Closed-loop Uplink Radio Resource Management in CF-O-RAN Empowered 5G Aerial Corridor

Manobendu Sarker; Md. Zoheb Hassan; Xianbin Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 19 references

Closed-loop Uplink Radio Resource Management in CF-O-RAN Empowered 5G Aerial Corridor

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that jointly optimizing UAV–O-RU association and uplink power in a cell-free O-RAN aerial corridor raises the minimum spectral efficiency by up to 440% while cutting compute time by ~100×, enabling real-time closed-loop con

desk verdict A practically useful O-RAN cell-free UAV-corridor resource-allocation package with a solid simulation campaign, but the 'global optimality' claim for the power-control algorithm rests on an unstated fixed-combiner approximation and should be reframed before the paper is used as a design reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.12694 v2 pith:2B5NI26P submitted 2026-01-19 eess.SY cs.SY

Manobendu Sarker , Md. Zoheb Hassan , Xianbin Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords cell-freemassiveMIMOO-RANaerialcorridoruplinkpowercontrolUAVassociationspectralefficiencyfixed-pointalgorithmchannelknowledgemap

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

To make 5G aerial corridors—dedicated three-dimensional routes for drone traffic—reliably serve every UAV, the paper proposes a closed-loop uplink resource manager built on O-RAN's near-real-time RIC. The central claim is that a joint UAV-to-radio-unit association and power-allocation scheme can maximize the worst-case (minimum) spectral efficiency while guaranteeing per-UAV quality-of-service, and that this can be done fast enough for real-time control. Because the joint problem is NP-hard, the authors decompose it and contribute a QoS-driven multi-connectivity association algorithm plus a bisection-guided fixed-point power control algorithm they assert reaches global optimality. Simulation results show up to 440% minimum-SE gain, 100% QoS satisfaction and fairness for up to 90 UAVs, and up to 99.7% runtime reduction relative to an interior-point solver, making O-RAN-compliant real-time deployment the intended payoff.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the bisection-guided fixed-point power control (BG-FPPC), which combines an outer bisection over the target SINR with an inner Foschini–Miljanić-style fixed-point update that computes the minimal power meeting each target. It assumes the SINR can be captured by precomputed coefficients {a_k, b_ki, c_k} that make interference and noise linear in powers. The complementary mechanism is the association algorithm: a QoS-driven, multi-connectivity assignment that adds serving O-RUs to weak UAVs, which is what makes the QoS constraints satisfiable.

What would settle it

Take a small network (e.g., 2 UAVs, 2 O-RUs), run BG-FPPC to a target SINR, then recompute the L-MMSE combiners using the resulting powers and evaluate the true SINR; if the true minimum SINR falls materially below the target (beyond bisection tolerance), the linearization is invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a practical decomposition for the NP-hard max-min spectral-efficiency problem in an O-RAN-enabled cell-free massive MIMO aerial corridor. It splits the joint UAV–O-RU association and uplink power allocation into two subproblems solved in alternation: a three-stage QoS-driven association algorithm (strongest-link initialization, O-RU-centric load balancing, and refinement for QoS-violating UAVs) and a bisection-guided fixed-point power control (BG-FPPC) that searches the maximum feasible target SINR with an inner fixed-point update. The paper claims BG-FPPC reaches the same minimum SE as an interior-point solver at O(K^2) complexity, and that the full f

Load-bearing premise

The power-control algorithm treats interference as a straight-line function of transmitter powers that does not change as powers change; if the way receivers combine signals shifts with power, the algorithm may be solving an easier problem than the real one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, the framework moves cell-free mMIMO uplink resource management from offline optimization to near-real-time operation, with decision times in the tens-of-milliseconds range.
The proposed power controller reproduces the interior-point optimum in simulation, suggesting that max-min fair power allocation can be obtained without a general-purpose solver.
The QoS-driven association step, not power control alone, is the main enabler of per-UAV QoS satisfaction; power control is the main driver of fairness.
The CKM-based CSI path removes the need for high-rate E2 CSI exchange, aligning the solution with O-RAN interface constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

If the linearization holds, the BG-FPPC result extends naturally to other max-min resource allocation problems where interference is approximately linear in powers, but that condition is not derived in the paper.
The 440% gain is relative to a full-power baseline with a static association; against an already-tuned power-controlled network, the gain would be far smaller, so the headline number depends on the baseline choice.
CKM accuracy is excluded from the SE evaluation (per the Remark in Section II.C), so the real-time-deployment claim implicitly assumes the CKM-inferred CSI is perfect; a sensitivity analysis to CKM error would be a natural extension.
For K=100 the success rate drops to ~80%, indicating that resource scarcity, not algorithmic quality, becomes the bottleneck; joint trajectory optimization or dynamic pilot assignment could push the QoS frontier further.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, the engineering package is real: QoS-driven multi-connectivity association, a low-complexity bisection/fixed-point power allocator, and an O-RAN xApp/CKM framing for a genuine BVLOS drone-corridor problem. The simulations are well specified—3GPP UMa-AV, 500 Monte Carlo realizations, six named benchmarks, full parameter table—and the headline directions (large min-SE gains, ~99% runtime reduction, 100% fairness for power-optimized schemes) are internally consistent. Second, the central optimality claim does not survive close reading. Algorithm 2 needs precomputed SINR coefficients {a_k, b_ki, c_k} that are power-independent, but the SINR in (2) uses an L-MMSE combiner that depends on the whole power vector, and it includes a self-interference term absent from the update in line 7. No derivation reconciles these. So the algorithm solves a linear-fractional surrogate, not P2 as defined. The abstract and conclusion say “global optimality,” but Section IV.B itself calls it “near-optimal.” The numerical equality with the CVX benchmark is suggestive, but if the CVX benchmark uses the same implicit approximate model, it cannot rescue the claim. This is the main fix: state the fixed-combiner approximation explicitly, prove or cite standard interference-function theory for the surrogate, and scope the optimality claim accordingly.

The other soft spots are real but smaller. The CKM is excluded from the SE evaluation by the Remark in Section II.C, so the real-time deployment claim rests on an unvalidated CSI-inference component; you should either simulate CKM error or scope the claim. The abstract's “100% QoS satisfaction” contradicts Fig. 3's ~80% at K=100; qualify it as K≤90. The AO convergence assertion is hand-wavy—Algorithm 1 is a heuristic, so monotonic improvement is not automatic—though this is minor compared to the optimality issue.

There is also a novelty caveat: the “adaptive target SINR” mechanism is a standard feasibility-search/bisection technique, and the underlying fixed-point iteration is classical. The novelty is in the specific combination and the O-RAN architectural integration, not in the power-control theory.

Who should read this? People designing O-RAN xApps for UAV corridors or benchmarking practical cell-free resource allocation. It is not a theory paper and should not be cited for the global optimality claim in its current form. It deserves a serious referee—yes, send it to review—but the referee should push hard on the derivation of the SINR coefficients and on the scoping of the CKM contributions. I would bring it to a reading group to discuss where simulation-based engineering claims cross into unsupported optimality assertions.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies closed-loop uplink radio resource management for a cell-free massive MIMO 5G aerial corridor under an O-RAN architecture with CKM-based CSI. The authors formulate a joint UAV–O-RU association and uplink power allocation problem P0, decompose it into P1 and P2, and solve them by alternating optimization between a three-stage QoS-aware association heuristic (Algorithm 1) and a bisection-guided fixed-point power control algorithm (Algorithm 2). They also embed the CKM as an rApp in the non-RT RIC and the RRM algorithms as xApps in the near-RT RIC. Performance is evaluated against baseline association and full-power schemes, as well as a CVX-based interior-point power solver, over 500 Monte Carlo runs with 3GPP UMa-AV parameters. The paper reports up to 440% minimum-SE gains, 100% QoS success for K<=90, 100% Jain fairness for all max-min power schemes, and up to ~99% runtime reduction relative to the CVX solver.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, this would be a useful contribution to O-RAN-native RRM for aerial corridors: it proposes a concrete rApp/xApp architecture, a 3GPP UMa-AV parameterized simulation campaign (Table I), six named benchmarks, and a fixed-point/bisection algorithm with a plausible complexity story for near-RT RIC operation. The numerical methodology is a strength: 500 Monte Carlo realizations, explicit benchmark schemes, and an external CVX-based reference. However, the 'global optimality' claim for Algorithm 2 is not established by the current derivation, and the CKM component is not validated numerically. These issues materially temper the significance until they are addressed.

major comments (3)

[§IV.B.1, Eq. (2), Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 requires precomputed power-independent coefficients {a_k,b_ki,c_k} and updates p_k^(n+1) = (γ_mid/a_k)(Σ_{i≠k} b_ki p_i^(n)+c_k). This is valid only if SINR_k = a_k p_k/(Σ_{i≠k} b_ki p_i+c_k) with constant coefficients. But the SINR in (2) depends on the full power vector through the L-MMSE combiner v_kℓ = (Σ_i p_i^u(ĥ_iℓĥ_iℓ^H + C^err_iℓ)+σ²I)^{-1} ĥ_kℓ, and the denominator also contains a p_k^u self-interference term. No derivation of the constant-coefficient form is given. Hence the 'global optimality' claim in the Abstract and Section V.1 is established only for a surrogate model. The numerical equality with TP in Fig. 2 is supportive only if TP solves the exact P2 rather than the same surrogate; this is not specified. Please clarify TP and either derive the coefficients or reword the optimality claim.
[§II.C Remark, §V] The CKM is presented as a load-bearing component for CSI acquisition, yet the Remark in Section II.C excludes CKM from the SE-evaluation model, and the simulation campaign in Section V appears to use the MMSE channel estimates directly with no CKM inference error, staleness, or A1-interface latency. The abstract's 'O-RAN compliant real-time deployment' conclusion therefore assumes essentially perfect environment-aware CSI. Please add a sensitivity study with respect to CKM accuracy/outdatedness, or explicitly state that the reported gains are conditioned on ideal CKM.
[§IV.C] The convergence statement 'guaranteed via monotonic improvement of the bounded objective' is not proven. Algorithm 1 is a heuristic whose Stage 3 adds serving O-RUs to weak UAVs without maximizing the min-SE objective; such additions can increase interference to other UAVs, so the P0 objective need not be monotone nondecreasing across AO iterations. Please prove monotonicity or provide an objective-versus-iteration plot for the settings of Fig. 2.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract, §V.4] Abstract reports 'up to 99.7%' runtime reduction, but Fig. 5/text reports up to 99.1% for PA+PP and up to 99.9% for BA+PP; harmonize the numbers.
[Algorithm 1, Stage 3] The pseudocode assigns a_{k,C(x)}=1 without checking the per-O-RU capacity constraint (4c), although the text says 'provided capacity is available.' Add the capacity check to the pseudocode.
[§IV.B.1] Algorithm 2 is described as 'near-optimal' in one sentence and as solving the max-min problem 'globally' in the next; make the terminology consistent once the surrogate issue is resolved.
[§II.C] The Remark is ambiguous: it should state explicitly whether CKM-derived CSI is used in the performance evaluation or only in the architecture description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the low score reflects a minor self-cited baseline and a surrogate-model caveat, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The core claims are supported by simulation against disclosed baselines, including a CVX interior-point solver applied to the same power-allocation subproblem P2. The proposed association and power-control algorithms are not derived by fitting parameters to the outputs they claim to predict; the reported SE, success-rate, fairness, and runtime curves are independent Monte Carlo evaluations. The only self-citation is [17], used as the ‘Baseline’ association in the benchmarks; comparing against one’s own earlier published association algorithm is a standard benchmark choice and is not load-bearing for the novelty or optimality claims. The paper does contain an unresolved modeling gap: Algorithm 2’s fixed-point update relies on ‘precomputed SINR coefficients’ {a_k, b_ki, c_k} and omits the p_k self-interference term that is explicit in the denominator of (2)/(3), so the claimed global optimality may hold only for an implicit surrogate model; however, this is a model-consistency/correctness concern, not a circularity in which an output is identical to an input by construction. The CKM remark explicitly excludes CKM-inferred CSI from the SE evaluation, so the real-time-deployment claim relies on an unvalidated component; again an evidence gap, not circular reuse. Overall, no equation-level or definitional circularity is present; the score of 1 is given only for the minor self-citation and the surrogate-model caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or system entities: the xApp/rApp roles and CKM come from the cited O-RAN and CKM literature. The claimed 'adaptive target SINR mechanism' of Algorithm 2 is a re-framing of classical bisection over gamma, not a new entity. The load-bearing content is instead the standard CF-mMIMO modeling stack plus three hand-chosen algorithm parameters and the unstated fixed-combiner linearization.

free parameters (3)

ntop (Algorithm 1 Stage 2 admission cap) = 3
Each O-RU admits at most ntop strongest remaining UAVs in Stage 2; chosen by hand with no sensitivity analysis. Directly shapes the association matrix and hence all SE numbers.
Stage 3 refinement cap ceil(L/2) = 50 for L=100
Maximum number of additional O-RUs a QoS-violating UAV may acquire; hand-chosen. Determines how far the QoS repair can go and affects the K=100 success-rate degradation.
Algorithm 2 tolerances and gamma_max factor = epsilon_bisect=1e-4; epsilon_FP=1e-3; N_FP_max=20; gamma_max=1.5*max initial SINR
Hand-chosen numerical parameters governing the claimed 'global optimality' (bisection gap 1e-4) and the feasibility checks; the 1.5 factor for gamma_max is ad hoc. No sensitivity study is reported.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption 3GPP UMa-AV large-scale model: height-dependent LoS probability and distinct LoS/NLoS path-loss expressions with log-normal shadowing (TR 36.777 / TR 38.901)
Adopted in Section II.A.1 as the propagation basis for all simulation results; the paper references the tables rather than reproducing them.
domain assumption Spatially correlated Rician small-scale fading with K-factor and array response, Eq. (1)
Section II.A.2; standard UAV channel assumption. The SE claims are conditional on this model.
domain assumption TDD operation, K > tau_p pilot reuse causing pilot contamination, MMSE estimation (Section II.B)
Explicitly stated in Section II.B; the SINR in (2) incorporates the contamination via Psi_kℓ.
standard math Use-and-then-forget bound for the UL SE expression, Eq. (2)
Standard bound from [16], used as the SE definition in [7]; the paper relies on it without derivation.
ad hoc to paper SINR in P2 decomposes into power-independent coefficients {a_k, b_ki, c_k} (fixed-combiner linearization)
Algorithm 2's premise: the paper never derives these constants from (2)/(3), where the L-MMSE combiner v_kℓ depends on the power vector. The 'global optimality' claim is valid only for this implicitly linearized model.
ad hoc to paper AO converges via monotonic improvement of the bounded objective
Section IV.C asserts convergence 'guaranteed via monotonic improvement'; the association stage is a heuristic without a monotonicity guarantee, so the claim is unproven.
domain assumption CKM supplies accurate CSI/statistics without high-rate E2 exchange
Section II.A walk-through and footnote 1; the architecture depends on CKM-derived CSI, but no estimation error or fidelity of the CKM is modeled in the evaluation (per the Remark in II.C).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Closed-loop Uplink Radio Resource Management in CF-O-RAN Empowered 5G Aerial Corridor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2B5NI26P

@misc{pith2026260112694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Closed-loop Uplink Radio Resource Management in CF-O-RAN Empowered 5G Aerial Corridor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2B5NI26P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.12694}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we investigate the uplink (UL) radio resource management for 5G aerial corridors with an open-radio access network (O-RAN)-enabled cell-free (CF) massive multiple-input multiple-output (mMIMO) system. Our objective is to maximize the minimum spectral efficiency (SE) by jointly optimizing unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-open radio unit (O-RU) association and UL transmit power under quality-of-service (QoS) constraints. Owing to its NP-hard nature, the formulated problem is decomposed into two tractable sub-problems solved via alternating optimization (AO) using two computationally efficient algorithms. We then propose (i) a QoS-driven and multi-connectivity-enabled association algorithm incorporating UAV-centric and O-RU-centric criteria with targeted refinement for weak UAVs, and (ii) a bisection-guided fixed-point power control algorithm achieving global optimality with significantly reduced complexity, hosted as xApp at the near-real-time (near-RT) RAN intelligent controller (RIC) of O-RAN. Solving the resource-allocation problem requires global channel state information (CSI), which incurs substantial measurement and signaling overhead. To mitigate this, we leverage a channel knowledge map (CKM) within the O-RAN non-RT RIC to enable efficient environment-aware CSI inference. Simulation results show that the proposed framework achieves up to 440% improvement in minimum SE, 100% QoS satisfaction and fairness, while reducing runtime by up to 99.7% compared to an interior point solver-based power allocation solution, thereby enabling O-RAN compliant real-time deployment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.12694 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Average minimum SE performance of different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Average success rate performance of different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Average fairness performance of different schemes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Advances in secure 5G network for a nationwide drone corri- dor,

A. Bhuyan, I. Guvenc, H. Dai, M. L. Sichitiu, S. Singh, A. Rah- mati, S. J. Maeng, E. Ozturk, and M. M. U. Chowdhury, “Advances in secure 5G network for a nationwide drone corri- dor,” Tech. Rep. INL/CON-21-65310-Revision-0, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA, Mar. 2022

2022
[2]

3D aerial highway: The key enabler of the retail industry transformation,

N. Cherif, W. Jaafar, H. Yanikomeroglu, and A. Yongacoglu, “3D aerial highway: The key enabler of the retail industry transformation,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 59, Sept. 2021

2021
[3]

Digital-twin empowered site-specific radio resource management in 5G aerial corridor,

P. Tarafder, I. Ahmed, D. B. Rawat, M. Z. Hassan, and K. Hasan, “Digital-twin empowered site-specific radio resource management in 5G aerial corridor,” in IEEE Military Conference on Commu- nications (MILCOM), 2025

2025
[4]

Optimizing cellular networks for UA V corridors via quantization theory,

S. Karimi-Bidhendi, G. Geraci, and H. Jafarkhani, “Optimizing cellular networks for UA V corridors via quantization theory,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 14924–14939, 2024

2024
[5]

Streaming from the air: En- abling drone-sourced video streaming applications on 5G open- RAN architectures,

L. Bertizzolo, T. X. Tran, J. Buczek, B. Balasubramanian, R. Jana, Y. Zhou, and T. Melodia, “Streaming from the air: En- abling drone-sourced video streaming applications on 5G open- RAN architectures,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 3004–3017, 2023

2023
[6]

Energy-eﬀicient deployment and resource allocation for O-RAN-enabled UA V-assisted communication,

H. Li, X. Tang, D. Zhai, R. Zhang, B. Li, H. Cao, N. Kumar, and A. Almogren, “Energy-eﬀicient deployment and resource allocation for O-RAN-enabled UA V-assisted communication,” IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1128–1139, 2024

2024
[7]

Making cell-free massive MIMO competitive with MMSE processing and distributed combining,

E. Björnson and L. Sanguinetti, “Making cell-free massive MIMO competitive with MMSE processing and distributed combining,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77–90, 2020

2020
[8]

A tutorial on environment- aware communications via channel knowledge map for 6G,

Y. Zeng, J. Chen, J. Xu, D. Wu, X. Xu, S. Jin, X. Gao, D. Gesbert, S. Cui, and R. Zhang, “A tutorial on environment- aware communications via channel knowledge map for 6G,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1478– 1519, 2024

2024

Show all 19 references

[9]

From concept to reality: 5g positioning with open-source im- plementation of UL-TDoA in openairinterface,

A. Malik, M. Ahadi, F. Kaltenberger, K. Warnke, N. T. Thinh, N. Bouknana, C. Thienot, G. Onche, and S. Arora, “From concept to reality: 5g positioning with open-source im- plementation of UL-TDoA in openairinterface,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05217, 2024

2024 arXiv
[10]

A tutorial on UA Vs for wireless networks: Applications, chal- lenges, and open problems,

M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, Y.-H. Nam, and M. Debbah, “A tutorial on UA Vs for wireless networks: Applications, chal- lenges, and open problems,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2334–2360, 2019

2019
[11]

Enhanced LTE support for aerial vehicles,

3GPP, “Enhanced LTE support for aerial vehicles,” Tech. Rep. TR 36.777, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), 2017

2017
[12]

Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,

3GPP, “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,” Tech. Rep. TR 38.901, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) / ETSI, 2024

2024
[13]

Cell-free massive MIMO for UA V communications,

G. Geraci, C. D’Andrea, A. García-Rodríguez, and S. Buzzi, “Cell-free massive MIMO for UA V communications,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), pp. 1–6, 2019

2019
[14]

Joint spatial division and multiplexing—the large-scale array regime,

A. Adhikary, J. Nam, J.-Y. Ahn, and G. Caire, “Joint spatial division and multiplexing—the large-scale array regime,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 6441– 6463, 2013

2013
[15]

S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Esti- mation Theory. Prentice Hall, 1993

1993
[16]

How much training is needed in multiple-antenna wireless links?,

B. Hassibi and B. M. Hochwald, “How much training is needed in multiple-antenna wireless links?,” IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 951–963, 2003

2003
[17]

Access point-user association and auction algorithm-based pilot assignment schemes for cell- free massive MIMO systems,

M. Sarker and A. O. Fapojuwo, “Access point-user association and auction algorithm-based pilot assignment schemes for cell- free massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 4301–4312, 2023

2023
[18]

Boyd and L

S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004

2004
[19]

A simple distributed autonomous power control algorithm and its convergence,

G. J. Foschini and Z. Miljanic, “A simple distributed autonomous power control algorithm and its convergence,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 641–646, 1993

1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Advances in secure 5G network for a nationwide drone corri- dor,

A. Bhuyan, I. Guvenc, H. Dai, M. L. Sichitiu, S. Singh, A. Rah- mati, S. J. Maeng, E. Ozturk, and M. M. U. Chowdhury, “Advances in secure 5G network for a nationwide drone corri- dor,” Tech. Rep. INL/CON-21-65310-Revision-0, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA, Mar. 2022

2022

[2] [2]

3D aerial highway: The key enabler of the retail industry transformation,

N. Cherif, W. Jaafar, H. Yanikomeroglu, and A. Yongacoglu, “3D aerial highway: The key enabler of the retail industry transformation,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 59, Sept. 2021

2021

[3] [3]

Digital-twin empowered site-specific radio resource management in 5G aerial corridor,

P. Tarafder, I. Ahmed, D. B. Rawat, M. Z. Hassan, and K. Hasan, “Digital-twin empowered site-specific radio resource management in 5G aerial corridor,” in IEEE Military Conference on Commu- nications (MILCOM), 2025

2025

[4] [4]

Optimizing cellular networks for UA V corridors via quantization theory,

S. Karimi-Bidhendi, G. Geraci, and H. Jafarkhani, “Optimizing cellular networks for UA V corridors via quantization theory,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 14924–14939, 2024

2024

[5] [5]

Streaming from the air: En- abling drone-sourced video streaming applications on 5G open- RAN architectures,

L. Bertizzolo, T. X. Tran, J. Buczek, B. Balasubramanian, R. Jana, Y. Zhou, and T. Melodia, “Streaming from the air: En- abling drone-sourced video streaming applications on 5G open- RAN architectures,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 3004–3017, 2023

2023

[6] [6]

Energy-eﬀicient deployment and resource allocation for O-RAN-enabled UA V-assisted communication,

H. Li, X. Tang, D. Zhai, R. Zhang, B. Li, H. Cao, N. Kumar, and A. Almogren, “Energy-eﬀicient deployment and resource allocation for O-RAN-enabled UA V-assisted communication,” IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1128–1139, 2024

2024

[7] [7]

Making cell-free massive MIMO competitive with MMSE processing and distributed combining,

E. Björnson and L. Sanguinetti, “Making cell-free massive MIMO competitive with MMSE processing and distributed combining,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77–90, 2020

2020

[8] [8]

A tutorial on environment- aware communications via channel knowledge map for 6G,

Y. Zeng, J. Chen, J. Xu, D. Wu, X. Xu, S. Jin, X. Gao, D. Gesbert, S. Cui, and R. Zhang, “A tutorial on environment- aware communications via channel knowledge map for 6G,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1478– 1519, 2024

2024