Hindawi Publishing CorporationInternational Journal of Distributed Sensor NetworksVolume 2013 Article ID 902574 11 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552013902574

Research ArticleJoint Access Control and Subchannel Allocation Scheme forFemtocell-Based M2M Network Using a Truthful Mechanism

Chengmei Li Jianjun Wu Ziqiang Feng Xi Luan and Haige Xiang

State Key Laboratory of Advanced Optical Communication Systems and Networks Peking University Beijing 100871 China

Correspondence should be addressed to Jianjun Wu justpkueducn

Received 27 August 2013 Accepted 22 October 2013

Academic Editor Yan Zhang

Copyright copy 2013 Chengmei Li et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

A joint access control and subchannel allocation (JACSA) scheme is proposed in this paper for femtocell-based machine-to-machine (M2M) network to provide better communication services As short-range and cost-beneficial eNodeBs femtocells canimprove indoor coverage and data transmission and can further be used for M2M communication There are two challengesfor femtocell network access control and truth-telling Femtocell machine-type communication devices (FMD) select femtocellaccess points (FAPs) according to the reported channel capacities while the true values are private information of eachfemtocell Therefore selfish FAPs have incentive to report larger capacities to win greater opportunity to be selected To solvethe aforementioned two problems a JACSA scheme based on the Arrow-drsquoAspremont-Gerard-Varet (AGV) is proposed both inopen access and hybrid access scenarios and formula derivations are given We prove that compared with the optimal subchannelallocation (OSA) scheme JACSA scheme has the feature of achieving near optimal performances with much lower computationalcomplexity Furthermore we compare the allocation results for open access and hybrid access in the proposed JACSA schemeFinally simulations are performed and the results verify the availability of our proposed scheme

1 Introduction

Machine-to-machine (M2M) or machine-type communica-tion (MTC) is an emerging technology that allows devices tocommunicate with MTC server or each other in absence ofhuman intervention or interaction [1] In theM2Mnetworkswhich have the characteristics of large device number andsmall data transmission machine-type devices communicatewith each other through wired or wireless connectionsAs smart home and smart grid become popular such ashome security sensing lighting control and the sensors ofactuators M2M communications have a widespread andpromising coverage [2 3]

Due to their commercial prospects and properties M2Mnetworks have been widely studied [4ndash7] In [4] the authorsbriefly review the features of M2M services in the thirdgeneration (3G) long-term evolution (LTE) and the advanced(LTE-advanced) networks and a variety of radio resourceallocation schemes are proposed In [5] focusing on theproblem of heavy random access (RA) load caused by

accommodating the huge population of M2M or MTC cus-tomersdevices in LTE networks two methods are proposedto solve the RA congestion Different from [4 5] where theM2M communications exist in LTE networks the work in[6] promotes the new paradigm of cognitive machine-to-machine (CM2M) communication by exploiting cognitiveradio technology in M2M communications and proposesa coordination-based energy-efficient spectrum discoveryscheme that can be used in smart grid neighborhood areanetworks which is shown to significantly save energy con-sumption For the M2M communications of smart meterscognitive radio (CR) functions based on differentmultiobjec-tive genetic algorithms are proposed to find out the tradeoffbetween power efficiency and spectrum efficiency in differentoperating environments [7]

Recently there are a few emerging research interestsfocusing on the femtocell-based M2M networks [8 9]Femtocells are small inexpensive low-power base stations(BSs) for better indoor voice coverage and data receptionThey connect to their own wired backhaul connections

2 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

and thus can efficiently offload data traffic from macrocellnetworks which appeals to operators [10 11] Due to theshort transmission distance femtocells require very lowtransmission power and thus extend battery life of machinesIn addition femtocells can ease the RA congestion problemif M2M traffic is shared among the femtocell base stations[8] In [8] the authors propose the group-based time controlmechanism to improve the network overload and delay per-formance in the femtocell-based MTC networks In [9] thepotential added values are analyzed as well as challenges inaugmenting personal telehealth systems with MTC personalhealth devices with integrated 3GPP interfaces (GPRSHSPALTE etc) and operating in a femtocell network environment

Femtocells have many benefits both for users (eg M2Mdevices) and operators However these benefits are noteasy to accomplish simultaneously due to many challengesOne of the major challenges in the femtocell network isthe access control problem because the choice of accesscontrol mechanism directly influences the interference andperformance of the network

Since femtocells provide better coverage and higher datarates for indoor machines owners of femtocells prefer theclosed access mechanism in order to fully use the femtocellresources while operators are more interested in the openaccess mechanism because open access femtocells can helpoperators offload the data traffic from the macrocell networkand thus assist in providing higher network throughput andoutdoor capacity Nevertheless hybrid access a tradeoff ofthe open access and closed access is the most promisingaccess mechanism which is likely to benefit both users andoperators [12 13]

Besides there are some studies on resource allocationusing game theory [14ndash16] and auction theory [17 18] Boththeories are important mathematical tools that can effectivelysolve the complex interactions and cheating problems amongrational players and guarantee fairness and truth-telling char-acters They are widely used in wireless communication [19]and show great advantages in resource allocation problems[20 21] and access control problems [22ndash24]

In [22] the paper considers the selfishness of femtocellowners and proposes a utility-aware refunding framework tomotivate femtocell owners to adopt hybrid access throughrefunding The framework is formulated and analyzed asa Stackelberg game and the authors prove that maximumutility can be achieved at the unique Nash EquilibriumIn [23] the authors considered the scenario that femtocellowners rent spectrum from the macrocell and proposed aspectrum leasing framework based on game theory Theymodel the process as a three-stage Stackelberg game andobtain the optimal spectrum leasing price spectrum leasingratio and open access ratio from the Nash equilibrium Theauthors in [24] propose a reverse auction in access controlproblem and they use Vickery-Clarke-Grove (VCG) mech-anism [17] to motivate femtocell owners participate in theauction process and maximize social welfare Neverthelessthe VCG mechanism cannot implement the budget balanceof the network which means extra cost needs to be paid bythe players in the game and thus the total welfare is impairedCompared with the VCG mechanism the AGV mechanism

[17 25] is an incentive efficientmechanism that canmaximizethe expected total payment of all the players in the game andachieve budget balance

In this paper we consider a femtocell based on M2Mnetwork with OFDMA techniques and assume all the sub-channels are orthogonal and using the same spectrumFAPs need to report their channel capacity to MTC devices(FMDs) and these devices select FAPs according to thereported information and pay for the femtocell resourcethey use The channel capacity is private information sofemtocells do not know othersrsquo channel information SinceFAP cannot get payment from FMDs unless it is selectedeach FAP has an incentive to report exaggerated channelcapacity to get more chance to be selected which may leadto cheating and vicious competition in the access controlprocess and thus decrease the throughput of the networkUnder these conditions we propose a JACSA scheme tosolve the problems By adding a transfer payment to the totalpayment of each FAP we prove that there is no incentive forFAPs to report exaggerated channel information Each fem-tocell can get its maximum expected total payment when itreports the true information and any cheating behavior leadsto a decrease in its expected total payment Moreover thesubchannel allocation solution based on the truthful mecha-nism contains two steps Firstly FMDs select FAPs accordingto their reported information Then all FAPs allocate theirsubchannels to the linked FMDs aiming at maximizing theirown payment The truth-telling mechanism results in thateach FAP reports its real subchannel capacity which ensuresone feature that near optimal performance can be achievedThe subchannel allocation method with which each FAP(FUE) only chooses FUEs (FAPs) with the largest capacitiesdecides another feature of low computational complexityof this scheme Further analysis proves effectiveness of thetruthfulmechanism and shows the near optimal performanceof the subchannel allocation solution with low computationalcomplexity

This paper is organized as follows In Section 2 the systemmodel of open access and hybrid access femtocell-basedM2M network is described Then the access control andresource allocation problem are formulated In Section 3 wepropose the JACSA scheme and prove the verity of AGVmechanism in both open and hybrid access scenarios Thesimulation results of open access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme hybrid access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme and open access scenario versus hybridscenario in JACSA scheme are shown in Section 4 Finallyconclusions are drawn in Section 5

2 System Model

Access control mechanisms in femtocell networks could beclassed into three categories [12 26] (1) Closed access inthis scenario only registered user equipments (UEs) whichare defined as closed subscriber group (CSG) in the thirdgeneration partnership project (3GPP) are able to connect tofemtocells (2) Open access in this scenario all public accessto femtocells is allowed (3) Hybrid access in this scenario

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 3

FAP

FAP

FAP

MD

MDMD

MDMD

MBS

Cotier interferenceSignalCross-tier interference

Figure 1 System model of the OFDMA femtocell network

there is a mixing of open access and closed access modesIn this paper we consider a two-tier femtocell-based M2Mnetwork with the open access and hybrid access mechanismand compare these two situations

(1) Open access the system consists of onemacrocell basestation (MBS) 119873

119874FAPs denoted by 119865

1 1198652 119865

119873119874

which provide services to all 119872119874FMDs denoted by

1198801 1198802 119880

119872119874

(2) Hybrid access besides the FAPs and FMDs describedin the open access scenario (which we call OFAPand OFMD for short) there are 119873119862 additional FAPsdenoted by 119865

119873119874+1 119865119873119874+2

119865119873119874+119873119862

and119872119862FMDs

in CSGs denoted by 119872119872119874+1

119872119872119874+2

119872119872119874+119872119862

(which we name as CFAP andCFMD) with each FAP119865119873119874+119899

providing service only to 119872119862119899

FMDs denotedby 119880

119872119899minus1+1 119880119872119899minus1+2 119880

119872119899 with 119872

119899= 119872

119874+

sum119899

119894=1119872119862119894

This means that only FMDs belonging tothe CSG of corresponding FAP have authorizationfor this access point The total numbers of FAPs andFMDs are 119873 = 119873119874 + 119873119862 and 119872 = 119872119874 + 119872119862respectively

For hybrid access scenario there exist three cases

(1) OO case OFAPs 119865119899 (119899 = 1 2 119873119874) report

capacities to OFMDs 119880119898 (119898 = 1 2 119872119874) and

each OFMDmay choose one OFAP to access(2) OC case OFAPs 119865

119899(119899 = 1 2 119873

119874) report capaci-

ties to CFMDs 119880119898 (119898 = 119872119874 + 1119872119874 + 2 119872)(3) CC case Each CFAP 119865

119899(119899 = 119873

119874+ 1119873

119874+ 2 119873)

reports capacities to CFMDs 119880119898

(119898 = 119872119899minus1

+

1119872119899minus1

+2 119872119899) in its ownCSG EachCFMDmay

choose either one OFAP or one CFAP to access

The open access scenario can be regarded as a special caseof the hybrid access scenario with 119873

119862= 0 and 119872

119862= 0 For

simplicity we only introduce the hybrid access scenario belowand consider the open access scenario as its special case

The interference analysis model is shown in Figure 1M2M communications have the characteristics of dealingwith a huge number of devices A large amount of MTCdevice will increase congestion in the network As a resultonly part of MTC devices can access the network Here weonly discusses the truth-telling problem of MTC deviceswhich are able to access the network The interference existswhen the MBS and all FAPs share the same 119870 subchannelswith equal bandwidth of 119882 Here we consider the worstcondition that interference exists in all the subchannels Thetransmission power of MBS and FAP (eg 119865119899) over the 119870

subchannels can be denoted by vectors 119875 = 1198751 1198752 119875119870

and119875119899 = 1198751198991 1198751198992 119875119899119870 [27] For additivewhite gaussiannoise (AWGN) with variance of 1205902 the signal to interferenceplus noise ratio (SINR) of 119865

119899to 119880119898in subchannel 119896 is

SINR119899119898119896

=119875119899119896

1003816100381610038161003816ℎ1198991198981198961003816100381610038161003816

2

sum119873

119894=1119894 = 119899119875119894119896

1003816100381610038161003816ℎ1198941198981198961003816100381610038161003816

2+ 119875119896

1003816100381610038161003816ℎ1198981198961003816100381610038161003816

2+ 1205902

(1)

with ℎ119899119898119896

and ℎ119898119896

the channel frequency responses ofthe 119896th subchannel from 119865

119899to 119880119898and from MBS to 119880

119898

respectively where the path loss and Rayleigh fading factorare containedThe channel capacity of119865

119899to119880119898in subchannel

119896 is

119862119899119898119896

= 119882 log (1 + SINR119899119898119896) (2)

During the access control and subchannel allocationprocesses the FAPs first report to FMDs their channelstate information (CSI) which may be false informationAccording to the quality of CSIs FMDs select FAPs bycomparing the capacities they report where we assume thateach FMD can only access one of the FAPs to enjoy theservice Based on the true subchannel information FAPsallocate the capacities of all subchannels to one or moreapplying FMD(s) to maximum their profits and each FMDpays for the sum of the subchannel capacities provided bythe FAP Therefore the sum of the subchannel capacities of119865119899used by 119880

119898can be written as

119862119899119898

= sum

119896isin120581119899119898

119862119899119898119896

(3)

where 120581119899119898

is the set of subchannels of 119865119899allocated to119880

119898The

throughput of the network is given by

119862 =

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119872119874

sum

119898=1

119862119899119898

+

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119872

sum

119898=119872119874+1

119862119899119898

+

119873

sum

119899=119873119874+1

119872119899

sum

119898=119872119899minus1+1

119862119899119898

(4)

The three terms on the right side of (4) represent thethroughput of OO OC and CC cases respectively The mainproblem here is to maximize the throughput of the network

In order to solve the access control and subchannel allo-cation problem we need to construct a mathematical modelto describe it During the accessing process of femtocell

4 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

network each FAP aims at increasing its own revenues byproviding larger capacities while the FMDs prefer bettercommunication quality by selecting FAPs with larger capac-ities However the information shared by FMDs and FAPsis unbalanced and the FMDs have incomplete informationthey do not know either the real channel capacity of theeach FAP or the real capacity of each subchannel Theyhave no other choice but to trust the FAPs of their reportedinformation and can only select the FAPs according to theirreported capacities For the FMDs to select the FAPs withlargest reported average capacities is always a good idea Afterall FAPs with larger average capacities are more probablyto provide subchannels with larger capacities Furthermorethe FMD can guarantee that it has larger opportunity toattain a subchannel when it select to attach the FAP withlargest capacity rather than a smaller one since the FAPalways grants its subchannels to those FMDs with largestcapacities In a simple scheme the FAPs are paid by FMDsonly when they are selected If no FMD selects the FAP itwill get nothing This result may drive the FAPs to reportbetter channel information to FMDs in order to win greateropportunity to be selected causing unfairness in subchannelallocation and reduction of the throughput of the network

119862 le 119862 (5)

with 119862 and 119862 representing the throughput of the networkcalculated according to the reported and real informationrespectively Considering the maximization of the through-put the FAPs should all report true information

When FMDs select FAPs according to their reportedinformation the truth-telling problem needs to be solvedeffectively to maximize the throughput of the network

3 Joint Access Control and SubchannelAllocation Scheme

To formulate the problem above we denote the realand the reported subchannel capacities of 119865

119899to 119880119898

as (1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

) and (1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

)respectively Similarly the averaged real and reported sub-channel capacities of 119865

119899to 119880119898can be expressed as C

119899119898and

C119899119898

respectively The FMD pays 120585 to FAP per unit channelcapacity and the revenue of 119865

119899from 119880

119898can be expressed as

119877119899119898

=

sum

119896isin120581119899119898

120585119862119899119898119896

119865119899is selected by 119880

119898

0 otherwise(6)

The total revenue of 119865119899can be expressed as

119877119899=

119872

sum

119898=1

119877119899119898

for OOOC cases

119872119899

sum

119898=119872119899minus1+1

119877119899119898 for CC case(7)

Here we consider 119865119899and 119880

119898as an example and neglect

whether they are OFAP (OFMD) or CFAP (CFMD) which

does not influence the following discussionThe real capacityof each subchannel for any FAP obeys a certain probabil-ity density function (PDF) defined as 119891(119862119899119898119896) and thereal average subchannel capacity obeys the PDF which isexpressed as 119901(C

119899119898) which is known by all FAPs The

information enjoyed by 119865119899 119865119899 119880119898 and 119880

119898(where 119865

119899

represents any one in the sets of all FAPs except 119865119899 and 119880

119898

in the sets of all FMDs except 119880119898) is

(1) 119865119899

enjoys its real channel capacities to119880119898 (1198621198991198981 1198621198991198982 119862119899119898119870) as private information

belonging to its own just the same situation as119865119899 119865119899

reports its channel capacities to 119880119898

as(1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

) which is not known to119865119899 Besides 119865119899 knows well about the PDF of the realcapacities of all FAPs as 119865

119899

(2) 119865119899 does not know either real or reported channel

capacities of 119865119899 which is also private informationbelonging to 119865

119899its own

(3) 119880119898 only knows the capacities all FAPs have reported

to it and treats them as real capacities according towhich it selects one FAP to access It does not knoweither reported or real capacities of FAPs to 119880119898

(4) For 119880119898 the situation is the same as 119880

119898

Based on the PDF of capacities 119865119899can calculate its

expected revenue from 119880119898 as

R119899119898 (C119899119898) = 120585C119899119898119875 (119899119898) (8)

where

119875 (119899119898) =

(int

C119899119898

0

119901(119909)d119909)119873119874minus1

for OO case

(int

C119899119898

0

119901(119909)d119909)119873119874

for OCCC cases

(9)

is the probability of 119865119899 selected by 119880119898 We can easily know

that when C119899119898

rarr infin 119875(119899119898) rarr 1 As the expectedrevenue is monotone increasing function of the reportedcapacities 119865

119899has an incentive to report larger average

subchannel capacity More important if 119865119899thinks that all

FAPs have the same motivation it will get nothing if it doesnot report infin In this situation all information received byFMDs is false making all FMDs blind on selecting the FAPs

In order to solve the above problem a truthful mecha-nism AGV in JACSA scheme can be employed to preventFAPs reporting false information when each FAP gets itsmaximum expected total revenue when it reports the realcapacitiesWewill introduce the AGVmechanism in the nextchapter

Here we assume that all FAPs would report their realcapacities to FMDs and the next problem to be solved ishow the FAPs allocate their subchannels among linked FMDsto maximize the throughput Global optimum can not be

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 5

reached since each FMD only knows its own choices ofFAPs and it can not learn other FMDsrsquo choices and thoseFMDs who select the same FAPmay compete for subchannelresources For the optimal subchannel allocation (OSA)scheme which maximizing the throughput of the whole net-work all subchannel information (which of course shouldbe the true values) and allocation probabilities should beconcerned and the complexity of the algorithm is 119874(119873

119872119870)

In a rapidly changing wireless communication environmentthis process is too time-consuming and cannot be achievedBesides as all FAPsmay be so selfish that they only care aboutmaximize their own throughput an additional entity must beincluded to allocate the subchannels globally which raises thetotal cost of the network With the JACSA scheme howeverthe complexity is only 119874(119873

119872119870) which is much lower than

the OSA scheme especially when 119873 and 119872 are very largeFrom the following simulation results we can see that in thecurrent JACSA scheme as long as each FAPmaximizs its ownutility themaximum throughput of thewhole network can bewell approached with a percentage of about 90 The wholeprocess of JACSA scheme is described as follows

(i) Based on the truth-tellingmechanism all FAPs reportreal average capacities to FMDs OFAP 119865

119899reports

C119899119898 to any FMD 119880119898 (119899 = 1 2 119873119874 and 119898 =

1 2 119872) and CFAP 1198651198991015840 reports C1198991015840 1198981015840 to CFMD

1198801198981015840 (1198991015840 = 119873

119874+ 1119873

119874+ 2 119873 and 119898

1015840= 1198721198991015840minus1

+

11198721198991015840minus1

+ 2 1198721198991015840

) in its CSG

(ii) According to the reported information FMDs selectone FAP with the largest average capacity to accessOFMD can only access119873

119874OFAPs while CFMD can

access119873119874OFAPs and one additional CFAP

(iii) According to the accessing information FAPs allocatetheir subchannel resources among FMDs who selectthem For each subchannel FAP will allocate it tothe FMD with the most capacity to maximize itsthroughput OFAPs will allocate their subchannelsamong all FMDs while CFAPs only allocate amongCFMDs in their CSGs

(iv) Subchannel allocation finished FMDs will access theFAPs who have allocated resources to them

4 AGV Mechanism

Truth-telling is achieved by adding a transfer payment to theexpected revenue R119899119898 which is different for the OO OCand CC case

(1) For OO case the transfer payment is

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

= Γ119899119898

(C119899119898

) minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

Γ119894119898

(C119894119898

)

(10)

where the externality

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

119864 [R119894119898 (C119899119898)] (11)

represents the sum of other FAPsrsquo expected paymentfrom 119880

119898 when 119865119899 has reported C119899119898(2) For OC case the transfer payment is

T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)

= Γ119899119898

(C119899119898

)

minus1

119873119874

[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898) + Γ119873119874+119902119898(C119873119874+119902119898)]

(12)

where the externality is

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

119864 [R119894119898 (C119899119898)]

+ 119864 [R119873119874+119902119898 (C119899119898)]

Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1

119864 [R119894119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(13)

(3) For CC case the transfer payment is

T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)

= Γ119873119874+119902119898(C119873119874+119902119898) minus

1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

(14)

where the externality is the same as OC case

The expected total payment or the expected utility of 119865119899

from 119880119898 is

U119899119898

(C119899119898

) = R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(15)

The existence of transfer payment can effectively preventthe FAPs from reporting false information The FAPs whoreport larger capacities than their real values can be punishedand the loss of any FAPrsquos revenue caused by exaggeratedlyreported capacities of other FAPs can be compensated If 119865

119899

reports its subchannel capacities with larger values (C119899119898

gt

C119899119898

) it has more chance to be selected by 119880119898 but the

transfer payment is even larger decreasing its expected totalrevenue On the contrary if 119865

119899reports its true values but one

of the other FAPs reports larger capacities than its real valuesand is selected by FMDs instead of 119865

119899 it will have to pay

119865119899some transfer payment On the other hand if 119865

119899reports

smaller average capacities (C119899119898

lt C119899119898

) it has smallerprobability to be selected by 119880

119898 and the transfer payment

from other FAPs does not compensate the reduction makingits expected utility decreasing

6 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

Proposition 1 Each FAP maximizes its expected utility fromFMDs only when it reports its real information

C119899119898

= C119899119898

(16)

Proof Without loss of generality we consider the expectedutility of 119865

119899paid by 119880

119898 which can be expressed as follows

(1) For OO case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)]

(17)

inserting (10) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)] = 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

+ 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

(18)

(2) For OC case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898 (C119899119898) +T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)]

(19)

inserting (12) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

) +R119873119874+119902119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

) + Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

]

(20)

(3) For CC case

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864 [R119873119874+ 119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)

+T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(21)

inserting (14) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898 (C119873119874+119902119898) +R119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)]

]

(22)

The terms on the right side of (18) (20) and (22)represent the expected revenue of all FAPs paid by 119880119898

when 119865119899reports C

119899119898to 119880119898

and the average externalityof other FAPs except 119865

119899 which is independent on C

119899119898to

119880119898 Therefore the first term describing the expected total

revenue of all FAPs determines the expected utility of119865119899from

119880119898 Note that according to (8) the expected total revenue

is decided by the reported capacities which may not betrue Besides we easily know that if there exist FAPs whocheat about their capacities the selections of FMDs may bemisled leading to decreasing of the expected total revenueTherefore only when all FMDs select FAPs according to thereal capacities the whole network can get the maximumtotal revenue The maximum of the whole network alsomeans that the utility of 119865119899 from 119880

119898reaches its maximum

value The coincidence between the global maximum andthe individual optimum ensures that 119865119899 has no incentiveto report false information and the equilibrium can beachieved

Proposition 2 Thenetwork pays no extra costs for the truthfulmechanism

Proof From the transfer function equations (10) (12) and (5)we can obtain the sumof the transfer payment of all FAPswith119880119898(forall119898) as follows(1) for open FMDs (OO case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898)

=119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (119862119894119898)

= 0

(23)

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 7

(2) For closed FMDs (OC and CC case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

) +T119873119874+119902119898

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)

+T119873119874+119902119898

= 0

(24)

The total transfer payment of all FAPs with 119880119898equals

zero Therefore the total transfer payment of the wholenetwork also equals zero

5 Simulation Results

Based on the analysis in previous sections simulation resultsare given to evaluate the performance of the proposedJACSA scheme Generally the reported subchannel capacityof each FAP is assumed to obey the exponential distributiondescribed by PDF 119891(119909) = 119890

minus119909 and thus the averagesubchannel capacity of each FAP follows Erlang distributionwith PDF 119901(119909) = 119870

119870119909119870minus1

119890minus119870119909

(119870 minus 1) As in our schemethe FMDs deal with the information got from the FAPs inan easy way they only care about the average capacitiesreported by FAPs instead of detailed subchannel capacitiesFor simplicity we assume that each FAP calculates its ownaverage subchannel capacity and reports a value to each FMDfrom which FMD selects FAP We consider two scenarioshere the open access and the hybrid access Now we willgive the simulation results of verification of the truth-tellingmechanism the open access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme the hybrid access scenario in JACSAscheme versus OSA scheme and the open access scenarioversus hybrid access scenario in JACSA scheme respectively

Firstly wewill focus on verification of truth-tellingmech-anism For the open scenario we investigate the performanceof the truth-telling mechanism and consider a femtocellnetwork with the settings of119872119874 = 5119873119874 = 2 and119870 = 8 Wealso assume that the price per unit of channel capacity 120585 = 1

and a random sample of the real average channel capacity isobtained as

Copen = (

C11

C21

C12

C22

C13

C23

C14

C24

C15

C25

) = (

100 085

082 084

126 058

107 071

097 104

) (25)

For the hybrid access scenario besides the channel capacitiesabove the open and closed FAPs also report to the closed

0 1 2 3 4minus03

minus02

minus01

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tota

l pay

off

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 2 Expected total payment when different average subchan-nel capacities are reported to 119880

1

FMDs We consider that119873119862= 1119872

119862= 1198721198621

= 2 and119870 = 8The channel capacity reported to closed FMDs is then

Cclosed = (C16

C26

C36

C17

C27

C37

) = (068 095 111

122 149 054) (26)

Without loss of generality we consider 1198804 as an examplefor the open access scenario and 1198806 for the hybrid accessscenario

In Figure 2 we demonstrate the variation of 119865119899rsquos expected

total payment paid by the open FMD1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed

FMD1198806(119899 = 1 2 3) when the reported information changes

in the proposed mechanism Given that the other nodes arehonest we find that 119865

119899gets its maximum expected total

payment only when it reports the true information whichis proved in Proposition 1 There is no incentive for FAPs toreport exaggerated information

In Figure 2 in the hybrid access scenario the openFAP 119865

1 1198652and closed FAP 119865

3get their largest expected

total payments whose values are 03008 02471 and 01977respectively at subchannel capacities at C

16= 055 C

26=

096 and C36

= 113 for FMD 1198806 respectively These

capacities are very close to their true capacities whosevalues are 068 095 and 111 respectively The expectedtotal payments are 02993 02429 and 01956 respectivelywhich differ from their maximum values of less than 05These derivations from their true values are due to thefluctuations of the calculated expected total payments forlimited simulation times Among all FAPs 119865

3 which has the

largest true capacity will be selected by1198806The expected total

payment is less than 120585C16

= 113 because it needs to paytransfer payment to other FAPs

Figure 3 shows the expected transfer payment of 119865119899

with open FMD 1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed FMD 119880

6

8 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0 1 2 3 4minus12

minus1

minus08

minus06

minus04

minus02

0

02

04

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tran

sfer p

ayoff

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 3 Expected transfer payment when different average sub-channel capacities are reported to 119880

1

(119899 = 1 2 3) We can see that the transfer payment ofeach FAP monotonically decreases because the larger thereported average subchannel capacity is the more transferpayment should be paid to others Therefore FAPs willnot report exaggerate information if they take the transferpayment into consideration We also find that the transferpayment curve of 119865

119899with the largest real average subchannel

capacity lies above other curves This is because the expectedpayment is proportional to the real channel capacity (25)and (26) So the FAP with larger real channel capacityneeds larger transfer payment to guarantee truth-tellingFurthermore the transfer payment can be seen as a kindof tax

When all FAPs report true information the transferpayments of all FAPs 119865119899 with 1198806 are T16 = 02765 T26 =00148 and T36 = minus02906 respectively We can see thatT16

+ T26

+ T36

= 65 times 10minus4

asymp 0 an exampleof Proposition 2 Even after we consider the fluctuations inthe limited simulation times the transfer payments at thepointswithmaximumexpected transfer payments are 0296600081 and minus03167 and their sum is minus00120 which is of theorder of 1 and is within a reasonable error range

Second we consider the performance of the JACSAscheme and OSA scheme for an open access scenario Weprimarily focus on the allocation result and throughput of thenetwork at different 119870 and 119872119874 Primarily we set 119872

119874= 5

and 119873119874 = 3 and change the value of 119870 to investigate theinfluence of the number of subchannels From Figure 4 wecan see that when the number of subchannel (119870) increasesthe throughput of the network will increase at the sametime Because each FAP has more subchannels for allocationwhen 119870 increases and more FMDs get the chance to obtainmore channel resource than the scenario with lower 119870which increase the throughput of the network Besides as

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 2560

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of subchannels

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 4 Throughput comparison at different 119870

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of open FMDs

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 5 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

119870 increases the relative difference between the joint andoptimal subchannel allocation is almost the same and theJACSA scheme can give a throughput about 90 of the OSAscheme with a much lower complexity

Then we set 119873119874 = 3 and 119870 = 8 and change the valueof 119872119874 to investigate the influence of FMDs Figure 5 showsthe throughput of the JACSA scheme andOSA scheme underthe condition of different number of FMDs As the numberof open FMDs increases the subchannel can be used moresufficiently and thus the throughput of the system is larger

Third comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSAscheme for the hybrid access scenario We set 119873

119874= 2119872

119874=

5 119873119862

= 1 and 119872119862

= 1198721198621

= 2 and change the value of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256

Number of subchannels

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 6 Throughput comparison at different119870

119870 to investigate the influence of the number of subchannelsFigure 6 shows the throughput of all open and closed FAPsin JACSA and OSA scheme Similar with the open accessscenario the total throughput does not change much withincreasing of119870 However the throughput of all open FAPs issmaller for the OSA scheme than that for the JACSA schemewhile the throughput of all closed FAPs is larger This meansthat the current JACSA scheme does not sufficiently use theclosed FAPs

Similarly we consider the influence of the number ofclosed FMDs in the hybrid access scenario Figure 7 showsthe throughput of all open and closed FAPs in the JACSAand OSA schemes Increasing of the number of closed FMDsmeans that both subchannels of the open and closed FAPs areused sufficiently and the throughput of both kinds of FAPsincreases

Finally in the hybrid access scenario due to the existenceof the closed FAP which is exclusive to closed FMDsthese closed FMDs have more access choices and thus theyprobably have larger per user capacity Compared with thesituationwhere this FAP is open however there is less chancefor access thus total throughput decreases First we lookfrom the perspective of the FAPs and calculate the totalthroughput of the system Figure 8 shows the throughput ofopen and closed FAPs with119873119874 = 2 and119873119862 = 1 respectivelyand a total number of FMDs 119872119874 + 119872119862 = 8 and transfersone FMD from open status to closed In order to comparewith the open access scenario we also plot the 119873119874 = 3 and119872119874 = 8 caseThehorizontal axis represents the combinationsof FAPs and FMDs We can see that compared with openand hybrid access scenarios the throughput is less in thelatter when the maximum value is equal to the throughputin the former When there is no closed FMD in the hybridas there is one empty FAP which has no access the totalthroughput is minimum With the increasing of the closedFMDs the total throughput and that for all closed FAPs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of closed FMDs

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 7 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Th

roug

hput

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 8 Throughput comparison with different combinations ofFAPs and FMDs The figure shows the number of open FAPs andopen FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873

119874+

119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

increases and the throughput for all open FAPs decreasesslightly as more FMDs may access closed FAPs Thereforenomatter howmany closed FMDs there are total throughputis smaller in the hybrid access scenario compared with openaccess

From the perspective of FMDs the average capacity isenjoyed by each FMD as shown in Figure 9When there is noclosed FMD as there are less open FAPs the average capacityfor open FMDs is smaller If one FMD decides to join theCSG the average capacity to be obtained is larger than that ofan open FMD and is also larger than that received by other

10 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capa

city

per

FM

D

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 9 Average capacity per FMD enjoys with different combina-tions of FAPs and FMDsThe figure shows the number of open FAPsand open FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873119874+ 119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

open FMDs As the closed FMDs probably access the closedFAP the open FMDs have less competition and enjoy largeraverage capacity As more FMDs join the CSG as there aremore competitions for the closed FAP the average capacitydecreases for each closed FMD but is still larger than thatreceived by open FMDs and received with an open FMD Ifall FMDs become closed the situation is the same as in theopen access scenario and the capacity of each closed FMDis minimum This indicates that when closed FAPs existby becoming a closed FMD the average capacity each FMDenjoys grows

6 Conclusion

In this paper we focus on the OFDMA femtocell-basedM2Mnetwork with several femtocells andMTCdevices distributedrandomly in open access scenario and hybrid access scenarioIn order to solve the truth-telling and subchannel allocationproblems under these two scenarios we propose a joint accesscontrol and subchannel allocation scheme based on the AGVmechanismWe use the transfer payment to balance the totalpayment and prove that there is only one equilibrium to bereached at the point when all FAPs reported their true capac-ities By comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSA schemein the two scenarios we show that the JACSA scheme canobtain near optimal results with lower complexity Finally wecompare the open access scenariowith hybrid access scenarioin the JACSA scheme and the simulation results show thatfrom the view of FAPs an open access scenario is better toget more payments but from the view of FMDs when thereare closed FAPs it is better to join the CSG for better services

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no NFSC 61071083 no NFSC61371073) and the National High Technology Researchand Development Program of China (863 program no2012AA01A506)

References

[1] 3GPP ldquoService requirements for Machine-Type Communica-tions (MTC)rdquo Tech Rep TS 22368 V1120 2011

[2] M Starsinic ldquoSystem architecture challenges in the homeM2Mnetworkrdquo in Proceedings of the Long Island Systems Applicationsand Technology Conference (LISAT rsquo10) May 2010

[3] Y Zhang R Yu S Xie W Yao Y Xiao and M GuizanildquoHome M2M networks architectures standards and QoSimprovementrdquo IEEE Communications Magazine vol 49 no 4pp 44ndash52 2011

[4] K Zheng F Hu and W Wang ldquoRadio resource allocation inLTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communicationsrdquoIEEE Communications Magazine vol 50 no 7 pp 184ndash1922012

[5] K-D Lee S Kim and B Yi ldquoThroughput comparison ofrandom access methods for M2M service over LTE networksrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOMWorkshops (GCWkshpsrsquo11) pp 373ndash377 December 2011

[6] Y Zhang R Yu M Nekovee Y Liu S Xie and S GjessingldquoCognitive machine-to-machine communications visions andpotentials for the smart gridrdquo IEEE Network Magazine vol 26no 3 pp 6ndash13 2012

[7] Q D Vo J-P Choi H M Chang and W C Lee ldquoGreenperspective cognitive radio-based M2M communications forsmart metersrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Information and Communication Technology Convergence(ICTC rsquo10) pp 382ndash383 November 2010

[8] A-H Tsai and J-H Huang ldquoOverload control for machinetype communications with femtocellsrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall rsquo12) pp 1ndash5September 2012

[9] E Mutafungwa ldquoApplying MTC and femtocell technologies tothe continua health reference architecturerdquo in Proceedings of theGrid and Pervasive Computing Workshops January 2012

[10] J G Andrews H Claussen M Dohler S Rangan and M CReed ldquoFemtocells past present and futurerdquo IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications vol 30 no 3 pp 497ndash5082012

[11] H Claussen L T W Ho and L G Samuel ldquoAn overview of thefemtocell conceptrdquo Bell Labs Technical Journal vol 13 no 1 pp221ndash246 2008

[12] G de la Roche A Valcarce D Lopez-Perez and J ZhangldquoAccess control mechanisms for femtocellsrdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 48 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2010

[13] J Xiang Y Zhang T Skeie and L Xie ldquoDownlink spectrumsharing for cognitive radio femtocell networksrdquo IEEE SystemsJournal vol 4 no 4 pp 524ndash534 2010

[14] D Fudenberg and J Tirole Game Theory MIT Press Cam-bridge Mass USA 1991

[15] J Chen R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoJoint relayand jammer selection for secure two-way relay networksrdquo IEEE

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

2 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

and thus can efficiently offload data traffic from macrocellnetworks which appeals to operators [10 11] Due to theshort transmission distance femtocells require very lowtransmission power and thus extend battery life of machinesIn addition femtocells can ease the RA congestion problemif M2M traffic is shared among the femtocell base stations[8] In [8] the authors propose the group-based time controlmechanism to improve the network overload and delay per-formance in the femtocell-based MTC networks In [9] thepotential added values are analyzed as well as challenges inaugmenting personal telehealth systems with MTC personalhealth devices with integrated 3GPP interfaces (GPRSHSPALTE etc) and operating in a femtocell network environment

Femtocells have many benefits both for users (eg M2Mdevices) and operators However these benefits are noteasy to accomplish simultaneously due to many challengesOne of the major challenges in the femtocell network isthe access control problem because the choice of accesscontrol mechanism directly influences the interference andperformance of the network

Since femtocells provide better coverage and higher datarates for indoor machines owners of femtocells prefer theclosed access mechanism in order to fully use the femtocellresources while operators are more interested in the openaccess mechanism because open access femtocells can helpoperators offload the data traffic from the macrocell networkand thus assist in providing higher network throughput andoutdoor capacity Nevertheless hybrid access a tradeoff ofthe open access and closed access is the most promisingaccess mechanism which is likely to benefit both users andoperators [12 13]

Besides there are some studies on resource allocationusing game theory [14ndash16] and auction theory [17 18] Boththeories are important mathematical tools that can effectivelysolve the complex interactions and cheating problems amongrational players and guarantee fairness and truth-telling char-acters They are widely used in wireless communication [19]and show great advantages in resource allocation problems[20 21] and access control problems [22ndash24]

In [22] the paper considers the selfishness of femtocellowners and proposes a utility-aware refunding framework tomotivate femtocell owners to adopt hybrid access throughrefunding The framework is formulated and analyzed asa Stackelberg game and the authors prove that maximumutility can be achieved at the unique Nash EquilibriumIn [23] the authors considered the scenario that femtocellowners rent spectrum from the macrocell and proposed aspectrum leasing framework based on game theory Theymodel the process as a three-stage Stackelberg game andobtain the optimal spectrum leasing price spectrum leasingratio and open access ratio from the Nash equilibrium Theauthors in [24] propose a reverse auction in access controlproblem and they use Vickery-Clarke-Grove (VCG) mech-anism [17] to motivate femtocell owners participate in theauction process and maximize social welfare Neverthelessthe VCG mechanism cannot implement the budget balanceof the network which means extra cost needs to be paid bythe players in the game and thus the total welfare is impairedCompared with the VCG mechanism the AGV mechanism

[17 25] is an incentive efficientmechanism that canmaximizethe expected total payment of all the players in the game andachieve budget balance

In this paper we consider a femtocell based on M2Mnetwork with OFDMA techniques and assume all the sub-channels are orthogonal and using the same spectrumFAPs need to report their channel capacity to MTC devices(FMDs) and these devices select FAPs according to thereported information and pay for the femtocell resourcethey use The channel capacity is private information sofemtocells do not know othersrsquo channel information SinceFAP cannot get payment from FMDs unless it is selectedeach FAP has an incentive to report exaggerated channelcapacity to get more chance to be selected which may leadto cheating and vicious competition in the access controlprocess and thus decrease the throughput of the networkUnder these conditions we propose a JACSA scheme tosolve the problems By adding a transfer payment to the totalpayment of each FAP we prove that there is no incentive forFAPs to report exaggerated channel information Each fem-tocell can get its maximum expected total payment when itreports the true information and any cheating behavior leadsto a decrease in its expected total payment Moreover thesubchannel allocation solution based on the truthful mecha-nism contains two steps Firstly FMDs select FAPs accordingto their reported information Then all FAPs allocate theirsubchannels to the linked FMDs aiming at maximizing theirown payment The truth-telling mechanism results in thateach FAP reports its real subchannel capacity which ensuresone feature that near optimal performance can be achievedThe subchannel allocation method with which each FAP(FUE) only chooses FUEs (FAPs) with the largest capacitiesdecides another feature of low computational complexityof this scheme Further analysis proves effectiveness of thetruthfulmechanism and shows the near optimal performanceof the subchannel allocation solution with low computationalcomplexity

This paper is organized as follows In Section 2 the systemmodel of open access and hybrid access femtocell-basedM2M network is described Then the access control andresource allocation problem are formulated In Section 3 wepropose the JACSA scheme and prove the verity of AGVmechanism in both open and hybrid access scenarios Thesimulation results of open access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme hybrid access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme and open access scenario versus hybridscenario in JACSA scheme are shown in Section 4 Finallyconclusions are drawn in Section 5

2 System Model

Access control mechanisms in femtocell networks could beclassed into three categories [12 26] (1) Closed access inthis scenario only registered user equipments (UEs) whichare defined as closed subscriber group (CSG) in the thirdgeneration partnership project (3GPP) are able to connect tofemtocells (2) Open access in this scenario all public accessto femtocells is allowed (3) Hybrid access in this scenario

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 3

FAP

FAP

FAP

MD

MDMD

MDMD

MBS

Cotier interferenceSignalCross-tier interference

Figure 1 System model of the OFDMA femtocell network

there is a mixing of open access and closed access modesIn this paper we consider a two-tier femtocell-based M2Mnetwork with the open access and hybrid access mechanismand compare these two situations

(1) Open access the system consists of onemacrocell basestation (MBS) 119873

119874FAPs denoted by 119865

1 1198652 119865

119873119874

which provide services to all 119872119874FMDs denoted by

1198801 1198802 119880

119872119874

(2) Hybrid access besides the FAPs and FMDs describedin the open access scenario (which we call OFAPand OFMD for short) there are 119873119862 additional FAPsdenoted by 119865

119873119874+1 119865119873119874+2

119865119873119874+119873119862

and119872119862FMDs

in CSGs denoted by 119872119872119874+1

119872119872119874+2

119872119872119874+119872119862

(which we name as CFAP andCFMD) with each FAP119865119873119874+119899

providing service only to 119872119862119899

FMDs denotedby 119880

119872119899minus1+1 119880119872119899minus1+2 119880

119872119899 with 119872

119899= 119872

119874+

sum119899

119894=1119872119862119894

This means that only FMDs belonging tothe CSG of corresponding FAP have authorizationfor this access point The total numbers of FAPs andFMDs are 119873 = 119873119874 + 119873119862 and 119872 = 119872119874 + 119872119862respectively

For hybrid access scenario there exist three cases

(1) OO case OFAPs 119865119899 (119899 = 1 2 119873119874) report

capacities to OFMDs 119880119898 (119898 = 1 2 119872119874) and

each OFMDmay choose one OFAP to access(2) OC case OFAPs 119865

119899(119899 = 1 2 119873

119874) report capaci-

ties to CFMDs 119880119898 (119898 = 119872119874 + 1119872119874 + 2 119872)(3) CC case Each CFAP 119865

119899(119899 = 119873

119874+ 1119873

119874+ 2 119873)

reports capacities to CFMDs 119880119898

(119898 = 119872119899minus1

+

1119872119899minus1

+2 119872119899) in its ownCSG EachCFMDmay

choose either one OFAP or one CFAP to access

The open access scenario can be regarded as a special caseof the hybrid access scenario with 119873

119862= 0 and 119872

119862= 0 For

simplicity we only introduce the hybrid access scenario belowand consider the open access scenario as its special case

The interference analysis model is shown in Figure 1M2M communications have the characteristics of dealingwith a huge number of devices A large amount of MTCdevice will increase congestion in the network As a resultonly part of MTC devices can access the network Here weonly discusses the truth-telling problem of MTC deviceswhich are able to access the network The interference existswhen the MBS and all FAPs share the same 119870 subchannelswith equal bandwidth of 119882 Here we consider the worstcondition that interference exists in all the subchannels Thetransmission power of MBS and FAP (eg 119865119899) over the 119870

subchannels can be denoted by vectors 119875 = 1198751 1198752 119875119870

and119875119899 = 1198751198991 1198751198992 119875119899119870 [27] For additivewhite gaussiannoise (AWGN) with variance of 1205902 the signal to interferenceplus noise ratio (SINR) of 119865

119899to 119880119898in subchannel 119896 is

SINR119899119898119896

=119875119899119896

1003816100381610038161003816ℎ1198991198981198961003816100381610038161003816

2

sum119873

119894=1119894 = 119899119875119894119896

1003816100381610038161003816ℎ1198941198981198961003816100381610038161003816

2+ 119875119896

1003816100381610038161003816ℎ1198981198961003816100381610038161003816

2+ 1205902

(1)

with ℎ119899119898119896

and ℎ119898119896

the channel frequency responses ofthe 119896th subchannel from 119865

119899to 119880119898and from MBS to 119880

119898

respectively where the path loss and Rayleigh fading factorare containedThe channel capacity of119865

119899to119880119898in subchannel

119896 is

119862119899119898119896

= 119882 log (1 + SINR119899119898119896) (2)

During the access control and subchannel allocationprocesses the FAPs first report to FMDs their channelstate information (CSI) which may be false informationAccording to the quality of CSIs FMDs select FAPs bycomparing the capacities they report where we assume thateach FMD can only access one of the FAPs to enjoy theservice Based on the true subchannel information FAPsallocate the capacities of all subchannels to one or moreapplying FMD(s) to maximum their profits and each FMDpays for the sum of the subchannel capacities provided bythe FAP Therefore the sum of the subchannel capacities of119865119899used by 119880

119898can be written as

119862119899119898

= sum

119896isin120581119899119898

119862119899119898119896

(3)

where 120581119899119898

is the set of subchannels of 119865119899allocated to119880

119898The

throughput of the network is given by

119862 =

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119872119874

sum

119898=1

119862119899119898

+

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119872

sum

119898=119872119874+1

119862119899119898

+

119873

sum

119899=119873119874+1

119872119899

sum

119898=119872119899minus1+1

119862119899119898

(4)

The three terms on the right side of (4) represent thethroughput of OO OC and CC cases respectively The mainproblem here is to maximize the throughput of the network

In order to solve the access control and subchannel allo-cation problem we need to construct a mathematical modelto describe it During the accessing process of femtocell

4 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

network each FAP aims at increasing its own revenues byproviding larger capacities while the FMDs prefer bettercommunication quality by selecting FAPs with larger capac-ities However the information shared by FMDs and FAPsis unbalanced and the FMDs have incomplete informationthey do not know either the real channel capacity of theeach FAP or the real capacity of each subchannel Theyhave no other choice but to trust the FAPs of their reportedinformation and can only select the FAPs according to theirreported capacities For the FMDs to select the FAPs withlargest reported average capacities is always a good idea Afterall FAPs with larger average capacities are more probablyto provide subchannels with larger capacities Furthermorethe FMD can guarantee that it has larger opportunity toattain a subchannel when it select to attach the FAP withlargest capacity rather than a smaller one since the FAPalways grants its subchannels to those FMDs with largestcapacities In a simple scheme the FAPs are paid by FMDsonly when they are selected If no FMD selects the FAP itwill get nothing This result may drive the FAPs to reportbetter channel information to FMDs in order to win greateropportunity to be selected causing unfairness in subchannelallocation and reduction of the throughput of the network

119862 le 119862 (5)

with 119862 and 119862 representing the throughput of the networkcalculated according to the reported and real informationrespectively Considering the maximization of the through-put the FAPs should all report true information

When FMDs select FAPs according to their reportedinformation the truth-telling problem needs to be solvedeffectively to maximize the throughput of the network

3 Joint Access Control and SubchannelAllocation Scheme

To formulate the problem above we denote the realand the reported subchannel capacities of 119865

119899to 119880119898

as (1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

) and (1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

)respectively Similarly the averaged real and reported sub-channel capacities of 119865

119899to 119880119898can be expressed as C

119899119898and

C119899119898

respectively The FMD pays 120585 to FAP per unit channelcapacity and the revenue of 119865

119899from 119880

119898can be expressed as

119877119899119898

=

sum

119896isin120581119899119898

120585119862119899119898119896

119865119899is selected by 119880

119898

0 otherwise(6)

The total revenue of 119865119899can be expressed as

119877119899=

119872

sum

119898=1

119877119899119898

for OOOC cases

119872119899

sum

119898=119872119899minus1+1

119877119899119898 for CC case(7)

Here we consider 119865119899and 119880

119898as an example and neglect

whether they are OFAP (OFMD) or CFAP (CFMD) which

does not influence the following discussionThe real capacityof each subchannel for any FAP obeys a certain probabil-ity density function (PDF) defined as 119891(119862119899119898119896) and thereal average subchannel capacity obeys the PDF which isexpressed as 119901(C

119899119898) which is known by all FAPs The

information enjoyed by 119865119899 119865119899 119880119898 and 119880

119898(where 119865

119899

represents any one in the sets of all FAPs except 119865119899 and 119880

119898

in the sets of all FMDs except 119880119898) is

(1) 119865119899

enjoys its real channel capacities to119880119898 (1198621198991198981 1198621198991198982 119862119899119898119870) as private information

belonging to its own just the same situation as119865119899 119865119899

reports its channel capacities to 119880119898

as(1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

) which is not known to119865119899 Besides 119865119899 knows well about the PDF of the realcapacities of all FAPs as 119865

119899

(2) 119865119899 does not know either real or reported channel

capacities of 119865119899 which is also private informationbelonging to 119865

119899its own

(3) 119880119898 only knows the capacities all FAPs have reported

to it and treats them as real capacities according towhich it selects one FAP to access It does not knoweither reported or real capacities of FAPs to 119880119898

(4) For 119880119898 the situation is the same as 119880

119898

Based on the PDF of capacities 119865119899can calculate its

expected revenue from 119880119898 as

R119899119898 (C119899119898) = 120585C119899119898119875 (119899119898) (8)

where

119875 (119899119898) =

(int

C119899119898

0

119901(119909)d119909)119873119874minus1

for OO case

(int

C119899119898

0

119901(119909)d119909)119873119874

for OCCC cases

(9)

is the probability of 119865119899 selected by 119880119898 We can easily know

that when C119899119898

rarr infin 119875(119899119898) rarr 1 As the expectedrevenue is monotone increasing function of the reportedcapacities 119865

119899has an incentive to report larger average

subchannel capacity More important if 119865119899thinks that all

FAPs have the same motivation it will get nothing if it doesnot report infin In this situation all information received byFMDs is false making all FMDs blind on selecting the FAPs

In order to solve the above problem a truthful mecha-nism AGV in JACSA scheme can be employed to preventFAPs reporting false information when each FAP gets itsmaximum expected total revenue when it reports the realcapacitiesWewill introduce the AGVmechanism in the nextchapter

Here we assume that all FAPs would report their realcapacities to FMDs and the next problem to be solved ishow the FAPs allocate their subchannels among linked FMDsto maximize the throughput Global optimum can not be

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 5

reached since each FMD only knows its own choices ofFAPs and it can not learn other FMDsrsquo choices and thoseFMDs who select the same FAPmay compete for subchannelresources For the optimal subchannel allocation (OSA)scheme which maximizing the throughput of the whole net-work all subchannel information (which of course shouldbe the true values) and allocation probabilities should beconcerned and the complexity of the algorithm is 119874(119873

119872119870)

In a rapidly changing wireless communication environmentthis process is too time-consuming and cannot be achievedBesides as all FAPsmay be so selfish that they only care aboutmaximize their own throughput an additional entity must beincluded to allocate the subchannels globally which raises thetotal cost of the network With the JACSA scheme howeverthe complexity is only 119874(119873

119872119870) which is much lower than

the OSA scheme especially when 119873 and 119872 are very largeFrom the following simulation results we can see that in thecurrent JACSA scheme as long as each FAPmaximizs its ownutility themaximum throughput of thewhole network can bewell approached with a percentage of about 90 The wholeprocess of JACSA scheme is described as follows

(i) Based on the truth-tellingmechanism all FAPs reportreal average capacities to FMDs OFAP 119865

119899reports

C119899119898 to any FMD 119880119898 (119899 = 1 2 119873119874 and 119898 =

1 2 119872) and CFAP 1198651198991015840 reports C1198991015840 1198981015840 to CFMD

1198801198981015840 (1198991015840 = 119873

119874+ 1119873

119874+ 2 119873 and 119898

1015840= 1198721198991015840minus1

+

11198721198991015840minus1

+ 2 1198721198991015840

) in its CSG

(ii) According to the reported information FMDs selectone FAP with the largest average capacity to accessOFMD can only access119873

119874OFAPs while CFMD can

access119873119874OFAPs and one additional CFAP

(iii) According to the accessing information FAPs allocatetheir subchannel resources among FMDs who selectthem For each subchannel FAP will allocate it tothe FMD with the most capacity to maximize itsthroughput OFAPs will allocate their subchannelsamong all FMDs while CFAPs only allocate amongCFMDs in their CSGs

(iv) Subchannel allocation finished FMDs will access theFAPs who have allocated resources to them

4 AGV Mechanism

Truth-telling is achieved by adding a transfer payment to theexpected revenue R119899119898 which is different for the OO OCand CC case

(1) For OO case the transfer payment is

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

= Γ119899119898

(C119899119898

) minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

Γ119894119898

(C119894119898

)

(10)

where the externality

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

119864 [R119894119898 (C119899119898)] (11)

represents the sum of other FAPsrsquo expected paymentfrom 119880

119898 when 119865119899 has reported C119899119898(2) For OC case the transfer payment is

T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)

= Γ119899119898

(C119899119898

)

minus1

119873119874

[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898) + Γ119873119874+119902119898(C119873119874+119902119898)]

(12)

where the externality is

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

119864 [R119894119898 (C119899119898)]

+ 119864 [R119873119874+119902119898 (C119899119898)]

Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1

119864 [R119894119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(13)

(3) For CC case the transfer payment is

T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)

= Γ119873119874+119902119898(C119873119874+119902119898) minus

1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

(14)

where the externality is the same as OC case

The expected total payment or the expected utility of 119865119899

from 119880119898 is

U119899119898

(C119899119898

) = R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(15)

The existence of transfer payment can effectively preventthe FAPs from reporting false information The FAPs whoreport larger capacities than their real values can be punishedand the loss of any FAPrsquos revenue caused by exaggeratedlyreported capacities of other FAPs can be compensated If 119865

119899

reports its subchannel capacities with larger values (C119899119898

gt

C119899119898

) it has more chance to be selected by 119880119898 but the

transfer payment is even larger decreasing its expected totalrevenue On the contrary if 119865

119899reports its true values but one

of the other FAPs reports larger capacities than its real valuesand is selected by FMDs instead of 119865

119899 it will have to pay

119865119899some transfer payment On the other hand if 119865

119899reports

smaller average capacities (C119899119898

lt C119899119898

) it has smallerprobability to be selected by 119880

119898 and the transfer payment

from other FAPs does not compensate the reduction makingits expected utility decreasing

6 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

Proposition 1 Each FAP maximizes its expected utility fromFMDs only when it reports its real information

C119899119898

= C119899119898

(16)

Proof Without loss of generality we consider the expectedutility of 119865

119899paid by 119880

119898 which can be expressed as follows

(1) For OO case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)]

(17)

inserting (10) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)] = 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

+ 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

(18)

(2) For OC case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898 (C119899119898) +T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)]

(19)

inserting (12) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

) +R119873119874+119902119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

) + Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

]

(20)

(3) For CC case

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864 [R119873119874+ 119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)

+T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(21)

inserting (14) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898 (C119873119874+119902119898) +R119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)]

]

(22)

The terms on the right side of (18) (20) and (22)represent the expected revenue of all FAPs paid by 119880119898

when 119865119899reports C

119899119898to 119880119898

and the average externalityof other FAPs except 119865

119899 which is independent on C

119899119898to

119880119898 Therefore the first term describing the expected total

revenue of all FAPs determines the expected utility of119865119899from

119880119898 Note that according to (8) the expected total revenue

is decided by the reported capacities which may not betrue Besides we easily know that if there exist FAPs whocheat about their capacities the selections of FMDs may bemisled leading to decreasing of the expected total revenueTherefore only when all FMDs select FAPs according to thereal capacities the whole network can get the maximumtotal revenue The maximum of the whole network alsomeans that the utility of 119865119899 from 119880

119898reaches its maximum

value The coincidence between the global maximum andthe individual optimum ensures that 119865119899 has no incentiveto report false information and the equilibrium can beachieved

Proposition 2 Thenetwork pays no extra costs for the truthfulmechanism

Proof From the transfer function equations (10) (12) and (5)we can obtain the sumof the transfer payment of all FAPswith119880119898(forall119898) as follows(1) for open FMDs (OO case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898)

=119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (119862119894119898)

= 0

(23)

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 7

(2) For closed FMDs (OC and CC case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

) +T119873119874+119902119898

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)

+T119873119874+119902119898

= 0

(24)

The total transfer payment of all FAPs with 119880119898equals

zero Therefore the total transfer payment of the wholenetwork also equals zero

5 Simulation Results

Based on the analysis in previous sections simulation resultsare given to evaluate the performance of the proposedJACSA scheme Generally the reported subchannel capacityof each FAP is assumed to obey the exponential distributiondescribed by PDF 119891(119909) = 119890

minus119909 and thus the averagesubchannel capacity of each FAP follows Erlang distributionwith PDF 119901(119909) = 119870

119870119909119870minus1

119890minus119870119909

(119870 minus 1) As in our schemethe FMDs deal with the information got from the FAPs inan easy way they only care about the average capacitiesreported by FAPs instead of detailed subchannel capacitiesFor simplicity we assume that each FAP calculates its ownaverage subchannel capacity and reports a value to each FMDfrom which FMD selects FAP We consider two scenarioshere the open access and the hybrid access Now we willgive the simulation results of verification of the truth-tellingmechanism the open access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme the hybrid access scenario in JACSAscheme versus OSA scheme and the open access scenarioversus hybrid access scenario in JACSA scheme respectively

Firstly wewill focus on verification of truth-tellingmech-anism For the open scenario we investigate the performanceof the truth-telling mechanism and consider a femtocellnetwork with the settings of119872119874 = 5119873119874 = 2 and119870 = 8 Wealso assume that the price per unit of channel capacity 120585 = 1

and a random sample of the real average channel capacity isobtained as

Copen = (

C11

C21

C12

C22

C13

C23

C14

C24

C15

C25

) = (

100 085

082 084

126 058

107 071

097 104

) (25)

For the hybrid access scenario besides the channel capacitiesabove the open and closed FAPs also report to the closed

0 1 2 3 4minus03

minus02

minus01

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tota

l pay

off

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 2 Expected total payment when different average subchan-nel capacities are reported to 119880

1

FMDs We consider that119873119862= 1119872

119862= 1198721198621

= 2 and119870 = 8The channel capacity reported to closed FMDs is then

Cclosed = (C16

C26

C36

C17

C27

C37

) = (068 095 111

122 149 054) (26)

Without loss of generality we consider 1198804 as an examplefor the open access scenario and 1198806 for the hybrid accessscenario

In Figure 2 we demonstrate the variation of 119865119899rsquos expected

total payment paid by the open FMD1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed

FMD1198806(119899 = 1 2 3) when the reported information changes

in the proposed mechanism Given that the other nodes arehonest we find that 119865

119899gets its maximum expected total

payment only when it reports the true information whichis proved in Proposition 1 There is no incentive for FAPs toreport exaggerated information

In Figure 2 in the hybrid access scenario the openFAP 119865

1 1198652and closed FAP 119865

3get their largest expected

total payments whose values are 03008 02471 and 01977respectively at subchannel capacities at C

16= 055 C

26=

096 and C36

= 113 for FMD 1198806 respectively These

capacities are very close to their true capacities whosevalues are 068 095 and 111 respectively The expectedtotal payments are 02993 02429 and 01956 respectivelywhich differ from their maximum values of less than 05These derivations from their true values are due to thefluctuations of the calculated expected total payments forlimited simulation times Among all FAPs 119865

3 which has the

largest true capacity will be selected by1198806The expected total

payment is less than 120585C16

= 113 because it needs to paytransfer payment to other FAPs

Figure 3 shows the expected transfer payment of 119865119899

with open FMD 1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed FMD 119880

6

8 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0 1 2 3 4minus12

minus1

minus08

minus06

minus04

minus02

0

02

04

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tran

sfer p

ayoff

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 3 Expected transfer payment when different average sub-channel capacities are reported to 119880

1

(119899 = 1 2 3) We can see that the transfer payment ofeach FAP monotonically decreases because the larger thereported average subchannel capacity is the more transferpayment should be paid to others Therefore FAPs willnot report exaggerate information if they take the transferpayment into consideration We also find that the transferpayment curve of 119865

119899with the largest real average subchannel

capacity lies above other curves This is because the expectedpayment is proportional to the real channel capacity (25)and (26) So the FAP with larger real channel capacityneeds larger transfer payment to guarantee truth-tellingFurthermore the transfer payment can be seen as a kindof tax

When all FAPs report true information the transferpayments of all FAPs 119865119899 with 1198806 are T16 = 02765 T26 =00148 and T36 = minus02906 respectively We can see thatT16

+ T26

+ T36

= 65 times 10minus4

asymp 0 an exampleof Proposition 2 Even after we consider the fluctuations inthe limited simulation times the transfer payments at thepointswithmaximumexpected transfer payments are 0296600081 and minus03167 and their sum is minus00120 which is of theorder of 1 and is within a reasonable error range

Second we consider the performance of the JACSAscheme and OSA scheme for an open access scenario Weprimarily focus on the allocation result and throughput of thenetwork at different 119870 and 119872119874 Primarily we set 119872

119874= 5

and 119873119874 = 3 and change the value of 119870 to investigate theinfluence of the number of subchannels From Figure 4 wecan see that when the number of subchannel (119870) increasesthe throughput of the network will increase at the sametime Because each FAP has more subchannels for allocationwhen 119870 increases and more FMDs get the chance to obtainmore channel resource than the scenario with lower 119870which increase the throughput of the network Besides as

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 2560

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of subchannels

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 4 Throughput comparison at different 119870

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of open FMDs

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 5 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

119870 increases the relative difference between the joint andoptimal subchannel allocation is almost the same and theJACSA scheme can give a throughput about 90 of the OSAscheme with a much lower complexity

Then we set 119873119874 = 3 and 119870 = 8 and change the valueof 119872119874 to investigate the influence of FMDs Figure 5 showsthe throughput of the JACSA scheme andOSA scheme underthe condition of different number of FMDs As the numberof open FMDs increases the subchannel can be used moresufficiently and thus the throughput of the system is larger

Third comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSAscheme for the hybrid access scenario We set 119873

119874= 2119872

119874=

5 119873119862

= 1 and 119872119862

= 1198721198621

= 2 and change the value of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256

Number of subchannels

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 6 Throughput comparison at different119870

119870 to investigate the influence of the number of subchannelsFigure 6 shows the throughput of all open and closed FAPsin JACSA and OSA scheme Similar with the open accessscenario the total throughput does not change much withincreasing of119870 However the throughput of all open FAPs issmaller for the OSA scheme than that for the JACSA schemewhile the throughput of all closed FAPs is larger This meansthat the current JACSA scheme does not sufficiently use theclosed FAPs

Similarly we consider the influence of the number ofclosed FMDs in the hybrid access scenario Figure 7 showsthe throughput of all open and closed FAPs in the JACSAand OSA schemes Increasing of the number of closed FMDsmeans that both subchannels of the open and closed FAPs areused sufficiently and the throughput of both kinds of FAPsincreases

Finally in the hybrid access scenario due to the existenceof the closed FAP which is exclusive to closed FMDsthese closed FMDs have more access choices and thus theyprobably have larger per user capacity Compared with thesituationwhere this FAP is open however there is less chancefor access thus total throughput decreases First we lookfrom the perspective of the FAPs and calculate the totalthroughput of the system Figure 8 shows the throughput ofopen and closed FAPs with119873119874 = 2 and119873119862 = 1 respectivelyand a total number of FMDs 119872119874 + 119872119862 = 8 and transfersone FMD from open status to closed In order to comparewith the open access scenario we also plot the 119873119874 = 3 and119872119874 = 8 caseThehorizontal axis represents the combinationsof FAPs and FMDs We can see that compared with openand hybrid access scenarios the throughput is less in thelatter when the maximum value is equal to the throughputin the former When there is no closed FMD in the hybridas there is one empty FAP which has no access the totalthroughput is minimum With the increasing of the closedFMDs the total throughput and that for all closed FAPs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of closed FMDs

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 7 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Th

roug

hput

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 8 Throughput comparison with different combinations ofFAPs and FMDs The figure shows the number of open FAPs andopen FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873

119874+

119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

increases and the throughput for all open FAPs decreasesslightly as more FMDs may access closed FAPs Thereforenomatter howmany closed FMDs there are total throughputis smaller in the hybrid access scenario compared with openaccess

From the perspective of FMDs the average capacity isenjoyed by each FMD as shown in Figure 9When there is noclosed FMD as there are less open FAPs the average capacityfor open FMDs is smaller If one FMD decides to join theCSG the average capacity to be obtained is larger than that ofan open FMD and is also larger than that received by other

10 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capa

city

per

FM

D

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 9 Average capacity per FMD enjoys with different combina-tions of FAPs and FMDsThe figure shows the number of open FAPsand open FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873119874+ 119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

open FMDs As the closed FMDs probably access the closedFAP the open FMDs have less competition and enjoy largeraverage capacity As more FMDs join the CSG as there aremore competitions for the closed FAP the average capacitydecreases for each closed FMD but is still larger than thatreceived by open FMDs and received with an open FMD Ifall FMDs become closed the situation is the same as in theopen access scenario and the capacity of each closed FMDis minimum This indicates that when closed FAPs existby becoming a closed FMD the average capacity each FMDenjoys grows

6 Conclusion

In this paper we focus on the OFDMA femtocell-basedM2Mnetwork with several femtocells andMTCdevices distributedrandomly in open access scenario and hybrid access scenarioIn order to solve the truth-telling and subchannel allocationproblems under these two scenarios we propose a joint accesscontrol and subchannel allocation scheme based on the AGVmechanismWe use the transfer payment to balance the totalpayment and prove that there is only one equilibrium to bereached at the point when all FAPs reported their true capac-ities By comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSA schemein the two scenarios we show that the JACSA scheme canobtain near optimal results with lower complexity Finally wecompare the open access scenariowith hybrid access scenarioin the JACSA scheme and the simulation results show thatfrom the view of FAPs an open access scenario is better toget more payments but from the view of FMDs when thereare closed FAPs it is better to join the CSG for better services

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no NFSC 61071083 no NFSC61371073) and the National High Technology Researchand Development Program of China (863 program no2012AA01A506)

References

[1] 3GPP ldquoService requirements for Machine-Type Communica-tions (MTC)rdquo Tech Rep TS 22368 V1120 2011

[2] M Starsinic ldquoSystem architecture challenges in the homeM2Mnetworkrdquo in Proceedings of the Long Island Systems Applicationsand Technology Conference (LISAT rsquo10) May 2010

[3] Y Zhang R Yu S Xie W Yao Y Xiao and M GuizanildquoHome M2M networks architectures standards and QoSimprovementrdquo IEEE Communications Magazine vol 49 no 4pp 44ndash52 2011

[4] K Zheng F Hu and W Wang ldquoRadio resource allocation inLTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communicationsrdquoIEEE Communications Magazine vol 50 no 7 pp 184ndash1922012

[5] K-D Lee S Kim and B Yi ldquoThroughput comparison ofrandom access methods for M2M service over LTE networksrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOMWorkshops (GCWkshpsrsquo11) pp 373ndash377 December 2011

[6] Y Zhang R Yu M Nekovee Y Liu S Xie and S GjessingldquoCognitive machine-to-machine communications visions andpotentials for the smart gridrdquo IEEE Network Magazine vol 26no 3 pp 6ndash13 2012

[7] Q D Vo J-P Choi H M Chang and W C Lee ldquoGreenperspective cognitive radio-based M2M communications forsmart metersrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Information and Communication Technology Convergence(ICTC rsquo10) pp 382ndash383 November 2010

[8] A-H Tsai and J-H Huang ldquoOverload control for machinetype communications with femtocellsrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall rsquo12) pp 1ndash5September 2012

[9] E Mutafungwa ldquoApplying MTC and femtocell technologies tothe continua health reference architecturerdquo in Proceedings of theGrid and Pervasive Computing Workshops January 2012

[10] J G Andrews H Claussen M Dohler S Rangan and M CReed ldquoFemtocells past present and futurerdquo IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications vol 30 no 3 pp 497ndash5082012

[11] H Claussen L T W Ho and L G Samuel ldquoAn overview of thefemtocell conceptrdquo Bell Labs Technical Journal vol 13 no 1 pp221ndash246 2008

[12] G de la Roche A Valcarce D Lopez-Perez and J ZhangldquoAccess control mechanisms for femtocellsrdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 48 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2010

[13] J Xiang Y Zhang T Skeie and L Xie ldquoDownlink spectrumsharing for cognitive radio femtocell networksrdquo IEEE SystemsJournal vol 4 no 4 pp 524ndash534 2010

[14] D Fudenberg and J Tirole Game Theory MIT Press Cam-bridge Mass USA 1991

[15] J Chen R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoJoint relayand jammer selection for secure two-way relay networksrdquo IEEE

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 3

FAP

FAP

FAP

MD

MDMD

MDMD

MBS

Cotier interferenceSignalCross-tier interference

Figure 1 System model of the OFDMA femtocell network

there is a mixing of open access and closed access modesIn this paper we consider a two-tier femtocell-based M2Mnetwork with the open access and hybrid access mechanismand compare these two situations

(1) Open access the system consists of onemacrocell basestation (MBS) 119873

119874FAPs denoted by 119865

1 1198652 119865

119873119874

which provide services to all 119872119874FMDs denoted by

1198801 1198802 119880

119872119874

(2) Hybrid access besides the FAPs and FMDs describedin the open access scenario (which we call OFAPand OFMD for short) there are 119873119862 additional FAPsdenoted by 119865

119873119874+1 119865119873119874+2

119865119873119874+119873119862

and119872119862FMDs

in CSGs denoted by 119872119872119874+1

119872119872119874+2

119872119872119874+119872119862

(which we name as CFAP andCFMD) with each FAP119865119873119874+119899

providing service only to 119872119862119899

FMDs denotedby 119880

119872119899minus1+1 119880119872119899minus1+2 119880

119872119899 with 119872

119899= 119872

119874+

sum119899

119894=1119872119862119894

This means that only FMDs belonging tothe CSG of corresponding FAP have authorizationfor this access point The total numbers of FAPs andFMDs are 119873 = 119873119874 + 119873119862 and 119872 = 119872119874 + 119872119862respectively

For hybrid access scenario there exist three cases

(1) OO case OFAPs 119865119899 (119899 = 1 2 119873119874) report

capacities to OFMDs 119880119898 (119898 = 1 2 119872119874) and

each OFMDmay choose one OFAP to access(2) OC case OFAPs 119865

119899(119899 = 1 2 119873

119874) report capaci-

ties to CFMDs 119880119898 (119898 = 119872119874 + 1119872119874 + 2 119872)(3) CC case Each CFAP 119865

119899(119899 = 119873

119874+ 1119873

119874+ 2 119873)

reports capacities to CFMDs 119880119898

(119898 = 119872119899minus1

+

1119872119899minus1

+2 119872119899) in its ownCSG EachCFMDmay

choose either one OFAP or one CFAP to access

The open access scenario can be regarded as a special caseof the hybrid access scenario with 119873

119862= 0 and 119872

119862= 0 For

simplicity we only introduce the hybrid access scenario belowand consider the open access scenario as its special case

The interference analysis model is shown in Figure 1M2M communications have the characteristics of dealingwith a huge number of devices A large amount of MTCdevice will increase congestion in the network As a resultonly part of MTC devices can access the network Here weonly discusses the truth-telling problem of MTC deviceswhich are able to access the network The interference existswhen the MBS and all FAPs share the same 119870 subchannelswith equal bandwidth of 119882 Here we consider the worstcondition that interference exists in all the subchannels Thetransmission power of MBS and FAP (eg 119865119899) over the 119870

subchannels can be denoted by vectors 119875 = 1198751 1198752 119875119870

and119875119899 = 1198751198991 1198751198992 119875119899119870 [27] For additivewhite gaussiannoise (AWGN) with variance of 1205902 the signal to interferenceplus noise ratio (SINR) of 119865

119899to 119880119898in subchannel 119896 is

SINR119899119898119896

=119875119899119896

1003816100381610038161003816ℎ1198991198981198961003816100381610038161003816

2

sum119873

119894=1119894 = 119899119875119894119896

1003816100381610038161003816ℎ1198941198981198961003816100381610038161003816

2+ 119875119896

1003816100381610038161003816ℎ1198981198961003816100381610038161003816

2+ 1205902

(1)

with ℎ119899119898119896

and ℎ119898119896

the channel frequency responses ofthe 119896th subchannel from 119865

119899to 119880119898and from MBS to 119880

119898

respectively where the path loss and Rayleigh fading factorare containedThe channel capacity of119865

119899to119880119898in subchannel

119896 is

119862119899119898119896

= 119882 log (1 + SINR119899119898119896) (2)

During the access control and subchannel allocationprocesses the FAPs first report to FMDs their channelstate information (CSI) which may be false informationAccording to the quality of CSIs FMDs select FAPs bycomparing the capacities they report where we assume thateach FMD can only access one of the FAPs to enjoy theservice Based on the true subchannel information FAPsallocate the capacities of all subchannels to one or moreapplying FMD(s) to maximum their profits and each FMDpays for the sum of the subchannel capacities provided bythe FAP Therefore the sum of the subchannel capacities of119865119899used by 119880

119898can be written as

119862119899119898

= sum

119896isin120581119899119898

119862119899119898119896

(3)

where 120581119899119898

is the set of subchannels of 119865119899allocated to119880

119898The

throughput of the network is given by

119862 =

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119872119874

sum

119898=1

119862119899119898

+

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119872

sum

119898=119872119874+1

119862119899119898

+

119873

sum

119899=119873119874+1

119872119899

sum

119898=119872119899minus1+1

119862119899119898

(4)

The three terms on the right side of (4) represent thethroughput of OO OC and CC cases respectively The mainproblem here is to maximize the throughput of the network

In order to solve the access control and subchannel allo-cation problem we need to construct a mathematical modelto describe it During the accessing process of femtocell

4 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

network each FAP aims at increasing its own revenues byproviding larger capacities while the FMDs prefer bettercommunication quality by selecting FAPs with larger capac-ities However the information shared by FMDs and FAPsis unbalanced and the FMDs have incomplete informationthey do not know either the real channel capacity of theeach FAP or the real capacity of each subchannel Theyhave no other choice but to trust the FAPs of their reportedinformation and can only select the FAPs according to theirreported capacities For the FMDs to select the FAPs withlargest reported average capacities is always a good idea Afterall FAPs with larger average capacities are more probablyto provide subchannels with larger capacities Furthermorethe FMD can guarantee that it has larger opportunity toattain a subchannel when it select to attach the FAP withlargest capacity rather than a smaller one since the FAPalways grants its subchannels to those FMDs with largestcapacities In a simple scheme the FAPs are paid by FMDsonly when they are selected If no FMD selects the FAP itwill get nothing This result may drive the FAPs to reportbetter channel information to FMDs in order to win greateropportunity to be selected causing unfairness in subchannelallocation and reduction of the throughput of the network

119862 le 119862 (5)

with 119862 and 119862 representing the throughput of the networkcalculated according to the reported and real informationrespectively Considering the maximization of the through-put the FAPs should all report true information

When FMDs select FAPs according to their reportedinformation the truth-telling problem needs to be solvedeffectively to maximize the throughput of the network

3 Joint Access Control and SubchannelAllocation Scheme

To formulate the problem above we denote the realand the reported subchannel capacities of 119865

119899to 119880119898

as (1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

) and (1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

)respectively Similarly the averaged real and reported sub-channel capacities of 119865

119899to 119880119898can be expressed as C

119899119898and

C119899119898

respectively The FMD pays 120585 to FAP per unit channelcapacity and the revenue of 119865

119899from 119880

119898can be expressed as

119877119899119898

=

sum

119896isin120581119899119898

120585119862119899119898119896

119865119899is selected by 119880

119898

0 otherwise(6)

The total revenue of 119865119899can be expressed as

119877119899=

119872

sum

119898=1

119877119899119898

for OOOC cases

119872119899

sum

119898=119872119899minus1+1

119877119899119898 for CC case(7)

Here we consider 119865119899and 119880

119898as an example and neglect

whether they are OFAP (OFMD) or CFAP (CFMD) which

does not influence the following discussionThe real capacityof each subchannel for any FAP obeys a certain probabil-ity density function (PDF) defined as 119891(119862119899119898119896) and thereal average subchannel capacity obeys the PDF which isexpressed as 119901(C

119899119898) which is known by all FAPs The

information enjoyed by 119865119899 119865119899 119880119898 and 119880

119898(where 119865

119899

represents any one in the sets of all FAPs except 119865119899 and 119880

119898

in the sets of all FMDs except 119880119898) is

(1) 119865119899

enjoys its real channel capacities to119880119898 (1198621198991198981 1198621198991198982 119862119899119898119870) as private information

belonging to its own just the same situation as119865119899 119865119899

reports its channel capacities to 119880119898

as(1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

) which is not known to119865119899 Besides 119865119899 knows well about the PDF of the realcapacities of all FAPs as 119865

119899

(2) 119865119899 does not know either real or reported channel

capacities of 119865119899 which is also private informationbelonging to 119865

119899its own

(3) 119880119898 only knows the capacities all FAPs have reported

to it and treats them as real capacities according towhich it selects one FAP to access It does not knoweither reported or real capacities of FAPs to 119880119898

(4) For 119880119898 the situation is the same as 119880

119898

Based on the PDF of capacities 119865119899can calculate its

expected revenue from 119880119898 as

R119899119898 (C119899119898) = 120585C119899119898119875 (119899119898) (8)

where

119875 (119899119898) =

(int

C119899119898

0

119901(119909)d119909)119873119874minus1

for OO case

(int

C119899119898

0

119901(119909)d119909)119873119874

for OCCC cases

(9)

is the probability of 119865119899 selected by 119880119898 We can easily know

that when C119899119898

rarr infin 119875(119899119898) rarr 1 As the expectedrevenue is monotone increasing function of the reportedcapacities 119865

119899has an incentive to report larger average

subchannel capacity More important if 119865119899thinks that all

FAPs have the same motivation it will get nothing if it doesnot report infin In this situation all information received byFMDs is false making all FMDs blind on selecting the FAPs

In order to solve the above problem a truthful mecha-nism AGV in JACSA scheme can be employed to preventFAPs reporting false information when each FAP gets itsmaximum expected total revenue when it reports the realcapacitiesWewill introduce the AGVmechanism in the nextchapter

Here we assume that all FAPs would report their realcapacities to FMDs and the next problem to be solved ishow the FAPs allocate their subchannels among linked FMDsto maximize the throughput Global optimum can not be

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 5

reached since each FMD only knows its own choices ofFAPs and it can not learn other FMDsrsquo choices and thoseFMDs who select the same FAPmay compete for subchannelresources For the optimal subchannel allocation (OSA)scheme which maximizing the throughput of the whole net-work all subchannel information (which of course shouldbe the true values) and allocation probabilities should beconcerned and the complexity of the algorithm is 119874(119873

119872119870)

In a rapidly changing wireless communication environmentthis process is too time-consuming and cannot be achievedBesides as all FAPsmay be so selfish that they only care aboutmaximize their own throughput an additional entity must beincluded to allocate the subchannels globally which raises thetotal cost of the network With the JACSA scheme howeverthe complexity is only 119874(119873

119872119870) which is much lower than

the OSA scheme especially when 119873 and 119872 are very largeFrom the following simulation results we can see that in thecurrent JACSA scheme as long as each FAPmaximizs its ownutility themaximum throughput of thewhole network can bewell approached with a percentage of about 90 The wholeprocess of JACSA scheme is described as follows

(i) Based on the truth-tellingmechanism all FAPs reportreal average capacities to FMDs OFAP 119865

119899reports

C119899119898 to any FMD 119880119898 (119899 = 1 2 119873119874 and 119898 =

1 2 119872) and CFAP 1198651198991015840 reports C1198991015840 1198981015840 to CFMD

1198801198981015840 (1198991015840 = 119873

119874+ 1119873

119874+ 2 119873 and 119898

1015840= 1198721198991015840minus1

+

11198721198991015840minus1

+ 2 1198721198991015840

) in its CSG

(ii) According to the reported information FMDs selectone FAP with the largest average capacity to accessOFMD can only access119873

119874OFAPs while CFMD can

access119873119874OFAPs and one additional CFAP

(iii) According to the accessing information FAPs allocatetheir subchannel resources among FMDs who selectthem For each subchannel FAP will allocate it tothe FMD with the most capacity to maximize itsthroughput OFAPs will allocate their subchannelsamong all FMDs while CFAPs only allocate amongCFMDs in their CSGs

(iv) Subchannel allocation finished FMDs will access theFAPs who have allocated resources to them

4 AGV Mechanism

Truth-telling is achieved by adding a transfer payment to theexpected revenue R119899119898 which is different for the OO OCand CC case

(1) For OO case the transfer payment is

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

= Γ119899119898

(C119899119898

) minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

Γ119894119898

(C119894119898

)

(10)

where the externality

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

119864 [R119894119898 (C119899119898)] (11)

represents the sum of other FAPsrsquo expected paymentfrom 119880

119898 when 119865119899 has reported C119899119898(2) For OC case the transfer payment is

T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)

= Γ119899119898

(C119899119898

)

minus1

119873119874

[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898) + Γ119873119874+119902119898(C119873119874+119902119898)]

(12)

where the externality is

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

119864 [R119894119898 (C119899119898)]

+ 119864 [R119873119874+119902119898 (C119899119898)]

Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1

119864 [R119894119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(13)

(3) For CC case the transfer payment is

T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)

= Γ119873119874+119902119898(C119873119874+119902119898) minus

1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

(14)

where the externality is the same as OC case

The expected total payment or the expected utility of 119865119899

from 119880119898 is

U119899119898

(C119899119898

) = R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(15)

The existence of transfer payment can effectively preventthe FAPs from reporting false information The FAPs whoreport larger capacities than their real values can be punishedand the loss of any FAPrsquos revenue caused by exaggeratedlyreported capacities of other FAPs can be compensated If 119865

119899

reports its subchannel capacities with larger values (C119899119898

gt

C119899119898

) it has more chance to be selected by 119880119898 but the

transfer payment is even larger decreasing its expected totalrevenue On the contrary if 119865

119899reports its true values but one

of the other FAPs reports larger capacities than its real valuesand is selected by FMDs instead of 119865

119899 it will have to pay

119865119899some transfer payment On the other hand if 119865

119899reports

smaller average capacities (C119899119898

lt C119899119898

) it has smallerprobability to be selected by 119880

119898 and the transfer payment

from other FAPs does not compensate the reduction makingits expected utility decreasing

6 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

Proposition 1 Each FAP maximizes its expected utility fromFMDs only when it reports its real information

C119899119898

= C119899119898

(16)

Proof Without loss of generality we consider the expectedutility of 119865

119899paid by 119880

119898 which can be expressed as follows

(1) For OO case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)]

(17)

inserting (10) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)] = 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

+ 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

(18)

(2) For OC case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898 (C119899119898) +T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)]

(19)

inserting (12) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

) +R119873119874+119902119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

) + Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

]

(20)

(3) For CC case

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864 [R119873119874+ 119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)

+T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(21)

inserting (14) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898 (C119873119874+119902119898) +R119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)]

]

(22)

The terms on the right side of (18) (20) and (22)represent the expected revenue of all FAPs paid by 119880119898

when 119865119899reports C

119899119898to 119880119898

and the average externalityof other FAPs except 119865

119899 which is independent on C

119899119898to

119880119898 Therefore the first term describing the expected total

revenue of all FAPs determines the expected utility of119865119899from

119880119898 Note that according to (8) the expected total revenue

is decided by the reported capacities which may not betrue Besides we easily know that if there exist FAPs whocheat about their capacities the selections of FMDs may bemisled leading to decreasing of the expected total revenueTherefore only when all FMDs select FAPs according to thereal capacities the whole network can get the maximumtotal revenue The maximum of the whole network alsomeans that the utility of 119865119899 from 119880

119898reaches its maximum

value The coincidence between the global maximum andthe individual optimum ensures that 119865119899 has no incentiveto report false information and the equilibrium can beachieved

Proposition 2 Thenetwork pays no extra costs for the truthfulmechanism

Proof From the transfer function equations (10) (12) and (5)we can obtain the sumof the transfer payment of all FAPswith119880119898(forall119898) as follows(1) for open FMDs (OO case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898)

=119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (119862119894119898)

= 0

(23)

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 7

(2) For closed FMDs (OC and CC case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

) +T119873119874+119902119898

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)

+T119873119874+119902119898

= 0

(24)

The total transfer payment of all FAPs with 119880119898equals

zero Therefore the total transfer payment of the wholenetwork also equals zero

5 Simulation Results

Based on the analysis in previous sections simulation resultsare given to evaluate the performance of the proposedJACSA scheme Generally the reported subchannel capacityof each FAP is assumed to obey the exponential distributiondescribed by PDF 119891(119909) = 119890

minus119909 and thus the averagesubchannel capacity of each FAP follows Erlang distributionwith PDF 119901(119909) = 119870

119870119909119870minus1

119890minus119870119909

(119870 minus 1) As in our schemethe FMDs deal with the information got from the FAPs inan easy way they only care about the average capacitiesreported by FAPs instead of detailed subchannel capacitiesFor simplicity we assume that each FAP calculates its ownaverage subchannel capacity and reports a value to each FMDfrom which FMD selects FAP We consider two scenarioshere the open access and the hybrid access Now we willgive the simulation results of verification of the truth-tellingmechanism the open access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme the hybrid access scenario in JACSAscheme versus OSA scheme and the open access scenarioversus hybrid access scenario in JACSA scheme respectively

Firstly wewill focus on verification of truth-tellingmech-anism For the open scenario we investigate the performanceof the truth-telling mechanism and consider a femtocellnetwork with the settings of119872119874 = 5119873119874 = 2 and119870 = 8 Wealso assume that the price per unit of channel capacity 120585 = 1

and a random sample of the real average channel capacity isobtained as

Copen = (

C11

C21

C12

C22

C13

C23

C14

C24

C15

C25

) = (

100 085

082 084

126 058

107 071

097 104

) (25)

For the hybrid access scenario besides the channel capacitiesabove the open and closed FAPs also report to the closed

0 1 2 3 4minus03

minus02

minus01

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tota

l pay

off

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 2 Expected total payment when different average subchan-nel capacities are reported to 119880

1

FMDs We consider that119873119862= 1119872

119862= 1198721198621

= 2 and119870 = 8The channel capacity reported to closed FMDs is then

Cclosed = (C16

C26

C36

C17

C27

C37

) = (068 095 111

122 149 054) (26)

Without loss of generality we consider 1198804 as an examplefor the open access scenario and 1198806 for the hybrid accessscenario

In Figure 2 we demonstrate the variation of 119865119899rsquos expected

total payment paid by the open FMD1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed

FMD1198806(119899 = 1 2 3) when the reported information changes

in the proposed mechanism Given that the other nodes arehonest we find that 119865

119899gets its maximum expected total

payment only when it reports the true information whichis proved in Proposition 1 There is no incentive for FAPs toreport exaggerated information

In Figure 2 in the hybrid access scenario the openFAP 119865

1 1198652and closed FAP 119865

3get their largest expected

total payments whose values are 03008 02471 and 01977respectively at subchannel capacities at C

16= 055 C

26=

096 and C36

= 113 for FMD 1198806 respectively These

capacities are very close to their true capacities whosevalues are 068 095 and 111 respectively The expectedtotal payments are 02993 02429 and 01956 respectivelywhich differ from their maximum values of less than 05These derivations from their true values are due to thefluctuations of the calculated expected total payments forlimited simulation times Among all FAPs 119865

3 which has the

largest true capacity will be selected by1198806The expected total

payment is less than 120585C16

= 113 because it needs to paytransfer payment to other FAPs

Figure 3 shows the expected transfer payment of 119865119899

with open FMD 1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed FMD 119880

6

8 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0 1 2 3 4minus12

minus1

minus08

minus06

minus04

minus02

0

02

04

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tran

sfer p

ayoff

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 3 Expected transfer payment when different average sub-channel capacities are reported to 119880

1

(119899 = 1 2 3) We can see that the transfer payment ofeach FAP monotonically decreases because the larger thereported average subchannel capacity is the more transferpayment should be paid to others Therefore FAPs willnot report exaggerate information if they take the transferpayment into consideration We also find that the transferpayment curve of 119865

119899with the largest real average subchannel

capacity lies above other curves This is because the expectedpayment is proportional to the real channel capacity (25)and (26) So the FAP with larger real channel capacityneeds larger transfer payment to guarantee truth-tellingFurthermore the transfer payment can be seen as a kindof tax

When all FAPs report true information the transferpayments of all FAPs 119865119899 with 1198806 are T16 = 02765 T26 =00148 and T36 = minus02906 respectively We can see thatT16

+ T26

+ T36

= 65 times 10minus4

asymp 0 an exampleof Proposition 2 Even after we consider the fluctuations inthe limited simulation times the transfer payments at thepointswithmaximumexpected transfer payments are 0296600081 and minus03167 and their sum is minus00120 which is of theorder of 1 and is within a reasonable error range

Second we consider the performance of the JACSAscheme and OSA scheme for an open access scenario Weprimarily focus on the allocation result and throughput of thenetwork at different 119870 and 119872119874 Primarily we set 119872

119874= 5

and 119873119874 = 3 and change the value of 119870 to investigate theinfluence of the number of subchannels From Figure 4 wecan see that when the number of subchannel (119870) increasesthe throughput of the network will increase at the sametime Because each FAP has more subchannels for allocationwhen 119870 increases and more FMDs get the chance to obtainmore channel resource than the scenario with lower 119870which increase the throughput of the network Besides as

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 2560

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of subchannels

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 4 Throughput comparison at different 119870

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of open FMDs

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 5 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

119870 increases the relative difference between the joint andoptimal subchannel allocation is almost the same and theJACSA scheme can give a throughput about 90 of the OSAscheme with a much lower complexity

Then we set 119873119874 = 3 and 119870 = 8 and change the valueof 119872119874 to investigate the influence of FMDs Figure 5 showsthe throughput of the JACSA scheme andOSA scheme underthe condition of different number of FMDs As the numberof open FMDs increases the subchannel can be used moresufficiently and thus the throughput of the system is larger

Third comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSAscheme for the hybrid access scenario We set 119873

119874= 2119872

119874=

5 119873119862

= 1 and 119872119862

= 1198721198621

= 2 and change the value of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256

Number of subchannels

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 6 Throughput comparison at different119870

119870 to investigate the influence of the number of subchannelsFigure 6 shows the throughput of all open and closed FAPsin JACSA and OSA scheme Similar with the open accessscenario the total throughput does not change much withincreasing of119870 However the throughput of all open FAPs issmaller for the OSA scheme than that for the JACSA schemewhile the throughput of all closed FAPs is larger This meansthat the current JACSA scheme does not sufficiently use theclosed FAPs

Similarly we consider the influence of the number ofclosed FMDs in the hybrid access scenario Figure 7 showsthe throughput of all open and closed FAPs in the JACSAand OSA schemes Increasing of the number of closed FMDsmeans that both subchannels of the open and closed FAPs areused sufficiently and the throughput of both kinds of FAPsincreases

Finally in the hybrid access scenario due to the existenceof the closed FAP which is exclusive to closed FMDsthese closed FMDs have more access choices and thus theyprobably have larger per user capacity Compared with thesituationwhere this FAP is open however there is less chancefor access thus total throughput decreases First we lookfrom the perspective of the FAPs and calculate the totalthroughput of the system Figure 8 shows the throughput ofopen and closed FAPs with119873119874 = 2 and119873119862 = 1 respectivelyand a total number of FMDs 119872119874 + 119872119862 = 8 and transfersone FMD from open status to closed In order to comparewith the open access scenario we also plot the 119873119874 = 3 and119872119874 = 8 caseThehorizontal axis represents the combinationsof FAPs and FMDs We can see that compared with openand hybrid access scenarios the throughput is less in thelatter when the maximum value is equal to the throughputin the former When there is no closed FMD in the hybridas there is one empty FAP which has no access the totalthroughput is minimum With the increasing of the closedFMDs the total throughput and that for all closed FAPs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of closed FMDs

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 7 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Th

roug

hput

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 8 Throughput comparison with different combinations ofFAPs and FMDs The figure shows the number of open FAPs andopen FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873

119874+

119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

increases and the throughput for all open FAPs decreasesslightly as more FMDs may access closed FAPs Thereforenomatter howmany closed FMDs there are total throughputis smaller in the hybrid access scenario compared with openaccess

From the perspective of FMDs the average capacity isenjoyed by each FMD as shown in Figure 9When there is noclosed FMD as there are less open FAPs the average capacityfor open FMDs is smaller If one FMD decides to join theCSG the average capacity to be obtained is larger than that ofan open FMD and is also larger than that received by other

10 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capa

city

per

FM

D

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 9 Average capacity per FMD enjoys with different combina-tions of FAPs and FMDsThe figure shows the number of open FAPsand open FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873119874+ 119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

open FMDs As the closed FMDs probably access the closedFAP the open FMDs have less competition and enjoy largeraverage capacity As more FMDs join the CSG as there aremore competitions for the closed FAP the average capacitydecreases for each closed FMD but is still larger than thatreceived by open FMDs and received with an open FMD Ifall FMDs become closed the situation is the same as in theopen access scenario and the capacity of each closed FMDis minimum This indicates that when closed FAPs existby becoming a closed FMD the average capacity each FMDenjoys grows

6 Conclusion

In this paper we focus on the OFDMA femtocell-basedM2Mnetwork with several femtocells andMTCdevices distributedrandomly in open access scenario and hybrid access scenarioIn order to solve the truth-telling and subchannel allocationproblems under these two scenarios we propose a joint accesscontrol and subchannel allocation scheme based on the AGVmechanismWe use the transfer payment to balance the totalpayment and prove that there is only one equilibrium to bereached at the point when all FAPs reported their true capac-ities By comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSA schemein the two scenarios we show that the JACSA scheme canobtain near optimal results with lower complexity Finally wecompare the open access scenariowith hybrid access scenarioin the JACSA scheme and the simulation results show thatfrom the view of FAPs an open access scenario is better toget more payments but from the view of FMDs when thereare closed FAPs it is better to join the CSG for better services

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no NFSC 61071083 no NFSC61371073) and the National High Technology Researchand Development Program of China (863 program no2012AA01A506)

References

[1] 3GPP ldquoService requirements for Machine-Type Communica-tions (MTC)rdquo Tech Rep TS 22368 V1120 2011

[2] M Starsinic ldquoSystem architecture challenges in the homeM2Mnetworkrdquo in Proceedings of the Long Island Systems Applicationsand Technology Conference (LISAT rsquo10) May 2010

[3] Y Zhang R Yu S Xie W Yao Y Xiao and M GuizanildquoHome M2M networks architectures standards and QoSimprovementrdquo IEEE Communications Magazine vol 49 no 4pp 44ndash52 2011

[4] K Zheng F Hu and W Wang ldquoRadio resource allocation inLTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communicationsrdquoIEEE Communications Magazine vol 50 no 7 pp 184ndash1922012

[5] K-D Lee S Kim and B Yi ldquoThroughput comparison ofrandom access methods for M2M service over LTE networksrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOMWorkshops (GCWkshpsrsquo11) pp 373ndash377 December 2011

[6] Y Zhang R Yu M Nekovee Y Liu S Xie and S GjessingldquoCognitive machine-to-machine communications visions andpotentials for the smart gridrdquo IEEE Network Magazine vol 26no 3 pp 6ndash13 2012

[7] Q D Vo J-P Choi H M Chang and W C Lee ldquoGreenperspective cognitive radio-based M2M communications forsmart metersrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Information and Communication Technology Convergence(ICTC rsquo10) pp 382ndash383 November 2010

[8] A-H Tsai and J-H Huang ldquoOverload control for machinetype communications with femtocellsrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall rsquo12) pp 1ndash5September 2012

[9] E Mutafungwa ldquoApplying MTC and femtocell technologies tothe continua health reference architecturerdquo in Proceedings of theGrid and Pervasive Computing Workshops January 2012

[10] J G Andrews H Claussen M Dohler S Rangan and M CReed ldquoFemtocells past present and futurerdquo IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications vol 30 no 3 pp 497ndash5082012

[11] H Claussen L T W Ho and L G Samuel ldquoAn overview of thefemtocell conceptrdquo Bell Labs Technical Journal vol 13 no 1 pp221ndash246 2008

[12] G de la Roche A Valcarce D Lopez-Perez and J ZhangldquoAccess control mechanisms for femtocellsrdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 48 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2010

[13] J Xiang Y Zhang T Skeie and L Xie ldquoDownlink spectrumsharing for cognitive radio femtocell networksrdquo IEEE SystemsJournal vol 4 no 4 pp 524ndash534 2010

[14] D Fudenberg and J Tirole Game Theory MIT Press Cam-bridge Mass USA 1991

[15] J Chen R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoJoint relayand jammer selection for secure two-way relay networksrdquo IEEE

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

4 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

network each FAP aims at increasing its own revenues byproviding larger capacities while the FMDs prefer bettercommunication quality by selecting FAPs with larger capac-ities However the information shared by FMDs and FAPsis unbalanced and the FMDs have incomplete informationthey do not know either the real channel capacity of theeach FAP or the real capacity of each subchannel Theyhave no other choice but to trust the FAPs of their reportedinformation and can only select the FAPs according to theirreported capacities For the FMDs to select the FAPs withlargest reported average capacities is always a good idea Afterall FAPs with larger average capacities are more probablyto provide subchannels with larger capacities Furthermorethe FMD can guarantee that it has larger opportunity toattain a subchannel when it select to attach the FAP withlargest capacity rather than a smaller one since the FAPalways grants its subchannels to those FMDs with largestcapacities In a simple scheme the FAPs are paid by FMDsonly when they are selected If no FMD selects the FAP itwill get nothing This result may drive the FAPs to reportbetter channel information to FMDs in order to win greateropportunity to be selected causing unfairness in subchannelallocation and reduction of the throughput of the network

119862 le 119862 (5)

with 119862 and 119862 representing the throughput of the networkcalculated according to the reported and real informationrespectively Considering the maximization of the through-put the FAPs should all report true information

When FMDs select FAPs according to their reportedinformation the truth-telling problem needs to be solvedeffectively to maximize the throughput of the network

3 Joint Access Control and SubchannelAllocation Scheme

To formulate the problem above we denote the realand the reported subchannel capacities of 119865

119899to 119880119898

as (1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

) and (1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

)respectively Similarly the averaged real and reported sub-channel capacities of 119865

119899to 119880119898can be expressed as C

119899119898and

C119899119898

respectively The FMD pays 120585 to FAP per unit channelcapacity and the revenue of 119865

119899from 119880

119898can be expressed as

119877119899119898

=

sum

119896isin120581119899119898

120585119862119899119898119896

119865119899is selected by 119880

119898

0 otherwise(6)

The total revenue of 119865119899can be expressed as

119877119899=

119872

sum

119898=1

119877119899119898

for OOOC cases

119872119899

sum

119898=119872119899minus1+1

119877119899119898 for CC case(7)

Here we consider 119865119899and 119880

119898as an example and neglect

whether they are OFAP (OFMD) or CFAP (CFMD) which

does not influence the following discussionThe real capacityof each subchannel for any FAP obeys a certain probabil-ity density function (PDF) defined as 119891(119862119899119898119896) and thereal average subchannel capacity obeys the PDF which isexpressed as 119901(C

119899119898) which is known by all FAPs The

information enjoyed by 119865119899 119865119899 119880119898 and 119880

119898(where 119865

119899

represents any one in the sets of all FAPs except 119865119899 and 119880

119898

in the sets of all FMDs except 119880119898) is

(1) 119865119899

enjoys its real channel capacities to119880119898 (1198621198991198981 1198621198991198982 119862119899119898119870) as private information

belonging to its own just the same situation as119865119899 119865119899

reports its channel capacities to 119880119898

as(1198621198991198981

1198621198991198982

119862119899119898119870

) which is not known to119865119899 Besides 119865119899 knows well about the PDF of the realcapacities of all FAPs as 119865

119899

(2) 119865119899 does not know either real or reported channel

capacities of 119865119899 which is also private informationbelonging to 119865

119899its own

(3) 119880119898 only knows the capacities all FAPs have reported

to it and treats them as real capacities according towhich it selects one FAP to access It does not knoweither reported or real capacities of FAPs to 119880119898

(4) For 119880119898 the situation is the same as 119880

119898

Based on the PDF of capacities 119865119899can calculate its

expected revenue from 119880119898 as

R119899119898 (C119899119898) = 120585C119899119898119875 (119899119898) (8)

where

119875 (119899119898) =

(int

C119899119898

0

119901(119909)d119909)119873119874minus1

for OO case

(int

C119899119898

0

119901(119909)d119909)119873119874

for OCCC cases

(9)

is the probability of 119865119899 selected by 119880119898 We can easily know

that when C119899119898

rarr infin 119875(119899119898) rarr 1 As the expectedrevenue is monotone increasing function of the reportedcapacities 119865

119899has an incentive to report larger average

subchannel capacity More important if 119865119899thinks that all

FAPs have the same motivation it will get nothing if it doesnot report infin In this situation all information received byFMDs is false making all FMDs blind on selecting the FAPs

In order to solve the above problem a truthful mecha-nism AGV in JACSA scheme can be employed to preventFAPs reporting false information when each FAP gets itsmaximum expected total revenue when it reports the realcapacitiesWewill introduce the AGVmechanism in the nextchapter

Here we assume that all FAPs would report their realcapacities to FMDs and the next problem to be solved ishow the FAPs allocate their subchannels among linked FMDsto maximize the throughput Global optimum can not be

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 5

reached since each FMD only knows its own choices ofFAPs and it can not learn other FMDsrsquo choices and thoseFMDs who select the same FAPmay compete for subchannelresources For the optimal subchannel allocation (OSA)scheme which maximizing the throughput of the whole net-work all subchannel information (which of course shouldbe the true values) and allocation probabilities should beconcerned and the complexity of the algorithm is 119874(119873

119872119870)

In a rapidly changing wireless communication environmentthis process is too time-consuming and cannot be achievedBesides as all FAPsmay be so selfish that they only care aboutmaximize their own throughput an additional entity must beincluded to allocate the subchannels globally which raises thetotal cost of the network With the JACSA scheme howeverthe complexity is only 119874(119873

119872119870) which is much lower than

the OSA scheme especially when 119873 and 119872 are very largeFrom the following simulation results we can see that in thecurrent JACSA scheme as long as each FAPmaximizs its ownutility themaximum throughput of thewhole network can bewell approached with a percentage of about 90 The wholeprocess of JACSA scheme is described as follows

(i) Based on the truth-tellingmechanism all FAPs reportreal average capacities to FMDs OFAP 119865

119899reports

C119899119898 to any FMD 119880119898 (119899 = 1 2 119873119874 and 119898 =

1 2 119872) and CFAP 1198651198991015840 reports C1198991015840 1198981015840 to CFMD

1198801198981015840 (1198991015840 = 119873

119874+ 1119873

119874+ 2 119873 and 119898

1015840= 1198721198991015840minus1

+

11198721198991015840minus1

+ 2 1198721198991015840

) in its CSG

(ii) According to the reported information FMDs selectone FAP with the largest average capacity to accessOFMD can only access119873

119874OFAPs while CFMD can

access119873119874OFAPs and one additional CFAP

(iii) According to the accessing information FAPs allocatetheir subchannel resources among FMDs who selectthem For each subchannel FAP will allocate it tothe FMD with the most capacity to maximize itsthroughput OFAPs will allocate their subchannelsamong all FMDs while CFAPs only allocate amongCFMDs in their CSGs

(iv) Subchannel allocation finished FMDs will access theFAPs who have allocated resources to them

4 AGV Mechanism

Truth-telling is achieved by adding a transfer payment to theexpected revenue R119899119898 which is different for the OO OCand CC case

(1) For OO case the transfer payment is

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

= Γ119899119898

(C119899119898

) minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

Γ119894119898

(C119894119898

)

(10)

where the externality

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

119864 [R119894119898 (C119899119898)] (11)

represents the sum of other FAPsrsquo expected paymentfrom 119880

119898 when 119865119899 has reported C119899119898(2) For OC case the transfer payment is

T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)

= Γ119899119898

(C119899119898

)

minus1

119873119874

[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898) + Γ119873119874+119902119898(C119873119874+119902119898)]

(12)

where the externality is

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

119864 [R119894119898 (C119899119898)]

+ 119864 [R119873119874+119902119898 (C119899119898)]

Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1

119864 [R119894119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(13)

(3) For CC case the transfer payment is

T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)

= Γ119873119874+119902119898(C119873119874+119902119898) minus

1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

(14)

where the externality is the same as OC case

The expected total payment or the expected utility of 119865119899

from 119880119898 is

U119899119898

(C119899119898

) = R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(15)

The existence of transfer payment can effectively preventthe FAPs from reporting false information The FAPs whoreport larger capacities than their real values can be punishedand the loss of any FAPrsquos revenue caused by exaggeratedlyreported capacities of other FAPs can be compensated If 119865

119899

reports its subchannel capacities with larger values (C119899119898

gt

C119899119898

) it has more chance to be selected by 119880119898 but the

transfer payment is even larger decreasing its expected totalrevenue On the contrary if 119865

119899reports its true values but one

of the other FAPs reports larger capacities than its real valuesand is selected by FMDs instead of 119865

119899 it will have to pay

119865119899some transfer payment On the other hand if 119865

119899reports

smaller average capacities (C119899119898

lt C119899119898

) it has smallerprobability to be selected by 119880

119898 and the transfer payment

from other FAPs does not compensate the reduction makingits expected utility decreasing

6 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

Proposition 1 Each FAP maximizes its expected utility fromFMDs only when it reports its real information

C119899119898

= C119899119898

(16)

Proof Without loss of generality we consider the expectedutility of 119865

119899paid by 119880

119898 which can be expressed as follows

(1) For OO case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)]

(17)

inserting (10) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)] = 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

+ 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

(18)

(2) For OC case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898 (C119899119898) +T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)]

(19)

inserting (12) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

) +R119873119874+119902119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

) + Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

]

(20)

(3) For CC case

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864 [R119873119874+ 119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)

+T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(21)

inserting (14) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898 (C119873119874+119902119898) +R119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)]

]

(22)

The terms on the right side of (18) (20) and (22)represent the expected revenue of all FAPs paid by 119880119898

when 119865119899reports C

119899119898to 119880119898

and the average externalityof other FAPs except 119865

119899 which is independent on C

119899119898to

119880119898 Therefore the first term describing the expected total

revenue of all FAPs determines the expected utility of119865119899from

119880119898 Note that according to (8) the expected total revenue

is decided by the reported capacities which may not betrue Besides we easily know that if there exist FAPs whocheat about their capacities the selections of FMDs may bemisled leading to decreasing of the expected total revenueTherefore only when all FMDs select FAPs according to thereal capacities the whole network can get the maximumtotal revenue The maximum of the whole network alsomeans that the utility of 119865119899 from 119880

119898reaches its maximum

value The coincidence between the global maximum andthe individual optimum ensures that 119865119899 has no incentiveto report false information and the equilibrium can beachieved

Proposition 2 Thenetwork pays no extra costs for the truthfulmechanism

Proof From the transfer function equations (10) (12) and (5)we can obtain the sumof the transfer payment of all FAPswith119880119898(forall119898) as follows(1) for open FMDs (OO case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898)

=119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (119862119894119898)

= 0

(23)

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 7

(2) For closed FMDs (OC and CC case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

) +T119873119874+119902119898

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)

+T119873119874+119902119898

= 0

(24)

The total transfer payment of all FAPs with 119880119898equals

zero Therefore the total transfer payment of the wholenetwork also equals zero

5 Simulation Results

Based on the analysis in previous sections simulation resultsare given to evaluate the performance of the proposedJACSA scheme Generally the reported subchannel capacityof each FAP is assumed to obey the exponential distributiondescribed by PDF 119891(119909) = 119890

minus119909 and thus the averagesubchannel capacity of each FAP follows Erlang distributionwith PDF 119901(119909) = 119870

119870119909119870minus1

119890minus119870119909

(119870 minus 1) As in our schemethe FMDs deal with the information got from the FAPs inan easy way they only care about the average capacitiesreported by FAPs instead of detailed subchannel capacitiesFor simplicity we assume that each FAP calculates its ownaverage subchannel capacity and reports a value to each FMDfrom which FMD selects FAP We consider two scenarioshere the open access and the hybrid access Now we willgive the simulation results of verification of the truth-tellingmechanism the open access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme the hybrid access scenario in JACSAscheme versus OSA scheme and the open access scenarioversus hybrid access scenario in JACSA scheme respectively

Firstly wewill focus on verification of truth-tellingmech-anism For the open scenario we investigate the performanceof the truth-telling mechanism and consider a femtocellnetwork with the settings of119872119874 = 5119873119874 = 2 and119870 = 8 Wealso assume that the price per unit of channel capacity 120585 = 1

and a random sample of the real average channel capacity isobtained as

Copen = (

C11

C21

C12

C22

C13

C23

C14

C24

C15

C25

) = (

100 085

082 084

126 058

107 071

097 104

) (25)

For the hybrid access scenario besides the channel capacitiesabove the open and closed FAPs also report to the closed

0 1 2 3 4minus03

minus02

minus01

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tota

l pay

off

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 2 Expected total payment when different average subchan-nel capacities are reported to 119880

1

FMDs We consider that119873119862= 1119872

119862= 1198721198621

= 2 and119870 = 8The channel capacity reported to closed FMDs is then

Cclosed = (C16

C26

C36

C17

C27

C37

) = (068 095 111

122 149 054) (26)

Without loss of generality we consider 1198804 as an examplefor the open access scenario and 1198806 for the hybrid accessscenario

In Figure 2 we demonstrate the variation of 119865119899rsquos expected

total payment paid by the open FMD1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed

FMD1198806(119899 = 1 2 3) when the reported information changes

in the proposed mechanism Given that the other nodes arehonest we find that 119865

119899gets its maximum expected total

payment only when it reports the true information whichis proved in Proposition 1 There is no incentive for FAPs toreport exaggerated information

In Figure 2 in the hybrid access scenario the openFAP 119865

1 1198652and closed FAP 119865

3get their largest expected

total payments whose values are 03008 02471 and 01977respectively at subchannel capacities at C

16= 055 C

26=

096 and C36

= 113 for FMD 1198806 respectively These

capacities are very close to their true capacities whosevalues are 068 095 and 111 respectively The expectedtotal payments are 02993 02429 and 01956 respectivelywhich differ from their maximum values of less than 05These derivations from their true values are due to thefluctuations of the calculated expected total payments forlimited simulation times Among all FAPs 119865

3 which has the

largest true capacity will be selected by1198806The expected total

payment is less than 120585C16

= 113 because it needs to paytransfer payment to other FAPs

Figure 3 shows the expected transfer payment of 119865119899

with open FMD 1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed FMD 119880

6

8 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0 1 2 3 4minus12

minus1

minus08

minus06

minus04

minus02

0

02

04

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tran

sfer p

ayoff

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 3 Expected transfer payment when different average sub-channel capacities are reported to 119880

1

(119899 = 1 2 3) We can see that the transfer payment ofeach FAP monotonically decreases because the larger thereported average subchannel capacity is the more transferpayment should be paid to others Therefore FAPs willnot report exaggerate information if they take the transferpayment into consideration We also find that the transferpayment curve of 119865

119899with the largest real average subchannel

capacity lies above other curves This is because the expectedpayment is proportional to the real channel capacity (25)and (26) So the FAP with larger real channel capacityneeds larger transfer payment to guarantee truth-tellingFurthermore the transfer payment can be seen as a kindof tax

When all FAPs report true information the transferpayments of all FAPs 119865119899 with 1198806 are T16 = 02765 T26 =00148 and T36 = minus02906 respectively We can see thatT16

+ T26

+ T36

= 65 times 10minus4

asymp 0 an exampleof Proposition 2 Even after we consider the fluctuations inthe limited simulation times the transfer payments at thepointswithmaximumexpected transfer payments are 0296600081 and minus03167 and their sum is minus00120 which is of theorder of 1 and is within a reasonable error range

Second we consider the performance of the JACSAscheme and OSA scheme for an open access scenario Weprimarily focus on the allocation result and throughput of thenetwork at different 119870 and 119872119874 Primarily we set 119872

119874= 5

and 119873119874 = 3 and change the value of 119870 to investigate theinfluence of the number of subchannels From Figure 4 wecan see that when the number of subchannel (119870) increasesthe throughput of the network will increase at the sametime Because each FAP has more subchannels for allocationwhen 119870 increases and more FMDs get the chance to obtainmore channel resource than the scenario with lower 119870which increase the throughput of the network Besides as

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 2560

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of subchannels

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 4 Throughput comparison at different 119870

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of open FMDs

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 5 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

119870 increases the relative difference between the joint andoptimal subchannel allocation is almost the same and theJACSA scheme can give a throughput about 90 of the OSAscheme with a much lower complexity

Then we set 119873119874 = 3 and 119870 = 8 and change the valueof 119872119874 to investigate the influence of FMDs Figure 5 showsthe throughput of the JACSA scheme andOSA scheme underthe condition of different number of FMDs As the numberof open FMDs increases the subchannel can be used moresufficiently and thus the throughput of the system is larger

Third comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSAscheme for the hybrid access scenario We set 119873

119874= 2119872

119874=

5 119873119862

= 1 and 119872119862

= 1198721198621

= 2 and change the value of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256

Number of subchannels

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 6 Throughput comparison at different119870

119870 to investigate the influence of the number of subchannelsFigure 6 shows the throughput of all open and closed FAPsin JACSA and OSA scheme Similar with the open accessscenario the total throughput does not change much withincreasing of119870 However the throughput of all open FAPs issmaller for the OSA scheme than that for the JACSA schemewhile the throughput of all closed FAPs is larger This meansthat the current JACSA scheme does not sufficiently use theclosed FAPs

Similarly we consider the influence of the number ofclosed FMDs in the hybrid access scenario Figure 7 showsthe throughput of all open and closed FAPs in the JACSAand OSA schemes Increasing of the number of closed FMDsmeans that both subchannels of the open and closed FAPs areused sufficiently and the throughput of both kinds of FAPsincreases

Finally in the hybrid access scenario due to the existenceof the closed FAP which is exclusive to closed FMDsthese closed FMDs have more access choices and thus theyprobably have larger per user capacity Compared with thesituationwhere this FAP is open however there is less chancefor access thus total throughput decreases First we lookfrom the perspective of the FAPs and calculate the totalthroughput of the system Figure 8 shows the throughput ofopen and closed FAPs with119873119874 = 2 and119873119862 = 1 respectivelyand a total number of FMDs 119872119874 + 119872119862 = 8 and transfersone FMD from open status to closed In order to comparewith the open access scenario we also plot the 119873119874 = 3 and119872119874 = 8 caseThehorizontal axis represents the combinationsof FAPs and FMDs We can see that compared with openand hybrid access scenarios the throughput is less in thelatter when the maximum value is equal to the throughputin the former When there is no closed FMD in the hybridas there is one empty FAP which has no access the totalthroughput is minimum With the increasing of the closedFMDs the total throughput and that for all closed FAPs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of closed FMDs

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 7 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Th

roug

hput

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 8 Throughput comparison with different combinations ofFAPs and FMDs The figure shows the number of open FAPs andopen FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873

119874+

119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

increases and the throughput for all open FAPs decreasesslightly as more FMDs may access closed FAPs Thereforenomatter howmany closed FMDs there are total throughputis smaller in the hybrid access scenario compared with openaccess

From the perspective of FMDs the average capacity isenjoyed by each FMD as shown in Figure 9When there is noclosed FMD as there are less open FAPs the average capacityfor open FMDs is smaller If one FMD decides to join theCSG the average capacity to be obtained is larger than that ofan open FMD and is also larger than that received by other

10 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capa

city

per

FM

D

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 9 Average capacity per FMD enjoys with different combina-tions of FAPs and FMDsThe figure shows the number of open FAPsand open FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873119874+ 119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

open FMDs As the closed FMDs probably access the closedFAP the open FMDs have less competition and enjoy largeraverage capacity As more FMDs join the CSG as there aremore competitions for the closed FAP the average capacitydecreases for each closed FMD but is still larger than thatreceived by open FMDs and received with an open FMD Ifall FMDs become closed the situation is the same as in theopen access scenario and the capacity of each closed FMDis minimum This indicates that when closed FAPs existby becoming a closed FMD the average capacity each FMDenjoys grows

6 Conclusion

In this paper we focus on the OFDMA femtocell-basedM2Mnetwork with several femtocells andMTCdevices distributedrandomly in open access scenario and hybrid access scenarioIn order to solve the truth-telling and subchannel allocationproblems under these two scenarios we propose a joint accesscontrol and subchannel allocation scheme based on the AGVmechanismWe use the transfer payment to balance the totalpayment and prove that there is only one equilibrium to bereached at the point when all FAPs reported their true capac-ities By comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSA schemein the two scenarios we show that the JACSA scheme canobtain near optimal results with lower complexity Finally wecompare the open access scenariowith hybrid access scenarioin the JACSA scheme and the simulation results show thatfrom the view of FAPs an open access scenario is better toget more payments but from the view of FMDs when thereare closed FAPs it is better to join the CSG for better services

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no NFSC 61071083 no NFSC61371073) and the National High Technology Researchand Development Program of China (863 program no2012AA01A506)

References

[1] 3GPP ldquoService requirements for Machine-Type Communica-tions (MTC)rdquo Tech Rep TS 22368 V1120 2011

[2] M Starsinic ldquoSystem architecture challenges in the homeM2Mnetworkrdquo in Proceedings of the Long Island Systems Applicationsand Technology Conference (LISAT rsquo10) May 2010

[3] Y Zhang R Yu S Xie W Yao Y Xiao and M GuizanildquoHome M2M networks architectures standards and QoSimprovementrdquo IEEE Communications Magazine vol 49 no 4pp 44ndash52 2011

[4] K Zheng F Hu and W Wang ldquoRadio resource allocation inLTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communicationsrdquoIEEE Communications Magazine vol 50 no 7 pp 184ndash1922012

[5] K-D Lee S Kim and B Yi ldquoThroughput comparison ofrandom access methods for M2M service over LTE networksrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOMWorkshops (GCWkshpsrsquo11) pp 373ndash377 December 2011

[6] Y Zhang R Yu M Nekovee Y Liu S Xie and S GjessingldquoCognitive machine-to-machine communications visions andpotentials for the smart gridrdquo IEEE Network Magazine vol 26no 3 pp 6ndash13 2012

[7] Q D Vo J-P Choi H M Chang and W C Lee ldquoGreenperspective cognitive radio-based M2M communications forsmart metersrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Information and Communication Technology Convergence(ICTC rsquo10) pp 382ndash383 November 2010

[8] A-H Tsai and J-H Huang ldquoOverload control for machinetype communications with femtocellsrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall rsquo12) pp 1ndash5September 2012

[9] E Mutafungwa ldquoApplying MTC and femtocell technologies tothe continua health reference architecturerdquo in Proceedings of theGrid and Pervasive Computing Workshops January 2012

[10] J G Andrews H Claussen M Dohler S Rangan and M CReed ldquoFemtocells past present and futurerdquo IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications vol 30 no 3 pp 497ndash5082012

[11] H Claussen L T W Ho and L G Samuel ldquoAn overview of thefemtocell conceptrdquo Bell Labs Technical Journal vol 13 no 1 pp221ndash246 2008

[12] G de la Roche A Valcarce D Lopez-Perez and J ZhangldquoAccess control mechanisms for femtocellsrdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 48 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2010

[13] J Xiang Y Zhang T Skeie and L Xie ldquoDownlink spectrumsharing for cognitive radio femtocell networksrdquo IEEE SystemsJournal vol 4 no 4 pp 524ndash534 2010

[14] D Fudenberg and J Tirole Game Theory MIT Press Cam-bridge Mass USA 1991

[15] J Chen R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoJoint relayand jammer selection for secure two-way relay networksrdquo IEEE

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 5

reached since each FMD only knows its own choices ofFAPs and it can not learn other FMDsrsquo choices and thoseFMDs who select the same FAPmay compete for subchannelresources For the optimal subchannel allocation (OSA)scheme which maximizing the throughput of the whole net-work all subchannel information (which of course shouldbe the true values) and allocation probabilities should beconcerned and the complexity of the algorithm is 119874(119873

119872119870)

In a rapidly changing wireless communication environmentthis process is too time-consuming and cannot be achievedBesides as all FAPsmay be so selfish that they only care aboutmaximize their own throughput an additional entity must beincluded to allocate the subchannels globally which raises thetotal cost of the network With the JACSA scheme howeverthe complexity is only 119874(119873

119872119870) which is much lower than

the OSA scheme especially when 119873 and 119872 are very largeFrom the following simulation results we can see that in thecurrent JACSA scheme as long as each FAPmaximizs its ownutility themaximum throughput of thewhole network can bewell approached with a percentage of about 90 The wholeprocess of JACSA scheme is described as follows

(i) Based on the truth-tellingmechanism all FAPs reportreal average capacities to FMDs OFAP 119865

119899reports

C119899119898 to any FMD 119880119898 (119899 = 1 2 119873119874 and 119898 =

1 2 119872) and CFAP 1198651198991015840 reports C1198991015840 1198981015840 to CFMD

1198801198981015840 (1198991015840 = 119873

119874+ 1119873

119874+ 2 119873 and 119898

1015840= 1198721198991015840minus1

+

11198721198991015840minus1

+ 2 1198721198991015840

) in its CSG

(ii) According to the reported information FMDs selectone FAP with the largest average capacity to accessOFMD can only access119873

119874OFAPs while CFMD can

access119873119874OFAPs and one additional CFAP

(iii) According to the accessing information FAPs allocatetheir subchannel resources among FMDs who selectthem For each subchannel FAP will allocate it tothe FMD with the most capacity to maximize itsthroughput OFAPs will allocate their subchannelsamong all FMDs while CFAPs only allocate amongCFMDs in their CSGs

(iv) Subchannel allocation finished FMDs will access theFAPs who have allocated resources to them

4 AGV Mechanism

Truth-telling is achieved by adding a transfer payment to theexpected revenue R119899119898 which is different for the OO OCand CC case

(1) For OO case the transfer payment is

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

= Γ119899119898

(C119899119898

) minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

Γ119894119898

(C119894119898

)

(10)

where the externality

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

119864 [R119894119898 (C119899119898)] (11)

represents the sum of other FAPsrsquo expected paymentfrom 119880

119898 when 119865119899 has reported C119899119898(2) For OC case the transfer payment is

T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)

= Γ119899119898

(C119899119898

)

minus1

119873119874

[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898) + Γ119873119874+119902119898(C119873119874+119902119898)]

(12)

where the externality is

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

119864 [R119894119898 (C119899119898)]

+ 119864 [R119873119874+119902119898 (C119899119898)]

Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

) =

119873119874

sum

119894=1

119864 [R119894119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(13)

(3) For CC case the transfer payment is

T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)

= Γ119873119874+119902119898(C119873119874+119902119898) minus

1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

(14)

where the externality is the same as OC case

The expected total payment or the expected utility of 119865119899

from 119880119898 is

U119899119898

(C119899119898

) = R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(15)

The existence of transfer payment can effectively preventthe FAPs from reporting false information The FAPs whoreport larger capacities than their real values can be punishedand the loss of any FAPrsquos revenue caused by exaggeratedlyreported capacities of other FAPs can be compensated If 119865

119899

reports its subchannel capacities with larger values (C119899119898

gt

C119899119898

) it has more chance to be selected by 119880119898 but the

transfer payment is even larger decreasing its expected totalrevenue On the contrary if 119865

119899reports its true values but one

of the other FAPs reports larger capacities than its real valuesand is selected by FMDs instead of 119865

119899 it will have to pay

119865119899some transfer payment On the other hand if 119865

119899reports

smaller average capacities (C119899119898

lt C119899119898

) it has smallerprobability to be selected by 119880

119898 and the transfer payment

from other FAPs does not compensate the reduction makingits expected utility decreasing

6 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

Proposition 1 Each FAP maximizes its expected utility fromFMDs only when it reports its real information

C119899119898

= C119899119898

(16)

Proof Without loss of generality we consider the expectedutility of 119865

119899paid by 119880

119898 which can be expressed as follows

(1) For OO case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)]

(17)

inserting (10) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)] = 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

+ 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

(18)

(2) For OC case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898 (C119899119898) +T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)]

(19)

inserting (12) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

) +R119873119874+119902119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

) + Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

]

(20)

(3) For CC case

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864 [R119873119874+ 119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)

+T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(21)

inserting (14) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898 (C119873119874+119902119898) +R119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)]

]

(22)

The terms on the right side of (18) (20) and (22)represent the expected revenue of all FAPs paid by 119880119898

when 119865119899reports C

119899119898to 119880119898

and the average externalityof other FAPs except 119865

119899 which is independent on C

119899119898to

119880119898 Therefore the first term describing the expected total

revenue of all FAPs determines the expected utility of119865119899from

119880119898 Note that according to (8) the expected total revenue

is decided by the reported capacities which may not betrue Besides we easily know that if there exist FAPs whocheat about their capacities the selections of FMDs may bemisled leading to decreasing of the expected total revenueTherefore only when all FMDs select FAPs according to thereal capacities the whole network can get the maximumtotal revenue The maximum of the whole network alsomeans that the utility of 119865119899 from 119880

119898reaches its maximum

value The coincidence between the global maximum andthe individual optimum ensures that 119865119899 has no incentiveto report false information and the equilibrium can beachieved

Proposition 2 Thenetwork pays no extra costs for the truthfulmechanism

Proof From the transfer function equations (10) (12) and (5)we can obtain the sumof the transfer payment of all FAPswith119880119898(forall119898) as follows(1) for open FMDs (OO case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898)

=119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (119862119894119898)

= 0

(23)

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 7

(2) For closed FMDs (OC and CC case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

) +T119873119874+119902119898

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)

+T119873119874+119902119898

= 0

(24)

The total transfer payment of all FAPs with 119880119898equals

zero Therefore the total transfer payment of the wholenetwork also equals zero

5 Simulation Results

Based on the analysis in previous sections simulation resultsare given to evaluate the performance of the proposedJACSA scheme Generally the reported subchannel capacityof each FAP is assumed to obey the exponential distributiondescribed by PDF 119891(119909) = 119890

minus119909 and thus the averagesubchannel capacity of each FAP follows Erlang distributionwith PDF 119901(119909) = 119870

119870119909119870minus1

119890minus119870119909

(119870 minus 1) As in our schemethe FMDs deal with the information got from the FAPs inan easy way they only care about the average capacitiesreported by FAPs instead of detailed subchannel capacitiesFor simplicity we assume that each FAP calculates its ownaverage subchannel capacity and reports a value to each FMDfrom which FMD selects FAP We consider two scenarioshere the open access and the hybrid access Now we willgive the simulation results of verification of the truth-tellingmechanism the open access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme the hybrid access scenario in JACSAscheme versus OSA scheme and the open access scenarioversus hybrid access scenario in JACSA scheme respectively

Firstly wewill focus on verification of truth-tellingmech-anism For the open scenario we investigate the performanceof the truth-telling mechanism and consider a femtocellnetwork with the settings of119872119874 = 5119873119874 = 2 and119870 = 8 Wealso assume that the price per unit of channel capacity 120585 = 1

and a random sample of the real average channel capacity isobtained as

Copen = (

C11

C21

C12

C22

C13

C23

C14

C24

C15

C25

) = (

100 085

082 084

126 058

107 071

097 104

) (25)

For the hybrid access scenario besides the channel capacitiesabove the open and closed FAPs also report to the closed

0 1 2 3 4minus03

minus02

minus01

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tota

l pay

off

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 2 Expected total payment when different average subchan-nel capacities are reported to 119880

1

FMDs We consider that119873119862= 1119872

119862= 1198721198621

= 2 and119870 = 8The channel capacity reported to closed FMDs is then

Cclosed = (C16

C26

C36

C17

C27

C37

) = (068 095 111

122 149 054) (26)

Without loss of generality we consider 1198804 as an examplefor the open access scenario and 1198806 for the hybrid accessscenario

In Figure 2 we demonstrate the variation of 119865119899rsquos expected

total payment paid by the open FMD1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed

FMD1198806(119899 = 1 2 3) when the reported information changes

in the proposed mechanism Given that the other nodes arehonest we find that 119865

119899gets its maximum expected total

payment only when it reports the true information whichis proved in Proposition 1 There is no incentive for FAPs toreport exaggerated information

In Figure 2 in the hybrid access scenario the openFAP 119865

1 1198652and closed FAP 119865

3get their largest expected

total payments whose values are 03008 02471 and 01977respectively at subchannel capacities at C

16= 055 C

26=

096 and C36

= 113 for FMD 1198806 respectively These

capacities are very close to their true capacities whosevalues are 068 095 and 111 respectively The expectedtotal payments are 02993 02429 and 01956 respectivelywhich differ from their maximum values of less than 05These derivations from their true values are due to thefluctuations of the calculated expected total payments forlimited simulation times Among all FAPs 119865

3 which has the

largest true capacity will be selected by1198806The expected total

payment is less than 120585C16

= 113 because it needs to paytransfer payment to other FAPs

Figure 3 shows the expected transfer payment of 119865119899

with open FMD 1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed FMD 119880

6

8 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0 1 2 3 4minus12

minus1

minus08

minus06

minus04

minus02

0

02

04

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tran

sfer p

ayoff

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 3 Expected transfer payment when different average sub-channel capacities are reported to 119880

1

(119899 = 1 2 3) We can see that the transfer payment ofeach FAP monotonically decreases because the larger thereported average subchannel capacity is the more transferpayment should be paid to others Therefore FAPs willnot report exaggerate information if they take the transferpayment into consideration We also find that the transferpayment curve of 119865

119899with the largest real average subchannel

capacity lies above other curves This is because the expectedpayment is proportional to the real channel capacity (25)and (26) So the FAP with larger real channel capacityneeds larger transfer payment to guarantee truth-tellingFurthermore the transfer payment can be seen as a kindof tax

When all FAPs report true information the transferpayments of all FAPs 119865119899 with 1198806 are T16 = 02765 T26 =00148 and T36 = minus02906 respectively We can see thatT16

+ T26

+ T36

= 65 times 10minus4

asymp 0 an exampleof Proposition 2 Even after we consider the fluctuations inthe limited simulation times the transfer payments at thepointswithmaximumexpected transfer payments are 0296600081 and minus03167 and their sum is minus00120 which is of theorder of 1 and is within a reasonable error range

Second we consider the performance of the JACSAscheme and OSA scheme for an open access scenario Weprimarily focus on the allocation result and throughput of thenetwork at different 119870 and 119872119874 Primarily we set 119872

119874= 5

and 119873119874 = 3 and change the value of 119870 to investigate theinfluence of the number of subchannels From Figure 4 wecan see that when the number of subchannel (119870) increasesthe throughput of the network will increase at the sametime Because each FAP has more subchannels for allocationwhen 119870 increases and more FMDs get the chance to obtainmore channel resource than the scenario with lower 119870which increase the throughput of the network Besides as

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 2560

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of subchannels

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 4 Throughput comparison at different 119870

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of open FMDs

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 5 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

119870 increases the relative difference between the joint andoptimal subchannel allocation is almost the same and theJACSA scheme can give a throughput about 90 of the OSAscheme with a much lower complexity

Then we set 119873119874 = 3 and 119870 = 8 and change the valueof 119872119874 to investigate the influence of FMDs Figure 5 showsthe throughput of the JACSA scheme andOSA scheme underthe condition of different number of FMDs As the numberof open FMDs increases the subchannel can be used moresufficiently and thus the throughput of the system is larger

Third comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSAscheme for the hybrid access scenario We set 119873

119874= 2119872

119874=

5 119873119862

= 1 and 119872119862

= 1198721198621

= 2 and change the value of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256

Number of subchannels

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 6 Throughput comparison at different119870

119870 to investigate the influence of the number of subchannelsFigure 6 shows the throughput of all open and closed FAPsin JACSA and OSA scheme Similar with the open accessscenario the total throughput does not change much withincreasing of119870 However the throughput of all open FAPs issmaller for the OSA scheme than that for the JACSA schemewhile the throughput of all closed FAPs is larger This meansthat the current JACSA scheme does not sufficiently use theclosed FAPs

Similarly we consider the influence of the number ofclosed FMDs in the hybrid access scenario Figure 7 showsthe throughput of all open and closed FAPs in the JACSAand OSA schemes Increasing of the number of closed FMDsmeans that both subchannels of the open and closed FAPs areused sufficiently and the throughput of both kinds of FAPsincreases

Finally in the hybrid access scenario due to the existenceof the closed FAP which is exclusive to closed FMDsthese closed FMDs have more access choices and thus theyprobably have larger per user capacity Compared with thesituationwhere this FAP is open however there is less chancefor access thus total throughput decreases First we lookfrom the perspective of the FAPs and calculate the totalthroughput of the system Figure 8 shows the throughput ofopen and closed FAPs with119873119874 = 2 and119873119862 = 1 respectivelyand a total number of FMDs 119872119874 + 119872119862 = 8 and transfersone FMD from open status to closed In order to comparewith the open access scenario we also plot the 119873119874 = 3 and119872119874 = 8 caseThehorizontal axis represents the combinationsof FAPs and FMDs We can see that compared with openand hybrid access scenarios the throughput is less in thelatter when the maximum value is equal to the throughputin the former When there is no closed FMD in the hybridas there is one empty FAP which has no access the totalthroughput is minimum With the increasing of the closedFMDs the total throughput and that for all closed FAPs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of closed FMDs

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 7 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Th

roug

hput

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 8 Throughput comparison with different combinations ofFAPs and FMDs The figure shows the number of open FAPs andopen FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873

119874+

119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

increases and the throughput for all open FAPs decreasesslightly as more FMDs may access closed FAPs Thereforenomatter howmany closed FMDs there are total throughputis smaller in the hybrid access scenario compared with openaccess

From the perspective of FMDs the average capacity isenjoyed by each FMD as shown in Figure 9When there is noclosed FMD as there are less open FAPs the average capacityfor open FMDs is smaller If one FMD decides to join theCSG the average capacity to be obtained is larger than that ofan open FMD and is also larger than that received by other

10 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capa

city

per

FM

D

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 9 Average capacity per FMD enjoys with different combina-tions of FAPs and FMDsThe figure shows the number of open FAPsand open FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873119874+ 119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

open FMDs As the closed FMDs probably access the closedFAP the open FMDs have less competition and enjoy largeraverage capacity As more FMDs join the CSG as there aremore competitions for the closed FAP the average capacitydecreases for each closed FMD but is still larger than thatreceived by open FMDs and received with an open FMD Ifall FMDs become closed the situation is the same as in theopen access scenario and the capacity of each closed FMDis minimum This indicates that when closed FAPs existby becoming a closed FMD the average capacity each FMDenjoys grows

6 Conclusion

In this paper we focus on the OFDMA femtocell-basedM2Mnetwork with several femtocells andMTCdevices distributedrandomly in open access scenario and hybrid access scenarioIn order to solve the truth-telling and subchannel allocationproblems under these two scenarios we propose a joint accesscontrol and subchannel allocation scheme based on the AGVmechanismWe use the transfer payment to balance the totalpayment and prove that there is only one equilibrium to bereached at the point when all FAPs reported their true capac-ities By comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSA schemein the two scenarios we show that the JACSA scheme canobtain near optimal results with lower complexity Finally wecompare the open access scenariowith hybrid access scenarioin the JACSA scheme and the simulation results show thatfrom the view of FAPs an open access scenario is better toget more payments but from the view of FMDs when thereare closed FAPs it is better to join the CSG for better services

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no NFSC 61071083 no NFSC61371073) and the National High Technology Researchand Development Program of China (863 program no2012AA01A506)

References

[1] 3GPP ldquoService requirements for Machine-Type Communica-tions (MTC)rdquo Tech Rep TS 22368 V1120 2011

[2] M Starsinic ldquoSystem architecture challenges in the homeM2Mnetworkrdquo in Proceedings of the Long Island Systems Applicationsand Technology Conference (LISAT rsquo10) May 2010

[3] Y Zhang R Yu S Xie W Yao Y Xiao and M GuizanildquoHome M2M networks architectures standards and QoSimprovementrdquo IEEE Communications Magazine vol 49 no 4pp 44ndash52 2011

[4] K Zheng F Hu and W Wang ldquoRadio resource allocation inLTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communicationsrdquoIEEE Communications Magazine vol 50 no 7 pp 184ndash1922012

[5] K-D Lee S Kim and B Yi ldquoThroughput comparison ofrandom access methods for M2M service over LTE networksrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOMWorkshops (GCWkshpsrsquo11) pp 373ndash377 December 2011

[6] Y Zhang R Yu M Nekovee Y Liu S Xie and S GjessingldquoCognitive machine-to-machine communications visions andpotentials for the smart gridrdquo IEEE Network Magazine vol 26no 3 pp 6ndash13 2012

[7] Q D Vo J-P Choi H M Chang and W C Lee ldquoGreenperspective cognitive radio-based M2M communications forsmart metersrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Information and Communication Technology Convergence(ICTC rsquo10) pp 382ndash383 November 2010

[8] A-H Tsai and J-H Huang ldquoOverload control for machinetype communications with femtocellsrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall rsquo12) pp 1ndash5September 2012

[9] E Mutafungwa ldquoApplying MTC and femtocell technologies tothe continua health reference architecturerdquo in Proceedings of theGrid and Pervasive Computing Workshops January 2012

[10] J G Andrews H Claussen M Dohler S Rangan and M CReed ldquoFemtocells past present and futurerdquo IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications vol 30 no 3 pp 497ndash5082012

[11] H Claussen L T W Ho and L G Samuel ldquoAn overview of thefemtocell conceptrdquo Bell Labs Technical Journal vol 13 no 1 pp221ndash246 2008

[12] G de la Roche A Valcarce D Lopez-Perez and J ZhangldquoAccess control mechanisms for femtocellsrdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 48 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2010

[13] J Xiang Y Zhang T Skeie and L Xie ldquoDownlink spectrumsharing for cognitive radio femtocell networksrdquo IEEE SystemsJournal vol 4 no 4 pp 524ndash534 2010

[14] D Fudenberg and J Tirole Game Theory MIT Press Cam-bridge Mass USA 1991

[15] J Chen R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoJoint relayand jammer selection for secure two-way relay networksrdquo IEEE

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

6 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

Proposition 1 Each FAP maximizes its expected utility fromFMDs only when it reports its real information

C119899119898

= C119899119898

(16)

Proof Without loss of generality we consider the expectedutility of 119865

119899paid by 119880

119898 which can be expressed as follows

(1) For OO case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

) +T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)]

(17)

inserting (10) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)] = 119864 [R119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

+ 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1119894 = 119899

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874 minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)

(18)

(2) For OC case

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864 [R119899119898 (C119899119898) +T119899119898 (C1119898 C119873119874119898 C119873119874+119902119898)]

(19)

inserting (12) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119899119898

(C119899119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898

(C119899119898

) +R119873119874+119902119898

(C119899119898

)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

) + Γ119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

]

(20)

(3) For CC case

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864 [R119873119874+ 119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)

+T119873119874+119902119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

)]

(21)

inserting (14) into the above equation we get

119864 [U119873119874+119902119898

(C119873119874+119902119898

)]

= 119864[

119873119874

sum

119894=1

R119894119898 (C119873119874+119902119898) +R119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)]

minus1

119873119874

[

[

119873

sum

119895=1119895 = 119899

Γ119895119898

(C119895119898

)]

]

(22)

The terms on the right side of (18) (20) and (22)represent the expected revenue of all FAPs paid by 119880119898

when 119865119899reports C

119899119898to 119880119898

and the average externalityof other FAPs except 119865

119899 which is independent on C

119899119898to

119880119898 Therefore the first term describing the expected total

revenue of all FAPs determines the expected utility of119865119899from

119880119898 Note that according to (8) the expected total revenue

is decided by the reported capacities which may not betrue Besides we easily know that if there exist FAPs whocheat about their capacities the selections of FMDs may bemisled leading to decreasing of the expected total revenueTherefore only when all FMDs select FAPs according to thereal capacities the whole network can get the maximumtotal revenue The maximum of the whole network alsomeans that the utility of 119865119899 from 119880

119898reaches its maximum

value The coincidence between the global maximum andthe individual optimum ensures that 119865119899 has no incentiveto report false information and the equilibrium can beachieved

Proposition 2 Thenetwork pays no extra costs for the truthfulmechanism

Proof From the transfer function equations (10) (12) and (5)we can obtain the sumof the transfer payment of all FAPswith119880119898(forall119898) as follows(1) for open FMDs (OO case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

)

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898)

=119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus119873119874

119873119874minus 1

119873

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (119862119894119898)

= 0

(23)

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 7

(2) For closed FMDs (OC and CC case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

) +T119873119874+119902119898

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)

+T119873119874+119902119898

= 0

(24)

The total transfer payment of all FAPs with 119880119898equals

zero Therefore the total transfer payment of the wholenetwork also equals zero

5 Simulation Results

Based on the analysis in previous sections simulation resultsare given to evaluate the performance of the proposedJACSA scheme Generally the reported subchannel capacityof each FAP is assumed to obey the exponential distributiondescribed by PDF 119891(119909) = 119890

minus119909 and thus the averagesubchannel capacity of each FAP follows Erlang distributionwith PDF 119901(119909) = 119870

119870119909119870minus1

119890minus119870119909

(119870 minus 1) As in our schemethe FMDs deal with the information got from the FAPs inan easy way they only care about the average capacitiesreported by FAPs instead of detailed subchannel capacitiesFor simplicity we assume that each FAP calculates its ownaverage subchannel capacity and reports a value to each FMDfrom which FMD selects FAP We consider two scenarioshere the open access and the hybrid access Now we willgive the simulation results of verification of the truth-tellingmechanism the open access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme the hybrid access scenario in JACSAscheme versus OSA scheme and the open access scenarioversus hybrid access scenario in JACSA scheme respectively

Firstly wewill focus on verification of truth-tellingmech-anism For the open scenario we investigate the performanceof the truth-telling mechanism and consider a femtocellnetwork with the settings of119872119874 = 5119873119874 = 2 and119870 = 8 Wealso assume that the price per unit of channel capacity 120585 = 1

and a random sample of the real average channel capacity isobtained as

Copen = (

C11

C21

C12

C22

C13

C23

C14

C24

C15

C25

) = (

100 085

082 084

126 058

107 071

097 104

) (25)

For the hybrid access scenario besides the channel capacitiesabove the open and closed FAPs also report to the closed

0 1 2 3 4minus03

minus02

minus01

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tota

l pay

off

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 2 Expected total payment when different average subchan-nel capacities are reported to 119880

1

FMDs We consider that119873119862= 1119872

119862= 1198721198621

= 2 and119870 = 8The channel capacity reported to closed FMDs is then

Cclosed = (C16

C26

C36

C17

C27

C37

) = (068 095 111

122 149 054) (26)

Without loss of generality we consider 1198804 as an examplefor the open access scenario and 1198806 for the hybrid accessscenario

In Figure 2 we demonstrate the variation of 119865119899rsquos expected

total payment paid by the open FMD1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed

FMD1198806(119899 = 1 2 3) when the reported information changes

in the proposed mechanism Given that the other nodes arehonest we find that 119865

119899gets its maximum expected total

payment only when it reports the true information whichis proved in Proposition 1 There is no incentive for FAPs toreport exaggerated information

In Figure 2 in the hybrid access scenario the openFAP 119865

1 1198652and closed FAP 119865

3get their largest expected

total payments whose values are 03008 02471 and 01977respectively at subchannel capacities at C

16= 055 C

26=

096 and C36

= 113 for FMD 1198806 respectively These

capacities are very close to their true capacities whosevalues are 068 095 and 111 respectively The expectedtotal payments are 02993 02429 and 01956 respectivelywhich differ from their maximum values of less than 05These derivations from their true values are due to thefluctuations of the calculated expected total payments forlimited simulation times Among all FAPs 119865

3 which has the

largest true capacity will be selected by1198806The expected total

payment is less than 120585C16

= 113 because it needs to paytransfer payment to other FAPs

Figure 3 shows the expected transfer payment of 119865119899

with open FMD 1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed FMD 119880

6

8 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0 1 2 3 4minus12

minus1

minus08

minus06

minus04

minus02

0

02

04

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tran

sfer p

ayoff

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 3 Expected transfer payment when different average sub-channel capacities are reported to 119880

1

(119899 = 1 2 3) We can see that the transfer payment ofeach FAP monotonically decreases because the larger thereported average subchannel capacity is the more transferpayment should be paid to others Therefore FAPs willnot report exaggerate information if they take the transferpayment into consideration We also find that the transferpayment curve of 119865

119899with the largest real average subchannel

capacity lies above other curves This is because the expectedpayment is proportional to the real channel capacity (25)and (26) So the FAP with larger real channel capacityneeds larger transfer payment to guarantee truth-tellingFurthermore the transfer payment can be seen as a kindof tax

When all FAPs report true information the transferpayments of all FAPs 119865119899 with 1198806 are T16 = 02765 T26 =00148 and T36 = minus02906 respectively We can see thatT16

+ T26

+ T36

= 65 times 10minus4

asymp 0 an exampleof Proposition 2 Even after we consider the fluctuations inthe limited simulation times the transfer payments at thepointswithmaximumexpected transfer payments are 0296600081 and minus03167 and their sum is minus00120 which is of theorder of 1 and is within a reasonable error range

Second we consider the performance of the JACSAscheme and OSA scheme for an open access scenario Weprimarily focus on the allocation result and throughput of thenetwork at different 119870 and 119872119874 Primarily we set 119872

119874= 5

and 119873119874 = 3 and change the value of 119870 to investigate theinfluence of the number of subchannels From Figure 4 wecan see that when the number of subchannel (119870) increasesthe throughput of the network will increase at the sametime Because each FAP has more subchannels for allocationwhen 119870 increases and more FMDs get the chance to obtainmore channel resource than the scenario with lower 119870which increase the throughput of the network Besides as

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 2560

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of subchannels

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 4 Throughput comparison at different 119870

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of open FMDs

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 5 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

119870 increases the relative difference between the joint andoptimal subchannel allocation is almost the same and theJACSA scheme can give a throughput about 90 of the OSAscheme with a much lower complexity

Then we set 119873119874 = 3 and 119870 = 8 and change the valueof 119872119874 to investigate the influence of FMDs Figure 5 showsthe throughput of the JACSA scheme andOSA scheme underthe condition of different number of FMDs As the numberof open FMDs increases the subchannel can be used moresufficiently and thus the throughput of the system is larger

Third comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSAscheme for the hybrid access scenario We set 119873

119874= 2119872

119874=

5 119873119862

= 1 and 119872119862

= 1198721198621

= 2 and change the value of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256

Number of subchannels

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 6 Throughput comparison at different119870

119870 to investigate the influence of the number of subchannelsFigure 6 shows the throughput of all open and closed FAPsin JACSA and OSA scheme Similar with the open accessscenario the total throughput does not change much withincreasing of119870 However the throughput of all open FAPs issmaller for the OSA scheme than that for the JACSA schemewhile the throughput of all closed FAPs is larger This meansthat the current JACSA scheme does not sufficiently use theclosed FAPs

Similarly we consider the influence of the number ofclosed FMDs in the hybrid access scenario Figure 7 showsthe throughput of all open and closed FAPs in the JACSAand OSA schemes Increasing of the number of closed FMDsmeans that both subchannels of the open and closed FAPs areused sufficiently and the throughput of both kinds of FAPsincreases

Finally in the hybrid access scenario due to the existenceof the closed FAP which is exclusive to closed FMDsthese closed FMDs have more access choices and thus theyprobably have larger per user capacity Compared with thesituationwhere this FAP is open however there is less chancefor access thus total throughput decreases First we lookfrom the perspective of the FAPs and calculate the totalthroughput of the system Figure 8 shows the throughput ofopen and closed FAPs with119873119874 = 2 and119873119862 = 1 respectivelyand a total number of FMDs 119872119874 + 119872119862 = 8 and transfersone FMD from open status to closed In order to comparewith the open access scenario we also plot the 119873119874 = 3 and119872119874 = 8 caseThehorizontal axis represents the combinationsof FAPs and FMDs We can see that compared with openand hybrid access scenarios the throughput is less in thelatter when the maximum value is equal to the throughputin the former When there is no closed FMD in the hybridas there is one empty FAP which has no access the totalthroughput is minimum With the increasing of the closedFMDs the total throughput and that for all closed FAPs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of closed FMDs

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 7 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Th

roug

hput

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 8 Throughput comparison with different combinations ofFAPs and FMDs The figure shows the number of open FAPs andopen FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873

119874+

119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

increases and the throughput for all open FAPs decreasesslightly as more FMDs may access closed FAPs Thereforenomatter howmany closed FMDs there are total throughputis smaller in the hybrid access scenario compared with openaccess

From the perspective of FMDs the average capacity isenjoyed by each FMD as shown in Figure 9When there is noclosed FMD as there are less open FAPs the average capacityfor open FMDs is smaller If one FMD decides to join theCSG the average capacity to be obtained is larger than that ofan open FMD and is also larger than that received by other

10 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capa

city

per

FM

D

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 9 Average capacity per FMD enjoys with different combina-tions of FAPs and FMDsThe figure shows the number of open FAPsand open FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873119874+ 119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

open FMDs As the closed FMDs probably access the closedFAP the open FMDs have less competition and enjoy largeraverage capacity As more FMDs join the CSG as there aremore competitions for the closed FAP the average capacitydecreases for each closed FMD but is still larger than thatreceived by open FMDs and received with an open FMD Ifall FMDs become closed the situation is the same as in theopen access scenario and the capacity of each closed FMDis minimum This indicates that when closed FAPs existby becoming a closed FMD the average capacity each FMDenjoys grows

6 Conclusion

In this paper we focus on the OFDMA femtocell-basedM2Mnetwork with several femtocells andMTCdevices distributedrandomly in open access scenario and hybrid access scenarioIn order to solve the truth-telling and subchannel allocationproblems under these two scenarios we propose a joint accesscontrol and subchannel allocation scheme based on the AGVmechanismWe use the transfer payment to balance the totalpayment and prove that there is only one equilibrium to bereached at the point when all FAPs reported their true capac-ities By comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSA schemein the two scenarios we show that the JACSA scheme canobtain near optimal results with lower complexity Finally wecompare the open access scenariowith hybrid access scenarioin the JACSA scheme and the simulation results show thatfrom the view of FAPs an open access scenario is better toget more payments but from the view of FMDs when thereare closed FAPs it is better to join the CSG for better services

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no NFSC 61071083 no NFSC61371073) and the National High Technology Researchand Development Program of China (863 program no2012AA01A506)

References

[1] 3GPP ldquoService requirements for Machine-Type Communica-tions (MTC)rdquo Tech Rep TS 22368 V1120 2011

[2] M Starsinic ldquoSystem architecture challenges in the homeM2Mnetworkrdquo in Proceedings of the Long Island Systems Applicationsand Technology Conference (LISAT rsquo10) May 2010

[3] Y Zhang R Yu S Xie W Yao Y Xiao and M GuizanildquoHome M2M networks architectures standards and QoSimprovementrdquo IEEE Communications Magazine vol 49 no 4pp 44ndash52 2011

[4] K Zheng F Hu and W Wang ldquoRadio resource allocation inLTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communicationsrdquoIEEE Communications Magazine vol 50 no 7 pp 184ndash1922012

[5] K-D Lee S Kim and B Yi ldquoThroughput comparison ofrandom access methods for M2M service over LTE networksrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOMWorkshops (GCWkshpsrsquo11) pp 373ndash377 December 2011

[6] Y Zhang R Yu M Nekovee Y Liu S Xie and S GjessingldquoCognitive machine-to-machine communications visions andpotentials for the smart gridrdquo IEEE Network Magazine vol 26no 3 pp 6ndash13 2012

[7] Q D Vo J-P Choi H M Chang and W C Lee ldquoGreenperspective cognitive radio-based M2M communications forsmart metersrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Information and Communication Technology Convergence(ICTC rsquo10) pp 382ndash383 November 2010

[8] A-H Tsai and J-H Huang ldquoOverload control for machinetype communications with femtocellsrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall rsquo12) pp 1ndash5September 2012

[9] E Mutafungwa ldquoApplying MTC and femtocell technologies tothe continua health reference architecturerdquo in Proceedings of theGrid and Pervasive Computing Workshops January 2012

[10] J G Andrews H Claussen M Dohler S Rangan and M CReed ldquoFemtocells past present and futurerdquo IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications vol 30 no 3 pp 497ndash5082012

[11] H Claussen L T W Ho and L G Samuel ldquoAn overview of thefemtocell conceptrdquo Bell Labs Technical Journal vol 13 no 1 pp221ndash246 2008

[12] G de la Roche A Valcarce D Lopez-Perez and J ZhangldquoAccess control mechanisms for femtocellsrdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 48 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2010

[13] J Xiang Y Zhang T Skeie and L Xie ldquoDownlink spectrumsharing for cognitive radio femtocell networksrdquo IEEE SystemsJournal vol 4 no 4 pp 524ndash534 2010

[14] D Fudenberg and J Tirole Game Theory MIT Press Cam-bridge Mass USA 1991

[15] J Chen R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoJoint relayand jammer selection for secure two-way relay networksrdquo IEEE

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 7

(2) For closed FMDs (OC and CC case)

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119899119898

(C1119898

C119873119874119898

C119873119874+119902119898

) +T119873119874+119902119898

=

119873119874

sum

119899=1

Γ119899119898 (C119899119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

119873119874

sum

119894=1

Γ119894119898 (C119894119898)

+1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119895=1

Γ119895119898 (C119895119898) minus1

119873119874

119873119874

sum

119899=1

T119873119874+119902119898 (C119873119874+119902119898)

+T119873119874+119902119898

= 0

(24)

The total transfer payment of all FAPs with 119880119898equals

zero Therefore the total transfer payment of the wholenetwork also equals zero

5 Simulation Results

Based on the analysis in previous sections simulation resultsare given to evaluate the performance of the proposedJACSA scheme Generally the reported subchannel capacityof each FAP is assumed to obey the exponential distributiondescribed by PDF 119891(119909) = 119890

minus119909 and thus the averagesubchannel capacity of each FAP follows Erlang distributionwith PDF 119901(119909) = 119870

119870119909119870minus1

119890minus119870119909

(119870 minus 1) As in our schemethe FMDs deal with the information got from the FAPs inan easy way they only care about the average capacitiesreported by FAPs instead of detailed subchannel capacitiesFor simplicity we assume that each FAP calculates its ownaverage subchannel capacity and reports a value to each FMDfrom which FMD selects FAP We consider two scenarioshere the open access and the hybrid access Now we willgive the simulation results of verification of the truth-tellingmechanism the open access scenario in JACSA schemeversus OSA scheme the hybrid access scenario in JACSAscheme versus OSA scheme and the open access scenarioversus hybrid access scenario in JACSA scheme respectively

Firstly wewill focus on verification of truth-tellingmech-anism For the open scenario we investigate the performanceof the truth-telling mechanism and consider a femtocellnetwork with the settings of119872119874 = 5119873119874 = 2 and119870 = 8 Wealso assume that the price per unit of channel capacity 120585 = 1

and a random sample of the real average channel capacity isobtained as

Copen = (

C11

C21

C12

C22

C13

C23

C14

C24

C15

C25

) = (

100 085

082 084

126 058

107 071

097 104

) (25)

For the hybrid access scenario besides the channel capacitiesabove the open and closed FAPs also report to the closed

0 1 2 3 4minus03

minus02

minus01

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tota

l pay

off

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 2 Expected total payment when different average subchan-nel capacities are reported to 119880

1

FMDs We consider that119873119862= 1119872

119862= 1198721198621

= 2 and119870 = 8The channel capacity reported to closed FMDs is then

Cclosed = (C16

C26

C36

C17

C27

C37

) = (068 095 111

122 149 054) (26)

Without loss of generality we consider 1198804 as an examplefor the open access scenario and 1198806 for the hybrid accessscenario

In Figure 2 we demonstrate the variation of 119865119899rsquos expected

total payment paid by the open FMD1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed

FMD1198806(119899 = 1 2 3) when the reported information changes

in the proposed mechanism Given that the other nodes arehonest we find that 119865

119899gets its maximum expected total

payment only when it reports the true information whichis proved in Proposition 1 There is no incentive for FAPs toreport exaggerated information

In Figure 2 in the hybrid access scenario the openFAP 119865

1 1198652and closed FAP 119865

3get their largest expected

total payments whose values are 03008 02471 and 01977respectively at subchannel capacities at C

16= 055 C

26=

096 and C36

= 113 for FMD 1198806 respectively These

capacities are very close to their true capacities whosevalues are 068 095 and 111 respectively The expectedtotal payments are 02993 02429 and 01956 respectivelywhich differ from their maximum values of less than 05These derivations from their true values are due to thefluctuations of the calculated expected total payments forlimited simulation times Among all FAPs 119865

3 which has the

largest true capacity will be selected by1198806The expected total

payment is less than 120585C16

= 113 because it needs to paytransfer payment to other FAPs

Figure 3 shows the expected transfer payment of 119865119899

with open FMD 1198804(119899 = 1 2) and closed FMD 119880

6

8 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0 1 2 3 4minus12

minus1

minus08

minus06

minus04

minus02

0

02

04

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tran

sfer p

ayoff

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 3 Expected transfer payment when different average sub-channel capacities are reported to 119880

1

(119899 = 1 2 3) We can see that the transfer payment ofeach FAP monotonically decreases because the larger thereported average subchannel capacity is the more transferpayment should be paid to others Therefore FAPs willnot report exaggerate information if they take the transferpayment into consideration We also find that the transferpayment curve of 119865

119899with the largest real average subchannel

capacity lies above other curves This is because the expectedpayment is proportional to the real channel capacity (25)and (26) So the FAP with larger real channel capacityneeds larger transfer payment to guarantee truth-tellingFurthermore the transfer payment can be seen as a kindof tax

When all FAPs report true information the transferpayments of all FAPs 119865119899 with 1198806 are T16 = 02765 T26 =00148 and T36 = minus02906 respectively We can see thatT16

+ T26

+ T36

= 65 times 10minus4

asymp 0 an exampleof Proposition 2 Even after we consider the fluctuations inthe limited simulation times the transfer payments at thepointswithmaximumexpected transfer payments are 0296600081 and minus03167 and their sum is minus00120 which is of theorder of 1 and is within a reasonable error range

Second we consider the performance of the JACSAscheme and OSA scheme for an open access scenario Weprimarily focus on the allocation result and throughput of thenetwork at different 119870 and 119872119874 Primarily we set 119872

119874= 5

and 119873119874 = 3 and change the value of 119870 to investigate theinfluence of the number of subchannels From Figure 4 wecan see that when the number of subchannel (119870) increasesthe throughput of the network will increase at the sametime Because each FAP has more subchannels for allocationwhen 119870 increases and more FMDs get the chance to obtainmore channel resource than the scenario with lower 119870which increase the throughput of the network Besides as

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 2560

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of subchannels

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 4 Throughput comparison at different 119870

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of open FMDs

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 5 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

119870 increases the relative difference between the joint andoptimal subchannel allocation is almost the same and theJACSA scheme can give a throughput about 90 of the OSAscheme with a much lower complexity

Then we set 119873119874 = 3 and 119870 = 8 and change the valueof 119872119874 to investigate the influence of FMDs Figure 5 showsthe throughput of the JACSA scheme andOSA scheme underthe condition of different number of FMDs As the numberof open FMDs increases the subchannel can be used moresufficiently and thus the throughput of the system is larger

Third comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSAscheme for the hybrid access scenario We set 119873

119874= 2119872

119874=

5 119873119862

= 1 and 119872119862

= 1198721198621

= 2 and change the value of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256

Number of subchannels

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 6 Throughput comparison at different119870

119870 to investigate the influence of the number of subchannelsFigure 6 shows the throughput of all open and closed FAPsin JACSA and OSA scheme Similar with the open accessscenario the total throughput does not change much withincreasing of119870 However the throughput of all open FAPs issmaller for the OSA scheme than that for the JACSA schemewhile the throughput of all closed FAPs is larger This meansthat the current JACSA scheme does not sufficiently use theclosed FAPs

Similarly we consider the influence of the number ofclosed FMDs in the hybrid access scenario Figure 7 showsthe throughput of all open and closed FAPs in the JACSAand OSA schemes Increasing of the number of closed FMDsmeans that both subchannels of the open and closed FAPs areused sufficiently and the throughput of both kinds of FAPsincreases

Finally in the hybrid access scenario due to the existenceof the closed FAP which is exclusive to closed FMDsthese closed FMDs have more access choices and thus theyprobably have larger per user capacity Compared with thesituationwhere this FAP is open however there is less chancefor access thus total throughput decreases First we lookfrom the perspective of the FAPs and calculate the totalthroughput of the system Figure 8 shows the throughput ofopen and closed FAPs with119873119874 = 2 and119873119862 = 1 respectivelyand a total number of FMDs 119872119874 + 119872119862 = 8 and transfersone FMD from open status to closed In order to comparewith the open access scenario we also plot the 119873119874 = 3 and119872119874 = 8 caseThehorizontal axis represents the combinationsof FAPs and FMDs We can see that compared with openand hybrid access scenarios the throughput is less in thelatter when the maximum value is equal to the throughputin the former When there is no closed FMD in the hybridas there is one empty FAP which has no access the totalthroughput is minimum With the increasing of the closedFMDs the total throughput and that for all closed FAPs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of closed FMDs

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 7 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Th

roug

hput

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 8 Throughput comparison with different combinations ofFAPs and FMDs The figure shows the number of open FAPs andopen FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873

119874+

119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

increases and the throughput for all open FAPs decreasesslightly as more FMDs may access closed FAPs Thereforenomatter howmany closed FMDs there are total throughputis smaller in the hybrid access scenario compared with openaccess

From the perspective of FMDs the average capacity isenjoyed by each FMD as shown in Figure 9When there is noclosed FMD as there are less open FAPs the average capacityfor open FMDs is smaller If one FMD decides to join theCSG the average capacity to be obtained is larger than that ofan open FMD and is also larger than that received by other

10 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capa

city

per

FM

D

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 9 Average capacity per FMD enjoys with different combina-tions of FAPs and FMDsThe figure shows the number of open FAPsand open FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873119874+ 119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

open FMDs As the closed FMDs probably access the closedFAP the open FMDs have less competition and enjoy largeraverage capacity As more FMDs join the CSG as there aremore competitions for the closed FAP the average capacitydecreases for each closed FMD but is still larger than thatreceived by open FMDs and received with an open FMD Ifall FMDs become closed the situation is the same as in theopen access scenario and the capacity of each closed FMDis minimum This indicates that when closed FAPs existby becoming a closed FMD the average capacity each FMDenjoys grows

6 Conclusion

In this paper we focus on the OFDMA femtocell-basedM2Mnetwork with several femtocells andMTCdevices distributedrandomly in open access scenario and hybrid access scenarioIn order to solve the truth-telling and subchannel allocationproblems under these two scenarios we propose a joint accesscontrol and subchannel allocation scheme based on the AGVmechanismWe use the transfer payment to balance the totalpayment and prove that there is only one equilibrium to bereached at the point when all FAPs reported their true capac-ities By comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSA schemein the two scenarios we show that the JACSA scheme canobtain near optimal results with lower complexity Finally wecompare the open access scenariowith hybrid access scenarioin the JACSA scheme and the simulation results show thatfrom the view of FAPs an open access scenario is better toget more payments but from the view of FMDs when thereare closed FAPs it is better to join the CSG for better services

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no NFSC 61071083 no NFSC61371073) and the National High Technology Researchand Development Program of China (863 program no2012AA01A506)

References

[1] 3GPP ldquoService requirements for Machine-Type Communica-tions (MTC)rdquo Tech Rep TS 22368 V1120 2011

[2] M Starsinic ldquoSystem architecture challenges in the homeM2Mnetworkrdquo in Proceedings of the Long Island Systems Applicationsand Technology Conference (LISAT rsquo10) May 2010

[3] Y Zhang R Yu S Xie W Yao Y Xiao and M GuizanildquoHome M2M networks architectures standards and QoSimprovementrdquo IEEE Communications Magazine vol 49 no 4pp 44ndash52 2011

[4] K Zheng F Hu and W Wang ldquoRadio resource allocation inLTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communicationsrdquoIEEE Communications Magazine vol 50 no 7 pp 184ndash1922012

[5] K-D Lee S Kim and B Yi ldquoThroughput comparison ofrandom access methods for M2M service over LTE networksrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOMWorkshops (GCWkshpsrsquo11) pp 373ndash377 December 2011

[6] Y Zhang R Yu M Nekovee Y Liu S Xie and S GjessingldquoCognitive machine-to-machine communications visions andpotentials for the smart gridrdquo IEEE Network Magazine vol 26no 3 pp 6ndash13 2012

[7] Q D Vo J-P Choi H M Chang and W C Lee ldquoGreenperspective cognitive radio-based M2M communications forsmart metersrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Information and Communication Technology Convergence(ICTC rsquo10) pp 382ndash383 November 2010

[8] A-H Tsai and J-H Huang ldquoOverload control for machinetype communications with femtocellsrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall rsquo12) pp 1ndash5September 2012

[9] E Mutafungwa ldquoApplying MTC and femtocell technologies tothe continua health reference architecturerdquo in Proceedings of theGrid and Pervasive Computing Workshops January 2012

[10] J G Andrews H Claussen M Dohler S Rangan and M CReed ldquoFemtocells past present and futurerdquo IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications vol 30 no 3 pp 497ndash5082012

[11] H Claussen L T W Ho and L G Samuel ldquoAn overview of thefemtocell conceptrdquo Bell Labs Technical Journal vol 13 no 1 pp221ndash246 2008

[12] G de la Roche A Valcarce D Lopez-Perez and J ZhangldquoAccess control mechanisms for femtocellsrdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 48 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2010

[13] J Xiang Y Zhang T Skeie and L Xie ldquoDownlink spectrumsharing for cognitive radio femtocell networksrdquo IEEE SystemsJournal vol 4 no 4 pp 524ndash534 2010

[14] D Fudenberg and J Tirole Game Theory MIT Press Cam-bridge Mass USA 1991

[15] J Chen R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoJoint relayand jammer selection for secure two-way relay networksrdquo IEEE

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

8 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0 1 2 3 4minus12

minus1

minus08

minus06

minus04

minus02

0

02

04

06

Reported capacity

Expe

cted

tran

sfer p

ayoff

OO-FAP1OO-FAP2OC-FAP1

OC-FAP2CC-FAP3

Figure 3 Expected transfer payment when different average sub-channel capacities are reported to 119880

1

(119899 = 1 2 3) We can see that the transfer payment ofeach FAP monotonically decreases because the larger thereported average subchannel capacity is the more transferpayment should be paid to others Therefore FAPs willnot report exaggerate information if they take the transferpayment into consideration We also find that the transferpayment curve of 119865

119899with the largest real average subchannel

capacity lies above other curves This is because the expectedpayment is proportional to the real channel capacity (25)and (26) So the FAP with larger real channel capacityneeds larger transfer payment to guarantee truth-tellingFurthermore the transfer payment can be seen as a kindof tax

When all FAPs report true information the transferpayments of all FAPs 119865119899 with 1198806 are T16 = 02765 T26 =00148 and T36 = minus02906 respectively We can see thatT16

+ T26

+ T36

= 65 times 10minus4

asymp 0 an exampleof Proposition 2 Even after we consider the fluctuations inthe limited simulation times the transfer payments at thepointswithmaximumexpected transfer payments are 0296600081 and minus03167 and their sum is minus00120 which is of theorder of 1 and is within a reasonable error range

Second we consider the performance of the JACSAscheme and OSA scheme for an open access scenario Weprimarily focus on the allocation result and throughput of thenetwork at different 119870 and 119872119874 Primarily we set 119872

119874= 5

and 119873119874 = 3 and change the value of 119870 to investigate theinfluence of the number of subchannels From Figure 4 wecan see that when the number of subchannel (119870) increasesthe throughput of the network will increase at the sametime Because each FAP has more subchannels for allocationwhen 119870 increases and more FMDs get the chance to obtainmore channel resource than the scenario with lower 119870which increase the throughput of the network Besides as

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 2560

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of subchannels

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 4 Throughput comparison at different 119870

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of open FMDs

Thro

ughp

ut

JACSAOSA

Figure 5 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

119870 increases the relative difference between the joint andoptimal subchannel allocation is almost the same and theJACSA scheme can give a throughput about 90 of the OSAscheme with a much lower complexity

Then we set 119873119874 = 3 and 119870 = 8 and change the valueof 119872119874 to investigate the influence of FMDs Figure 5 showsthe throughput of the JACSA scheme andOSA scheme underthe condition of different number of FMDs As the numberof open FMDs increases the subchannel can be used moresufficiently and thus the throughput of the system is larger

Third comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSAscheme for the hybrid access scenario We set 119873

119874= 2119872

119874=

5 119873119862

= 1 and 119872119862

= 1198721198621

= 2 and change the value of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256

Number of subchannels

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 6 Throughput comparison at different119870

119870 to investigate the influence of the number of subchannelsFigure 6 shows the throughput of all open and closed FAPsin JACSA and OSA scheme Similar with the open accessscenario the total throughput does not change much withincreasing of119870 However the throughput of all open FAPs issmaller for the OSA scheme than that for the JACSA schemewhile the throughput of all closed FAPs is larger This meansthat the current JACSA scheme does not sufficiently use theclosed FAPs

Similarly we consider the influence of the number ofclosed FMDs in the hybrid access scenario Figure 7 showsthe throughput of all open and closed FAPs in the JACSAand OSA schemes Increasing of the number of closed FMDsmeans that both subchannels of the open and closed FAPs areused sufficiently and the throughput of both kinds of FAPsincreases

Finally in the hybrid access scenario due to the existenceof the closed FAP which is exclusive to closed FMDsthese closed FMDs have more access choices and thus theyprobably have larger per user capacity Compared with thesituationwhere this FAP is open however there is less chancefor access thus total throughput decreases First we lookfrom the perspective of the FAPs and calculate the totalthroughput of the system Figure 8 shows the throughput ofopen and closed FAPs with119873119874 = 2 and119873119862 = 1 respectivelyand a total number of FMDs 119872119874 + 119872119862 = 8 and transfersone FMD from open status to closed In order to comparewith the open access scenario we also plot the 119873119874 = 3 and119872119874 = 8 caseThehorizontal axis represents the combinationsof FAPs and FMDs We can see that compared with openand hybrid access scenarios the throughput is less in thelatter when the maximum value is equal to the throughputin the former When there is no closed FMD in the hybridas there is one empty FAP which has no access the totalthroughput is minimum With the increasing of the closedFMDs the total throughput and that for all closed FAPs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of closed FMDs

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 7 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Th

roug

hput

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 8 Throughput comparison with different combinations ofFAPs and FMDs The figure shows the number of open FAPs andopen FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873

119874+

119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

increases and the throughput for all open FAPs decreasesslightly as more FMDs may access closed FAPs Thereforenomatter howmany closed FMDs there are total throughputis smaller in the hybrid access scenario compared with openaccess

From the perspective of FMDs the average capacity isenjoyed by each FMD as shown in Figure 9When there is noclosed FMD as there are less open FAPs the average capacityfor open FMDs is smaller If one FMD decides to join theCSG the average capacity to be obtained is larger than that ofan open FMD and is also larger than that received by other

10 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capa

city

per

FM

D

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 9 Average capacity per FMD enjoys with different combina-tions of FAPs and FMDsThe figure shows the number of open FAPsand open FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873119874+ 119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

open FMDs As the closed FMDs probably access the closedFAP the open FMDs have less competition and enjoy largeraverage capacity As more FMDs join the CSG as there aremore competitions for the closed FAP the average capacitydecreases for each closed FMD but is still larger than thatreceived by open FMDs and received with an open FMD Ifall FMDs become closed the situation is the same as in theopen access scenario and the capacity of each closed FMDis minimum This indicates that when closed FAPs existby becoming a closed FMD the average capacity each FMDenjoys grows

6 Conclusion

In this paper we focus on the OFDMA femtocell-basedM2Mnetwork with several femtocells andMTCdevices distributedrandomly in open access scenario and hybrid access scenarioIn order to solve the truth-telling and subchannel allocationproblems under these two scenarios we propose a joint accesscontrol and subchannel allocation scheme based on the AGVmechanismWe use the transfer payment to balance the totalpayment and prove that there is only one equilibrium to bereached at the point when all FAPs reported their true capac-ities By comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSA schemein the two scenarios we show that the JACSA scheme canobtain near optimal results with lower complexity Finally wecompare the open access scenariowith hybrid access scenarioin the JACSA scheme and the simulation results show thatfrom the view of FAPs an open access scenario is better toget more payments but from the view of FMDs when thereare closed FAPs it is better to join the CSG for better services

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no NFSC 61071083 no NFSC61371073) and the National High Technology Researchand Development Program of China (863 program no2012AA01A506)

References

[1] 3GPP ldquoService requirements for Machine-Type Communica-tions (MTC)rdquo Tech Rep TS 22368 V1120 2011

[2] M Starsinic ldquoSystem architecture challenges in the homeM2Mnetworkrdquo in Proceedings of the Long Island Systems Applicationsand Technology Conference (LISAT rsquo10) May 2010

[3] Y Zhang R Yu S Xie W Yao Y Xiao and M GuizanildquoHome M2M networks architectures standards and QoSimprovementrdquo IEEE Communications Magazine vol 49 no 4pp 44ndash52 2011

[4] K Zheng F Hu and W Wang ldquoRadio resource allocation inLTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communicationsrdquoIEEE Communications Magazine vol 50 no 7 pp 184ndash1922012

[5] K-D Lee S Kim and B Yi ldquoThroughput comparison ofrandom access methods for M2M service over LTE networksrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOMWorkshops (GCWkshpsrsquo11) pp 373ndash377 December 2011

[6] Y Zhang R Yu M Nekovee Y Liu S Xie and S GjessingldquoCognitive machine-to-machine communications visions andpotentials for the smart gridrdquo IEEE Network Magazine vol 26no 3 pp 6ndash13 2012

[7] Q D Vo J-P Choi H M Chang and W C Lee ldquoGreenperspective cognitive radio-based M2M communications forsmart metersrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Information and Communication Technology Convergence(ICTC rsquo10) pp 382ndash383 November 2010

[8] A-H Tsai and J-H Huang ldquoOverload control for machinetype communications with femtocellsrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall rsquo12) pp 1ndash5September 2012

[9] E Mutafungwa ldquoApplying MTC and femtocell technologies tothe continua health reference architecturerdquo in Proceedings of theGrid and Pervasive Computing Workshops January 2012

[10] J G Andrews H Claussen M Dohler S Rangan and M CReed ldquoFemtocells past present and futurerdquo IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications vol 30 no 3 pp 497ndash5082012

[11] H Claussen L T W Ho and L G Samuel ldquoAn overview of thefemtocell conceptrdquo Bell Labs Technical Journal vol 13 no 1 pp221ndash246 2008

[12] G de la Roche A Valcarce D Lopez-Perez and J ZhangldquoAccess control mechanisms for femtocellsrdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 48 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2010

[13] J Xiang Y Zhang T Skeie and L Xie ldquoDownlink spectrumsharing for cognitive radio femtocell networksrdquo IEEE SystemsJournal vol 4 no 4 pp 524ndash534 2010

[14] D Fudenberg and J Tirole Game Theory MIT Press Cam-bridge Mass USA 1991

[15] J Chen R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoJoint relayand jammer selection for secure two-way relay networksrdquo IEEE

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256

Number of subchannels

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 6 Throughput comparison at different119870

119870 to investigate the influence of the number of subchannelsFigure 6 shows the throughput of all open and closed FAPsin JACSA and OSA scheme Similar with the open accessscenario the total throughput does not change much withincreasing of119870 However the throughput of all open FAPs issmaller for the OSA scheme than that for the JACSA schemewhile the throughput of all closed FAPs is larger This meansthat the current JACSA scheme does not sufficiently use theclosed FAPs

Similarly we consider the influence of the number ofclosed FMDs in the hybrid access scenario Figure 7 showsthe throughput of all open and closed FAPs in the JACSAand OSA schemes Increasing of the number of closed FMDsmeans that both subchannels of the open and closed FAPs areused sufficiently and the throughput of both kinds of FAPsincreases

Finally in the hybrid access scenario due to the existenceof the closed FAP which is exclusive to closed FMDsthese closed FMDs have more access choices and thus theyprobably have larger per user capacity Compared with thesituationwhere this FAP is open however there is less chancefor access thus total throughput decreases First we lookfrom the perspective of the FAPs and calculate the totalthroughput of the system Figure 8 shows the throughput ofopen and closed FAPs with119873119874 = 2 and119873119862 = 1 respectivelyand a total number of FMDs 119872119874 + 119872119862 = 8 and transfersone FMD from open status to closed In order to comparewith the open access scenario we also plot the 119873119874 = 3 and119872119874 = 8 caseThehorizontal axis represents the combinationsof FAPs and FMDs We can see that compared with openand hybrid access scenarios the throughput is less in thelatter when the maximum value is equal to the throughputin the former When there is no closed FMD in the hybridas there is one empty FAP which has no access the totalthroughput is minimum With the increasing of the closedFMDs the total throughput and that for all closed FAPs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of closed FMDs

Open JACSAClosed JACSA

Open OSAClosed OSA

Thro

ughp

ut

Figure 7 Throughput comparison at different119872119874

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Th

roug

hput

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 8 Throughput comparison with different combinations ofFAPs and FMDs The figure shows the number of open FAPs andopen FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873

119874+

119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

increases and the throughput for all open FAPs decreasesslightly as more FMDs may access closed FAPs Thereforenomatter howmany closed FMDs there are total throughputis smaller in the hybrid access scenario compared with openaccess

From the perspective of FMDs the average capacity isenjoyed by each FMD as shown in Figure 9When there is noclosed FMD as there are less open FAPs the average capacityfor open FMDs is smaller If one FMD decides to join theCSG the average capacity to be obtained is larger than that ofan open FMD and is also larger than that received by other

10 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capa

city

per

FM

D

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 9 Average capacity per FMD enjoys with different combina-tions of FAPs and FMDsThe figure shows the number of open FAPsand open FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873119874+ 119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

open FMDs As the closed FMDs probably access the closedFAP the open FMDs have less competition and enjoy largeraverage capacity As more FMDs join the CSG as there aremore competitions for the closed FAP the average capacitydecreases for each closed FMD but is still larger than thatreceived by open FMDs and received with an open FMD Ifall FMDs become closed the situation is the same as in theopen access scenario and the capacity of each closed FMDis minimum This indicates that when closed FAPs existby becoming a closed FMD the average capacity each FMDenjoys grows

6 Conclusion

In this paper we focus on the OFDMA femtocell-basedM2Mnetwork with several femtocells andMTCdevices distributedrandomly in open access scenario and hybrid access scenarioIn order to solve the truth-telling and subchannel allocationproblems under these two scenarios we propose a joint accesscontrol and subchannel allocation scheme based on the AGVmechanismWe use the transfer payment to balance the totalpayment and prove that there is only one equilibrium to bereached at the point when all FAPs reported their true capac-ities By comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSA schemein the two scenarios we show that the JACSA scheme canobtain near optimal results with lower complexity Finally wecompare the open access scenariowith hybrid access scenarioin the JACSA scheme and the simulation results show thatfrom the view of FAPs an open access scenario is better toget more payments but from the view of FMDs when thereare closed FAPs it is better to join the CSG for better services

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no NFSC 61071083 no NFSC61371073) and the National High Technology Researchand Development Program of China (863 program no2012AA01A506)

References

[1] 3GPP ldquoService requirements for Machine-Type Communica-tions (MTC)rdquo Tech Rep TS 22368 V1120 2011

[2] M Starsinic ldquoSystem architecture challenges in the homeM2Mnetworkrdquo in Proceedings of the Long Island Systems Applicationsand Technology Conference (LISAT rsquo10) May 2010

[3] Y Zhang R Yu S Xie W Yao Y Xiao and M GuizanildquoHome M2M networks architectures standards and QoSimprovementrdquo IEEE Communications Magazine vol 49 no 4pp 44ndash52 2011

[4] K Zheng F Hu and W Wang ldquoRadio resource allocation inLTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communicationsrdquoIEEE Communications Magazine vol 50 no 7 pp 184ndash1922012

[5] K-D Lee S Kim and B Yi ldquoThroughput comparison ofrandom access methods for M2M service over LTE networksrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOMWorkshops (GCWkshpsrsquo11) pp 373ndash377 December 2011

[6] Y Zhang R Yu M Nekovee Y Liu S Xie and S GjessingldquoCognitive machine-to-machine communications visions andpotentials for the smart gridrdquo IEEE Network Magazine vol 26no 3 pp 6ndash13 2012

[7] Q D Vo J-P Choi H M Chang and W C Lee ldquoGreenperspective cognitive radio-based M2M communications forsmart metersrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Information and Communication Technology Convergence(ICTC rsquo10) pp 382ndash383 November 2010

[8] A-H Tsai and J-H Huang ldquoOverload control for machinetype communications with femtocellsrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall rsquo12) pp 1ndash5September 2012

[9] E Mutafungwa ldquoApplying MTC and femtocell technologies tothe continua health reference architecturerdquo in Proceedings of theGrid and Pervasive Computing Workshops January 2012

[10] J G Andrews H Claussen M Dohler S Rangan and M CReed ldquoFemtocells past present and futurerdquo IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications vol 30 no 3 pp 497ndash5082012

[11] H Claussen L T W Ho and L G Samuel ldquoAn overview of thefemtocell conceptrdquo Bell Labs Technical Journal vol 13 no 1 pp221ndash246 2008

[12] G de la Roche A Valcarce D Lopez-Perez and J ZhangldquoAccess control mechanisms for femtocellsrdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 48 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2010

[13] J Xiang Y Zhang T Skeie and L Xie ldquoDownlink spectrumsharing for cognitive radio femtocell networksrdquo IEEE SystemsJournal vol 4 no 4 pp 524ndash534 2010

[14] D Fudenberg and J Tirole Game Theory MIT Press Cam-bridge Mass USA 1991

[15] J Chen R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoJoint relayand jammer selection for secure two-way relay networksrdquo IEEE

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

10 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capa

city

per

FM

D

OpenClosed

3ndash8 2ndash8 2ndash7 2ndash6 2ndash5 2ndash4 2ndash3 2ndash2 2ndash1 2ndash0Open FAPndashopen FMD

Figure 9 Average capacity per FMD enjoys with different combina-tions of FAPs and FMDsThe figure shows the number of open FAPsand open FMDs and the total number of FAPs and FMDs satisfies119873119874+ 119873119862= 3 and119872

119874+ 119872119862= 8

open FMDs As the closed FMDs probably access the closedFAP the open FMDs have less competition and enjoy largeraverage capacity As more FMDs join the CSG as there aremore competitions for the closed FAP the average capacitydecreases for each closed FMD but is still larger than thatreceived by open FMDs and received with an open FMD Ifall FMDs become closed the situation is the same as in theopen access scenario and the capacity of each closed FMDis minimum This indicates that when closed FAPs existby becoming a closed FMD the average capacity each FMDenjoys grows

6 Conclusion

In this paper we focus on the OFDMA femtocell-basedM2Mnetwork with several femtocells andMTCdevices distributedrandomly in open access scenario and hybrid access scenarioIn order to solve the truth-telling and subchannel allocationproblems under these two scenarios we propose a joint accesscontrol and subchannel allocation scheme based on the AGVmechanismWe use the transfer payment to balance the totalpayment and prove that there is only one equilibrium to bereached at the point when all FAPs reported their true capac-ities By comparing the JACSA scheme with the OSA schemein the two scenarios we show that the JACSA scheme canobtain near optimal results with lower complexity Finally wecompare the open access scenariowith hybrid access scenarioin the JACSA scheme and the simulation results show thatfrom the view of FAPs an open access scenario is better toget more payments but from the view of FMDs when thereare closed FAPs it is better to join the CSG for better services

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the National ScienceFoundation of China (Grant no NFSC 61071083 no NFSC61371073) and the National High Technology Researchand Development Program of China (863 program no2012AA01A506)

References

[1] 3GPP ldquoService requirements for Machine-Type Communica-tions (MTC)rdquo Tech Rep TS 22368 V1120 2011

[2] M Starsinic ldquoSystem architecture challenges in the homeM2Mnetworkrdquo in Proceedings of the Long Island Systems Applicationsand Technology Conference (LISAT rsquo10) May 2010

[3] Y Zhang R Yu S Xie W Yao Y Xiao and M GuizanildquoHome M2M networks architectures standards and QoSimprovementrdquo IEEE Communications Magazine vol 49 no 4pp 44ndash52 2011

[4] K Zheng F Hu and W Wang ldquoRadio resource allocation inLTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communicationsrdquoIEEE Communications Magazine vol 50 no 7 pp 184ndash1922012

[5] K-D Lee S Kim and B Yi ldquoThroughput comparison ofrandom access methods for M2M service over LTE networksrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOMWorkshops (GCWkshpsrsquo11) pp 373ndash377 December 2011

[6] Y Zhang R Yu M Nekovee Y Liu S Xie and S GjessingldquoCognitive machine-to-machine communications visions andpotentials for the smart gridrdquo IEEE Network Magazine vol 26no 3 pp 6ndash13 2012

[7] Q D Vo J-P Choi H M Chang and W C Lee ldquoGreenperspective cognitive radio-based M2M communications forsmart metersrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Information and Communication Technology Convergence(ICTC rsquo10) pp 382ndash383 November 2010

[8] A-H Tsai and J-H Huang ldquoOverload control for machinetype communications with femtocellsrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall rsquo12) pp 1ndash5September 2012

[9] E Mutafungwa ldquoApplying MTC and femtocell technologies tothe continua health reference architecturerdquo in Proceedings of theGrid and Pervasive Computing Workshops January 2012

[10] J G Andrews H Claussen M Dohler S Rangan and M CReed ldquoFemtocells past present and futurerdquo IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications vol 30 no 3 pp 497ndash5082012

[11] H Claussen L T W Ho and L G Samuel ldquoAn overview of thefemtocell conceptrdquo Bell Labs Technical Journal vol 13 no 1 pp221ndash246 2008

[12] G de la Roche A Valcarce D Lopez-Perez and J ZhangldquoAccess control mechanisms for femtocellsrdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 48 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2010

[13] J Xiang Y Zhang T Skeie and L Xie ldquoDownlink spectrumsharing for cognitive radio femtocell networksrdquo IEEE SystemsJournal vol 4 no 4 pp 524ndash534 2010

[14] D Fudenberg and J Tirole Game Theory MIT Press Cam-bridge Mass USA 1991

[15] J Chen R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoJoint relayand jammer selection for secure two-way relay networksrdquo IEEE

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11

Transactions on Information Forensics and Security vol 7 no 1pp 310ndash320 2012

[16] C Xu L Song and ZHanResourceManagement for Device-to-Device Underlay Communication Springer Briefs in ComputerScience 2014

[17] V Krishna and AuctionTheory Academic Press 2002[18] C Xu L Song Z Han Q Zhao X Wang and B Jiao

ldquoEfficiency resource allocation for device-to-device under-lay communication systems a reverse iterative combinatorialauction based approachrdquo IEEE Journal on Selected Areas inCommunications vol 31 no 9 pp 348ndash358 2013

[19] Z Han D Niyato W Saad T Basar and A HjoslashrungnesGameTheory inWireless and Communication NetworksTheoryModels and Applications Cambridge University Press 2011

[20] Z Han Z Ji and K J R Liu ldquoFair multiuser channel allocationfor OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions andcoalitionsrdquo IEEE Transactions on Communications vol 53 no8 pp 1366ndash1376 2005

[21] J Deng R Q Zhang L Y Song Z Han G Yang and B L JiaoldquoJoint power control and subchannel allocation for OFDMAfemtocell networks using distributed auction gamerdquo in Proceed-ings of the International Conference onWireless Communicationsamp Signal Processing (WCSP rsquo12) pp 1ndash6 October 2012

[22] Y Chen J Zhang and Q Zhang ldquoUtility-aware refundingframework for hybrid access femtocell networkrdquo IEEE Transac-tions on Wireless Communications vol 11 no 5 pp 1688ndash16972012

[23] Y Yi J Zhang Q Zhang and T Jiang ldquoSpectrum leasing tofemto service provider with hybrid accessrdquo in Proceedings ofthe 31st Annual IEEE International Conference on ComputerCommunications (IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 1215ndash1223 March2012

[24] Y Chen J Zhang Q Zhang and J Jia ldquoA reverse auctionframework for access permission transaction to promote hybridaccess in femtocell networkrdquo in Proceedings of the 31st AnnualIEEE International Conference on Computer Communications(IEEE INFOCOM rsquo12) pp 2761ndash2765 March 2012

[25] J Deng R Zhang L Song Z Han and B Jiao ldquoTruthfulmechanisms for secure communication in wireless cooperativesystemrdquo IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications vol 12no 9 pp 4236ndash4245 2013

[26] AGolaupMMustapha and L B Patanapongpibul ldquoFemtocellaccess control strategy in UMTS and LTErdquo IEEE Communica-tions Magazine vol 47 no 9 pp 117ndash123 2009

[27] P Lee T Lee J Jeong and J Shin ldquoInterference managementin LTE femtocell systems using fractional frequency reuserdquo inProceedings of the 12th International Conference on AdvancedCommunication Technology (ICACT rsquo10) pp 1047ndash1051 Febru-ary 2010

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Shock and Vibration

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

DistributedSensor Networks

International Journal of