California, USA, 1-4 June. 2013, pp. 211–220

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Stochastic game for wireless netw ork virtual- ization,

    F. Fu and U. C. Kozat, “Stochastic game for wireless netw ork virtual- ization,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , vol. 21, pp. 84–97, February 2013

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Downlink power alloc ation in virtualized wireless networks,

    Y . K. Tun, C. W. Zaw, and C. S. Hong, “Downlink power alloc ation in virtualized wireless networks,” in Proc. Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS) , Seoul, South Korea, 27-29 Sept. 2017, pp. 346–349. 14

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Joint resource provisioning and admission control in wireless vi rtualized networks,

    S. Parsaeefard, V . Jumba, M. Derakhshani, and T. Le-Ngo c, “Joint resource provisioning and admission control in wireless vi rtualized networks,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, LA, USA, 9-12 March. 2015, pp. 2020–2025

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    LTE wirele ss virtual- ization and spectrum management,

    Y . Zaki, L. Zhao, C. Goerg, and A. Timm-Giel, “LTE wirele ss virtual- ization and spectrum management,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless and Mobile Networking Conference (WMNC) , Budapest, Hungary, Oct 2010

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    Admission control and resource a llocation in a heterogeneous OFDMA wireless network,

    S. Bashar and Z. Ding, “Admission control and resource a llocation in a heterogeneous OFDMA wireless network,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4200–4210, August 2009

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    Game theory based power allo cation in LTE air interface virtualization,

    B. Fan, H. Tian, and B. Liu, “Game theory based power allo cation in LTE air interface virtualization,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Communica- tions and Networking Conference , New Orleans, LA, USA, 9-12 March 2015, pp. 972–976

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    A novel LTE wireless virtualization framework,

    Y . Zaki, L. Zhao, C. Goerg, and A. Timm-Giel, “A novel LTE wireless virtualization framework,” in Proc. International Conference on Mobile Networks and Management , Santander, Spain, Sept 2010, pp. 245–257

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    Virtualization of 5G cellular ne tworks as a hierarchical combinatorial auction,

    K. Zhu and E. Hossain, “Virtualization of 5G cellular ne tworks as a hierarchical combinatorial auction,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 2640–2654, Oct 2016

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Tech. Rep. [Online]. Available: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi ts/136100 136199/136101/14.05.00 60/ts 136101v140500p.pdf

    work page

  37. [37]

    First demonstration of bandwidt h-allocation scheme for network-slicing-based tdm-pon toward 5G and IoT era,

    H. Uzawa, K. Honda, H. Nakamura, Y . Hirano, K. Nakura, S. Kozaki, A. Okamura, and J. Terada, “First demonstration of bandwidt h-allocation scheme for network-slicing-based tdm-pon toward 5G and IoT era,” in Optical Fiber Communication Conference. Optical Society of America, 2019, pp. W3J–2

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Efficient performance -centric bandwidth allocation with fairness tradeoff,

    L. Chen, Y . Feng, B. Li, and B. Li, “Efficient performance -centric bandwidth allocation with fairness tradeoff,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1693–1706, 2018

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Common throughput maximization in u av- enabled ofdma systems with delay consideration,

    Q. Wu and R. Zhang, “Common throughput maximization in u av- enabled ofdma systems with delay consideration,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 6614–6627, 2018

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Applications of economic and pricing models for resource m anagement in 5G wireless networks: A survey,

    N. C. Luong, P . Wang, D. Niyato, Y .-C. Liang, Z. Han, and F . Hou, “Applications of economic and pricing models for resource m anagement in 5G wireless networks: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2018

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Auction-based resou rce allocation for sharing cloudlets in mobile cloud computing,

    A.-L. Jin, W. Song, and W. Zhuang, “Auction-based resou rce allocation for sharing cloudlets in mobile cloud computing,” IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 45–57, 2018

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. V andenberghe, Convex optimization . Cambridge University press, 2004

    work page 2004

  43. [43]

    Combating full-dup lex active eavesdropper: A hierarchical game perspective,

    X. Tang, P . Ren, Y . Wang, and Z. Han, “Combating full-dup lex active eavesdropper: A hierarchical game perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1379–1395, Dec 2017

    work page 2017