Scheduling and Power Control for V2V Broadcast
Communications with Adjacent Channel
Interference

Abstract—This paper investigates how to mitigate the impact of
adjacent channel interference (ACI) on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)
broadcast communication by scheduling and power control.
The optimal joint scheduling and power control problem, with
the objective to maximize the number of connected vehicles,
is formulated as a mixed integer programming problem with
a linear objective and a quadratic constraint. From the joint
formulation, we derive (a) the optimal scheduling problem for
fixed transmit powers as a Boolean linear programming problem
and (b) the optimal power control problem for a fixed schedule
as a mixed integer linear programming problem. Near-optimal
schedules and power values can, for smaller instances of the
problem, be computed by solving first (a) and then (b). To
handle larger instances of the problem, we propose heuristic
scheduling and power control algorithms with reduced computational complexity. Simulation results indicate that the heuristic
scheduling algorithm yields significant performance improvements compared to the baseline block-interleaver scheduler and
that performance is further improved by the heuristic power
control algorithm. Moreover, the heuristic algorithms perform
close to the near-optimal scheme for small instances of the
problem.

I. I NTRODUCTION
A. Motivation
Recently, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication have
captured great attention due to its potential to improve traffic
safety, effective driving assistance and intelligent transport
systems. Typically, these types of applications have strict
requirements on latency and reliability.
V2V networks have three novel features compared to
conventional cellular communication. First, V2V networks
generally rely on broadcast protocols to disseminate safetyrelated messages. Second, V2V communications often come
with a stringent requirement on reliability, which can be
achieved if the signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR)
exceeds a certain threshold [1]. Third, low latency is an
important requirement in V2V communication, which restricts
the possibilities for retransmissions. Moreover, retransmission
is cumbersome in a broadcast communication scenario. The
The research was, in part, funded by the Swedish Governmental Agency
for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA), FFI - Strategic Vehicle Research and
Innovation, under Grant No. 2014-01387. This work has, in part, been performed in the framework of the H2020 project 5GCAR co-funded by the EU.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of their colleagues.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
the project. The consortium is not liable for any use that may be made of any
of the information contained therein.

Desired link
Hi,j

Interference link
VUE j

VUE i

VUE k

Fig. 1: System model
Received
signal from
transmitter i
Rx Power (dBm/Hz)

arXiv:1708.02444v2 [cs.IT] 9 Aug 2017

Anver Hisham, Erik G. Ström, Fredrik Brännström, and Li Yan
Department of Electrical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
{anver, erik.strom, fredrik.brannstrom, lyaa}@chalmers.se

Received
signal from
transmitter k

ACIR
SIRi,j

Frequency
Fig. 2: Received power spectral density at receiving VUE j.
determining factor for reliability in typical cellular communication is co-channel interference (CCI), which is crosstalk
from two different transmitters using the same time-frequency
slot. However, we can remove CCI (and thereby increase
reliability) by allocating non-overlapping time-frequency resources to different vehicular user equipments (VUEs) for their
transmissions [2].
However, if two transmitters simultaneously operate on
two non-overlapping frequency bands close to each other in
the frequency domain, power from one transmitter will spill
over into the frequency band of the other transmitter. This
interference is termed adjacent channel interference (ACI) [3].
The ACI is mainly due to the nonlinearities in the power
amplifier in the transmitter, which causes the transmitted
spectrum to spread beyond what was intended. An example
of ACI is illustrated in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, where the receiver j
is decoding signals from transmitter i. Although transmitter k
is using a different frequency band, the signal to interference

ratio SIRi,j , of receiver j while decoding the signal from
transmitter i is limited by ACI from transmitter k. A parameter
named adjacent channel interference ratio (ACIR) is widely
used to measure the ACI [4, section 17.9]. As illustrated in
Fig. 2, ACIR is defined as the ratio between the average inband received power from transmitter k to the average received
out of band power from transmitter k’s signal in the frequency
band allocated for transmitter i.
When the available time-frequency resources are sufficiently
large, the VUEs can be allocated non-overlapping frequency
bands in each time slot, thereby avoiding CCI. However, as
already mentioned, the communication link performance is
majorly limited by ACI in this scenario. Since the objective
of this paper is to study the impact of ACI for V2V broadcast
communication, we will limit the scope to the case when
VUEs are allocated with non-overlapping time-frequency resources.
B. State of the Art
In a typical cellular scenario, where each base station (BS)
reuses the frequency spectrum, CCI would dominate over ACI.
Since ACI is insignificant in the presence of CCI, most of the
existing literature consider approaches to mitigate CCI alone
[5]–[7]. However, in the absence of CCI, communication
performance is majorly limited by ACI. Extensive studies
have been done to measure the impact ACI when different
communication technologies coexist in adjacent frequency
bands [8]–[11]. Also, the impact of ACI on 802.11b/g/n/ac
was broadly studied [12]–[14]. However, little attention have
been made to study the effect of ACI within a V2V broadcast
communication scenario in the absence of CCI. To further understand the impact of ACI in V2V broadcast communication
in the absence of CCI, readers are directed to our previous
work [15].
C. Contributions
Our goal is to find scheduling and power control algorithms
to maximize the number of connected vehicles in a V2V all-toall broadcast communication scenario. We make the following
contributions to achieve this goal:
1) The performance of V2V broadcast communication in
the presence of ACI is evaluated.
2) We formulate the joint scheduling and power control
problem to maximize the number of successful links as
a mixed integer quadratically constrained programming
(MIQCP) problem. From this, we derive the scheduling
problem (for fixed transmit powers) as a boolean linear
programming (BLP) problem and the power control
problem (for a fixed schedule) as a mixed integer linear
programming (MILP) problem. For small instances of
the problem, we compute a near-optimal solution for
scheduling by solving the BLP problem fomulation and
then compute a near-optimal power values by solving
the MILP problem fomulation.
3) Due to the NP hardness of the above problem formulation for scheduling, we suggest a block interleaver

scheduler (BIS), which requires only the position indices
of the VUEs.
4) We also propose a heuristic scheduling algorithm with
polynomial time complexity. The simulation results
show the promising performance of the heuristic algorithm, compared to the BIS and near-optimal scheduler.
5) Due to the NP hardness of the optimal power control
problem, we propose a heuristic power control algorithm
as an extension of our previous work in [15]. The
simulation results show that the proposed algorithm
further improves the performance compared to equal
power.
II. P RELIMINARIES
A. Notation
We use the following notation throughout the paper. Sets
are denoted by calligraphic letters, e.g., X , with |X | denoting
its cardinality, and ∅ indicate an empty set. Lowercase and
uppercase letters, e.g., x and X, represent scalars. Lowercase
boldface letters, e.g., x, represent a vector where xi is the ith
element and |x| is its dimensionality. The uppercase boldface
letters, e.g., X, denote matrices where Xi,j indicates the
(i, j)th element. The notations d·e, and b·c, b·e represents
ceil, floor, and round operations, respectively.
B. Assumptions
We have the following assumptions:
1) There are N VUEs in the network, and each VUE wants
to broadcast a safety message to all other VUEs within
a specified time duration.
2) The total bandwidth for transmission is divided into
F frequency slots and the total time duration into T
timeslots. A time-frequency slot is also called a resource
block (RB) [16, section 6.2.3]. We assume that a VUE
can transmit its packet using a single RB.
3) A VUE’s broadcast message can be received in an
RB with the required error probability, if and only if
the average received SINR is equal or greater than a
threshold γ T . This assumption is valid, since in [1,
Lemma 1], Sun et al. prove that achieving an SINR
above a certain threshold ensures the required error
probability.
4) Maximum total transmit power of a VUE is P max .
5) A centralized controller exists, which schedules all
VUEs on F × T frequency-time slots and allocates
powers to all VUEs. This centralized controller has
access to the slowly varying channel state information
(CSI) between all pairs of VUEs. Either a base station
(BS) or a VUE can act as a centralized controller.
6) Each RB is scheduled to at most one VUE in order to
avoid CCI.
7) A VUE is scheduled to at most one RB per timeslot,
since scheduling in multiple RBs within the same
timeslot would reduce the VUE’s maximum transmit
power per RB. However, a VUE can be scheduled on
multiple RBs in different timeslots.

Symbol
N
F
T
Pi,t
P max
Hi,j
Af 0 ,f
Xi,f,t
Yj,f,t
Υi,j,t
Γj,f,t
γT
σ2

Definition
Number of VUEs
Number of frequency slots
Number of timeslots
Transmit power of VUE i on an RB in timeslot t
Maximum transmit power of a VUE
Average channel power gain from VUE i to VUE j
ACI from frequency slot f 0 to frequency slot f
Indicate if VUE i is scheduled to transmit in RB (f, t)
Indicate if VUE j receives packet successfully in RB (f, t)
SINR of the packet from VUE i to VUE j in timeslot t
SINR of the packet received by VUE j in RB (f, t)
SINR threshold to declare a link as successful
Noise variance in an RB

C. ACIR Model
ACI caused by a transmitter depends mainly upon the
power amplifier and the transmission scheme used in the
communication. In Fig. 3, the spectrum for a typical single
carrier frequency division multiple access (SCFDMA) signal
with a power amplifier of 1% clipping threshold is shown
in blue color [17]. The red-colored step curve in the same
figure shows the SCFDMA ACI averaged over each frequency
slot. However, since the ACI is heavily dependent upon the
power amplifier and the transmission scheme used in the
communication, we will use the ACI mask specified by 3GPP
[18] for the simulation purposes in this paper. Simulation
results for the SCFDMA ACI model is available in the report
[19], but is not presented here due to lack of space. We
have observed by extensive simulations that, independent of
the ACIR model, ACI plays a crucial role since it is higher
than the noise floor for a typical communication link between
neighbouring VUEs. Furthermore, whenever a transmitter is
far away from the receiver and the interferers are close-by,
ACI becomes a significant factor deciding received SINR.
Indeed, the simulation results in the report [19] show that the
order of performance for the algorithms is the same as the one
presented in Section VI below, regardless of the ACIR model.
Let A ∈ RF ×F be the element-wise inverse ACIR matrix,
i.e., Af 0 ,f is the ratio between the received power on the
frequency slot f and the received power on the frequency slot
f 0 , when a transmitter sends a packet on frequency slot f 0 .
Observe that A is a Toeplitz matrix. The mask specified by
3GPP [18] is as follows,

f0 = f
 1,
−3
10 ,
1 ≤ |f 0 − f | ≤ 4
Af 0 ,f =
(1)

−4.5
10
, otherwise
The scenario f 0 = f in the above equation implies that
VUEs are allocated within the same RB, in which case the
interference would be CCI instead of ACI. In our study, this
scenario never happens, due to our assumption 6) that no RB is
scheduled to more than one VUE. The ACI, resulting from the
3GPP mask and from using SCFDMA are depicted in Fig. 3.

Power spectral density (dB/Hz)

TABLE I: Key Mathematical Symbols

ACI Mask in 3GPP
SCFDMA-ACI
SCFDMA-ACI
averaged over
a frequency slot

0
−20
−40
−60
−80
10

5
0
5
Frequency slot indices

10

Fig. 3: Inverse ACIR model
III. J OINT S CHEDULING AND P OWER C ONTROL
A. Constraints Formulations
Let Hi,j be the average channel power gain from VUE i
to VUE j. Hence, Hi,j takes into account pathloss and largescale fading between VUE i and VUE j.
Let X ∈ {0, 1}N ×F ×T be the scheduling matrix defined as
follows,

1, if VUE i is scheduled in RB (f, t)
Xi,f,t ,
(2)
0, otherwise
In order to ensure our assumption 6), i.e., an RB is scheduled
to at most one VUE, X must satisfy the following condition,
N
X
i=1

Xi,f,t ≤ 1

∀f, t

(3)

Similarly, to ensure our assumption 7), i.e., a VUE is
scheduled to at most one RB in a timeslot,
F
X
f =1

Xi,f,t ≤ 1

∀i, t

(4)

Formulating the scheduling problem to maximize the number of successful links in terms of the received SINR for VUE
j on RB (f, t) will allow us to state the problem as an MIQCP
problem. This is done with the support of our assumption 6)
and 7) (i.e., constraints (3) and (4)). In contrast, as shown
in Appendix A, a formulation using the SINR for specific
transmitter-receiver pairs results in a problem that is harder to
solve.
Let us define Γ ∈ {0, 1}N ×F ×T with Γj,f,t as the received
SINR of VUE j in RB (f, t). Note that the total signal power
Sj,f,t and interference power Ij,f,t received by VUE j in RB
(f, t) can be computed as follows,

Sj,f,t =

N
X

The overall goal is to maximize the number of connected
VUE pairs, i.e., to maximize the objective function
(5)

Xi,f,t Pi,t Hi,j ,

i=1
i6=j

Ij,f,t =

F X
N
X

Af 0 ,f Xk,f 0 ,t Pk,t Hk,j ,

(6)

J(X, Y, P) ,

(14)

Zi,j

i=1 j=1
j6=i

f 0 =1 k=1
f 0 6=f

where P ∈ RN ×T with Pi,t being the transmit power of VUE
i, if scheduled in timeslot t. The value of Pi,t is constrained
by maximum transmit power P max , i.e.,
0 ≤ Pi,t ≤ P max

(7)

∀ i, t

Following (5) and (6), we can compute Γj,f,t as follows,
Γj,f,t =

N X
N
X

Sj,f,t
,
σ 2 + Ij,f,t

(8)

where σ 2 is the noise variance.
For successful links, Γj,f,t ≥ γ T , i.e.,

Vi,j,f,t ∈ {v ∈ R : v ≤ Xi,f,t , v ≤ Yj,f,t },
(9)

Sj,f,t − γ T Ij,f,t ≥ γ T σ 2 .

However, it might not be possible to fulfill this condition for
all receivers j in all RBs (f, t). To select which combinations
of j, f , and t to enforce this condition, we introduce the matrix
Y ∈ {0, 1}N ×F ×T , where
(
1, if (9) is enforced
Yj,f,t ,
(10)
0, otherwise
We can combine (9) and (10) into a single constraint as
Sj,f,t − γ T Ij,f,t ≥ γ T σ 2 − η(1 − Yj,f,t )

subject to the constraints (3), (4), (7), (11), and (12). However,
since J is nonlinear in the binary matrices X and Y, direct optimization of J is cumbersome. We will therefore formulate an
equivalent optimization problem which is simpler to solve. To
this end, let us define two auxiliary matrices V ∈ RN ×N ×F ×T
and W ∈ RN ×N , where, for all i, j,

∀j, f, t

(11)

where η is a sufficiently large number to make (11) hold
whenever Yj,f,t = 0, regardless of the schedule and power
allocation. It is not hard to show that η = γ T (N P max + σ 2 )
is sufficient.

Wi,j ∈ {w ∈ R : w ≤ 1, w ≤

F
T X
X

t=1 f =1

Vi,j,f,t }.

(15)
(16)

Now, for any fixed X, Y, it follows from (15) that

?
Vi,j,f,t
= max Vi,j,f,t = min{Xi,f,t , Yj,f,t } = Xi,f,t Yj,f,t .
(17)
The last equality in the above equation follows from the fact
that both Xi,f,t and Yj,f,t are boolean. Moreover, it follows
?
from (16) and (12) that if Vi,j,f,t = Vi,j,f,t
, then

max Wi,j = min{1,

T X
F
X
t=1 f =1

?
Vi,j,f,t
} = Zi,j .

(18)

B. Problem Formulation
We define a link as a transmitter-receiver pair (i, j), and we
say that the link (i, j) is successful if at least one transmission
from VUE i to VUE j is successful during the scheduling
interval, i.e., that the SINR condition (9) is satisfied for at least
one RB (f, t) where f ∈ {1, 2, . . . , F } and t ∈ {1, 2, . . . , T }.
We introduce the matrix Z ∈ {0, 1}N ×N , where, for all i, j,
Zi,j , min{1,

T X
F
X
t=1 f =1

(
=

Xi,f,t Yj,f,t }

1, link (i, j) is successful
0, otherwise

(12)
(13)

We note that the minimum in (12) is required to not count
successful links between VUE i and VUE j more than once.

Hence, for any fixed X, Y, P we can compute J(X, Y, P)
as the optimal value of objective of

J(X, Y, P) = max
V, W
s.t.

N X
N
X

Wi,j

(19a)

i=1 j=1
j6=i

(15), (16)

Putting everything together, we arrive at the optimization

(20a)

max
Wi,j
P, X, Y, V, W i=1 j=1,
j6=i

s.t.
F X
N
X

Af 0 ,f Xk,f 0 ,t Pk,t Hk,j

f =1 k=1
f 0 6=f

(20b)

∀ i, j

(20c)

Wi,j ≤ 1

∀ i, j

(20d)

Vi,j,f,t ≤ Yj,f,t

∀ i, j, f, t (20f)

Wi,j ≤

Vi,j,f,t

t=1 f =1

∀ i, j, f, t (20e)

Vi,j,f,t ≤ Xi,f,t
N
X

i=1
F
X
f =1

Xi,f,t ≤ 1

∀ f, t

(20g)

Xi,f,t ≤ 1

∀ i, t

(20h)

∀ i, t

(20i)

0 ≤ Pi,t ≤ P

max

X, Y ∈ {0, 1}
P∈R

N ×F ×T

N ×T

V∈R

(20j)
(20k)

N ×N ×F ×T

(20l)

W ∈ RN ×N

(20m)

The above problem formulation allows for full-duplex communication. Of course, if the self-channel power gain Hj,j
is sufficiently large compared with the inter-VUE channel
power gains Hi,j , i 6= j, then (20) provides a half-duplex
solution for scheduling and power control, i.e., that a VUE
cannot receive packets at any RB (f 0 , t) while transmitting on
RB (f, t). However, if the diagonal elements of H are very
large compared to the off-diagonal elements, this can cause
numerical issues while solving (20). For this reason, when a
half-duplex solution is implied by H (or otherwise desired), it
is better to explicitly enforce a half-duplex solution by adding
the constraint
Yj,f,t ≤ 1 − Xj,f 0 ,t

1
0
0
4
0
7

1
0
0
7
0
4

2
0
0
5
0
8

3
0
0
6
0
0

(a) BIS (w = 1)

0

≥ γ T σ 2 − γ T (N P max + σ 2 )(1 − Yj,f,t ) ∀ j, f, t
T X
F
X

timeslots

∀j, f, f 0 , t

and replacing Hi,j with H̃i,j in (20b), where
(
Hi,j , i 6= j
H̃i,j =
0,
otherwise

(20n)

(21)

Replacing H with H̃ is done solely for numerical reasons,
since (20n) is sufficient to force the solution to be half-duplex.
We see that the problem (20), in its full-duplex and halfduplex formulation, has linear objective and constraints except

2
0
0
8
0
5

3
0
0
0
0
6

(b) BIS (w = 2)

timeslots

timeslots

4
0
0
1
0
6

4
0
0
7
0
2

5
0
0
8
0
2

3
0
0
0
0
7

(c) Heuristic scheduling

frequency slots

i=1

Xi,f,t Pi,t Hi,j − γ T

frequency slots

N
X

timeslots
frequency slots

N X
N
X

frequency slots

problem

5
0
0
8
0
3

1
0
6
0
0
4

(d) Near-optimal scheduling

Fig. 4: Example of VUE scheduling (U) for N = 8, F = 6,
and T = 3
the constraint (20b), which is quadratic. We call such a problem a MIQCP problem. Moreover, as shown in Appendix B,
the problem is nonconvex, which will require a sophisticated
and complex solver [20]. We will therefore not try to solve
(20) directly, but will use it to find near-optimal schedules for
fixed transmit powers and near-optimal power allocation for
fixed schedules in Section IV-C and V-A, respectively.
IV. S CHEDULING A LGORITHMS
For the scheduling problem, without considering any power
control, we set the transmit power for all VUEs to the
maximum power P max , i.e., Pi,t = P max ∀ i, t. For the sake of
scheduling all available RBs, we define VUE 0 as a dummy
VUE with zero transmit power. Hence, scheduling VUE 0 to
an RB indicate that no VUE is scheduled in that RB.
Let us define the matrix U ∈ {0, 1, . . . , N }F ×T to represent
scheduled VUEs in an F × T RBs matrix. That is, Uf,t is the
VUE index scheduled in RB (f, t). Fundamentally, scheduling
is the process of allocating VUEs in available RBs, which is
equivalent to populating the U matrix with appropriate VUE
indices, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Once we have computed the
matrix U, we can compute X as follows,

1, Uf,t = i
Xi,f,t =
(22)
0, otherwise
A. Block Interleaver Scheduler (BIS)
The approach here is to insert each VUE index exactly once
in U. Clearly, this is impossible if N > F T , i.e., when there
are more VUEs than available RBs. For the time being, we
will assume that N ≤ F T and treat the N > F T case later
in this Section. Moreover, we will assume that N > T , since

Algorithm 1 Block Interleaver Scheduler (BIS)

the matrix column-wise ignoring zeros. Observe that if w = 1,
then the block interleaver output is same as the input, i.e.,
f 0 = f . The width of the block interleaver is an input to this
algorithm.
As an example, when N = 8, F = 6, T = 3, w = 1, we
compute f 0 = f = [1, 4, 6], and schedule VUEs accordingly as
shown in Fig. 4 (a). Similarly, Fig. 4 (b) shows the result when
w = 2 and the computed f 0 = [1, 6, 4]. We present the results
for various values of block interleaver widths in Section VI-B.
Now let us treat the case when N > F T . One way to
handle this case is to schedule only Ñ ≤ F T of the N
VUEs. For BIS, we put the selected VUEs in the vector
n ∈ {1, 2, . . . , N }Ñ , where


N −1
,
k = 1, 2, . . . , Ñ . (25)
nk = 1 + (k − 1)
Ñ − 1

Input: {N, F, T, w}
Output: X
1: Ñ = min{bN T /2c, N, F T }
2: F̃ = dÑ /T e
3: Compute f and n from (23) and (25)
4: f 0 = Π(f , w)
5: U = 0F ×T
6: k = 1
7: for l = 1 : |f 0 | do
8:
f 0 = fl0
9:
for t = 1 : T do
10:
if k ≤ |n| then
11:
Uf 0 ,t = nk
12:
k =k+1
13:
end if
14:
end for
15: end for
16: Compute X from U using (22)

the scheduling problem is otherwise trivial: we can simply
schedule the VUEs in separate timeslots, which removes all
ACI (and CCI) interference.
If N > T , then we need to multiplex VUEs in frequency,
which results in ACI. To reduce the ACI problem, we strive
to use as few frequency slots as possible and to space the
frequency slots as far apart as possible. Since we can schedule
T VUEs per frequency slot, the smallest required number of
frequency slots is F̃ = dN/T e. Clearly, F̃ ≤ F , since we
assume that N ≤ F T . The selected frequency slots are put
in the vector f ∈ {1, 2, . . . , F }F̃ . For BIS, we will use the
frequency slots


F −1
fk = 1 + (k − 1)
,
k = 1, 2, . . . , F̃ .
(23)
F̃ − 1
We note that f1 = 1 < f2 < · · · < fF̃ = F , and it can
be shown that (23) maximizes the minimum distance between
any two consecutive frequency slots, i.e., maximizes
min
l∈{1,2,...,F̃ −1}

|fl+1 − fl |.

(24)

We initialize U = 0F ×T . Then, given f , BIS starts by filling
the rows of U in the natural way, i.e., row f1 with VUE indices
1, 2, . . . , T , row f2 with indices T + 1, T + 2, . . . , 2T , and so
on. To (possibly) improve the scheduler, the nonzero rows of
U are then permuted with a block interleaver. In the actual
implementation in Algorithm 1, we achieve the same result
by first permuting f with the block interleaver Π before filling
in the rows of U.
Now we explain the block interleaver Π used to permute f .
Our block interleaver is similar to the one specified in 3GPP
[16, section 5.1.4.2.1]. We define f 0 = Π(f , w) as the output
f 0 of a block interleaver with width w ∈ N and input vector
f . The block interleaver writes f row-wise in a matrix with
width w, padding with zeros if necessary, then reads f 0 from

We note that if Ñ = N , then n = [1, 2, . . . , N ]. Hence, the
two cases N ≤ F T and N > F T can be unified by letting
Ñ = min{N, F T } and F̃ = dÑ /T e.
However, if T = 1, then it is never advantageous to schedule
more than bN/2c VUEs in the half-duplex case. To understand
why, we note that since we have Ñ transmitters and N − Ñ
receivers, the maximum number of successful links we can
ever hope for is Ñ (N − Ñ ) = (N/2)2 −(Ñ −N/2)2 , which is
maximized by selecting Ñ as large as possible, but still less or
equal to bN/2c, i.e., Ñ = min{bN/2c, F }. Scheduling more
than bN/2c VUEs will not increase the number of possible
links (due to half-duplex transmission), but increase ACI (due
to more transmitters), which can never be beneficial. The final,
unifying, calculation of Ñ in Algorithm 1 is therefore Ñ =
min{bT N/2c, N, F T } and F̃ = dÑ /T e, which covers all
cases of N , F , and T .
B. Heuristic Scheduling Algorithm
The approach taken here is to loop through all RBs and
schedule either a real or dummy VUE to each RB. The
scheduling decision is taken in a greedy fashion. That is, we
strive to schedule the best possible VUE to the RB under the
assumption that the schedule for all previous RBs is fixed.
The resulting schedule can schedule a VUE, zero, one, or
multiple times, as opposed to BIS, which schedules all real
VUEs exactly once (if there are enough RBs, F T ≥ N and
T > 1).
The heuristic algorithm is executed in two steps. In the first
step, we determine the RB scheduling order, and in the second
step, we use this order to visit the RBs and schedule VUEs
sequentially.
Now we explain the first step, i.e., the procedure to compute
the scheduling order f for frequency slots. We note that f is a
permutation of {1, 2, . . . , F }, and we can therefore choose f
in F ! possible ways. We compute f using a greedy algorithm
as shown in Algorithm 2.1. While constructing f , our priority
is to spread out the consecutive scheduling frequency slots
in order to minimize the received ACI. Therefore, in each
iteration, we are scheduling a frequency slot with minimum

Algorithm 2.1 Computation of scheduling order f

Algorithm 2.2 Heuristic Scheduling Algorithm

Input: {F, A}
Output: f
1: f1 = 1
2: F = {2, 3, . . . , F }
3: for l = 2 : F do
l−1
P
4:
G = argmin
Afl0 ,f
f ∈F( l0 =1
)
l−1
P
5:
fl = max arg max
|f − fl0 |

Input: {N, F, T, H, A, P, γ T , σ 2 }
Output: X
1: X = 0N ×F ×T , U = 0F ×T
2: Compute f using Algorithm 2.1
3: // Schedule RBs in the order specified by f
4: for l = 1 : F do
5:
f = fl
6:
for t = 1 : T do
7:
// Schedule VUE in RB (f, t)
8:
for i = 0 : N do
9:
Uf,t = i
10:
Compute X from U using (22)
11:
Compute Z for X using (12)
N P
N
P
12:
si =
Zm,j

f ∈G

6:
7:

l0 =1

F = F \ fl
end for

received ACI from all the scheduled frequency slots. Therefore, we always start scheduling from the first frequency slot,
i.e., f1 = 1, then we find out the next frequency slot f2 as
the unscheduled frequency slot with minimum received ACI
from f1 . We repeat this process until all frequency slots are
chosen. Finding the frequency slot with minimum received
ACI from all the scheduled frequency slots is actually not
possible, since we do not know yet which VUE is going to be
scheduled in the RBs. Therefore, we compute the ACI in an
unscheduled frequency slot by assuming unit transmit power
and unit channel gain from all interferers. If there are multiple
unscheduled frequency slots with the same minimum affected
ACI, then we choose the frequency slot having maximum
average distance from all the scheduled frequency slots. If
there is still a tie, then we pick the maximum out of it as shown
in Algorithm 2.1, line 5. This way, we ensure that f2 = F for
a typical ACIR model.
Next we explain the second step, i.e., finding out the VUE
to schedule in an RB. The algorithm is stated in Algorithm
2.2. Given an RB to schedule, first we compute the total
number of successful links upon scheduling each VUE in the
chosen RB, and then we pick the VUE which would maximize
this quantity. Observe that VUE 0 (the dummy VUE) can be
scheduled to the RB, which, of course, means that no real
VUE is scheduled.
The result of the scheduling when N = 8, F = 6, T = 3, is
shown in Fig. 4 (c), when VUEs are placed on a one lane road,
with equal distances davg (refer to Table II) to the neighboring
VUEs, and by assuming zero shadow loss. Note that in this
example VUE 4 is scheduled twice.
C. Near-Optimal Scheduling
Observe that, if we fix P, e.g., Pi,t = P max ∀ i, t, then
the MIQCP optimization problem (20) translates into a BLP
problem. We compute a near-optimal scheduling by solving
this BLP problem formulation using the Gurobi solver [21],
which internally uses the branch and bound method. However,
due to the computational complexity of the problem, branch
and bound method involves a number of linear optimizations
which, in the worst case, is believed to be exponential in the
number of binary variables. Since finding an optimal solution
would be time consuming, we stop the simulation when the

m=1 j=1,
j6=m

13:
14:
15:

end for
Uf,t = arg max{si }
i

end for
16: end for
17: Compute X from U using (22)
solver attains a 5% optimality gap, i.e., when the attained
objective value is no less than 95% of the optimum objective
value. An example of the near-optimal scheduling is given in
Fig. 4 (d), when VUEs are placed on a one lane road, with
equal distance davg to the neighboring VUEs and by assuming
zero shadow loss.
V. P OWER C ONTROL A LGORITHMS
A. Near-Optimal Power Control
Observe that for the scheduling algorithms in Section IV, we
fixed P, thereby converting the nonconvex MIQCP problem
in (20) into a BLP problem. Similarly, once we find out a
scheduling matrix X, we can convert (20) into a power-control
problem by inputting X and making P as an optimization
variable. The resulting problem is an MILP problem. In
summary, the optimal power values can be computed by
solving (20), with the following modified objective function,
max

P,Y,V,W

N X
N
X

Wi,j − β

i=1 j=1,
j6=i

T X
N
X

Pi,t ,

(26)

t=1 i=1

Note that β is the weight of the total power consumption in the
objective, in order to achieve our secondary goal of minimizing
the total power consumption. The value of β is set to a small
value 1/(N T P max ), so that the sum power will not affect our
major goal of maximizing the total number of successful links.
Observe that the problem of finding the optimal power
values is NP-hard as proved in [15, Lemma 1]. We use Gurobi
[21] to solve the above power control problem. Since finding
the optimal solution is very time consuming, we stop the solver
when it attains a 5% optimality gap, like we do in the nearoptimal scheduling

B. Heuristic Power Control

Algorithm 3 Heuristic Power Control

Since the exponentially increasing worst-case complexity
of optimal power control is problematic in practice for large
networks, we propose a heuristic power control algorithm
which has polynomial time computational complexity. The
proposed heuristic power control algorithm is an extension of
our previous work on power control [15] and the work of Kang
Wang et al. [22]. All those previous works assumes T = 1,
whereas our proposed algorithm finds a power control solution
for any value of T . The algorithm is described in Algorithm
3.
The SINR Υi,j,t of a link (i, j) during the timeslot t is
computed as follows,

Input: {N, F, T, P init , P max , X, H, A, γ T , σ 2 }
Output: P
1: Pi,t = P init ∀ i, t
2: C = 0N ×N

F
P

Υi,j,t =
σ2 +

F
F P
N
P
P

L = {(i, j) :

4:

Ti = {t :

5:
6:
7:
8:

Xi,f,t Pi,t Hi,j

f =1

3:

. (27)
Xi,f,t Af 0 ,f Xk,f 0 ,t Pk,t Hk,j

f =1 f 0 =1k=1
k6=i

The derivation of the above equation is explained in Appendix A. A link (i, j) is successful if and only if its SINR is
greater than or equal to γ T on any timeslot, i.e., Υi,j,t ≥ γ T
for any t ∈ {1, 2, . . . , T }. Our goal is to find the optimal
transmit power value for each VUE in each timeslot in order to
maximize the total number of successful links. The algorithm
is an iterative algorithm involving two steps in each iteration.
Since it may not be possible to ensure success for all links,
our first step is to find the set of candidate links L. The second
step is to compute the power values Pi,t for all VUEs in all
timeslots in order to maximize the number of successful links
in L. Therefore, we update both L and Pi,t ∀ i, t on each
iteration. We terminate the algorithm, when we observe that
all the links in L are achieving the SINR target γ T .
Now we explain the first step, i.e., the computation of L
on each iteration. In the first iteration, we initialize L to the
set of all links, and in subsequent iterations we remove some
of the links from L, thereby making L a nonincreasing set
over iterations. We initialize all VUEs transmit power to P init ,
i.e., Pi,t = P init ∀ i, t. We then define the variable P̃i,j,t as the
required transmit power of VUE i during the timeslot t in an
iteration, so that the link (i, j) would be successful in the next
iteration, under the assumption that the interference remains
constant. The value of P̃i,j,t is computed in each iteration as
shown in Algorithm 3, line 8. If the required power for a link
(i, j) is more than P max , i.e., P̃i,j,t > P max ∀ t, then the link
(i, j) is declared as a broken link. The set of broken links B
in an iteration is computed in Algorithm 3, line 9. We find
out repeatedly broken links over many iterations and remove
them from the set L.
In order to find the repeatedly broken links, a counter
Ci,j is set to count the number of iterations at which the
link (i, j) gets broken. We remove the link (i, j) from L
once Ci,j reaches above a threshold C T , i.e, Ci,j > C T .
We observe that, the algorithm shows improved performance
as we increase C T . However, higher values of C T result in

9:
10:
11:
12:
13:
14:
15:
16:
17:
18:

F
P
f =1

21:
22:
23:
24:
25:
26:
27:

Xi,f,t > 0, j 6= i} // set of candidate
links
t=1f =1
Xi,f,t > 0}

∀i

// scheduled timeslots for VUE i

Compute SINR Υi,j,t ∀ i, j, t using (27)
while ∃ (i, j) ∈ L s.t. Υi,j,t < γ T ∀ t do
// Compute the required power and broken links B
T
P̃i,j,t = Υγi,j,t Pi,t ∀ (i, j) ∈ L, t ∈ Ti
B = {(i, j) : P̃i,j,t > P max ∀ t ∈ Ti }
// Increment Ci,j and update L
Ci,j = Ci,j + 1 ∀ (i, j) ∈ B
L = L \ {(i, j) : Ci,j > C T }
Ri = {j : (i, j) ∈ L \ B} ∀i
// Compute power values
Pi,t = 0 ∀ i, t
for i = 1 : N do
while Ri 6= ∅ do
Kt = {P̃i,j,t : P̃i,j,t ≤ P max , j ∈ Ri } ∀ t ∈ Ti
t? = rand(arg max |Kt |)

19:
20:

T P
F
P

t∈Ti

Pi,t? = max Kt?
R?i = {j : Pi,t? ≥ P̃i,j,t? }
Ri = Ri \ R?i
end while
Ti = Ti \ {t : Pi,t = 0}
end for
Compute SINR Υi,j,t ∀ i, j, t using (27) with updated
power values
end while

more number of iterations, thereby increasing computational
complexity. Moreover, we note that the initial transmit power
P init plays a crucial role in this algorithm. A higher value of
P init leads to more number of broken links in the first iteration
itself, whereas lower values lead to a slow convergence of the
algorithm. By simulations, we observe that P init = P max /10
is a reasonable value for P init .
Next we explain the second step, i.e., the computation
of power values Pi,t ∀ t, in each iteration. We compute the
power values of each VUE independently. In the following, we
therefore explain the power value computation of an arbitrary
VUE i for all timeslots t ∈ {1, 2, . . . , T }. Let us define the
set Ri as the set of intended receivers in L \ B when the
transmitter is VUE i, as computed in Algorithm 3, line 13.
Our goal is to make the received SINR of all the links from
VUE i to VUEs in Ri equal to or greater than γ T in the next

iteration, i.e., Υi,j,t ≥ γ T ∀ j ∈ Ri . Therefore, we compute
Pi,t ∀ t, such that the SINR values of all the links in L \ B
are greater or equal to γ T on at least one of the timeslots in
the next iteration, under the assumption that the interference
remains constant.
Furthermore, in order to minimize the interference to other
links, we would consider allocating power to a VUE in as
few number of timeslots as possible. Therefore, the power
allocation to VUE i involves two steps. The first step is to
decide the optimal timeslot t? to allocate power, and the
second step is to compute the power value for the chosen
timeslot t? . We compute t? as the timeslot at which VUE i
can serve the maximum number of intended receivers in Ri .
For this purpose, we first formed Kt as the set of transmit
powers for VUE i that are required to serve the receivers in
Ri and do not exceed P max , as shown in Algorithm 3, line
18. We note that the cardinality of this set, i.e., |Kt |, is the
number of receivers that can be served during timeslot t in the
next iteration. Therefore, we compute t? as the timeslot t that
maximizes |Kt |. If there are multiple timeslots with the same
maximum number of receivers, then we randomly pick one
among them using rand function. We define s = rand(S) as
an element randomly chosen with uniform probability from the
set S. Then we compute the power value Pi,t? as the maximum
value in Kt? (which is less than P max ), as shown in Algorithm
3, line 20. Then we compute the set of receivers R?i which are
served by the allocated power Pi,t? , and remove those from
Ri . Therefore, the set Ri remains as the set of VUEs not yet
served. We repeat these two steps until the allocated transmit
power Pi,t is greater or equal to the required transmit power
P̃i,j,t on at least one of the timeslot t, for all receivers in Ri .
The algorithm is convergent as proved in Lemma 1 in
Appendix C. However, in order to ensure a fast convergence
and improved performance, we restrict allocating power values
to VUE i only in a limited number of timeslots Ti . In each
iteration, we compute the set Ti ∀ i, as the set of timeslots
during which VUE i is allocated with nonzero power values.
In the subsequent iterations, we allocate power values to VUE
i only in those timeslots specified by Ti .

TABLE II: System Simulation Parameters
Parameter
ACIR model
γT
P max
P init
PL0
n
d0
σ1
Penetration Loss
σ2
davg
dmin
β
η
CT

is not appropriate for highway scenarios. Instead, we adopted
the channel model from [24], which is a model based on the
measurements of V2V links at carrier frequency 5.2 GHz in
a highway scenario. The path loss in dB for a distance d is
computed as,
PL(d) = PL0 + 10n log10 (d/d0 ) + Xσ1

We consider a network consisting of N VUEs distributed on
a one-lane road, and each VUE tries to broadcast a message
to all other VUEs. The distance between any two adjacent
VUEs, d, follows a shifted exponential distribution, with the
minimum distance dmin and the average distance davg . That is,
the probability density function of d is given as,

min
), d ≥ dmin
(1/(davg − dmin )) exp(− dd−d
avg −dmin
f (d) =
0,
otherwise
(28)
We choose davg = 48.6 m for a vehicular speed of 70 km/h,
as recommended by 3GPP [23, section A.1.2] for freeway
scenario. However, we did not adopt the channel model
Winner+B1 used by 3GPP evaluation scenario [23], since it

(29)

where n is the path loss exponent, PL0 is the path loss at
a reference distance d0 , and Xσ1 represents the shadowing
effect modeled as a zero-mean Gaussian random variable with
standard deviation σ1 . The values of the channel parameters
are taken from [24] and shown in Table II. An additional
attenuation of 10 dB is added as penetration loss for each
obstructing VUE [25]. The noise variance is −95.2 dBm and
P max is 24 dBm as per 3GPP recommendations [18]. We
assume that dmin = 10 m and that γ T = 5 dB is sufficient for
a transmission to be declared as successful (i.e., that the error
probability averaged over the small-scale fading is sufficiently
small). Additionally, we fix C T = 100, which is found to be
a reasonable value for the heuristic power control algorithm.
B. Simulation Results
To measure the performance, we use the average number of
successful links per VUE, defined as,

VI. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION
A. Scenario and Parameters

Value
3GPP mask
5 dB
24 dBm
P max /10
63.3 dB
1.77
10 m
3.1 dB
10 dB per obstructing VUE
−95.2 dBm
48.6 m
10 m
1/(N P max )
γ T (N P max + σ 2 )
100

Z̄ =

N N
1 XX
E[Zi,j ],
N i=1 j=1

(30)

j6=i

where the expectation is taken over the random quantities
in the experiment, i.e., the inter-VUE distances and shadow
fading. The metric Z̄ can be interpreted as the average number
of VUEs that can decode a packet from a certain VUE. Clearly,
we would like to ensure that Z̄ is sufficiently large to support
the application in mind. However, to specify this minimum
acceptable value of Z̄ is out of scope of this paper.
Since the block interleaver width w is an input parameter
to BIS, we considered a class of BIS with all possible w ∈
{1, 2, . . . , F̃ −1}. We present here the results for the optimal w
which maximizes Z̄ under the assumption of equal transmit
powers, shown as the blue curves marked with triangles in

BIS (w=1)

BIS (optimized w)

Heuristic scheduling
w

w
6

Near-optimal scheduling

3 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

2

3

2

2

w
111111224344445543

1.5

4
1.5

1

Average number of successful links per VUE (Z̄)

2
2

4

6

8

10

1

T
(a) Equal Power (F =20, N =20)
6

6

12
20
F
(b) Equal Power (T =1, N =20)

5

10

15
20
N
(c) Equal Power (F =20, T =1)

5

10

2

2

1.5

4
1.5

1

2
2

4

6

8

10

1

6

12
F

T
(d) Heuristic Power (F =20, N =20)
6

20

15

20

N

(e) Heuristic Power (T =1, N =20)

(f) Heuristic Power (F =20, T =1)
2

2

1.5

4

1.5
1

2
2

4

6

8

10

1

6

12
F

T
(g) Near-optimal power
(F =20, N =20)

(h) Near-optimal power
(T =1, N =20)

20

5

10

15

20

N
(i) Near-optimal power
(F =20, T =1)

Fig. 5: Average number of successful links per VUE (Z̄) for various scheduling algorithms
Fig. 5. The corresponding w for BIS is shown as an extra
x label on top of Fig. 5(a)–(c), and we do not vary w with
respect to the power control algorithms.
In Fig. 5, we present the result for various values of
F, T, N , and various scheduling and power control algorithms. However, we have not simulated near-optimal scheduling for T > 1, due to its very high computational complexity.
In Fig. 5(a), we plot Z̄ by varying T for a fixed F and N .
The results in Fig. 5(a) clearly show that Z̄ is severely limited
by ACI when many VUEs must be multiplexed in frequency,

i.e., when T is small compared to N . This motivates the search
for scheduling and power control methods to mitigate the ACI
problem in this situation. We also observe that Z̄ remains
essentially constant for T ≥ 10.
One way to limit the effect of ACI would be to increase F
(for a fixed N and T ) to allow for larger spacing of VUEs
in frequency. However, the results in Fig. 5(b) show that Z̄ is
only slowly increasing with F . On the other hand, Fig. 5(b)
shows that significant gains can be achieved by more advanced
scheduling than using a BIS.

Equal power
25

Heuristic power

Near-optimal power

25
20

20

20

15

15

10

2

4

6

8

10

10

0
6

12
F

T
(a) (F =20, N =20)

(b) (T =1, N =20)

20

5

10

15

20

N
(c) (F =20, T =1)

Fig. 6: Average transmit power per VUE (dBm) for various power control algorithms for BIS (w=1)
Moreover, for a fixed T and F , we see in Fig. 5(c) that Z̄ is
increasing with N , at least for the more advanced schedulers.
This might be surprising at first sight; however, this effect
is not unreasonable, since more receivers become available
for each transmission when N increases. In other words, the
number of terms in the double sum in (30) increases, which
tends to increase Z̄. The results in Fig. 5(c) also show that
significant gains can be achieved with proper scheduling.
As seen in Fig. 5(d)–(i), power control increases performance, but, in general, the gains are marginal for advanced
schedulers. The performance gain is more significant for the
BIS scheduler compared to the more advanced schedulers.
This can be explained by the fact that a suboptimal schedule
can be corrected to some degree by power control. Indeed,
assigning zero or a very low power to a VUE effectively
changes the schedule for that VUE. For instance, that the
performance for BIS with w = 1 for large N is significantly
improved with power control, as seen in Fig. 5(f) and Fig. 5(i).
In Fig. 6, we plot the average transmitter power values for
various power control algorithms, upon fixing the scheduling
algorithm as BIS with w = 1. We observe that our proposed
heuristic power control algorithm uses less transmit power
compared to equal power, and close to the transmit power
used by near-optimal power control.
The simulation results presented here is for half-duplex
communication scenario, i.e., a VUE cannot receive any
packets in any frequency slots while transmitting in a timeslot.
For detailed results on full-duplex communication, interested
readers are directed to our report in the archive [19]. Moreover,
in [19] we present similar results for both full-duplex and
half-duplex scenarios, with both SCFDMA and 3GPP mask
ACIR models. We observe that the near-optimal scheduling
algorithm show significant performance improvement for fullduplex communication scenarios when ACIR equals to 3GPP
mask. We also plot the average transmit power values for
various scheduling algorithms in [19], and observe the similar
trends for various scheduling algorithms. Additionally, the
MATLAB code used for the simulation is shared on github

[26].
VII. C ONCLUSION
This paper studies performance of V2V all-to-all broadcast
communication in a one-lane highway scenario where cochannel interference is removed by not allowing more than one
transmitting VUE per time-frequency resource block. From
the results presented in this paper, which are for half-duplex
communication, we can draw the following conclusions.
1) Performance is mainly limited by ACI when VUEs are
multiplexed in frequency.
2) Performance is heavily dependent on scheduling and
power allocation.
3) In general, scheduling with fixed and equal transmit
powers is more effective in improving performance than
subsequent power control.
4) To find a schedule and power allocation to maximize
performance can be stated as the nonconvex mixed
integer quadratic constrained programming (MIQCP)
problem in (20).
5) To find a schedule to maximize performance for a fixed
power allocation can be stated as a Boolean linear
programming (BLP) problem found by fixing P to a
constant matrix in (20).
6) The heuristic scheduling algorithm for a fixed power
allocation defined in Algorithm 2.2 has significantly
lower complexity than the BLP program and performs
significantly better than the baseline block-interleaver
scheduler defined in Algorithm 1.
7) To find a power allocation to maximize performance for
a fixed schedule can be stated as the mixed integer linear
programming (MILP) problem found by replacing the
objective in (20) with (25) and fixing X.
8) The heuristic power allocation algorithm for a fixed
schedule defined in Algorithm 3 achieve similar performance as the solution to the MILP problem, but at a
significantly lower computational complexity.
9) For small problems, the tandem of Algorithms 2.2 and 3
perform close to the near-optimum solution obtained by

solving, in sequence, the BLP and MILP problems in
items 5) and 7) above, respectively.
A PPENDIX A
J OINT S CHEDULING AND P OWER C ONTROL P ROBLEM
F ORMULATION BY F OCUSING ON
T RANSMITTER -R ECEIVER L INKS
Let us define Υ ∈ RN ×N ×T with Υi,j,t being the SINR
during timeslot t for the link from VUE i to VUE j, i.e.,
transmitter-receiver link (i, j). The value of Υi,j,t can be
computed as follows,
F
P
Xi,f,t Pi,t Hi,j
f =1

Υi,j,t =
σ2

+

F
F P
N
P
P

(31)
Xi,f,t Af 0 ,f Xk,f 0 ,t Pk,t Hk,j

f =1 f 0 =1k=1
k6=i

where σ 2 is the noise variance and Pi,t is the transmit power
of VUE i during timeslot t.
Now we explain each component of (31). Observe that
Xi,f,t Pi,t Hi,j in numerator is the receivedP
signal power for
the link (i, j) on RB (f, t), therefore,
f Xi,f,t Pi,t Hi,j
is the total received signal power in timeslot t. Similarly Af 0 ,f Xk,f 0 ,t Pk,t Hk,j is the interference power received by VUE j on RB (f, t) from VUE k when
VUE k is scheduled to transmit on RB (f 0 , t). Similarly,
Xi,f,t Af 0 ,f Xk,f 0 ,t Pk,t Hk,j is the same received interference
powerP
if VUE
i is scheduled to transmit in RB (f, t). ThereP P
0
0
fore,
0
f
f
k6=i Xi,f,t Af ,f Xk,f ,t Pk,t Hk,j is the total
interference power received to the link (i, j) if VUE i is
scheduled to transmit in any of the RBs in timeslot t.
However, translating the constraint for achieving SINR
target, i.e., Υi,j,t ≥ γ T , we get the following constraint,
F
X

Xi,f,t Pi,t Hi,j

f =1

−γ T

F X
N
F X
X

Xi,f,t Af 0 ,f Xk,f 0 ,t Pk,t Hk,j ≥ γ T σ 2 (32)

f =1 f 0 =1k=1
k6=i

Observe that the above constraint is more complicated than
a quadratic constraint. Moreover, we can simplify the above
constraint only upto a boolean quadratic constraint for a
scheduling problem, upon fixing the power values Pi,t ∀ i, t.
A PPENDIX B
P ROVING THE N ONCONVEXITY OF (20 B )
Let us represent (20b) as follows,
G(P, X, Y) ≤ 0

(33)

where G(P, X, Y) is defined as follows,
G(P, X, Y) =
−

N
X
i=1

Xi,f,t Pi,t Hi,j + γ T

F X
N
X

Af 0 ,f Xk,f 0 ,t Pk,t Hk,j

f 0 =1 k=1
f 0 6=f
2

+ γ T σ 2 − γ T (N P max + σ )(1 − Yj,f,t )

(34)

We prove the nonconvexity of (20b) by proving that
G(P, X, Y) is nonconvex. We prove this by proving that the
Hessian matrix of G(P, X, Y) is not positive semidefinite,
with respect to the two variables x = X1,f,t and y = P1,t .
The Hessian matrix of G(P, X, Y) with respect to x and y is
as follows,
#
"
O2 G =
2

∂2G
∂y∂x
∂2G
∂2y

∂2G
∂2x
∂2G
∂x∂y

2

(35)
2

2

∂ G
∂ G
∂ G
However, observe that ∂∂ 2G
x = ∂ 2 y = 0, and ∂x∂y = ∂y∂x
from (34). Therefore, the determinant of the above Hessian
∂2G 2
∂2G
matrix is O2 G = −( ∂x∂y
) ≤ 0. Since ∂x∂y
6= 0 for some
j, f, t, the corresponding determinant of the Hessian matrix is
negative. Hence the function G(P, X, Y) is nonconvex. This
concludes the proof.

A PPENDIX C
P ROVING THE C ONVERGENCE OF A LGORITHM 3
Lemma 1: The Algorithm 3 is convergent.
Proof: Observe that the set L is nonincreasing on each
iteration. When the termination condition (Algorithm 3, line
6) is not satisfied, the set of broken links B is nonempty.
This implies that, the counter Ci,j is incremented for some
(i, j) ∈ L in each iteration. Therefore, the maximum number
of iterations possible before the set L becomes empty is
C T |L|. This concludes the proof.
R EFERENCES
[1] W. Sun, E. G. Ström, F. Brännström, K. C. Sou, and Y. Sui, “Radio resource management for D2D-based V2V communication,” IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 6636–6650,
Aug 2016.
[2] L. Gallo and J. Härri, “Short paper: A LTE-direct broadcast mechanism for periodic vehicular safety communications,” in IEEE Vehicular
Networking Conference, Boston, USA, Dec. 2013, pp. 166–169.
[3] W. L. Tan, K. Bialkowski, and M. Portmann, “Evaluating adjacent
channel interference in IEEE 802.11 networks,” in Proc. IEEE Vehicular
Technology Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, May 2010.
[4] E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J. Sköld, “4G: LTE/LTE-Advanced for
mobile broadband.” Oxford: Academic Press, 2011, pp. 370–371.
[5] W. Li, X. Ma, J. Wu, K. S. Trivedi, X. L. Huang, and Q. Liu, “Analytical
model and performance evaluation of long-term evolution for vehicle
safety services,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 66,
no. 3, pp. 1926–1939, March 2017.
[6] J. Zhou, R. Q. Hu, and Y. Qian, “Message scheduling and delivery with
vehicular communication network infrastructure,” in 2013 IEEE Global
Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Atlanta, USA, Dec 2013,
pp. 575–580.
[7] F. Zeng, R. Zhang, X. Cheng, and L. Yang, “Channel prediction based
scheduling for data dissemination in VANETs,” IEEE Communications
Letters, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1409–1412, 2017.
[8] W. Li, J. Chen, H. Long, and B. Wu, “Performance and analysis on LTE
system under adjacent channel interference of broadcasting system,” in
2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer and Information
Technology, Chengdu, China, Oct 2012, pp. 290–294.
[9] Q. Wang and X. Li, “Analysis of LTE FDD and TD-LTE combination
network’s interference,” in 2016 2nd IEEE International Conference on
Computer and Communications (ICCC), Chengdu, China, Oct 2016, pp.
2332–2336.
[10] J. Ribadeneira-Ramirez, G. Martinez, D. Gomez-Barquero, and N. Cardona, “Interference analysis between digital terrestrial television (DTT)
and 4G LTE mobile networks in the digital dividend bands,” IEEE
Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 24–34, March 2016.

[11] “CEPT Report 40: Compatibility study for LTE and WiMAX operating
within the bands 880-915 MHz / 925-960 MHz and 1710-1785 MHz /
1805-1880 MHz (900/1800 MHz bands),” Tech. Rep., CEPT Electronic
Commun. Committee (ECC), Nov 2010.
[12] L. Wang, X. Qi, and K. Wu, “Embracing adjacent channel interference in
next generation wi-fi networks,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference
on Communications (ICC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 2016.
[13] A. Adya, P. Bahl, J. Padhye, A. Wolman, and L. Zhou, “A multiradio unification protocol for IEEE 802.11 wireless networks,” in First
International Conference on Broadband Networks, San Jose, CA, USA,
Oct 2004, pp. 344–354.
[14] J. Nachtigall, A. Zubow, and J. P. Redlich, “The impact of adjacent
channel interference in multi-radio systems using IEEE 802.11,” in
2008 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing
Conference, Crete Island, Greece, Aug 2008, pp. 874–881.
[15] A. Hisham, W. Sun, E. G. Ström, and F. Brännström, “Power control
for broadcast V2V communications with adjacent carrier interference
effects,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC),
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 2016.
[16] 3GPP, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA);
Physical channels and modulation,” 3rd Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP), TR 36.211, March 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/36_series/36.211
[17] T. Svensson and T. Eriksson, “On power amplifier efficiency with
modulated signals,” in Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference,
Ottawa, Canada, May 2010.
[18] 3GPP, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA);
Radio Frequency (RF) system scenarios,” 3rd Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP), TR 36.942, Oct. 2014. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/36942.htm
[19] “Additional Results of Scheduling and Power Control for Broadcast
V2V Communications with Adjacent Channel Interference,” Tech.
Rep., Aug. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/src/1708.02444/
anc/Additional_Results.pdf
[20] Y. Nesterov, “Semidefinite relaxation and nonconvex quadratic optimization,” Optimization Methods and Software, vol. 9, no. 1-3, pp. 141–160,
1998.
[21] Gurobi Optimization, Inc., “Gurobi optimizer reference manual,” 2015.
[Online]. Available: http://www.gurobi.com
[22] K. Wang, C. Chiasserini, J. Proakis, and R. Rao, “Joint scheduling
and power control for multicasting in wireless ad hoc networks,” in
Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, vol. 5, Florida, USA, Oct.
2003, pp. 2915–2920.
[23] 3GPP, “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;
Study on LTE-based V2X Services,” 3rd Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP), TR 36.885, June 2016. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/36885.htm
[24] J. Karedal, N. Czink, A. Paier, F. Tufvesson, and A. Molisch, “Path loss
modeling for vehicle-to-vehicle communications,” IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 323–328, Jan. 2011.
[25] D. Vlastaras, T. Abbas, M. Nilsson, R. Whiton, M. Olbäck, and
F. Tufvesson, “Impact of a truck as an obstacle on vehicle-to-vehicle
communications in rural and highway scenarios,” in Proc. IEEE 6th
International Symposium on Wireless Vehicular Communications, Vancouver, Canada, 2014.
[26] Matlab code for V2V communication, Aug. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/anverhisham/Scheduling_and_powerControl_
\in_V2V_Communication

