Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Novel Relay Selection Algorithms for Machine-to-Machine Communications with Static RF Interface Usage

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Optimal M2M relay selection reduces to a k-cardinality assignment problem solvable by the Hungarian algorithm, and a distributed stable-matching variant stays within a few percent of that optimum.

desk verdict Competent application of kAP + deferred acceptance to M2M dual-RF relay selection; the central optimality proof holds for the stated worst-case interference model, but Algorithm 1 is underspecified when QBS > Ns and the abstract/body capacity gap numbers disagree. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10351 v3 pith:B7G34IEX submitted 2019-08-25 cs.NI

Monireh Allah Gholi Ghasri , Ali Mohammad Afshin Hemmatyar , Siavash Bayat , Mostafa Mahdieh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI MSC 90C2705C70
keywords relayselectionmachine-to-machinecommunicationsk-cardinalityassignmentproblemHungarianalgorithmmatchingtheorydeferredacceptancestablestaticRFinterfaces
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper's goal is to decide, for a dense machine-to-machine cell, which idle machines should relay each active source's data to the base station when the base station has a limited number of channels and every machine has two radio interfaces. It claims a centralized algorithm (ORSA) solves this selection exactly: the problem is recast as a k-cardinality assignment problem on a bipartite graph whose edge weights are precomputed two-hop capacities, and a transformation with dummy vertices and very large weights turns that into a standard assignment problem solved by the Hungarian algorithm, with a proof that optimal solutions correspond one-to-one. It also claims a decentralized algorithm (MRSA) built on deferred acceptance produces a stable matching, one that is optimal for sources among all stable matchings, and that in simulation MRSA's average capacity lands only about 1–3% below ORSA's when channel count is unrestricted. Because WiFi carries the source-relay links and LTE carries the base-station links in separate bands, the two hops do not interfere in the model, so capacities can be assigned before matching.

What carries the argument

The central object is the k-cardinality assignment problem (kAP): choose at most $k$ edges in a weighted bipartite graph to maximize total weight. The paper's machinery is a reduction from kAP to a standard assignment problem by adding dummy vertices and $A_{\text{value}}$-weighted edges, then applying the Hungarian algorithm (the standard polynomial-time algorithm for maximum-weight perfect matching in a bipartite graph); a short proof shows optimal solutions correspond bijectively between the two problems. For MRSA, the machinery is the deferred acceptance procedure, with sources as proposers, relays holding quota 1, and the base station holding quota $Q_{BS}$; stability and source-optimality follow from the standard matching-theory arguments. The static RF-interface assumption (WiFi for M2M, LTE to the base station, different bands) is what keeps the two-hop and direct capacities from interfering with one another in the model, so the edge weights can be fixed in advance.

What would settle it

Re-run the ORSA assignment in a simulator that, after a matching is chosen, recomputes each link's SINR using only the sources and relays that actually transmit simultaneously instead of using all sources as interferers; if some feasible matching other than ORSA's yields a higher total capacity under those recomputed weights, then ORSA's optimality for the real objective is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center is the observation that if every candidate link's capacity is treated as a fixed number before assignment, then selecting relays and direct connections under a base-station quota $Q_{BS}$ is exactly a maximum-weight matching problem with at most $Q_{BS}$ edges. ORSA builds a bipartite graph with sources on one side and relays plus $Q_{BS}$ copies of the base-station channel on the other; edge weights are $\min(C_{s,r}, C_{r,BS})$ for a two-hop path and $C_{s,BS}$ for direct access. To solve the k-cardinality assignment problem, the paper adds $(m-k)$ and $(n-k)$ dummy vertices on the two sides, assigns a very large weight $A_{\text{value}}$ to edges touching the dummies, and argues through Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 that in any optimal perfect matching exactly $k$ original edges survive and exactly $(m-k)+(n-k)$ big-weight edges are taken, so the optimal solution transfers back. MRSA, in contrast, has sources propose to relays or to the base station in order of capacity; each relay keeps at most one source and the base station keeps $Q_{BS}$ sources, and the deferred-acceptance logic yields a stable matching that is optimal for the proposing side. The simulation section reports ORSA at the top of all compared algorithms and MRSA close behind. A numerical inconsistency between the abstract and the body should be noted: the abstract says MRSA beats direct and random selection by about 15% and 98%, while the introduction and conclusion report 56% and 117%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each edge's capacity is a fixed number known before matching, computed under maximum-probable interference; in the real network, interference depends on which sources and relays actually transmit together, so the proof of ORSA's optimality applies to the surrogate fixed-weight graph rather than automatically to the live radio environment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ORSA gives an exact optimum for the modeled problem: among all assignments respecting the one-relay-per-source and $Q_{BS}$-channel constraints, no other feasible selection can have higher total capacity.
  • MRSA's matching is stable and, for every source, at least as good as any other stable matching achievable with the same players; in the simulated settings it stays within roughly 1–3% of ORSA's average capacity.
  • Because the two RF interfaces use separate bands, source-relay WiFi transmissions and LTE links to the base station can proceed simultaneously without cross-interface interference, which is what makes the static setting a capacity win.
  • The complexity figures matter for deployment: ORSA is $O((N_s+N_r)^3)$ centralized, MRSA is $O((N_s+N_r)^2)$ distributed, so the decentralized option scales better in dense cells.
  • Adding more relays improves both algorithms' average capacity and reduces unmatched sources, while reducing LTE channels increases per-source capacity until the number of sources passes the channel count.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The dummy-vertex transformation is a generic gadget: any 'choose at most k edges' bipartite allocation problem with capacity limits can be solved by the same reduction, so it may transfer beyond relay selection to other quota-constrained assignment tasks.
  • If the fixed-weight decoupling breaks in a real deployment, an alternating loop — compute capacities under worst-case interference, match with ORSA, recompute interference for the actually selected transmitters, re-match — would be a natural testable extension; the paper itself does not explore it.
  • The abstract/body discrepancy in the baseline gains (15%/98% vs 56%/117%) suggests that at least one of those sets of numbers needs verification before the quantitative claims are quoted externally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies uplink relay selection in a single-cell M2M network in which active sources may send data directly to the base station over LTE or via idle relays, using WiFi for the source-to-relay hop and LTE for the relay-to-base-station hop. The base station has QBS LTE channels, and the goal is to assign sources to next hops so as to maximize total capacity. The paper proposes ORSA, a centralized algorithm that transforms the relay selection problem into a k-cardinality assignment problem and solves it with the Hungarian algorithm after adding dummy vertices, and MRSA, a distributed algorithm based on deferred acceptance. It proves the optimality of the kAP solver, claims that ORSA is optimal for the relay selection problem, and claims that MRSA produces a stable and source-optimal stable matching. Simulations in four scenarios compare ORSA and MRSA with direct transmission (WRSA) and random relay selection (RRSA).

Significance. If the central optimality claim held for the actual network, ORSA would be a useful centralized benchmark with O((Ns+Nr)^3) complexity, and MRSA would be a practical distributed alternative with stability guarantees and near-optimal average capacity when the number of channels is unrestricted. The paper is careful to provide proofs for the kAP transformation and for the stability of the matching, and it reports 1000-run simulations against two baselines with standard deviations. However, the optimality proof applies to a fixed-weight surrogate model with worst-case interference, and the claimed 'new' kAP solver appears to reproduce the known Volgenant transformation. The contribution is plausible and potentially useful, but the central claims need to be either restricted to the model actually solved or validated against the coupled interference behavior of the real network.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III-B2, Algorithm 1 Step 2] In the transformation in Section III-B2 and Algorithm 1 Step 2, the number of vertices added to the right side is Ns - QBS, which is negative whenever QBS > Ns. This case occurs in Scenarios 1-3 whenever Ns < 100 and in Scenario 4 whenever Ns < QBS, i.e., exactly in the simulations used for the 'no restriction' claims. The construction therefore needs a k' = min(QBS, Ns) correction or a separate handling of the unrestricted case, and the simulations must state which corrected version was actually run.
  2. [§II (Eq. (2)-(4)), §III-B] The optimality proof of Theorem 1 and the claim that ORSA 'provides an optimal solution for the relay selection problem' apply to a surrogate problem whose edge weights are fixed numbers. In Eq. (2), the WiFi SINR of every source-relay pair already contains interference from all other sources, regardless of which sources actually transmit on WiFi, and the text after Eq. (4) explicitly adopts 'maximum probable interference' and 'worst possible interference conditions.' In the actual network, the set of simultaneously transmitting WiFi sources is determined by the matching itself, so the optimal matching for the fixed-weight graph need not maximize, and may not even be optimal for, the true capacity objective. Please either restrict the optimality claim to the fixed-capacity model or add a validation against an exhaustive search or iterative SINR recomputation in a small network.
  3. [§III-A, Main Contributions] The manuscript claims a 'new solver' for the k-cardinality assignment problem, but the construction—add m-k dummy vertices to one side, n-k to the other, weight added-to-original edges with a large value, and solve the resulting standard assignment—is the same as the Volgenant transformation cited as [34]. The authors should either identify a substantive difference in construction, proof, or complexity, or revise the novelty claim and compare against [34] explicitly.
  4. [Abstract; §V-A; §VI] The quantitative near-optimality claim is internally inconsistent: the abstract states that MRSA is 'only about 1% lower' than ORSA, while Section V-A states 'at most 3% less' and the conclusion states 'about 3% higher'; no confidence intervals are given for either number. Please reconcile these statements and report the distribution or standard error of the ORSA-MRSA gap.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§V-A] The sentence 'the optimal allocation in ORSA has been able to increase the number of unmatched sources compared to MRSA' should read 'decrease'; ORSA has fewer unmatched sources, as Fig. 9 and the following sentence indicate.
  2. [§III-B3] The condition '0≤ 0j <Nr' contains a typo; it should be '0≤j<Nr'.
  3. [§II, Eq. (5)] The parentheses in PathLoss(i,j)(dB) = 10βlog10(d(i,j)/d0 are unbalanced; a closing parenthesis is missing.
  4. [§V-A, §V-B] The phrases 'average container' and 'the algorithms can be ordered as ... , .' appear to be typographical errors and should be corrected.
  5. [§V-A] The standard deviations reported for the four algorithms are said to 'verify' the results, but no confidence intervals or statistical tests are provided; consider adding error bars or confidence bands to the figures.
  6. [References] References [17] and [36] are incomplete ('C. R' and a website-only citation); they should be completed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ORSA and MRSA are reductions to the Hungarian algorithm and deferred acceptance with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The central claims are derived by reduction to external, independently established results. ORSA's optimality for the stated problem follows because the relay selection problem in Eq. (7) is transformed into a k-cardinality assignment problem in Section III-B, whose optimality is proved via the bijection in Theorem 1, and then solved by the Hungarian algorithm. The proof does not invoke any fitted constant or predicted quantity; the only parameters chosen, Avalue and k=QBS, are selected to make the transformation exact. MRSA's stability is justified by the deferred acceptance procedure from the external reference [30], with the proof in Appendix A carrying out the standard contradiction argument. The self-citations to co-author S. Bayat in [7] and [11] appear only as related-work background and are not load-bearing for the ORSA/MRSA claims. The paper's reliance on fixed edge weights computed under worst-case interference after Eq. (4) is a modeling assumption that limits transfer of the optimality result to the real interference-coupled network, but that is an external-validity and correctness concern, not a circular derivation: the mathematical solutions remain self-contained reductions to their stated optimization problems. Even if the kAP transformation is not entirely new, that is a novelty issue rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or invented physical entities are introduced. The analysis depends on external algorithm facts (Hungarian algorithm, deferred acceptance), standard DF relaying, and the paper-specific assumption that capacities can be precomputed with worst-case interference and then treated as fixed edge weights.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Hungarian algorithm solves the standard assignment problem optimally.
    Invoked in Section III-A as the solver for the transformed assignment problem; this is an external standard result, not proved in the paper.
  • standard math Deferred acceptance with strict preferences produces a stable and source-optimal stable matching.
    Used in MRSA and proved in Appendix A by invoking Gale-Shapley [30]; the paper adds a simplified proof for its setting.
  • domain assumption Decode-and-forward two-hop capacity is min(C_s,r, C_r,BS).
    Equation (6), cited to refs. [12] and [32]; assumes the relay fully decodes and re-encodes and can receive on WiFi while transmitting on LTE.
  • domain assumption WiFi and LTE bands do not interfere, and the LTE uplink receives no interference from other machines.
    Equations (2)-(3) and the paragraph after Eq. (5) state this separation, which makes the two-hop capacity additive and separable.
  • ad hoc to paper WiFi SINR is computed with worst-case interference from all other sources, independent of the matching.
    Adopted in Section II to simplify the simulations; this fixes every edge weight before matching and is the premise that ORSA optimality actually applies to.
  • domain assumption All machines have two RF interfaces, WiFi for M2M links and LTE for base station links, used statically.
    Core system model in Section II; the static interface split is the paper's proposed scenario rather than a derived result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Novel Relay Selection Algorithms for Machine-to-Machine Communications with Static RF Interface Usage." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7G34IEX

@misc{pith2026190810351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Novel Relay Selection Algorithms for Machine-to-Machine Communications with Static RF Interface Usage},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7G34IEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10351}
}
read the original abstract

Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communications have been introduced to improve the communication capacity in dense wireless networks. One of the most important concerns for network designers is maintaining the high performance of the network when the quality of connections between sources and their destinations is poor. Thus the careful selection of relays between data sources and their destinations is a very important issue. The possibility of simultaneous use of different Radio Frequency (RF) interfaces for transmitting data, which communication devices are equipped with them, can increase the capacity of data transmission over the network. In this paper, two novel M2M relay selection algorithms are proposed, named as Optimal Relay Selection Algorithm (ORSA) and Matching based Relay Selection Algorithm (MRSA). ORSA is a centralized algorithm for the optimal selection of relays by transforming the main problem to a k-cardinality assignment problem that can be solved using the Hungarian algorithm. MRSA is a distributed algorithm that leverages concepts from matching theory to provide a stable solution for the relay selection problem. In both proposed algorithms static RF interfaces usage is applied to enable simultaneous use of different interfaces for data transmission. The simulations show that ORSA is optimally solving the relay selection problem. MRSA has an optimal stable result, that when there is no restriction on the number of channels, is only about 1% lower than ORSA. Besides, MRSA provides better results than direct transmission Without any Relay Selection Algorithm (WRSA) and Random Relay Selection Algorithm (RRSA), about 15% and 98%, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10351 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The scheme of active and idle machines in the system model. The communication capacity or the maximum bit rate that can be used according to the link conditions between two nodes, i and j, in the network is denoted by Ci,j , that according to the Shannon-Hartley equation, will be as: Ci,j = B t log2(1 + SINRi,j ), (1) where Bt is the bandwidth of the communication channel with technology t used by two nodes i and j … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The scheme of the graph model of our relay selection problem. single base station. Although this constraint is written in a general form, however we have considered only one base station in our model. - The total number of two hop connections of sources to base station through relays (the first summation in inequality (13)) and total number of direct connections of sources to the base station (the second summation i… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The transformation of a k-cardinality assignment problem to a standard assignment problem. vertices and their edges by this method causes the lower weight initial edges to be defeated by Avalue-weighted edges. In Lemma 1 proved that exactly ((m−k) + (n−k)) edges with Avalue-weight are selected, therefore, only k initial edges with maximum total weight can be selected in the optimal assignment. Now, we can find maxim… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The scheme of the bipartite graph model of the k-cardinality assignment problem. 1) Step 1: Transforming the k-cardinality assignment problem to a standard assignment problem In the first step, we want to transform the assignment prob￾lem with the constraint on the num…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the scheme of the bijection between the answer space of the problems. 𝑺 ∗ 𝑺 𝑩𝒊𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑨𝒅𝒅 / 𝑹𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒗𝒆 𝑨𝒅𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑬𝒅𝒈𝒆𝒔 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The bipartite graph model of the relay selection problem. The weight of the edge between two vertices on both sides of the graph is defined as follows: - the weight of the edge between a source and a relay is equal to the capacity of two hops path, that is minimum of t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The average number of unmatched sources for WRSA, RRSA, ORSA and MRSA vs. the number of sources in Scenario 1. ORSA and MRSA curves is greater than in the first half. In addition, it is clear that the optimal allocation in ORSA has been able to increase the number of u…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The average actual execution time for ORSA and MRSA (ms) vs. the number of sources in Scenario 1. number of sources and the number of relays is equal in the middle point of the curve. B. SCENARIO 2 This scenario is similar to Scenario 1 with a large enough constant nu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The average number of unmatched sources for WRSA, RRSA, ORSA and MRSA algorithms vs. the number of sources in Scenario 2. equal to 0.27, 0.33, 0.15 and 0.15 for WRSA, RRSA, ORSA and MRSA, respectively. 2) Unmatched Source Number As mentioned in the analysis of [PITH_…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The average actual execution time for ORSA and MRSA (ms) vs. the number of sources in Scenario 2. In this scenario, the actual execution time of our proposed algorithms is measured where the number of relays is relatively high constant (Nr = 75). As shown in [PITH_FU…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The average number of unmatched sources for ORSA and MRSA vs. the number of sources in Scenario 3. 3) Actual Execution Time of Proposed Algorithms As see in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The average actual execution time for ORSA and MRSA in multiple settings (ms) vs. the number of sources in Scenario 3. listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The average number of unmatched sources for ORSA and MRSA vs. the number of sources in Scenario 4. y = 12.66x + 296.29 y = 0.1672x2 + 4.2058x + 331.27 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Exe. Time (ms) No. Sources Scenario 4: Average of Multiple Setti…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The average actual execution time for ORSA and MRSA in multiple settings (ms) vs. the number of sources in Scenario 4. in subsections III-B5 for ORSA and IV-B1 for MRSA is not violated. VI. CONCLUSION In this paper, two novel algorithms were proposed for relay selecti…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Solving the k-cardinality Assignment Problem by Trans- formation

    A. V olgenant, “Solving the k-cardinality Assignment Problem by Trans- formation”, European Journal of Operational Research, V ol. 157, No. 2, pp. 322-331, September 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [35]

    The k-cardinality Assignment Problem

    M. Dell'Amico, S. Martellob, “The k-cardinality Assignment Problem”, Discrete Applied Mathematics, V ol. 76, No. 1-3, pp. 103-121, June 1997

    work page 1997

  3. [1]

    IoT: Machine to Machine (M2M), Device to Device (D2D) Internet of Everything (IoE) and Human to Human (H2H): Future of Communication,

    V . L. Kalyani, D. Sharma, “IoT: Machine to Machine (M2M), Device to Device (D2D) Internet of Everything (IoE) and Human to Human (H2H): Future of Communication,” Journal of Management Engineering and Information Technology (JMEIT), V ol. 2, No. 6, December 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [2]

    M2M Communications in 3GPP LTE/LTE-A Networks: Architectures, Service Requirements, Challenges, and Appli- cations,

    F. Ghavimi, H. Chen, “M2M Communications in 3GPP LTE/LTE-A Networks: Architectures, Service Requirements, Challenges, and Appli- cations,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, V ol. 17, No. 2, pp. 525-549, Second Quarter 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [3]

    Cooperative Communications using Relay Nodes for Next-Generation Wireless Networks with Optimal Selection Techniques: A Review,

    M. Asshada, S. A. Khan, A. Kavak, Kerem Küçük, D. L. Msongaleli, “Cooperative Communications using Relay Nodes for Next-Generation Wireless Networks with Optimal Selection Techniques: A Review,” IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, V ol. 14, No. 5, pp. 658-669, March 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [4]

    Relay-Aided Multiple Access Scheme in Two-Point Joint Transmission,

    Q. Zhou, Y . Ma, L. Bai, J. Choi, Y . Liang, “Relay-Aided Multiple Access Scheme in Two-Point Joint Transmission,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicu- lar Technology, V ol. 68, No. 6, pp. 5629-5641, June 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [5]

    Decision-Tree-Based Relay Selection in Dualhop Wireless Communications,

    X. Wang, “Decision-Tree-Based Relay Selection in Dualhop Wireless Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, V ol. 68, No. 6, pp. 6212-6216, June 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [6]

    On Backhauling of Relay Enhanced Networks in LTE-Advanced

    O. Bulakci, “On Backhauling of Relay Enhanced Networks in LTE- Advanced,” Department of Communications and Networking, Aalto Uni- versity, 2012, Online Access: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0212 , Last Access Time: August 20, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Cognitive Radio Relay Networks with Multiple Primary and Secondary Users: Distributed Stable Matching Algorithms for Spectrum Access,

    S. Bayat, R. H. Y . Louie, Y . Li, B. Vucetic, “Cognitive Radio Relay Networks with Multiple Primary and Secondary Users: Distributed Stable Matching Algorithms for Spectrum Access,” IEEE International Confer- ence on Communications (ICC), Kyoto, Japan, June 2011

    2011

  2. [8]

    Two-Stage Match- ing for Energy-Efficient Resource Management in D2D Cooperative Relay Communications

    C. Xu, J. Feng, Z. Zhou, Z. Chang, Z. Han, S. Mumtaz, “Two-Stage Match- ing for Energy-Efficient Resource Management in D2D Cooperative Relay Communications”, IEEE Global Communications Conference, Singapore, Singapore, December 2017

    2017

  3. [9]

    Distributed Satisfaction- Aware Relay Assignment: A Novel Matching-Game Approach,

    D. Liu, Y . Xu, Y . Xu, C. Ding, K. Xu, Y . X, “Distributed Satisfaction- Aware Relay Assignment: A Novel Matching-Game Approach,”Transac- tion on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies , V ol. 27, No. 8, pp. 1087-1096, August 2016

    2016

  4. [10]

    Game Theory for Wireless Communications and Networking

    V . L. Kalyani, D. Sharma, “Game Theory for Wireless Communications and Networking”, CRCPress, 2011

    2011

  5. [11]

    Matching Theory Applications in Wireless Communications,

    S. Bayat, Y . Li, L. Song, and Z. Han, “Matching Theory Applications in Wireless Communications,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , V ol. 33, No. 6, pp. 103-122, November 2016

    2016

  6. [12]

    Interference-Aware Relay Selection Scheme for Two-Hop Relay Networks with Multiple Source-Destination Pairs,

    S. Zhou, J. Xu, Z. Niu, “Interference-Aware Relay Selection Scheme for Two-Hop Relay Networks with Multiple Source-Destination Pairs,”IEEE Transaction on Vehicular Technology, V ol. 62, No. 5, pp. 2327-2338, June 2013

    2013

  7. [13]

    Cooperative Relay Selection for Load Balancing With Mobility in Hierarchical WSNs: A Multi-Armed Bandit Approach,

    J. Zhang, J. Tang, F. Wang, “Cooperative Relay Selection for Load Balancing With Mobility in Hierarchical WSNs: A Multi-Armed Bandit Approach,”IEEE Access, V ol. 8, pp. 18110 - 18122, January 2020

    2020

  8. [14]

    A Graph- Based Approach for Relay Selection and Resource Allocation in Cognitive Two-way Relay Networks,

    A. Alizadeh, N. Forouzan, S. A. Ghorashi, S. M. S. Sadough, “A Graph- Based Approach for Relay Selection and Resource Allocation in Cognitive Two-way Relay Networks,”Wireless Advanced, London, UK, April 2011

    2011

  9. [15]

    Optimal Channel and Relay Assignment in OFDM- Based Multi-Relay Multi-Pair Two-Way Communication Networks,

    Y . Liu and M. Tao, “Optimal Channel and Relay Assignment in OFDM- Based Multi-Relay Multi-Pair Two-Way Communication Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , V ol. 60, No. 2, pp. 317-321, February 2012

    2012

  10. [16]

    An Iterative Hungarian Method to Joint Relay Selection and Resource Allocation for D2D Communications,

    T. Kim, and M. Dong, “An Iterative Hungarian Method to Joint Relay Selection and Resource Allocation for D2D Communications,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, V ol. 3, No. 6, pp 625-628, December 2014

    2014

  11. [17]

    Interference cancellation and Resource Allocation Approaches for Device-to-Device Communications,

    C. R, “Interference cancellation and Resource Allocation Approaches for Device-to-Device Communications,” Ph.D. Thesis, Department IV , Trier University, Trier, Germany, July 2016

    2016

  12. [18]

    Energy-Saving Scheduling in the 3GPP Narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT) Using Energy-Aware Machine-to-Machine Relays,

    C. Y . Chen, A. C. S. Huang, S. Huang, J. Y . Chen, “Energy-Saving Scheduling in the 3GPP Narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT) Using Energy-Aware Machine-to-Machine Relays,” 27th Wireless and Optical Communication Conference (WOCC), Hualien, Taiwan, April 2018

    2018

  13. [19]

    D2D Communications with Subchannel Reusing for Throughput-Guaranteed Relay Selection in LTE

    S. J. Kao, S. Y . Luo, M. T. Kao, F. M. Chang, “D2D Communications with Subchannel Reusing for Throughput-Guaranteed Relay Selection in LTE”, International Journal of Communication Systems , V ol. 32, No. 6, April 2019

    2019

  14. [20]

    Distributed Resource Allocation for D2D-Assisted Small Cell Networks With Heterogeneous Spectrum

    Y . Liu, Y . Wang, R. Sun, Z. Miao, “Distributed Resource Allocation for D2D-Assisted Small Cell Networks With Heterogeneous Spectrum”,IEEE Access, V ol. 7, pp. 83900 - 83914, June 2019

    2019

  15. [21]

    Parallel Opportunistic Routing in IoT Networks,

    F. Singh, V . J K, C. S. R. Murthy, “Parallel Opportunistic Routing in IoT Networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), Doha, Qatar, April 2016

    2016

  16. [22]

    ARNC Multicasting of HDCP Data for Cooperative Mobile Devices with Dual Interfaces,

    G. Hu, K. Xu, Y . Xu, “ARNC Multicasting of HDCP Data for Cooperative Mobile Devices with Dual Interfaces,”IEEE Communications Letters, V ol. 21, No. 11, pp. 2504 - 2507, Novamber 2017

    2017

  17. [23]

    Performance Charac- terization of Machine-to-Machine Networks With Energy Harvesting and Social-Aware Relays,

    S. Huang, Z. Wei, X. Yuan, Z. Feng, P. Zhang, “Performance Charac- terization of Machine-to-Machine Networks With Energy Harvesting and Social-Aware Relays,”IEEE Access, V ol. 5, No. 2017, pp. 13297 - 13307, July 2017

    2017

  18. [24]

    A Survey on Buffer-Aided Relay Selection,

    N. Nomikos, T. Charalambous, I. Krikidis, D. N. Skoutas, D. V ouyioukas, M. Johansson, C. Skianis, “A Survey on Buffer-Aided Relay Selection,” IEEE Communications Surveys & tutorials , V ol. 18, No. 2, pp. 1073 - 1097, Second Quarter 2016

    2016

  19. [25]

    Interest-Aware Energy Collection & Resource Management in Machine to Machine Communi- cations,

    E. E. Tsiropoulou, G. Mitsis, S. Papavassiliou, “Interest-Aware Energy Collection & Resource Management in Machine to Machine Communi- cations,” Ad Hoc Networks , V ol. 68, No. 2018, pp. 48 - 57, September 2017

    2018

  20. [26]

    Interest, Energy and Physical-Aware Coalition Formation and Resource Allocation in Smart IoT Applications,

    E. E. Tsiropoulou, S. T. Paruchuri, J. S. Baras, “Interest, Energy and Physical-Aware Coalition Formation and Resource Allocation in Smart IoT Applications,” 51st Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems (CISS), March 2017

    2017

  21. [27]

    Relay Selection Based Clustering Techniques for High Density LTE Networks,

    M. Hajjar, G. Aldabbagh, N. Dimitriou, M. Z. Win, “Relay Selection Based Clustering Techniques for High Density LTE Networks,” Wireless Networks, V ol. 25, No.5, pp. 2305 - 2314, July 2019

    2019

  22. [28]

    Buffer-Aided Relay Selection With Equal-Weight Links in Cooperative Wireless Networks,

    W. Raza, N. Javaid, H. Nasir, N. Alrajeh, N. Guizani, “Buffer-Aided Relay Selection With Equal-Weight Links in Cooperative Wireless Networks,” IEEE Communications Letters, V ol. 22, No. 1, pp. 133 - 136, January 2018

    2018

  23. [29]

    Relaying and Radio Resource Partitioning for Machine-Type Communications in Cellular Networks,

    U. Tefek, and T. J. Lim, “Relaying and Radio Resource Partitioning for Machine-Type Communications in Cellular Networks,” IEEE Transac- tions on Wireless Communications , V ol. 16, No. 2, pp. 1344 - 1356, February 2017

    2017

  24. [30]

    College Admissions and the Stability of Mar- riage,

    D. Gale, L. S. Shapley, “College Admissions and the Stability of Mar- riage,” The American Mathematical Monthly , V ol. 69, No. 1, pp. 9-15, January 1962

    1962

  25. [31]

    Deadline-Aware Opportunistic Network Coding for Multi-Relay-Aided Single-Source Single-Destination Network,

    G. Hu, K. Xu, Y . Xu, “Deadline-Aware Opportunistic Network Coding for Multi-Relay-Aided Single-Source Single-Destination Network,” IEEE Communications Letters, V ol. 21, No. 10, pp. 2282 - 2285, October 2017

    2017

  26. [32]

    Relay Selection and Power Allo- cation for Device-to-Device Communication Underlaying Heterogeneous Cellular Networks,

    J. Chang, Y . Ma, W. Cheng, X. Shen, “Relay Selection and Power Allo- cation for Device-to-Device Communication Underlaying Heterogeneous Cellular Networks,”2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communications, Chengdu, China, October 2016

    2016

  27. [33]

    Matching Problems with Additional Resource Con- straints

    D. J. Thomas, “Matching Problems with Additional Resource Con- straints”, Ph.D. Thesis, Department IV , Trier University, Trier, Germany, pp. 69-71, October 2015. VOLUME x, 2020 19 M. A. G. Ghasri et al.: Novel Relay Selection Algorithms for Machine-to-Machine Communications w...

    2015

  28. [36]

    The Dynamic Hungarian Algorithm for the Assignment Problem with Changing Costs

    G. A. Mills-Tettey, A. Stentz, M. B. Dias,“The Dynamic Hungarian Algorithm for the Assignment Problem with Changing Costs”, 2007, Online Access: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4980/ 1ee13208daf6dbd117646dfeb5d34d116b61.pdf, Last Access Time: July 30, 2019

    2007

  29. [37]

    The Hungarian Method for the Assignment Problem

    H. W. Kuhan, “The Hungarian Method for the Assignment Problem”, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 2, pp. 83-97, March 1955

    1955

  30. [38]

    Fast C++ Implementation of the Hungarian Algorithm

    GitHub, “Fast C++ Implementation of the Hungarian Algorithm”, Online Access: https://github.com/jamespayor/ weighted-bipartite-perfect-matching, Last Access Time: February 24, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Survey on Synchronization Mechanisms in Machine-to-Machine Systems

    I. Bojica, K. Nymoenb, “Survey on Synchronization Mechanisms in Machine-to-Machine Systems”, Engineering Applications of Artificial In- telligence, V ol. 45, pp. 361-375, October 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Time Synchronization in 5G Wireless Edge: Requirements and Solutions for Critical-MTC

    A. Mahmood, M. I. Ashraf, M. Gidlund, J. Torsner, J. Sachs, “Time Synchronization in 5G Wireless Edge: Requirements and Solutions for Critical-MTC”, IEEE Communications Magazine, V ol. 57, No. 12, pp. 45- 51, December 2019. MONIREH ALLAH GHOLI GHASRI received B.Sc. degree from...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.