Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

A First Look at Inter-Cell Interference in the Wild

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A first measurement study of live 4G/5G networks finds inter-cell interference is ubiquitous and uncoordinated.

desk verdict First useful field study of inter-cell interference, but its headline RB-level SINR numbers rest on an estimator that the paper's own PCI-collision results undermine. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20060 v1 pith:AON23PPD submitted 2025-08-27 cs.NI

Daqian Ding , Yibo Pi , Cailian Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords inter-cellinterference4G/5Gmeasurementresource-block-levelSINRfrequency-selectivefadingPCIcollisionresourceallocationnetworkdeploymentsignalquality
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

This paper sets out to measure something theory has long predicted but no one has checked in the field: how much inter-cell interference actually occurs in working 4G and 5G networks, and whether operators do anything about it. Using phone-level signal reports and software-defined radios that decode the physical layer, the authors find that every measured cell has at least one interfering neighbor, that almost all users sit in interference, and that none of the four management levers—deployment, channel assignment, time-frequency scheduling, and cell-identity configuration—is used to avoid it. A central result is that base stations systematically schedule the lowest-frequency resource blocks first, so neighboring cells collide on the same resources even when spectrum is mostly idle. If this picture holds, large signal-quality gains are available from comparatively simple coordination, rather than from building more base stations.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is an RB-level interference estimator built from reference-signal resource elements. The received signal on each reference element is modeled as desired channel times known symbol plus interference plus noise; averaging m=228 reference elements (chosen via a Bennett-inequality bound so residual interference and noise are small) isolates the desired channel, and subtracting it leaves an interference estimate per resource block. The argument also turns on two named objects: the collision probability |A∩B|/|A| for two cells' scheduled resource-block sets, and the PCI position index (PCI modulo X) that places reference signals on identical resource elements when cells collide.

What would settle it

Re-run the RB-level analysis excluding reference-signal resource elements whose positions collide with a detected neighbor's PCI (or use only PCI-collision-free cells); if the >30 dB SINR gaps and >64% low-load collision probabilities vanish, the central claims rest on the estimator's zero-mean assumption rather than on network behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that inter-cell interference is not a theoretical edge case but the normal operating condition of deployed 4G/5G networks. On a 2.5 km by 1.2 km campus and in follow-up urban and rural measurements, it identified 132 4G cells and 197 5G cells and found every cell has at least one interferer on its channel; 5G users see roughly twice as many interfering cells as 4G users. At resource-block granularity, frequency-selective fading makes SINR vary by up to 40 dB across the band at a single user location, so a handover decision based on a single wideband RSRP or on the narrow SSB window can pick a poor cell or frequency. The root causes are concrete: an imbalanced channel assignm

Load-bearing premise

The RB-level interference estimate assumes interference and noise on reference-signal tones are zero-mean random and average out, but the paper's own PCI-collision findings put persistent, non-random reference signals on those same tones—so the largest SINR gaps could be partly an artifact of the estimator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Per-resource-block SINR becomes a practical scheduling and handover input; wideband or SSB-window RSRP misses 30–40 dB dips and should be replaced.
  • Schedulers that spread resource blocks across the band instead of filling lowest-indexed RBs first would sharply reduce inter-cell collisions, including at low load.
  • PCI planning that avoids sharing reference-signal positions with strong neighbors would recover roughly 4 dB SINR for the most-interfered 5G users and lift SIB decode success.
  • In 5G, densification's main benefit is capacity, not SINR; interference coordination is the lower-cost lever for signal quality.
  • Because the estimator runs on commodity phone-plus-USRP hardware, operators and researchers can audit interference coordination continuously, not just once.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The zero-mean estimator assumption and the PCI-collision findings collide; excluding collided reference elements is a direct robustness check the paper does not report.
  • Extending RB-level estimation to 5G data regions would require scheduled DM-RS or CSI-RS, which the paper flags as future work but could be enabled by logging scheduler grants.
  • If the measured low-to-high RB allocation is a vendor default rather than deliberate policy, a configuration change could recover most of the lost SINR without new algorithms.
  • The same measurement design can be reused to quantify gains before and after an operator changes PCI plans or scheduler policies, turning the paper's static findings into a before-after evaluation.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a measurement study of inter-cell interference in operational 4G/5G networks. Using a smartphone for RSRP/SINR collection and USRPs for OFDM symbol capture, the authors detect interfering cells by decoding PCIs, estimate UE-level interference from RSRP minus SINR, and estimate RB-level interference via LS channel estimation from reference-signal REs. They report prevalence of interference, its impact on SINR, intra-BS interference, and four root causes: deployment density, imbalanced channel assignment, low-frequency-first RB allocation, and PCI collisions. The central claim is that inter-cell interference is prevalent and largely uncoordinated, so substantial signal-quality gains are available.

Significance. If the qualitative findings hold, this is a valuable first look at a practically important but under-measured problem. The study's strengths include a large field dataset (1,389 locations, 20,840 measurement points), a blanket cell search, the combination of commodity and SDR instrumentation, and a plan to release artifacts. Several observations are directly decoded from the air interface and do not depend on the contested estimator: the prevalence of interfering neighbors, the low-index-first RB allocation pattern, and the occurrence of PCI collisions. These alone would be useful to the community. However, the quantitative RB-level SINR claims, including the up-to-40 dB gaps and the consequent handover/resource-allocation recommendations, rest on an estimator whose central assumption is violated by the paper's own PCI-collision findings. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on repairing or re-scoping that estimator.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II, Eq. (3)-(5), Appendix A; §IV-D] The RB-level estimator assumes that interference and noise on the reference-signal REs are zero-mean, so averaging m REs isolates h1. Theorem 1 and the choice m=228 are derived under this assumption. However, §IV-D reports that about 60% of 4G UEs and 70% of 5G UEs experience PCI collisions, meaning a neighbor transmits RSs on the same REs as the serving cell. In Eq. (3), the contamination term h2·X2/X1 is then not zero-mean over the averaged REs; the LS channel estimate is biased, and the residual in Eq. (5) is not purely inter-cell interference but contains estimation error. The paper itself states that PCI collisions degrade channel estimation, confirming that its own data invalidate the estimator's core assumption for a large subset of locations. The up-to-40 dB RB-level SINR gaps and the handover/resource-allocation conclusions are not independently supported until the analysis sepa
  2. [§III-B and Abstract] The 40 dB RB-level SINR gap and the frequency-selective-fading impact are measured only for 4G; the text says 'our measurement focuses on 4G, but the conclusions generalize to 5G' without providing RB-level SINR estimates for 5G. The abstract and conclusion nevertheless present these as findings for both 4G and 5G networks. Since 5G uses a different reference-signal structure (SSB rather than dense CRS) and the paper's own Appendix B does not supply 5G RB-level data, this generalization is unsupported. Please either provide 5G RB-level measurements or explicitly restrict the quantitative RB-level claims to 4G.
  3. [§IV-C, Figs. 12-13, Appendix B] The claim that BSs 'consistently' allocate RBs from the lowest index upward, and the resulting high collision probability at low utilization, appear to be based on a single pair of 4G cells monitored with two USRPs. The paper does not report the number of cell pairs, total traces, or cell-pair-level variability behind Figs. 12 and 13. Appendix B extends the observation to urban and rural areas but gives no methodological details (number of cells, trace durations, selection criteria). Because this is a load-bearing part of the 'absence of coordination' conclusion, the sampling basis should be stated clearly and the wording should be matched to the evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] The proof writes 'Var(|~Δ_i|^2) = E[|~Δ_i|^2]', which is not an equality as written; the object used in Bennett's inequality needs to be defined precisely. Please correct the notation and clarify whether the bound is on the variance of the real/imaginary parts or on the second moment.
  2. [§II] Equation (1) defines UE-level interference from RSRP and reported SINR. This is an operational definition and makes the algebraic relationship tautological. The paper should state more explicitly that this metric inherits any implementation-specific filtering in the device's reported SINR.
  3. [§IV-D] The paper says PCI collisions are 'detected' at each UE location, but the detection procedure is not described. Please specify how a collision is identified from the measurements (e.g., by comparing decoded PCIs modulo the number of RS patterns or by detecting RS-power superposition).
  4. [Table I] The 5G n41 center-frequency entries '2524.95(2565)' and '2662.95(2644.80)' are confusing; please clarify the intended center frequencies and bandwidths.
  5. [§III-B, Fig. 6] The caption says 'RB-level interference (left) and RSRP (right)', but the axes are labeled 'Subcarrier' and 'Symbol' with powers. Clarify whether the displayed quantity is per-RE, per-RB, or per-symbol power.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's conclusions are drawn from direct measurements rather than from fitting a model to its own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are measurement findings, not predictions derived from fitted parameters. The UE-level 'interference' expression (Eq. 1, Interference = RSRP − SINR) is a definitional identity, and the authors transparently use it as an estimation formula; it does not serve as a fitted model that is then used to 'predict' the same SINR values. The substantive results—prevalence of neighboring PCIs, RB usage patterns, PCI collisions, and RB-level SINR gaps from physical-layer OFDM processing—are based on independent observations. The only self-citation ([21]) appears in the related-work discussion of RS-pattern design and is not load-bearing. The Discussion's limitation about 5G RB-level measurements is an honest scope caveat, not a circular step. The potential tension between the zero-mean assumption in Section II/Appendix A and the PCI-collision findings in Section IV-D is a measurement-validity concern, not circularity: the estimator does not assume the paper's conclusions, and the collision finding is independently decoded. No circular step can be exhibited by quoting equations that reduce to the paper's own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement conclusions rest on a set of hand-set parameters (averaging length, thresholds) and domain assumptions about wireless channels. The main free parameters define the interference estimator, not the scientific conclusions; they are documented in the paper. The most fragile axiom is the zero-mean interference assumption, which is contradicted by the paper's own PCI-collision measurements.

free parameters (5)
  • m (number of reference signal REs averaged) = 228
    Chosen to satisfy Eq (4) with probability 0.9 under SINR=-6dB, delta=0.1, epsilon=0.1, K=7; determines the averaging window for the RB-level interference estimator.
  • delta (channel estimation error threshold) = 0.1
    Hand-set threshold for normalized channel estimation error in Eq (4).
  • epsilon (probability bound) = 0.1
    Hand-set failure probability in Theorem 1.
  • K (max interfering cells) = 7
    Set because almost all UEs have fewer than 6 interfering BSs; used to compute b and m.
  • RE-level SINR for b = -6.7 dB
    Judiciously set to support the lowest MCS in 5G; determines b in Theorem 1.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Interference and noise on reference REs are zero-mean random variables
    Invoked in Section II before Eq (4) and in Appendix A to justify LS averaging; violated by PCI collisions, which the paper itself measures.
  • domain assumption Noise is negligible compared to interference
    Assumed in Theorem 1 and used to bound |tilde Delta_i|; may fail in low-interference environments.
  • domain assumption Cells belonging to the same BS have consecutive PCIs
    Section III-C: used to identify intra-BS ICI; stated as an observation but not validated independently.
  • domain assumption Channel coherence time exceeds 30 ms for walking UEs
    Section II: needed to aggregate 4G cell-specific RSs across three frames; not measured, only asserted.
  • standard math Bennett's inequality applies to the averaged error
    Appendix A uses it to derive Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption The set of cells with decodable PCIs on a channel equals the set of interfering cells
    Section II: operational definition; interferers whose PCIs cannot be decoded are missed, potentially undercounting interference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A First Look at Inter-Cell Interference in the Wild." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AON23PPD

@misc{pith2026250820060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A First Look at Inter-Cell Interference in the Wild},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AON23PPD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20060}
}
read the original abstract

In cellular networks, inter-cell interference management has been studied for decades, yet its real-world effectiveness remains under-explored. To bridge this gap, we conduct a first measurement study of inter-cell interference for operational 4G/5G networks. Our findings reveal the prevalence of inter-cell interference and a surprising absence of interference coordination among operational base stations. As a result, user equipments experience unnecessary interference, which causes significant signal quality degradation, especially under frequency-selective channel fading. We examine the inter-cell interference issues from four major perspectives: network deployment, channel assignment, time-frequency resource allocation, and network configuration. In none of these dimensions is inter-cell interference effectively managed. Notably, even when spectrum resources are underutilized and simple strategies could effectively mitigate inter-cell interference, base stations consistently prioritize using the same set of time-frequency resources, causing interference across cells. Our measurements reveal substantial opportunities for improving signal quality by inter-cell interference management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20060 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. 4G RS layout more effectively utilize spectrum resources. • We find that inter-cell interference can occur between cells on the same BS. About 30% of 4G BSs and 60% of 5G BSs suffer from intra-BS inter-cell interference, affecting around 40% and 70% of UEs, respectively. Most BSs without such interference are deployed on rooftops, which offer greater spatial flexibility in antenna placement. To mitigate inter-cell i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prevalence of inter-cell interference from the cell and UE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. 4G performance metrics ranked by increasing interfering cell count. Both RSRP and interference increase when network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In 5G, both RSRP and interference increase with denser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Impact of SINR on throughput Cell 2 Cell 1 Side lobe Main lobe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Intra-BS ICI View ISP 4G 5G BS-level 1 0.31 0.60 2&3 0.29 0.62 Total 0.30 0.61 UE-level 1 0.36 0.69 2&3 0.40 0.66 Total 0.39 0.68 TABLE II: Intra-BS ICI ratio more effectively utilize spectrum resources and improve user channel quality; (2) handover decisions based on …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Geographical density distribution of 4G/5G BSs and its impact on SINR (from UE perspective). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of SINR and BS imbalance across ISPs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: BSs prioritize allocating resource blocks in ascending [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Prevalence of PCI collisions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 #Interfering Cells (UE) 20 10 0 10 20 30 40SINR (dB) w/o Collision w/ Collision (a) 5G PCI collision on SINR 0 1 2 3 4 5 #Interfering Cells (UE) 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 SINR (dB) w/o Collision w/ Collision (b) 4G PCI coll…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Impact of PCI collisions on SINR those without across all interference levels in 5G. When the number of interfering cells reaches 6, the SINR gap between the two groups of UEs increases to 4 dB. As previously shown in Figure 3c, more than 10% of 5G UEs experience at l…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: SINR by message types SINR：10.1dB SINR：-7.6dB SINR：7.7dB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a)-(c): urban and rural areas; (d)-(f): urban area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Mobile Economy 2022,

    5G America, “The Mobile Economy 2022,” accessed: 2022-02-

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    TS 22.261: Service Requirements for the 5G System,

    3GPP, “TS 22.261: Service Requirements for the 5G System,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Tech. Rep. V16.14.0, December 2021, accessed: March 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/22 series/22.261/

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Minimum interference channel assignment in multiradio wireless mesh networks,

    A. P. Subramanian, H. Gupta, S. R. Das, and J. Cao, “Minimum interference channel assignment in multiradio wireless mesh networks,” IEEE transactions on mobile computing , vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 1459–1473, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    A survey on inter-cell interference coordination techniques in ofdma-based cellular networks,

    A. S. Hamza, S. S. Khalifa, H. S. Hamza, and K. Elsayed, “A survey on inter-cell interference coordination techniques in ofdma-based cellular networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1642–1670, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Downlink resource allocation for next generation wireless networks with inter-cell interfer- ence,

    Y . Yu, E. Dutkiewicz, X. Huang, and M. Mueck, “Downlink resource allocation for next generation wireless networks with inter-cell interfer- ence,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1783–1793, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Leveraging context-triggered measurements to characterize LTE handover performance,

    S. Xu, A. Nikravesh, and Z. M. Mao, “Leveraging context-triggered measurements to characterize LTE handover performance,” in PAM, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Energy- efficient paging for duty-cycled lte backscatter,

    Y . Feng, X. Liu, J. Zhao, Y . Ding, G. Wang, and W. Gong, “Energy- efficient paging for duty-cycled lte backscatter,” in In INFOCOM, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Accuver xcal,

    Accuver, “Accuver xcal,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.accuver.com/sub/products/view.php?idx=6&ckattempt=2

    work page 2025

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Icellspeed: Increasing cellular data speed with device-assisted cell selection,

    H. Deng, Q. Li, J. Huang, and C. Peng, “Icellspeed: Increasing cellular data speed with device-assisted cell selection,” in In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Method and apparatus for reporting channel state information for supporting 256qam in wireless access system,

    B. Kim and Y . Yi, “Method and apparatus for reporting channel state information for supporting 256qam in wireless access system,” U.S. Patent 9,887,824

  3. [11]

    Unveiling the 5G mid-band landscape: From network deployment to performance and application qoe,

    R. A. K. Fezeu, C. Fiandrino, E. Ramadan, J. Carpenter, L. C. de Freitas, F. Bilal, W. Ye, J. Widmer, F. Qian, and Z.-L. Zhang, “Unveiling the 5G mid-band landscape: From network deployment to performance and application qoe,” in SIGCOMM 2024, 2024, p. 358–372

    2024

  4. [12]

    Understanding operational 5G: A first measurement study on its coverage, performance and energy consumption,

    D. Xu, A. Zhou, X. Zhang, G. Wang, X. Liu, C. An, Y . Shi, L. Liu, and H. Ma, “Understanding operational 5G: A first measurement study on its coverage, performance and energy consumption,” in SIGCOMM 2020, 2020, p. 479–494

    2020

  5. [13]

    A variegated look at 5G in the wild: performance, power, and qoe implications,

    A. Narayanan, X. Zhang, R. Zhu, A. Hassan, S. Jin, X. Zhu, X. Zhang, D. Rybkin, Z. Yang, Z. M. Mao, F. Qian, and Z.-L. Zhang, “A variegated look at 5G in the wild: performance, power, and qoe implications,” in SIGCOMM 2021, 2021, p. 610–625

    2021

  6. [14]

    An in-depth measurement analysis of 5G mmWave PHY latency and its impact on end-to-end delay,

    R. A. K. Fezeu, E. Ramadan, W. Ye, B. Minneci, J. Xie, A. Narayanan, A. Hassan, F. Qian, Z.-L. Zhang, J. Chandrashekar, and M. Lee, “An in-depth measurement analysis of 5G mmWave PHY latency and its impact on end-to-end delay,” in PAM 2023, 2023, p. 284–312

    2023

  7. [15]

    Dissecting carrier aggregation in 5G networks: Measurement, qoe implications and prediction,

    W. Ye, X. Hu, S. Sleder, A. Zhang, U. K. Dayalan, A. Hassan, R. A. K. Fezeu, A. Jajoo, M. Lee, E. Ramadan, F. Qian, and Z.-L. Zhang, “Dissecting carrier aggregation in 5G networks: Measurement, qoe implications and prediction,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2024 Conference...

    2024

  8. [16]

    A close look at 5G in the wild: Unrealized poten- tials and implications,

    Y . Liu and C. Peng, “A close look at 5G in the wild: Unrealized poten- tials and implications,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2023 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, 2023, pp. 1–10

    2023

  9. [17]

    Lte radio analytics made easy and accessible,

    S. Kumar, E. Hamed, D. Katabi, and L. Erran Li, “Lte radio analytics made easy and accessible,” in SIGCOMM 2014, 2014, p. 211–222

    2014

  10. [18]

    A nationwide study on cellular reliability: measurement, analysis, and enhancements,

    Y . Li, H. Lin, Z. Li, Y . Liu, F. Qian, L. Gong, X. Xin, and T. Xu, “A nationwide study on cellular reliability: measurement, analysis, and enhancements,” in SIGCOMM 2021, 2021, p. 597–609

    2021

  11. [19]

    Interference measurement methods in 5G NR: Principles and performance,

    H. Elgendi, M. M ¨aenp¨a¨a, T. Levanen, T. Ihalainen, S. Nielsen, and M. Valkama, “Interference measurement methods in 5G NR: Principles and performance,” in 2019 16th International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS) , 2019, pp. 233–238

    2019

  12. [20]

    Reference signal design and power optimization for energy-efficient 5G V2X integrated sensing and com- munications,

    Q. Zhao, A. Tang, and X. Wang, “Reference signal design and power optimization for energy-efficient 5G V2X integrated sensing and com- munications,” IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Net- working, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 379–392, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Simultaneous interference graph estimation and resource allocation in multi-cell multi-numerology networks,

    D. Ding, W. Lou, H. Hu, H. Li, and Y . Pi, “Simultaneous interference graph estimation and resource allocation in multi-cell multi-numerology networks,” in 2024 IEEE 35th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC) , 2024, pp. 1–7

    2024

  14. [22]

    Joint pilot and payload power allocation for massive-mimo-enabled urllc iiot networks,

    H. Ren, C. Pan, Y . Deng, M. Elkashlan, and A. Nallanathan, “Joint pilot and payload power allocation for massive-mimo-enabled urllc iiot networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 816–830, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Efficient interference management policies for femtocell networks,

    K. Ahuja, Y . Xiao, and M. van der Schaar, “Efficient interference management policies for femtocell networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 4879–4893, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Efficient link scheduling in wireless networks under rayleigh-fading and multiuser interference,

    J. Yu, K. Yu, D. Yu, W. Lv, X. Cheng, H. Chen, and W. Cheng, “Efficient link scheduling in wireless networks under rayleigh-fading and multiuser interference,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 5621–5634, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Linkslice: Fine- grained network slice enforcement based on deep reinforcement learn- ing,

    T. Wang, S. Chen, Y . Zhu, A. Tang, and X. Wang, “Linkslice: Fine- grained network slice enforcement based on deep reinforcement learn- ing,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 2378–2394, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Wixor: Dynamic TDD policy adaptation for 5G/xG networks,

    A. Hassan, S. Aggarwal, M. Ibrahim, P. Sharma, and F. Qian, “Wixor: Dynamic TDD policy adaptation for 5G/xG networks,” Proc. ACM Netw., vol. 2, no. CoNEXT4, Nov. 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Channel-Aware 5G RAN slicing with customizable schedulers,

    Y . Chen, R. Yao, H. Hassanieh, and R. Mittal, “Channel-Aware 5G RAN slicing with customizable schedulers,” inNSDI 23, 2023, pp. 1767–1782

    2023

  20. [28]

    Available: https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp- content/uploads/2022/02/280222-The-Mobile-Economy-2022.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp- content/uploads/2022/02/280222-The-Mobile-Economy-2022.pdf

    2022

  21. [29]

    Application-Level service assurance with 5G RAN slicing,

    A. Balasingam, M. Kotaru, and P. Bahl, “Application-Level service assurance with 5G RAN slicing,” in NSDI 24, 2024, pp. 841–857

    2024

  22. [30]

    A comparison study of cellular deployments in chicago and miami using apps on smartphones,

    M. I. Rochman, V . Sathya, N. Nunez, D. Fernandez, M. Ghosh, A. S. Ibrahim, and W. Payne, “A comparison study of cellular deployments in chicago and miami using apps on smartphones,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM Workshop on Wireless Network Testbeds, Experimental Evaluation ...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Uncov- ering 5G performance on public transit systems with an app-based measurement study,

    C. Fiandrino, D. Ju ´arez Mart´ınez-Villanueva, and J. Widmer, “Uncov- ering 5G performance on public transit systems with an app-based measurement study,” in Proceedings of the 25th International ACM Conference on Modeling Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile System...

    2022

  24. [32]

    A comparative measurement study of commercial 5G mmWave deployments,

    A. Narayanan, M. I. Rochman, A. Hassan, B. S. Firmansyah, V . Sathya, M. Ghosh, F. Qian, and Z.-L. Zhang, “A comparative measurement study of commercial 5G mmWave deployments,” in INFOCOM 2022 , 2022, pp. 800–809

    2022

  25. [33]

    Mobile access bandwidth in practice: measurement, analysis, and implications,

    X. Yang, H. Lin, Z. Li, F. Qian, X. Li, Z. He, X. Wu, X. Wang, Y . Liu, Z. Liao, D. Hu, and T. Xu, “Mobile access bandwidth in practice: measurement, analysis, and implications,” in SIGCOMM 2022 , 2022, p. 114–128

    2022

  26. [34]

    Probability inequalities for the sum of independent random variables,

    G. Bennett, “Probability inequalities for the sum of independent random variables,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , vol. 57, no. 297, pp. 33–45, 1962

    1962

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.