Evolutionary AP Switch ON/OFF Techniques for Energy-efficient Cell-free Massive MIMO Networks

Classical access point switching (ASW) strategies for CF-mMIMO predominantly rely on greedy and rule-based heuristics owing to their low computational complexity. Early works focused on homogeneous MS distributions [22], while [26] incorporated heterogeneous layouts through goodness-of-fit (GoF) metrics to align AP density with traffic intensity. Extensions include heuristics based on effective channel gains [36, 18], two-timescale schemes leveraging MS mobility [51], and adaptations to macro-cellular 5G scenarios [52]. More recent formulations consider joint EE –SE optimization [33]. Although computationally efficient, greedy and rule-based heuristics explore only a limited portion of the combinatorial space, lack global coordination, and cannot recover from early suboptimal decisions—limitations that become critical under spatially heterogeneous traffic.

Approximate dynamic programming (ADP) and reinforcement learning (RL)/deep reinforcement learning (DRL) have recently been explored for AP activation [43, 55, 56, 39, 25]. Centralized DRL approaches, such as double deep Q-network (DDQN) [43], have demonstrated promising results in very small-scale networks (e.g., 8 APs), where the number of APs and the corresponding action space remain limited. However, when extending these methods to realistic CF-mMIMO deployments with tens or hundreds of APs (e.g., $100$ APs, $2^{100}$ configurations), the exponential growth of the combinatorial action space leads to significant training and inference challenges. To ensure affordability in large-scale networks, [55] restricts the processing to a decentralized low-complexity maximum-ratio (MR) combining, significantly reducing CPU load and backhaul signaling. However, incorporating delay constraints into the reward function inherently couples power consumption and latency, hindering an explicit optimization of EE as a standalone objective. Multi-agent DRL approaches [56] address dimensionality issues through decentralized decision-making, but rely exclusively on downlink CB, whereby inter-MS interference is not actively suppressed, thus resulting in poor spectral efficiencies. Moreover, their optimization objective is cast as power minimization under rate constraints, rather than as an explicit maximization of EE. Proximal policy optimization (PPO)-based, centrally trained DRL approaches [39, 25] reduce the dimensionality of the action space by directly generating AP activation decisions. These works adopt large-scale fading decoding combined with local partial minimum mean-squared error (LP-MMSE) processing. Nevertheless, although improved EE performance have been reported in controlled scenarios, these policy-gradient methods operate under partial observability by using a shallow search and rely on realization-dependent inputs, such as MR positions or average channel state information (CSI). While RL/DRL-based techniques are reviewed for completeness and represent an active line of research, their use as baselines for the large-scale CF-mMIMO problem considered here remains challenging from an implementation perspective. RL/DRL methods aim to learn policies that map compact state observations to AP activation decisions through offline training, whereas the problem considered here is formulated as the direct optimization of AP ON/OFF patterns for given spatial MS density distributions, enabling deployment-agnostic designs without prior training. A fair comparison with RL/DRL would require training over diverse distributions, load conditions, and channel realizations, significantly increasing the number of physical-layer evaluations. While each MS distribution can be independently optimized and explicitly stored in the considered framework, RL/DRL must incorporate all scenarios within one or more training processes based on extensive environment interactions, where each interaction involves MS position tracking, action selection, physical-layer evaluation, and SE/EE reward computation. Thus, computational cost is not eliminated but shifted and amplified during training, and achieving comparable generality requires substantially more evaluations. Moreover, RL/DRL performance critically depends on the representativeness of the training set: biases in spatial MS distributions, traffic loads, or network geometries can degrade generalization, whereas increasing diversity raises training complexity, interaction requirements, and potential stability issues. Meaningful comparisons therefore require carefully designed training environments, validation of policy stability, and evaluation on unseen spatial MS distributions. Methodologically, explicit optimization approaches generate configurations that can be stored and incrementally extended as new traffic patterns emerge, without affecting prior solutions. This distinction is particularly relevant in practical CF-mMIMO deployments, where fixed AP locations and statistically characterizable traffic distributions enable reusable mappings between MS density distributions and AP activation patterns, allowing real-time operation via low-cost lookup tables. RL/DRL policies trained on limited or simplified traffic distributions (e.g., uniform MS deployments) are not fully representative, while training over sufficiently broad scenarios would require dedicated large-scale studies focused on generalization and transferability. Finally, RL/DRL methods often rely on high-dimensional, realization-dependent inputs (e.g., instantaneous MS locations or channel states), which yield policies tied to specific operating conditions and complicate large-scale real-time implementation. Although such approaches can reduce decision complexity at inference time, they do not eliminate the cost of physical-layer evaluations, which is instead incurred during training. Table I summarizes a comparison between representative RL/DRL-based and evolutionary approaches for AP ON/OFF optimization in CF-mMIMO networks, highlighting their evaluation scale, temporal scale of operation, and key technical considerations.

This paper proposes evolutionary optimization strategies for AP activation problem in CF-mMIMO networks (categorized as genetic algorithm (GA)-based approaches in Table I) and evaluates their performance under heterogeneous spatial traffic distributions. Unlike greedy heuristics in [22, 26], adopted as benchmarks, the proposed GA-based approaches effectively explore the global combinatorial space and provide notable improvements in EE under both CB and MMSE processing. The proposed strategies operate at very large temporal scales, exploiting the slow and often cyclical evolution of traffic patterns. The developed framework avoids prior training and enables deployment-agnostic operation. The resulting solutions can be precomputed offline and implemented in real time via lookup tables. The main contributions of this work are summarized as follows:

• •

  Evolutionary optimization framework for AP activation: An evolutionary search framework is developed to explore the global combinatorial space of AP ON/OFF activation patterns, enabling the identification of high-quality activation strategies beyond the limitations of greedy methods.

• •

  Constrained genetic algorithm (CGA): A constrained genetic algorithm is proposed to determine near-optimal AP activation subsets for a fixed number of active APs. By combining this constrained search with an external search over the activation cardinality, the method approximates a globally competitive ON/OFF activation configuration.

• •

  Pareto-driven genetic algorithm (PDGA): A multi-objective genetic algorithm is developed to jointly optimize EE and SE by constructing the Pareto front over the feasible AP activation space. Beyond optimization, the framework explicitly characterizes the EE –SE trade-off in large-scale CF-mMIMO networks, enabling a decision-oriented interpretation of the AP ON/OFF problem. This allows network operators to select operating points according to system-level requirements, such as throughput or QoS constraints.

• •

  Computational-complexity analysis: A detailed complexity analysis is presented to evaluate the affordability and computational cost of the proposed evolutionary strategies and to compare them with classical greedy-search baselines.

• •

  Performance evaluation and design insights: Simulation results under heterogeneous spatial traffic distributions demonstrate that evolutionary optimization consistently improves energy efficiency and provide insight into the relationship between the optimal number of active APs, the spatial traffic distribution, and the processing scheme.

We emphasize that the contribution of this work lies in the development and analysis of evolutionary optimization strategies tailored to the large-scale AP activation problem, as well as in the characterization of the EE and SE trade-off in CF-mMIMO networks. Overall, the proposed contributions provide not only improved energy efficiency performance, but also bring new insights into the interplay between AP activation, traffic heterogeneity, and processing schemes, while enabling practical operating-point selection in CF-mMIMO networks.

The paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the CF-mMIMO system model, including channel estimation, downlink transmission, and spatial MS distribution. Section III introduces the performance metrics employed to evaluate AP activation schemes. Sections IV and V describe the proposed GA-based and benchmark GoF-based methods, respectively. Section VI reports numerical results, and Section VII concludes the paper.

We adopt a standard block-fading model in which the wireless channel remains constant and frequency-flat over a coherence block, and evolves independently across different blocks. The channel vector between AP $l$ and MS $k$ is indicated by $\boldsymbol{h}_{lk}\in\mathbb{C}^{N}$ and is modeled as a complex circularly symmetric Gaussian random vector $\boldsymbol{h}_{lk}\!\sim\!\mathcal{CN}(\boldsymbol{0}_{N},\boldsymbol{R}_{lk})$, where $\boldsymbol{R}_{lk}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$ is the corresponding positive semi-definite spatial covariance matrix, and the average channel gain holds $\beta_{lk}=\frac{1}{N}\text{tr}(\boldsymbol{R}_{lk})$. Covariance matrices $\boldsymbol{R}_{lk}$ can be estimated over long-term channel statistics, i.e., over many coherence intervals, and are assumed to be perfectly known at both the APs and the CPU [8].

Due to the physical separation between APs and MSs, it is reasonable to assume that the channels between different AP-MS pairs are statistically independent. That is, $\mathbb{E}\{\boldsymbol{h}_{l^{\prime}k^{\prime}}\boldsymbol{h}_{lk}^{\mathsf{H}}\}\!=\!\boldsymbol{0}_{N\times N},\ \forall(l^{\prime}k^{\prime})\neq(lk)$. The aggregate channel vector from MS $k$ to all APs is defined as $\boldsymbol{h}_{k}\!=\!\operatorname{col}\left(\left\{\boldsymbol{h}_{lk}\right\}_{l\in\mathcal{L}}\right)$, which is distributed as $\boldsymbol{h}_{k}\!\sim\!\mathcal{CN}(\boldsymbol{0}_{LN},\boldsymbol{R}_{k})$, where $\boldsymbol{R}_{k}=\operatorname{blockdiag}(\boldsymbol{R}_{1k},\ldots,\boldsymbol{R}_{Lk})$.

In the uplink training phase, each MS transmits a pilot sequence to facilitate channel estimation at the APs. A set of ${\tau_{p}}$ mutually orthogonal pilot sequences are used during the uplink training phase. Let $\boldsymbol{\psi}_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{\tau_{p}}$ denote the pilot sequence assigned to MS $k$, normalized such that $\left\|\boldsymbol{\psi}_{k}\right\|^{2}=1$. The $N\!\times\!\tau_{p}$ signal matrix received at AP $l$ during this phase is obtained as

where $P_{p}$ is the pilot power per symbol and $\boldsymbol{N}_{l}$ is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) matrix with i.i.d. entries distributed as $\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma_{u}^{2})$. In scenarios where the number of MSs exceeds the number of available orthogonal pilot sequences ($K>\tau_{p}$), pilot reuse becomes necessary, leading to interference during channel estimation, commonly termed pilot contamination [41, 42, 19]. To extract channel information for MS $k$, AP $l$ correlates the received signal with the conjugate of the pilot as

where $\mathcal{P}_{k}$ is the set of MSs that have been assigned the same pilot sequence as MS $k$, including itself, and $\boldsymbol{n}_{lk}=\boldsymbol{N}_{l}\boldsymbol{\psi}^{\ast}_{k}\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma_{u}^{2}\mathbf{I}_{N})$.

The MMSE estimate of $\boldsymbol{h}_{lk}$ is computed as

with

The estimated channel is distributed as $\hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{lk}\!\sim\!\mathcal{CN}(\boldsymbol{0}_{N},\tau_{p}P_{p}\boldsymbol{R}_{lk}\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{lk}^{-1}\boldsymbol{R}_{lk})$, and is uncorrelated with the estimation error defined as $\tilde{\boldsymbol{h}}_{lk}=\boldsymbol{h}_{lk}-\hat{\boldsymbol{h}}_{lk}$ and distributed as $\tilde{\boldsymbol{h}}_{lk}\!\sim\!\mathcal{CN}(\boldsymbol{0}_{N},\boldsymbol{R}_{lk}\!-\!\tau_{p}P_{p}\boldsymbol{R}_{lk}\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{lk}^{-1}\boldsymbol{R}_{lk})$.

During the downlink phase, the active APs in the set $\mathcal{L}^{A}$ deliver data to the MSs in $\mathcal{K}$ using linear precoding techniques. We adopt the canonical CF-mMIMO transmission model in which all active APs jointly serve all MSs. The signal received by MS $k$ is expressed as

where $n_{k}\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma_{d}^{2})$ denotes the receiver AWGN at MS $k$, $\mathbf{w}_{lk}\in\mathbb{C}^{N}$ is the precoding vector used by AP $l$ for MS $k$, and $\varsigma_{k}$ is the data symbol intended for MS $k$, satisfying $\mathbb{E}\{|\varsigma_{k}|^{2}\}=1$ and $\mathbb{E}\{\varsigma_{k}\varsigma_{i}^{*}\}=0$ for $k\neq i$. The first term represents the desired signal, the second term accounts for multi-MS interference, and the third term is the AWGN.

We explore two distinct strategies for precoding and power control: a centralized scheme based on the MMSE strategy and a distributed approach based on CB.

In this study, we model the spatial distribution of MSs within the service area using the framework proposed by Lee et al. in [37], which was also applied in the context of CF-mMIMO in [26]. This spatial traffic model captures large-scale variations in traffic density by using sums of sinusoids, which represent the characteristics of spatially correlated log-normally distributed traffic patterns.

Specifically, a square area denoted by $\mathcal{S}$ is divided into a regular grid of $N_{X}$ by $N_{Y}$ rectangular pixels. Each pixel, indexed by $(x,y)$ with $x\in\{1,\dots,N_{X}\}$ and $y\in\{1,\dots,N_{Y}\}$, is associated with a traffic density $\rho_{x,y}$ (measured in MSs per pixel). For an urban scenario, we generate the traffic density map $\rho_{x,y}$ using a combination of lognormal distributions, as illustrated in Fig. 2, following the approach detailed in [37].

The probability density function (PDF) of the number of MSs per pixel, denoted by $f^{\lx@glossaries@gls@link{acronym}{MS}{{{}}MS}}_{x,y}$, can be computed as

This formulation effectively normalizes the traffic distribution across the service area.

The sum downlink spectral efficiency (measured in bps/Hz) can be expressed as

where $\xi_{k}(\mathcal{L}^{A})$ is the achievable downlink spectral efficiency of an arbitrary MS $k$, given by [16]

with the effective signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) expressed as

where $\varrho^{i}_{lk}=\boldsymbol{h}^{\mathsf{H}}_{lk}\mathbf{w}^{\text{proc}}_{li}$ denotes the effective downlink channel contribution from AP $l$ to MS $k$ associated with the data symbol intended for MS $i$, with $\mathbf{w}^{\text{proc}}_{li}\in\{\mathbf{w}^{\text{CB}}_{li},\,\mathbf{w}^{\text{MMSE}}_{li}\}$ denoting the processing vector used at AP $l$ for MS $i$. The expectations in (18) are taken with respect to the random channel realizations.

A linear model is used to approximate the total power $P_{l}^{\text{AP}}$ consumed at the $l$th AP, as proposed in several studies [5, 59, 17, 6, 14].

In active mode, during the downlink payload data transmission phase, the power consumption at the $l$th AP depends on several factors, including the radiated power, the efficiency of the power amplifier, the power consumed by the small-signal radio frequency (RF) transceiver, baseband circuitry, and losses from components such as the feeder, DC power supply, main supply, and cooling system.

In sleep mode, the AP remains in a reduced power state, enabling a relatively quick reactivation. In this mode, although the AP is not transmitting or receiving power, certain components such as the power supply, some signal processing blocks, and part of the cooling system remain active, consuming power. The power consumption in each mode is therefore modeled as follows

where $\alpha_{l}^{\text{AP}}$ is the power amplifier efficiency at the $l$th AP, $P_{l}^{\text{AP,fix}}$ denotes the downlink power consumption that is independent of both the number of RF chains $N_{\text{chain}}$ and the traffic load, $P_{l}^{\text{AP,chain}}$ models the downlink traffic-independent power consumed by the circuitry related to each RF chain at the $l$th AP, $P_{l,\,\text{sleep}}^{\text{AP,fix}}$ and $P_{l,\,\text{sleep}}^{\text{AP,chain}}$ represent the RF chain-independent and RF chain-dependent power consumed by the $l$th AP in sleep mode.

A similar power consumption model can be established for the fronthaul links that connect APs to CPU. In particular, the power consumed by the $l$th fronthaul link in active mode depends on the traffic it conveys. The total power consumption is approximated as [47, 44]

where $B$ is the system bandwidth, $\eta_{l}^{\text{FH}}$ denotes the traffic-dependent power consumption coefficient (in Watt per bit/s), $P_{l}^{\text{FH,fix}}$ expresses the traffic-independent power consumption in active mode, and $P_{l,\,\text{sleep}}^{\text{FH,fix}}$ accounts for the power consumed by the $l$th fronthaul link in sleep mode.

For MSs, the power consumption during the downlink payload data transmission phase is also approximated by

where $\eta_{k}^{\text{MS}}$ is the traffic-dependent power consumption coefficient (in Watt per bit/s) for the $k$-th MS and $P_{k}^{\text{MS,fix}}$ models the power consumed by the internal circuitry of the $k$-th MS, independent of the radiated power.

By combining the contributions from the APs, fronthaul links, and MSs, the total power consumption of the CF-mMIMO network during the downlink payload data transmission phase is modeled as

with

The energy efficiency during the downlink payload data transmission phase is defined as the ratio of the system’s total spectral efficiency to the total power consumption. This can be mathematically expressed as

This metric measures the efficiency with which the system converts transmitted data into a useful payload, relative to its energy consumption. A higher energy efficiency implies that the system is able to deliver more data for less power, which is particularly important in the context of green communications and energy-conscious network design.

To determine the subset of active APs ($\mathcal{L}^{A}$) that maximizes energy efficiency, depending on the number of active APs ($L_{A}$), we propose a CGA approach. The decision to use a GA [29] stems from the nature of the problem, which is well-suited for such optimization techniques. Specifically, the challenge involves maximizing a non-deterministic fitness function, where the number of possible combinations of active APs is prohibitively large for exhaustive search methods. For example, if $L_{A}=6$ are selected from $L=100$ available APs, the number of combinations is over a billion. Thus, a GA is a natural choice for efficiently navigating the solution space.

When using CGA, the core structure of the GA is modified to impose a constraint on the number of active APs ($L_{A}$) at different stages of the algorithm. Specifically, for a value of $L_{A}$, the GA seeks the combination of active APs that maximizes the energy efficiency function $\Upsilon(\mathcal{L}^{A})$. This constraint is applied during the initial population generation, crossover, and mutation operations, ensuring that all individuals in the population correspond to solutions with exactly $L_{A}$ active APs. The details of the CGA implementation are outlined in Algorithm 1. The proposed algorithm focuses on identifying the most EE subset of APs under a fixed cardinality constraint. The procedure begins by generating an initial population of candidate solutions, where each individual activates exactly $L_{A}$ access points. At each generation, the EE of all individuals is evaluated using the fitness function, and an elitist selection mechanism retains the best-performing fraction of the population. New candidate solutions are then produced through crossover among the selected individuals, while explicitly enforcing the constraint on the number of active APs. Additionally, mutation is applied with a prescribed probability to introduce small random perturbations and enhance the exploration of the solution space. The next generation is formed by combining the elitist survivors, the offspring generated by crossover, and randomly created individuals, all of which satisfy the $L_{A}$-AP constraint. This iterative process continues for a predefined number of generations, ultimately yielding a near-optimal or suboptimal set of active APs $\mathcal{L}^{A}$ that maximizes the EE for the given value of $L_{A}$.

CGA computational complexity analysis:

The computational complexity of the CGA depends on several factors [49, 12]: the number of generations $G$, the number of the newly evaluated individuals (chromosomes) per iteration $N_{\text{eval}}$, the number of elements in each individual (which corresponds to the number of active APs $L_{A}$), and the evaluation cost of the fitness function, which varies based on $L_{A}$ and the system parameters of the CF-mMIMO network when calculating energy efficiency.

Let $f(L_{A})$ represent the fitness function evaluation cost as a function of the number of active APs $L_{A}$, while keeping the other CF-mMIMO system parameters constant. After the initialization step, the computational complexity for each generation is broken down as follows:

• •

  Evaluation of individuals: the evaluation of $N_{\text{eval}}$ individuals, each requiring the calculation of the fitness function, has a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N_{\text{eval}}\ f(L_{A}))$.

• •

  Selection of the best individuals: the selection process involves sorting the $N_{\text{eval}}$ individuals based on their fitness values. Sorting a vector in descending order to rank the individuals in terms of energy efficiency has a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N_{\text{eval}}\log_{2}({N_{\text{eval}}}))$.

• •

  Constrained crossover: this operation involves recombining the best individuals to create offspring. In this case, $L_{A}$ elements are transferred from parents to offspring. Given that the number of active APs $L_{A}$ can be scaled as a function of $L$, the crossover step has a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(L\ N_{\text{eval}})$.

• •

  Constrained mutation: similar to the crossover operation, mutation is applied to individuals, introducing small random changes while respecting the constraint on $L_{A}$. This operation also has a complexity of $O(L\ N_{\text{eval}})$.

Thus, the computational complexity across $G$ generations is given by

Algorithm 1 determines the subset of active APs that maximizes EE for a given value of $L_{A}$. By running the algorithm for multiple values of $L_{A}$, with $1\leq L_{A}\leq L$, and EE curve as a function of $L_{A}$ can be obtained, and its maximizing point can be identified. For a single execution, the computational cost of the fitness function, denoted as $f(L_{A})$, depends explicitly on the chosen value of $L_{A}$. However, when the full EE curve is computed, the total number of fitness evaluations scales proportionally with $L$. Therefore, for asymptotic analysis, it is appropriate to express the fitness function cost in terms of $L$. Accordingly, the overall computational complexity can be characterized as

Analysis of dominance (CGA):

1. 1.

   Fitness evaluation ($\mathcal{O}(L\ G\ N_{\text{eval}}\ f(L))$): This term dominates when the cost $f(L)$ is computationally expensive. In practical scenarios, such as in near-optimal AP green-mode solution for CF-mMIMO, evaluating the energy efficiency requires detailed system modeling and simulations, making $f(L)$ the most computationally intensive component. However, the fixed number of evaluations $N_{\text{eval}}$ and the elitist selection strategy mitigate the impact of this term, allowing the computational complexity of the algorithm to remain affordable even with high-cost fitness evaluations, since independent optimization runs can be performed in parallel.

2. 2.

   Crossover and mutation ($\mathcal{O}(G\ L^{2}\ N_{\text{eval}})$): As this term scales quadratically with $L$, these operations are more significant when the solution representation length $L$ is large, such as in scenarios involving many available APs. However, since the computational cost of crossover and mutation is generally lower than the cost of fitness evaluations, their contribution to the overall complexity is typically negligible. Therefore, these steps are rarely the bottleneck in most use cases.

3. 3.

   Best individuals selection ($\mathcal{O}(L\ G\ N_{\text{eval}}\ \log_{2}({N_{\text{eval}}}))$): This term accounts for the computational cost of repeatedly sorting a vector of length $N_{\text{eval}}$ in descending order, across $G$ generations and $L_{\mathcal{V}}$ evaluations. However, given that genetic algorithms typically operate with relatively small values of $N_{\text{eval}}$, the impact of this term on the overall complexity is also considered negligible.

The PDGA is a multi-objective optimization technique designed to balance spectral efficiency $\Xi$ and energy efficiency $\Upsilon$ in network configurations. It is optimized for computational efficiency by operating with a relatively small population and evaluating a fixed number of new solutions per iteration. Its core mechanism identifies and preserves non-dominated solutions, guiding the search toward optimal trade-offs between competing objectives.

Building on seminal works in Pareto-based optimization [54, 15, 30, 21], the PDGA adopts an elitist selection strategy that retains the best individuals on the Pareto front. This accelerates convergence toward the optimal Pareto set while allocating evaluations more effectively. Insights from niched Pareto methods [30] and multi-objective scheduling applications [21] further support its applicability to complex optimization tasks.

To preserve solution diversity, PDGA employs a uniform crossover operator (50/50, gene-wise) together with probabilistic mutation strategies. The latter include bit flipping, zeroing out a fraction of elements, and performing random swaps (exchanging the activation state of two randomly selected APs) [53, 3, 40]. In our design, these mutations are intentionally biased toward deactivating APs (i.e., toward sparser activation patterns), which accelerates the discovery of energy-efficient configurations. Consistently with this goal, parent selection is biased toward high $\Upsilon$ (e.g., selecting from the top $N_{\text{top}}$ individuals with higher energy efficiency with a given probability), thereby reinforcing the search pressure toward energy savings.

At the same time, to avoid a unidirectional drift that would excessively remove active APs and harm spectral efficiency, we inject and retain the ’all-APs-ON’ individual in the population. This chromosome acts as a persistent source of ones in a system whose mutations tend to eliminate them, ensuring coverage of the high $\Xi$ region and preserving Pareto diversity. Taken together, these mechanisms enable a comprehensive exploration of the solution space while maintaining a careful balance between spectral and energy efficiency trade-offs. The detailed implementation of the PDGA is presented in Algorithm 2. The proposed algorithm starts by generating an initial population of candidate solutions, including a reference individual where all access points are active to ensure a maximum spectral efficiency baseline. Then, at each generation, individuals belonging to the Pareto front are selected, while the rest are discarded. New individuals are generated through crossover between selected parents, with a bias towards high-energy-efficiency solutions, and mutation is applied to introduce diversity by randomly switching off access points or swapping their states. The fitness of the new population is evaluated in terms of spectral efficiency and energy efficiency, and both the surviving and newly generated individuals are merged to form the next generation. This process is repeated for a predefined number of generations, and the final Pareto front provides the set of optimal and suboptimal solutions representing the trade-off between spectral efficiency and energy efficiency.

It is important to remark that the objective of the proposed PDGA-based approach is not limited to generating a set of candidate AP activation patterns, but rather to explicitly characterize the trade-off between energy and spectral efficiencies in the considered CF-mMIMO system. The multi-objective formulation identifies the set of non-dominated solutions spanning the achievable EE –SE region, providing insight into inherent trade-offs, including regimes where SE gains require disproportionately higher energy consumption and others where small SE reductions yield significant energy savings. This enables a decision-oriented interpretation of the AP ON/OFF problem, allowing the selection of operating points based on system-level requirements, such as minimum SE or QoS constraints, thereby transforming it into a flexible decision-support tool for CF-mMIMO network configuration. This aspect will be further illustrated in Section VI, where the Pareto front is exploited to select representative operating points.

PDGA computational complexity analysis:

The computational complexity of PDGA is influenced by several factors: the number of generations $G$, the fixed number of newly evaluated individuals per iteration $N_{\text{eval}}$, the length of the solution representation (the total number of available APs $L$), the cost of fitness function evaluations, and the number of objectives $N_{\text{obj}}$ that affect the identification of the Pareto front [49, 12]. Given that the total number of individuals is constrained to $GN_{\text{eval}}$, the primary focus of the analysis is on $G$. Additionally, the fitness evaluation cost depends on the number of active APs $L_{A}$ (while the remaining system parameters of the CF-mMIMO are held constant). As previously stated, the possible values of $L_{A}$ scale with $L$, and aiming to determinate computational complexity order, the cost of the fitness function is characterized as a funtion of $L$.

The computational complexity of the PDGA can be analyzed by examining the main operations performed at each generation. At every iteration, a fixed number of new candidate solutions ($N_{\text{eval}}$) are generated and evaluated, while the current set of non-dominated solutions is updated.

• •

  Fitness evaluation: the evaluation of $N_{\text{eval}}$ individuals requires computing the CF-mMIMO fitness functions, leading to a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N_{\text{eval}}\ f(L))$.

• •

  Pareto front identification: the identification of non-dominated solutions requires pairwise comparisons among candidate solutions across generations. In the worst case, the number of individuals involved in the dominance checks may grow proportionally to the number of generations, which leads to a per-generation complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N_{\text{eval}}^{2}\ G^{2}\ N_{\text{obj}})$.

• •

  Crossover: generating offspring through crossover requires transferring elements of the chromosome of length $L$, leading to a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(L\ N_{\text{eval}})$.

• •

  Mutation: mutation operations modify elements of the solution representation, resulting in a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(L\ N_{\text{eval}})$.

Thus, the overall computational complexity across $G$ generations can be expressed as

Analysis of dominance (PDGA):

1. 1.

   Fitness evaluation ($\mathcal{O}(GN_{\text{eval}}\ f(L))$): This term accounts for the repeated evaluation of the fitness function across generations and individuals. In practical CF-mMIMO scenarios, this step typically dominates the computational cost since evaluating the energy and spectral efficiency requires detailed system-level simulations.

2. 2.

   Crossover and mutation ($\mathcal{O}(G\ L\ N_{\text{eval}})$): These operations scale linearly with the length of the solution representation ($L$). Compared to CGA, where the chromosome structure is constrained by the number of active APs, the PDGA representation operates directly on the full set of available APs, leading to a simpler linear scaling.

3. 3.

   Pareto front identification ($\mathcal{O}(N_{\text{eval}}^{2}G^{3}N_{\text{obj}})$): This term reflects the cumulative cost of identifying non-dominated solutions across generations. As the number of candidate solutions may grow with the number of generations, the worst-case complexity scales quadratically with $N_{\text{eval}}$, cubically with $G$, and linearly with the number of objectives $N_{\text{obj}}$. Although this term can become significant in the worst case, the dominance checks involve simple comparisons and are generally less computationally demanding than the fitness evaluations required in CF-mMIMO simulations.

Figure 3 presents the average energy and spectral efficiencies as a function of the number of active APs when considering the benchmark GoF-based algorithm and the proposed CGA-ASW strategy, for both CB and MMSE precoding schemes. For comparison, a random selection strategy (denoted as Random-ASW) is also included. This is an activity-count–based strategy, where a random subset $\mathcal{L}^{A}$ of active APs is chosen for each $L_{A}$ value. Figure 3 shows that the proposed CGA-ASW approach and the benchmark GoF-ASW strategy outperform Random-ASW. The random selection strategy lacks awareness of the spatial distribution of MSs, effectively assuming a homogeneous distribution. Results obtained using the Random-ASW strategy can serve as a lower-bound in terms of energy and spectral efficiency performance. In contrast, both CGA-ASW and GoF-ASW are designed for realistic inhomogeneous spatial traffic models. Since the GoF-ASW strategy employs a greedy search algorithm to improve energy efficiency, it evaluates the solution space myopically, making decisions based solely on immediate energy savings by minimizing the discrepancy metric at each iteration, and therefore provides a poor exploration of the overall solution space. The proposed CGA-ASW strategy explores a broader solution space through population diversity and stochastic operators like mutation and crossover. Consequently, CGA-ASW outperforms GoF-ASW, as shown in Figure 3, albeit at the cost of increasing the computational complexity as discussed in Section IV-A.

CGA-ASW achieves a maximum energy efficiency of approximately $11.41\times 10^{5}$ bit/Joule with $24$ active APs under CB precoding scheme, representing a 6.50% improvement over the greedy‑based GoF-ASW, which attains around $10.76\times 10^{5}$ bit/Joule. Similarly, with MMSE processing, CGA-ASW reaches about $44.29\times 10^{5}$ bit/Joule with $37$ active APs, yielding a 7.12% gain relative to the $41.55\times 10^{5}$ bit/Joule achieved by GoF-ASW. The best near-optimal number of active APs for GoF-ASW is $22$ for CB, and $40$ for MMSE, showing a slight deviation from the best near-optimal values obtained with CGA-ASW for each precoding scheme.

When comparing CB and MMSE precoding schemes, MMSE clearly offers superior performance due to its active interference suppression, albeit at the cost of higher computational complexity. In contrast, the low-complexity CB scheme disregards interference, resulting in lower performance bounds. For a given ASW technique, the best near-optimal number of active APs obtained when maximizing energy efficiency is consistently lower with CB than with MMSE. Since CB does not manage interference, activating additional APs beyond the best near-optimal point obtained yields only marginal gains in spectral efficiency, insufficient to offset the increased energy consumption. In comparison, MMSE, by effectively suppressing interference, can accommodate a larger number of active APs before reaching its best near-optimal configuration.

To evaluate the performance of the proposed PDGA-ASW technique, Fig. 4 presents the average energy efficiency versus spectral efficiency. The Pareto front solutions obtained using the PDGA-ASW illustrate the trade-off between energy and spectral efficiency, highlighting the balance achieved when improving one metric without excessively degrading the other. Fig. 4 also reveals large regions of dominated solutions in the energy–spectral efficiency plane, emphasizing the advantage of using more powerful ASW strategies over random selection. Notably, the region of dominated solutions is larger when using MMSE precoding compared to CB. Furthermore, the Pareto front obtained with MMSE includes both higher energy efficiency and superior spectral efficiency values. This is because the MMSE processing enables PDGA-ASW to find solutions that better suppress interference and eliminate many suboptimal configurations. While the Pareto front provides a comprehensive characterization of the achievable trade-off between EE and SE, its practical usefulness ultimately lies in enabling the selection of a suitable operating point according to system-level requirements. In practical CF-mMIMO deployments, the network operation is typically constrained by QoS requirements, which can be naturally expressed in terms of a minimum network SE. A representative operating point can be selected from the Pareto front by solving: $\max_{\mathcal{L}_{A}\subseteq\mathcal{L}}\Upsilon(\mathcal{L}_{A})\quad\text{s.t.}\quad\Xi(\mathcal{L}_{A})\geq\Xi_{\min}$, where $\Xi_{\min}$ denotes the minimum network SE required by the system. This criterion allows selecting the most energy-efficient AP activation pattern while guaranteeing a target level of throughput. From the Pareto front shown in Fig. 4, it can be observed that operating points beyond a certain region yield only marginal gains in SE at the cost of a significant degradation in EE. Therefore, selecting a point close to the onset of this region (often referred to as the “knee” of the Pareto curve) provides a balanced trade-off between both metrics. This emphasizes the relevance of the proposed PDGA-based framework, which enables identifying such regions and selecting operating points that would be difficult to determine using single-objective or greedy approaches.

To further illustrate the decision-making capability enabled by the proposed PDGA-based framework, Fig. 5 analyzes the impact of different network SE requirements for selected operating points. Specifically, we consider a set of $\Xi_{\min}$ obtained from the Pareto front under both CB and MMSE precoding schemes. For each value of $\Xi_{\min}$, the corresponding operating point is selected as the solution that maximizes EE while satisfying the constraint $\Xi(\mathcal{L}_{A})\geq\Xi_{\min}$. The results show that higher network SE requirements lead to the activation of a larger number of APs, which increases the overall power consumption and reduces EE. Conversely, relaxed SE constraints enable significantly more energy-efficient configurations with fewer active APs. These results confirm that the proposed framework allows adapting the network operation to different QoS regimes, highlighting its practical applicability for dynamic and heterogeneous CF-mMIMO scenarios. Note that, as expected and in comparison to CB, MMSE leads to much larger EE while supporting much more stringent QoS requirements.

Unlike the CGA-ASW proposal and the benchmark scheme, when using PDGA-ASW, an energy efficiency curve as a function of $L_{A}$ is not directly obtained. Due to this, only the maximum energy efficiency point from Pareto front solutions is provided in Fig. 6, which presents the average energy efficiency as a function of the number of active APs ($L_{A}$). This figure highlights the impact of both CGA-ASW and PDGA-ASW in comparison to the benchmark GoF-based strategy. First, it is evident that both proposed techniques outperform the benchmark in terms of energy efficiency. It is worth noting that the optimal solutions obtained using either CGA-ASW or PDGA-ASW are essentially equivalent, with minor differences arising from the reliance of the optimization procedure on Monte Carlo simulations. Specifically, PDGA-ASW reaches approximately $11.28\times 10^{5}$ bit/Joule with $22$ active APs under CB precoding, and around $44.25\times 10^{5}$ bit/Joule with $39$ active APs under MMSE precoding.

Figure 7 presents the near-optimal solutions obtained by the GoF-ASW, CGA-ASW, and PDGA-ASW techniques under both CB and MMSE precoding schemes. The color map illustrates the distribution of MSs in the coverage area. For comparison purposes, a common near-optimal number of active APs has been selected for each precoding scheme across all techniques. As illustrated in Figures 7a and 7d, the GoF-ASW strategy effectively aligns the spatial distribution of active APs with that of the MSs in the network. Conversely, the proposed strategies under CB precoding, shown in Figures 7b and  7c, aim to balance service across all MSs by activating APs that maximize average energy efficiency. As a result, these solutions avoid activating APs that are located too close to MSs, in order to reduce interference, which is not mitigated by the CB precoding scheme. In contrast, under MMSE precoding, which can effectively manage interference, the optimal or near-optimal solutions obtained by CGA-ASW and PDGA-ASW (Figures 7e and  7f, respectively) closely resemble the benchmark solution shown in Fig. 7d. These results are in line with those shown in Figures 3b and 3d, where the optimal solutions obtained by the proposed ASW and GoF-ASW are very similar when MMSE precoding is used. This similarity arises because GoF-ASW activates APs based on the spatial distribution of MSs, while CGA-ASW and PDGA-ASW, under MMSE, select APs that are physically closest to MSs, an approach that effectively approximates the MSs distribution.

To validate that the proposed framework is deployment-agnostic and robust across different scenarios, different spatial MS distributions are analyzed in Fig. 8, which depicts the corresponding near-optimal solutions obtained by the proposed PDGA-ASW algorithm combined with MMSE precoding scheme. The configurations result from optimizing the ON/OFF switching of APs to maximize the network EE. Specifically, the following cases are considered: (i) a single-hotspot distribution (Fig. 8a), (ii) a multiple-hotspot distribution with three main activity hotspots (Fig. 8b), and (iii) a uniform distribution (Fig. 8c). Qualitatively, the resulting active AP configurations closely match the underlying spatial MS distributions, consistent with the previous results obtained when using MMSE (see Figures 7d–7f). Quantitatively, the single-hotspot case achieves a maximum EE of $3.36\times 10^{6}$ bit/Joule with only 33 active APs. In contrast, a more spatially distributed scenario with three main hotspots attains a lower maximum EE of $2.73\times 10^{6}$ bit/Joule with 38 active APs, since the optimization leads to a more spatially expansive AP activation to cover multiple high-traffic regions. Subsequently, a homogeneous scenario with a uniform MS distribution yields an optimized configuration with 52 uniformly distributed active APs, achieving the lowest maximum EE of $2.44\times 10^{6}$ bit/Joule for the considered CF-mMIMO network. Notably, when the spatial MS distribution is uniform, the solution can be simplified to determining the number of active APs, provided that the active APs are distributed as uniformly as possible. Overall, the optimal number of active APs is jointly determined by the spatial MS distribution, the interference level, and the adopted interference management strategy in CF-mMIMO networks.

This section analyzes the computational cost of the proposed AP ON/OFF optimization framework and discusses the hardware requirements needed to apply it in practical network-planning scenarios. The main objective is to show that the proposed methods are computationally feasible when applied to MS distributions that evolve slowly, typically over time scales on the order of hours. This assumption is consistent with the type of traffic variations targeted by energy-saving mechanisms in mobile networks. Network load exhibits strong daily and hourly patterns, with clear differences between peak and off-peak periods. Moreover, industrial energy-saving mechanisms are commonly designed around the dynamic activation, deactivation, or adaptation of radio resources according to traffic conditions and load patterns, especially during low-load periods. Therefore, the relevant time scale for the proposed AP ON/OFF optimization is not the short-term traffic fluctuation at the level of seconds or minutes, but the slower evolution of representative spatial MS distributions.

All execution-time measurements were obtained using CPU-based workstations and the software Matlab R2024b, representative of the computational environment used for the optimization experiments and evaluation procedures. The reference hardware platform consists of Intel Core i9-class CPUs with 32 GB RAM, defining the effective memory constraint considered in the computational assessment. Accordingly, the reported execution times correspond to a moderately constrained workstation environment rather than a high-performance computing cluster, reflecting the objective of assessing whether the proposed optimization can be deployed with practical resources, e.g., using a limited number of similar workstations or server nodes.

Average fitness execution time per AP configuration:

The evaluation of a candidate AP ON/OFF configuration requires computing the resulting system performance, including SE and EE associated with the selected set of active APs. The cost of one evaluation is not constant, since it depends on the number of active APs $L_{A}$. To characterize this dependency, the execution time of one configuration evaluation was measured for different values of $L_{A}$. Let $\bar{t}(L_{A})$ denote the average time, in seconds, required to evaluate one candidate configuration with $L_{A}$ active APs. Figure 9 shows the measured average execution time as a function of the number of active APs (i.e., $\bar{t}(L_{A})$ vs. $L_{A}$). The curve confirms that the evaluation cost increases with the number of active APs. Therefore, a fair comparison between optimization strategies should account not only for the number of fitness evaluations, but also for the AP-cardinality (i.e., $L_{A}$ value) of those evaluations.

Execution-time estimation for CGA:

When considering the CGA-based approach, the number of active APs is fixed during each optimization run. Therefore, identifying the AP-cardinality that maximizes EE requires executing CGA for several values of $L_{A}$. Since the EE curve as a function of $L_{A}$ has a single maximum (see Figures 3a and 3b), the cardinality search can be performed through a discrete interval-refinement procedure (or by using the bisection method [9]) instead of an exhaustive sweep over all possible values. Therefore, the CGA-based search requires independent optimizations for the set $\mathcal{S}_{\mathrm{CGA}}$ of $L_{A}$ representative values. For example, under MMSE processing, the procedure starts by evaluating three coarse AP-cardinality values, $L_{A}=25,50,75$. In the considered case, the high-cardinality region did not provide the largest EE, so the search is refined in the interval between $L_{A}=25$ and $L_{A}=50$. The intermediate value $L_{A}=37$ was then evaluated. Since this value provided a higher EE than the previously evaluated cardinalities, the center of the search is updated to $L_{A}=37$. The search was then locally refined by evaluating $L_{A}=43,40,39$. Finally, the neighboring cardinalities $L_{A}=38,36$, are evaluated to strictly verify that $L_{A}=37$ is the discrete maximum of the unimodal curve. Therefore, the CGA-based search required independent optimizations for the set $\mathcal{L}_{A_{\mathrm{CGA}}}=\{25,50,75,37,43,40,39,38,36\}$ of $L_{A}$ values, under MMSE processing. Additionally, each CGA execution for a fixed $L_{A}$ performs a total of $N_{\text{eval}}+G\cdot N_{\text{eval}}$ fitness function evaluations (i.e., $5050$ fitness evaluations using the data in Table III). Hence, the total execution time $T_{\mathrm{CGA}}$ (in hours) of the CGA-based search is estimated as

where the factor $(60\cdot 60)$ converts the result from seconds to hours.

Execution-time estimation for PDGA:

For the PDGA-based approach, the total execution time is estimated by weighting the measured average evaluation time for each AP-cardinality by the number of candidate configurations evaluated at that cardinality. Therefore, the total time $T_{\mathrm{PDGA}}$ (in hours) can be written as

where $n_{\mathrm{PDGA}}(L_{A})$ is the number of PDGA evaluations performed with $L_{A}$ active APs. The values of $n_{\mathrm{PDGA}}(L_{A})$, $\forall L_{A}$, are obtained by simulation.