OFDMA Lecture PDF

Chapter 4
Resource Allocation in
Multi-carrier Systems
In this Chapter we will discuss the resource allocation in multi-carrier systems.
Compared to CDMA systems we have one additional dimension of freedom in
the resource management: allocation of sub-carriers among the users. OFDMA
systems typically use adaptive modulation and coding. In principle, it is possible
to set the data rate individually for each sub-carrier. The achievable data rate
in turn depends on the transmit power. Hence, we are facing the problem of
allocation the power among the sub-carriers.
We will consider two dierent type of resource allocation problems. In Section
4.1, we will consider the problem of assigning the sub-carriers and power among
the users such that given data rate requirement is met. In Section 4.2 we will
then consider the problem of maximizing the aggregate utility in the system by
allocating the resources in the frequency-power domain.
4.1 Minimum Energy Resource Allocation in
OFDMA Systems
In OFDMA systems, the system has to allocate the sub-carriers among the users
and decide which modulation and coding scheme to use. In addition, the trans-
mitter needs to decide its overall power level and divide that among the assigned
carriers. In this section, we discuss the sub-carrier allocation, bit loading, and
joint sub-carrier allocation and bit loading problems. Throughout this section,
we assume that the scheduling problem is divided into two parts. First channel
independent scheduler sets the data rates for the users r
i
. Then sub-carriers are
allocated and bits are loaded to them such that the overall energy needed to
transmit the data is minimized.
104
Minimum Energy Resource Allocation in OFDMA Systems 105
4.1.1 Sub-carrier Allocation
Consider an OFDMA system. Let
i
denote the maximum rate achievable for
user i where all the sub-carriers assigned to it. Furthermore, let p
is
=
t
i
/g
i,s
de-
note amount of power needed to transmit on sub-carrier s such that the received
SINR is on the decried level
t
i
. The link gain g
i,s
denes the power attenuation
between transmitter and receiver on sub-carrier s for link i. An user requires
data rate r
i

i
. Hence, the data rate requirement can be directly mapped to
the number of channels c
i
= r
i
/R sub-carriers. The objective of the system is
to assign the sub-carriers to the users such that the total transmit power P is
minimized. The required transmit power for user i on sub-carrier s is given by
p
is
. In such case, the sub-carrier assignment problem can be written as
P
subcarrier assignment
:
P = min
y
S
s=1
p
is
y
is
(4.1)
subject to
y
is
{0, 1} (4.2)
i
y
is
1 (4.3)
s
y
is
c
i
(4.4)
(4.5)
Let us dene a power matrix P = [p
is
]. In addition, let us dene an aug-
mented power matrix P
a
in which the row vector corresponding to user i is
repeated c
i
times.
Example 4.1. Consider a system where the number of users sharing the channel
is N = 2 and the number of sub-carriers is S = 4. The required power matrix is
given by
P =
_
_
2 1 3 4
3 2 5 1
_
_
(4.6)
Assume now that both users require two sub-carriers. That is, c
1
= c
2
= 2. Thus
106 Resource Allocation in Multi-carrier Systems
the corresponding augmented power matrix becomes
P
a
=
_
_
2 1 3 4
2 1 3 4
3 2 5 1
3 2 5 1
_
_
(4.7)
Given the matrix P
a
, the problem can be solved by using the Hungarian
method [32] described below.
Hungarian method for the sub-carrier assignment
1. Subtract the entries of each row by the row minimum. Each row has at
least one zero and all entries are either positive or zero.
2. Subtract the entries of each column by the column minimum. Each row
and each column has at least one zero.
3. Select rows and columns across which you draw lines, in such a way that
all the zeros are covered and that no more lines have been drawn than
necessary.
4. A test for optimality.
If the number of the lines is S, choose a combination from the modied
cost matrix in such a way that the sum is zero.
If the number of the lines is less than S, go to step 5.
5. Find the smallest element which is not covered by any of the lines. Then
subtract it from each entry which is not covered by the lines and add it to
each entry which is covered by a vertical and a horizontal line. Go back to
step 3.
Example 4.2. Consider a case, in which four (N = 4) users share the sys-
tem having four sub-carriers S = 4. Each user requirea a single sub-carrier to
transmit their data (c
i
= 1 i). The (augmented) power matrix is given by
P
a
=
_
_
90 75 75 80
35 85 55 65
125 95 90 105
45 110 95 115
_
_
mW (4.8)
Let us now apply the Hungarian method:
Step 1
_
_
90 75 75 80
35 85 55 65
125 95 90 105
45 110 95 115
_
_
15 0 0 5
0 50 20 30
35 5 0 15
0 65 50 70
_
_
Step 2
_
_
15 0 0 5
0 50 20 30
35 5 0 15
0 65 50 70
_
_
15 0 0 0
0 50 20 25
35 5 0 10
0 65 50 65
_
_
Step 3
_
_
15 0 0 0
0 50 20 25
35 5 0 10
0 65 50 65
_
_
Step 4 The number of lines in the above matrix is 3 < S = 4, so we need to
continue to step 5.
Step 5
_
_
15 0 0 0
0 50 20 25
35 5 0 10
0 65 50 65
_
_
35 0 0 0
0 30 0 5
55 5 0 10
0 45 30 45
_
_
Step 3
_
_
35 0 0 0
0 30 0 5
55 5 0 10
0 45 30 45
_
_
Step 4 The number of lines in the above matrix is 3 < S = 4, so we need to
continue to step 5.
Step 5
_
_
35 0 0 0
0 30 0 5
55 5 0 10
0 45 30 45
_
_
40 0 5 0
0 25 0 0
55 0 0 5
0 40 30 40
_
_
Step 3
_
_
40 0 5 0
0 25 0 0
55 0 0 5
0 40 30 40
_
_
Step 4 The number of lines is equal to four. A user should be allocated sub-
carriers that corresponds to zero in the matrix. There are two possible
optimal assignments in this example:
Y = [y
i,s
] =
_
_
0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0
1 0 0 0
_
_
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
1 0 0 0
_
_
both require p = 275 mW.
It becomes apparent in the above example that the Hungarian method is
rather computationally intensive. Thus, it is not well suited as a real-time on-line
solution method. For this reason, several heuristic allocation methods have been
proposed most of which can be interpreted as modications of Wongs algorithm
[55] described below.
Wongs algorithm
1. Rank the sub-carriers based on the required power
2. Initial assignment:
Assign the sub-carriers in a greedy manner
3. Iterative improvement:
Calculate the power gains p
ij
that can be obtained by swapping sub-
carriers from user i to user j.
4. Swap the carriers that yield the largest power gain.
5. Continue pair-wise swapping until p
ij
< 0 for all pairs (i, j) or time runs
out.
Example 4.3. Consider the system described in example 4.2. The greedy assign-
ment would rst assign the sub-carrier that can be used with the least amount of
power. In this case, sub-carrier 1 could be used by user 2 with 35 mW power.
Thus the initial assignment would allocate y
2,1
= 1. Now column 1 and row 2
would be locked. The second lowest not locked power value would be 75 mW that
could be obtained either by assigning y
1,2
= 1 or y
1,3
= 1. Assuming that y
1,2
= 1
chosen, the rest of the initial assignments become y
3,3
= 1 and y
4,4
= 1. This
allocation would require 315 mW transmit power contrast to the 275 mW power
of the optimal allocation.
Now we need to determine how the power of the mobiles would change if users
i and j would swap their sub-carriers:
P = [p
ij
] =
_
_
0 65 5 0
65 0 55 40
5 55 0 5
0 40 5 0
_
_
The largest power save would be obtained if users 2 and 4 would swap their
carriers. This swapping, in fact, leads to optimal solution and the algorithm
stops. It should be noted, however, that although the Wongs algorithm here
converged to optimal solution this property is not guaranteed for all P
a
.
4.1.2 Bit Loading
Given that a set of S
i
sub-carriers is assigned to user i, the question remains on
how to allocate bits to the carriers such a way that the required transmit power
is minimized. Consider the case, in which adaptive modulation is utilized. The
required transmit power depends on the utilized constellation size and bit/symbol
error rate. To simplify our notation we scale the transmission time interval to
unity. Hence, with the slight abuse of the notation, the number of bits to be
assigned for user i become r
i
. Let r
i,s
denote the number of bits that user I
transmits on sub-channel s. The required power is p
i,s
(r
i,s
) = (r
i,s
)/g
i,s
where
the function (r) depends on the utilized modulation method and required bit
error rate. It is typically assumed that (r) is a convex and increasing function
with respect to r. Given (r), the bit allocation can be done as follows:
Bit allocation algorithm
1. For all s S
i
, let r
i,s
= 0 and p
i,s
= ((1) (0))/g
i,s
2. Bit assignment
Repeat r
i
times:
s
i
= arg min
sS
i
{p
i,s
} (4.9)
p
i,s
i
= ((r
i,s
i
+ 1) (r
i,s
i
))/g
i,s
(4.10)
r
i,s
i
:= r
i,s
i
+ 1 (4.11)
Example 4.4. Consider m-ary quadratic modulation. If the number of bits per
symbol is r then m = 2
r
. The bit error rate is bounded above by the symbol error
probability, which is bounded above by
Pr{Symbol error} 4Q
_
3E
s
(m1)N
0
_
(4.12)
For given error probability
s
, we can then solve the required E
s
/N
0
:
E
s
N
0
1
3
_
Q
1
_
s
4
__
2
(m1) (4.13)
By setting m = 2
r
, we get that the required SNR (E
s
/N
0
) at the receiver becomes
(r) =
1
3
_
Q
1
_
s
4
__
2
(2
r
1) (4.14)
In practice, the bit-energy-to-noise power density E
b
/(rN
0
) should be selected
based on the utilized forward error correction coding (FEC) method and decried
frame error rate, which in turn depends on the utilized automatic repeat request
(ARQ) scheme. For simplicity, let us normalize
1
3
_
Q
1
_
s
4
__
2
to unity and con-
sider a single user having two carriers S
i
= {1, 2}. Assume further that the
number of bits to be loaded r
i
is 2 and the link gains of the subchannels are
g
i,1
= 1 and g
i,2
= 2/3. Clearly, the rst bit should be loaded to channel 1,
requiring 1 (2
1
1) = 1 units of power. Now if we put the second bit to the
same channel, then the required power would become 1 (2
2
1) = 3, while the
required power in case the rst bit is loaded to channel 1 and the second one to
channel 2 would become 1 (2
1
1) + 3/2 (2
1
1) = 2.5 which is less. It is
worth noting that were the link gain g
i,2
< 1/2, it would have been better to load
both bits on sub-channel 1.
The bit-loading procedure considers only the raw-bit rate of the channel. In
practical systems, some form of error correction coding is utilized. Hence, the
loading procedure should not only consider the modulation but also coding rate.
4.1.3 Joint Sub-channel Allocation and Bit Loading
The bit allocation and channel allocation problems are closely coupled. In order
to nd the true minima of the transmit power, the two problems need to be
solved simultaneously.
P
joint subchannel and subcarrier assignment
:
P = min
y,r
S
s=1
p
i,s
(r
i,s
)y
i,s
(4.15)
subject to
y
i,s
{0, 1} (4.16)
i
y
i,s
1 (4.17)
s
r
i,s
y
i,s
r
i
(4.18)
r
i,s
{0, 1, 2, } (4.19)
This problem is NP-hard and thus cannot be solved in real-time.
Assume that the channel stays constant for long time. Now we require that
only on average the rate must be equal to r
i
. Now we could redene the problem
as
P
joint subchannel and subcarrier assignment NLP
:
P = min
y,r
S
s=1
p
is
_
r
is
is
_
is
(4.20)
subject to
0
is
1 (4.21)
is
1 (4.22)
s
r
is
r
i
(4.23)
r
is
{0, 1, 2, } (4.24)
where r
is
denotes the average data rate that the user achieves on sub-channel
s. This problem can now be solved in polynomial time using non-linear pro-
gramming NLP. The solution is readily usable with systems with long coherence
time. If the channel cannot be assumed to stay constant over multiple scheduling
intervals, the NLP solution can be utilized to generate a good feasible solution
to the original problem as suggested by Wong e.t al. [55]:
Joint channel allocation and bit loading algorithm
1. Set y
is
= 0 for all i and s.
2. For all s = 1, 2, S solve i
s
= arg max
i
{
is
} and set y
i
s
= 1.
3. Allocate the bits using the Bit allocation algorithm
There have been considerable amount of work on developing heuristics for joint
sub-carrier allocation and bit-loading since the Wongs proposal in 1999 [55].
Some recent work in the are can be found in [17] and references therein.
In order to reduce the signaling load, practical OFDMA systems utilize
chunks, that comprise a number of adjoint sub-carriers, as a basic resource unit.
The systems utilize forward error correction coding and adaptive modulation.
The modulation is xed across the chunk. The bit loading problem in such sys-
tems is translated into a problem of mapping the codewords to the chunks [51].
In order to keep adaptive modulation and coding problem tractable, xed power
allocation is preferred.
4.2 Utility Based Resource Allocation in OFDMA
Systems
In previous section, we considered the problem of nding the sub-carrier and
transmit power allocation for xed transmission rate that minimizes the over-
all energy consumption. Now we turn our attention into a more general case,
where the objective of the channel assignment is to maximize some generic utility
function.
Consider the following general utility maximization problem:
P
utility
:
max
P,Y
L(P, Y) (4.25)
subject to
x
i
=
S
s=1
is
(y
is
p
is
)r
is
x
min
(4.26)
y
is
{0, 1} (4.27)
S
s=1
y
is
1 (4.28)
S
s=1
y
is
p
is
P (4.29)
where L(P, Y) denotes the aggregate utility when sub-carrier assignment Y and
transmission power levels P. The function r
is
(p
is
) describes the data rate of
subchannel s as a function of the transmit power p
is
. In case of ideal modulation
and coding, we have
r
is
(p) = W log
2
_
1 +
g
i,s
s
p
_
(4.30)
where g
i,s
is the link gain between mobile i and the base station seen by sub-
channel s, and
s
denotes the receiver noise power at sub-channel s. The utility
function is assumed to be either Type I or Type II utility function (See Deniton
3.1 and 3.2) with respect to the transmit power p
is
.
Let us consider the three following objective functions
L(P, Y) =
N
i=1
r
is
(y
is
p
is
) (4.31)
L(P, Y) = min
S
s=1
r
is
(y
is
p
is
) (4.32)
L(P, Y) =
N
i=1
_
S
s=1
r
is
(y
is
p
is
) x
min
_
(4.33)
The utility function (4.31) aims to maximizes the cell throughput, utility function
(4.32) guarantees absolute fairness (max-min fairness) with the cost of reduced
aggregate throughput and the utility function (4.33) corresponds to the Nash
bargaining solution which makes a tradeo between fairness and throughput. If
x
min,i
= 0 for all i, the utility function (4.33) implies proportionally fair resource
allocation.
For given sub-carrier assignment Y, the problem P
utilty
with utility functions
(4.31) - (4.33) is reduced to water lling:
p
i,s
=
_
1
i
+
nu
s
g
i,s
_
+
(4.34)
where
1
i
denes the water level and can be solved from (4.29). Hence, for
given sub-carrier assignment Y all the three optimization problems are reduced
to the same water lling problem. In the downlink case, where the users share
the power (4.29) must be replaced by
N
i=1
S
s=1
y
is
p
is
P (4.35)
In such case, the three problems no longer reduce to the same water lling
solution, but nevertheless the solution has a kind of water lling characteristics.
For that purpose Han et al. [19] have proposed to use bargaining algorithm that
forms two user coalitions. In each coalition, the users bargain over the use of
sub-carriers. This process is iterated until the aggregate utility does not increase
anymore.
4.2.1 Two User Bargaining
Let us consider the case, in which the number of users sharing the bandwidth is
N = 2. Even in this case, we have 2
S
dierent combinations to go through. For
instance, in Mobile WiMAX (IEEE 802.16e) the number of sub-carriers can be
as large as 2048. So if each sub-carrier would be assinged separately, the number
of combinations would be 2
2048
10
616
. In practice, these 2048 sub-carriers are
grouped into 32 sub-channels, and hence the size of the search space would be
2
32
10
9.63
which still is too large for brute force search. This motivates the use
of heuristic close to optimal allocation strategies.
Earlier we relaxed the sub-carrier assignment problem by allowing time do-
main multiplexing. Here we present another useful relaxation. Now we allow
sub-channel, a frequency bin with constant frequency response, to be split arbi-
trarily among the users in the frequency domain. Let W
s
denote the bandwidth
of the sub-channel s and let
is
denote the portion of the bandwidth allocated to
user i. The data rate obtained in frequency bin s when bandwidth
s
has been
allocated to the user is thus
r
is
(
is
) =
is
log
2
_
1 +
g
i,s
p
is
N
0
is
_
(4.36)
where N
0
denotes the noise power density (W/Hz).
Consider the problem of maximizing the weighted sum of the service rates:
P
2D
:
max
P,
2
i=1
i
x
i
() (4.37)
subject to
x
i
() =
S
s=1
r
is
(
is
) (4.38)
2
i=1
is
W
s
(4.39)
S
s=1
p
is
P (4.40)
i,s
0 (4.41)
p
i,s
0 (4.42)
where = [
i,s
] denotes the matrix of bandwidth portions.
Proposition 4.1. Assume that g
1,s
= g
2,s
= g
s
and the link gains are ordered
in the decreasing order with respect to s. It follows that the optimal frequency
partitioning maximizing
1
x
1
+
2
x
2
, where
1

2
, consists of two frequency
bands only. More precisely, at optimum there exist S
1
and S
2
, 1 S
1
S
2
S,
such that
1,s
= 0 and
2,s
= W
s
for all s < S
1
and and
1,s
= W
s
and
2,s
= 0
for all S
1
< s < S
2
; frequency bins beyond S
2
are not used by either of the two
users. Furthermore, variables 0
i,L
1
1, i = 1, 2. [19]
The proof is rather straight forward and follows from the Karush-Kuhn-
Tucker (KKT) optimality condititions of the problem and it is thus omitted
here. The proposition indicates that in certain conditions, the bandwidth is split
among the users in two contiguous blocks. By studying the KKT conditions, it
can be shown that
Proposition 4.2. Without loss of generality assume that the link gains g
i,s
are
sorted in the decreasing order of
g
1
1,s
g
2
2,s
. If at optimum frequency partition, the SNR
for the
g
i,s
p
is
s
>> 1 for all i and
is
> 0, then the optimal frequency allocation
that maximized
1
x
i
+
2
x
2
consists of two contiguous frequency bands with user
1 using the lower frequency bins and user 2 using the higher frequency bins. [19]
That is, in high SNR, the frequency allocation can be done simply by splitting
the bandwidth into two portions. The complexity of this operation is propor-
tional to S compared to the full search 2
S
.
Now taking the minimum rate constraints x
i
x
min,i
into account, we can
solve the two user barganing problem P
utilty
with L(P, Y) = (x
1
x
min,i
) (x
2
x
min,2
) approximately by the following algorithm
Two user bargaining algorithm
1. Initialize the subcarrier assignment with minimum rate requirements
2. Set
1
=
2
=
3. Sort the channel gains
g
1
1,s
g
2
2,s
in the decreasing order
4. For s = 1 : S
User 1 occupies and water-lls sub-channels 1 to s.
User 2 occupies and water-lls sub-channels s + 1 to S.
Determine L
5. Determine the two-band partition (s
) that maximizes L and the corre-

sponding Y, P and x
i
, i = 1, 2
6. Stop if L cannot be increased by updating
i
; otherwise set
i
=
1
x
i
x
i,min
and return to 3.
We note that the problem P
2D
is solved by applying only steps 3 - 5 of the above
algorithm.
4.2.2 Multi-user Bargaining
In game theory any non-empty subset of the players is called a coalition. The
question now is to how to group the users into coalitions of size two. This is
an assignment problem with
_
N
2
_
possible solutions. Let us dene L
ij
as the
change of utility that can be obtained by letting users i and j bargain on the
sub-channel utilization with each other. Let us dene z
ij
such that z
ij
= 1 if
users i and j are to form a coalition; otherwise z
ij
= 0. The coalitions can now
be formed by solving the following assignment problem:
P
coalition
:
max
Z
N
i=1
N
j=1
j=i
L
ij
z
ij
(4.43)
subject to
N
i=1
z
ij
= 1 (4.44)
N
j=1
z
ij
= 1 (4.45)
z
ij
{0, 1} (4.46)
This assignment problem can be solved using the Hungarian method with com-
plexity O(N
4
). The overall bargaining algorithm for multi-user case is as follows
Multi-user bargaining algorithm
1. Initialize the subcarrier assignment with minimum rate requirements
2. Group the users into two user coalitions
3. Bargain within each coalition
4. Repeat 2 and 3 until no further improvement on L can be achieved
The complexity of the above algorithm is O(N
2
S log
2
S +N
4
) in each itera-
tion while the complexity of direct assignment of sub-channels using Hungarian
method would have complexity O(S
4
) in each iteration. If the number of users
sharing the channel is smaller than the number of sub-channels, then the bar-
gaining method is computationally more benecial compared to joint sub-carrier
and power allocation schemes. For instance, in Mobile WiMAX we have 32 sub-
channels. With direct sub-channel assignment approach the complexity would
be S
4
= 1048576 per iteration, while the eciency of the complexity of the bar-
gaining scheme with N = 4 users would be N
2
S log
2
S + N
4
= 2816. In heavy
trac conditions, where the number of served users is close to the number of sub-
bands, the bargaining process becomes equally complex with the direct channel
assignment.
The complexity of each iteration round can be reduced by forming the coali-
tions randomly instead of using the Hungarian method. This however, comes
with the cost of reduced convergence speed. In practice, the random coalition
formation is more attractable, since the computation time for sub-channel allo-
cation is quite limited. The algorithm can be iterated as long there is time and
then sub-optimal solution is used when the actual transmission takes place. Fur-
thermore, in high SNR domain, the gain of using water lling over equal power
allocation is quite small. Hence, the complexity can be further reduced by usign
xed transmission power.
Exercises 119
Exercises
Exercise 4.1. Consider an OFDMA system where sub-carriers 1-4 have been
assigned to user 1. The normalized link gain values are g
1,1
= 1, g
1,2
= 2, g
1,3
= 4,
and g
1,4
= 8. Assume that uncoded QAM modulation is utilized to transmit 10
bits per symbol. The required power, if r bits is loaded on sub-carrier s, is
p
is
(r) = 2
r
1.
a) Determine the optimal bit loading that minimizes the required transmit
power.
b) Assume that the transmit power is xed to P = 10, determine the optimal
bit loading that maximizes the number of transmitted bits.
Exercise 4.2. Consider an OFDMA system where three users share the band-
width. The required number of channels per user is two and the number of
available sub-carriers is six. For the given modulation and coding, the required
power for user i to transmit on sub-carrier s with desirable error rate is given by
the matrix
P =
_
_
90 75 75 80 85 70
35 85 55 65 70 75
125 95 90 105 100 95
_
_
mW
Determine the optimal sub-carrier assignment that minimizes the required trans-
mit power using
a) the Hungarian method
b) Wongs algorithm
Exercise 4.3. Consider the joint sub-carrier and power assignment problem in
case of two users and two sub-carriers. The spectral eciency of sub-channel s
120 Resource allocation in multi-carrier systems
is related to the power p
is
as follows
r
is
= log
2
(1 +
is
p
is
)
where
= [
is
] =
_
_
8 10
1 4
_
_
Assume that both users require the overall spectral eciency of 5 bit/s/Hz.
Furthermore, assume that time sharing of the channels is allowed. Determine
the channel assignment that minimizes the required transmit power.
Bibliography
[1] 3GPP. Ts 26.101, amr speech codec frame structure (release 1999). Technical
report, 3GPP, 1999.
[2] M. Al Rawi and R. Jantti. Opportunistic best-eort scheduling for qos-
aware ows. In International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile
Radio Communications, 2006. PIMRC 2006. IEEE, 2006.
[3] M. Andrews, K. Kumaran, K. Ramanan, A. L. Stolyar, R. Vijayakumar, and
P. Whiting. Scheduling in a queueing system with asynchronously varying
service rates. Technical report, Bell Laboratories, 2000.
[4] M. Andrews, K. Kumaran, K. Ramanan, A. L. Stolyar, R. Vijayakumar,
and P. Whiting. Providing quality of service over a shared wireless link.
Communications Magazine, IEEE, 39(2):150154, February 2001.
[5] F. Berggren and R. Jantti. Asymptotically fair transmission scheduling
over fading channels. Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on,
3(1):326336, 2004.
[6] F. Berggren, Seong-Lyun Kim, R. Jantti, and J. Zander. Joint power control
and intracell scheduling of ds-cdma nonreal time data. Selected Areas in
Communications, IEEE Journal on, 19(10):18601870, 2001.
[7] K. Binmore, A. Rubinstein, and A. Wolinsky. The nash bargaining solution
in economic modelling. RAND Journal of Economics, 17:176 188, 1986.
[8] S. Borst and P. Whiting. Dynamic rate control algorithms for hdr through-
put optimization. In INFOCOM 2001. Twentieth Annual Joint Conference
of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Proceedings. IEEE,
volume 2, pages 976985 vol.2, 2001.
[9] S. Borst and P. Whiting. Dynamic channel-sensitive scheduling algorithms
for wireless data throughput optimization. Vehicular Technology, IEEE
Transactions on, 52(3):569586, 2003.
121
[10] Sheng-Tzong Cheng, Chun-Yen Wang, and Ing-Ray Chen. Filtering strate-
gies for tfc selection schemes in 3gpp w-cdma systems. Wireless Communi-
cations, IEEE Transactions on, 5(5):10231032, 2006.
[11] G. Chiruvolu, T. K. Das, R. Sankar, and N. Ranganathan. A scene-based
generalized Markov chain model for VBR video trac. 1:554558, June
1998.
[12] A. Erramilli, M. Roughan, D. Veitch, and W. Willinger. Self-similar trac
and network dynamics. Proceedings of the IEEE, 90(5):800819, 2002.
[13] A. Eryilmaz, R. Srikant, and J.R. Perkins. Stable scheduling policies for fad-
ing wireless channels. Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on, 13(2):411
424, 2005.
[14] A. Estepa, A. Estepa, R. Estepa, and J. Vozmediano. A new approach for
voip trac characterization. Communications Letters, IEEE, 8(10):644646,
2004.
[15] N.R. Figueira and J. Pasquale. An upper bound delay for the virtual-clock
service discipline. Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on, 3(4):399408,
1995.
[16] V. S. Frost and B. Melamed. Trac modelling for telecommunications net-
works. 32(3):7081, March 1994.
[17] Long Gao, Shuguang Cui, and Feifei Li. Cth01-3: A low-complexity adaptive
subcarrier, bit, and power allocation algorithm for ofdma systems. In Global
Telecommunications Conference, 2006. GLOBECOM 06. IEEE, pages 16,
2006.
[18] A. Goldsmith. Variable-rate coded mqam for fading channels. In
Global Telecommunications Conference, 1994. Communications Theory
Mini-Conference Record, 1994 IEEE GLOBECOM., IEEE, pages 186190,
1994.
[19] Z. Han, Z. Ji, and Liu K.J.R. Low-complexity ofdma channel allocation
with nash bargaining solution fairness. Globecom, IEEE Global Telecommu-
nications Conference, 6:37263731, 2004.
[20] H. Holma and A. Toskala, editors. WCDMA for UMTS: Radio Access for
Third Generation Mobile Communications, 3rd Edition. Wiley, 2004.
[21] A. Jalali, R. Padovani, and R. Pankaj. Data throughput of cdma-hdr a high
eciency-high data rate personal communication wireless system. In Ve-
hicular Technology Conference Proceedings, 2000. VTC 2000-Spring Tokyo.
2000 IEEE 51st, volume 3, pages 18541858 vol.3, 2000.
Exercises 123
[22] S. Jin, D.R. Vaman, and D. Sinha. Performance management in packet
switched networks: a new approach to delay distribution bounding for
packet voice service. In Circuits and Systems, 1989., Proceedings of the
32nd Midwest Symposium on, pages 11781181 vol.2, 1989.
[23] M. Johansson and L. Xiao. Cross-layer optimization of wireless networks
using nonlinear column generation. Wireless Communications, IEEE Trans-
actions on, 5(2):435445, 2006.
[24] C. Kapseok and H. Youngnam. QoS-based adaptive scheduling for a mixed
service in HDR system. Proc. 13th IEEE Int. Symp. Personal, Indoor Mobile
Radio Communcations PIMRC 2002, 4:19141918, September 2002.
[25] M.K. Karakayali, R. Yates, and L. Razumov. Throughput maximization
on the downlink of a cdma system. In Wireless Communications and Net-
working, 2003. WCNC 2003. 2003 IEEE, volume 2, pages 894901 vol.2,
2003.
[26] F. P. Kelly. Charging and rate control for elastic trac. European Trans-
actions on Telecommunications, 8:33 37, 1997.
[27] F.P Kelly, A.K Maulloo, and D.K.H. Tan. Rate control for communication
networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 49:237 252, 1998.
[28] Seong-Lyun Kim, Z. Rosberg, and J. Zander. Combined power control and
transmission rate selection in cellular networks. In Vehicular Technology
Conference, 1999. VTC 1999 - Fall. IEEE VTS 50th, volume 3, pages 1653
1657 vol.3, 1999.
[29] Leonard Kleinrock. Queueing Systems: Volume I Theory. Wiley Inter-
science, 1975.
[30] Leonard Kleinrock. Queueing Systems: Volume II Computer Applications.
Wiley Interscience, 1975.
[31] R. Knopp and P.A. Humblet. Information capacity and power control in
single-cell multiuser communications. In Communications, 1995. ICC 95
Seattle, Gateway to Globalization, 1995 IEEE International Conference on,
volume 1, pages 331335 vol.1, 1995.
[32] H. W. Kuhn. The hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval
Research Logistics, 52:721, 2004.
[33] R. Leelahakriengkrai and R. Agrawal. Scheduling in multimedia cdma wire-
less networks. Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 52(1):226239,
2003.
[34] W.E. Leland, M.S. Taqqu, W. Willinger, and D.V. Wilson. On the
self-similar nature of ethernet trac (extended version). Networking,
IEEE/ACM Transactions on, 2(1):115, 1994.
[35] P. Liu, R. Berry, and M.L. Honig. Delay-sensitive packet scheduling in wire-
less networks. In Wireless Communications and Networking, 2003. WCNC
2003. 2003 IEEE, volume 3, pages 16271632 vol.3, 2003.
[36] X. Liu, E.K.P. Chong, and N.B. Shro. Opportunistic transmission schedul-
ing with resource-sharing constraints in wireless networks. Selected Areas in
[37] J. Mo and J. Walrand. Fair end-to-end window-based congestion control.
Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on, 8(5):556567, 2000.
[38] 3GPP Technical Specication Group Radio Access Network. Feasibility
study of enhanced uplink for utra fdd. Technical report, 3GPP TR 25.896
version 6.0.0, Release 6, 2006.
[39] A.K. Parekh and R.G. Gallager. A generalized processor sharing approach
to ow control in integrated services networks: the single-node case. Net-
working, IEEE/ACM Transactions on, 1(3):344357, 1993.
[40] Daeyoung Park, H. Seo, Hojoong Kwon, and Byeong Gi Lee. Wireless
packet scheduling based on the cumulative distribution function of user
transmission rates. Communications, IEEE Transactions on, 53(11):1919
1929, 2005.
[41] R. Parra-Hernandez and N.J. Dimopoulos. A new heuristic for solving the
multichoice multidimensional knapsack problem. Systems, Man and Cyber-
netics, Part A, IEEE Transactions on, 35(5):708717, 2005.
[42] V. Paxson and S. Floyd. Wide area trac: the failure of poisson modeling.
Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on, 3(3):226244, 1995.
[43] A. Penttinen, J. Virtamo, and R. Jantti. Performance analysis in multi-hop
radio networks with balanced fair resource sharing. (Springer) Telecommu-
nication Systems, 31:315 336, 2006.
[44] O. Rose. Simple and ecient models for variable bit rate MPEG video traf-
c. Technical report, Institute of Computer Science, University of Wirzburg,
July 1995.
[45] H. Astrom R. Hagen W. Kleijn J. Linden S. Andersen, A. Duric. Request
for comments: 3951 internet low bit rate codec (ilbc). Technical report,
IETF, 2004.
Exercises 125
[46] S. Shakkottai and A. Stolyar. Scheduling algorithms for a mixture of real-
time and non-real-time data in HDR. Proceedings of the 17th International
Teletrac Congress, Salvador da Bahia, Brazil, December, pages 793804,
2001.
[47] S. Shakkottai and A. L. Stolyar. Scheduling for multiple ows sharing a time
varying channel: the exponential rule. Technical report, Bell Laboratories,
2000.
[48] S. Shakkottai and A. L. Stolyar. Scheduling for multiple ows sharing a
time varying channel: the exponential rule. American Mathematical Society
Translations, Series 2, A volume in memory of F. Karpelevich, Yu. M.
Suhov, Editor, 207, 2002.
[49] A. L. Stolyar. On the asymptotic optimality of the gradient scheduling
algorithm for multiuser throughput allocation. Operations Research, Vol.
53:12 25, 2005.
[50] G. L. St uber. Principles of Mobile Communications. Kluwer, 1996.
[51] P. Trifonov, E. Costa, and E. Schulz. Joint adaptation of code length and
modulation formats in ofdm systems. In Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio
Communications, 2006 IEEE 17th International Symposium on, pages 15,
2006.
[52] D. Tse and P. Viswanath. Fundamentals od Wireless Communications. Cam-
bridge University Press, 2005.
[53] J. Turner. New directions in communications (or which way to the informa-
tion age?). Communications Magazine, IEEE, 24(10):815, 1986.
[54] S. Vishwanath, S.A. Jafar, and A. Goldsmith. Adaptive resource allocation
in composite fading environments. In Global Telecommunications Confer-
ence, 2001. GLOBECOM 01. IEEE, volume 2, pages 13121316 vol.2, 2001.
[55] Cheong Yui Wong, R.S. Cheng, K.B. Lataief, and R.D. Murch. Multiuser
ofdm with adaptive subcarrier, bit, and power allocation. Selected Areas in
[56] H. Yaiche, R.R. Mazumdar, and C. Rosenberg. A game theoretic framework
for bandwidth allocation and pricing in broadband networks. Networking,
IEEE/ACM Transactions on, 8(5):667678, 2000.
[57] J. Zander. Performance bounds for joint power control and link adaptation
for nrt bearers in centralized (bunched) wireless networks. In in Proc. IEEE
PIMRC99, 1999.

OFDMA Lecture PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OFDMA Lecture PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4

) that maximizes L and the corre-

You might also like