
[10], [11], [13], this work extends the joint communication
and computation paradigm toward hybrid cloud and MEC
networks. Further, in contrast to previous works on MEC
networks which adopt orthogonal access schemes, e.g., [14],
[15], this paper adopts a spatial multiplexing approach and
separates users using a beamforming strategy. Reference [4]
utilizes a similar approach for resource management under the
multi-cloud paradigm; however, the essential computation and
delay considerations are ignored in [4] which rather focuses
on mitigating the intra- and inter-cloud interference in a multi-
cloud setup in the absence of any MEC capabilities.
Unlike the aforementioned references, this paper proposes
a downlink hybrid cloud/MEC network, where several multi-
antenna BSs and UAVs serve single-antenna network users.
The BSs are connected to the cloud via capacity limited
fronthaul links, while the UAVs perform computation and
communication functions on their own. We address a sum-
rate maximization problem by jointly managing beamforming
vectors, allocated rates, and computation capacity, subject to
per-BS and per-UAV power, per-BS fronthaul capacity, per-
computing platform maximum computation capacity, and per-
user delay constraints. Such mixed discrete-continuous non-
convex optimization problem is tackled using `0-norm relax-
ation, successive convex approximation (SCA), and fractional
programming (FP) resulting in a fully centralized protocol
(FCP) and in an efficient partially decentralized protocol
(PDP). Insightful simulations verify the gains of the proposed
network architecture in terms of sum-rate and delay. The
proposed decentralized algorithm is particularly shown to
overcome the centralized version in terms of computational
complexity, runtime, and scalability, as well as the fully
distributed protocol (FDP) in terms of sum-rate.
II. SYSTEM MODEL AND PROBLEM FORMULATION
In this work, we consider the downlink of a hybrid
cloud/MEC-based network architecture. Under such frame-
work, cloud processors (CPs) coordinate the users operations
within the core-network. The UAVs, on the other hand, with
on-chip computation capabilities, act as mobile edge com-
puters (ECs) to serve the cell-edge users. The core network
consists of a single cloud, i.e., the central cloud (CC), con-
nected via fronthaul links to Bmulti-antenna BSs, with Lc
antennas each, while the UAVs at the edge are equipped with
Leantennas each. The split of network functions follows a
data-sharing approach, where the CP at the CC performs most
network functions, e.g., encoding and precoder design, leaving
the modulation, precoding, and radio tasks to the BSs [5].
Fig. 1 shows an example of the considered system, which
illustrates a network of 2BSs serving 4central users, and 2
UAVs each serving one user. Let Ebe the number of deployed
ECs, and let E={1,· · · , E}be the set of ECs. Since each
EC is implemented on a UAV, the edge network consists of E
UAVs. Note that throughout this work, the terms ECs and
UAVs are interchangeably used without loss of generality.
The set of BSs is given by B={1,· · · , B}. The set of
single-antenna users is denoted by K={1,· · · , K}, where
Communication link
Cloud-UAV interference
Intra-cloud interference
Coordination link
User
CP UAV
Base station
Fig. 1: Network of 2UAVs, 2BSs, and 6users.
Kis the total number of users. In the context of CC and EC
coexistence, this paper assumes disjoint user-clusters, which
are covered by the user sets Kc⊆ K and Ke⊆ K, with
Kc∩ Ke=∅,∀e∈ E and Ke∩ K0
e=∅,∀e6=e0. In other
terms, the set of users served by the CC is denoted by Kc,
while the set of users served by each EC eis denoted by Ke,
∀e∈ E. Similarly, the CC serves Kcusers, while EC eserves
Keusers. The determination of the sets Keand Kcfalls outside
the scope of the current paper, as it is often determined on a
different time-scale than the beamforming problem considered
in this paper.
We further denote the channel vector from BS bto user
kby hb,k ∈CLc, and the channel vector from UAV eto
user kby ˜
he,k ∈CLe, where e∈ E. The aggregate channel
vector from all BSs and UAVs towards user kis given by
hk= [hT
1,k,· · · ,hT
B,k,˜
h1,k,· · · ,˜
hE,k]T. For mathematical
tractability, the paper assumes full knowledge of channel state
information at the transmitters (CSIT).
The paper then aims at jointly managing the communica-
tion and computation network resources, which are captured
through the following list of variables:
•The beamforming vectors wb,k ∈CLcand ˜
we,k ∈CLe,
which denote the beamforming vector of user k’s signal
at BS band at UAV e∈ E, respectively.
•The computation vector f∈NK, which denotes the
allocated computation cycles to process the users data,
where each entry fkis given in cycles/s, ∀k∈ K.
•The rate allocation vector r∈RK, which denotes the
achievable rates of all users, with r= [r1,· · · , rK].
Note that wk= [wT
1,k,· · · ,wT
B,k,˜
wT
1,k,· · · ,˜
wT
E,k]Tis the
aggregate beamforming vector for user k. As per the user
association constraints, wkis group-sparse by design since k
may only be served by either CC or one EC. Additionally, in
the case when the CC serves the user k, not all BSs participate
in serving k, i.e., wb,k =0Lcfor some BSs b. We next
describe the expressions of the metrics relevant to the paper
context, mainly, the data-rates, the power consumption at the
BSs and at the UAVs, the users transmission delays, and the
computation capacity.
a) Achievable Rate: Each user receives its own intended
signal h†
kwksk, and treats all other users’ signals as interfer-
ence. This is captured in the signal to interference plus noise