Resource Allocation for Improved User Satisfaction with Applications to LTE

Francisco R. M. Lima; Emanuel B. Rodrigues; Tarcisio F. Maciel; Mats Nordberg

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8057-0_2

Resource Allocation and MIMO for 4G and Beyond pp 63-104 | Cite as

Resource Allocation for Improved User Satisfaction with Applications to LTE

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Francisco R. M. LimaEmail author
Emanuel B. Rodrigues
Tarcisio F. Maciel
Mats Nordberg

Chapter

First Online: 24 October 2013

Abstract

Cellular networks have experienced a strong development in the past decades and the technology evolution to meet the continued steep increase of mobile traffic expected for the next years is an important challenge. In this context, cellular operators have as objective to increase the number of satisfied users in the system whereas users or subscribers aim at having fulfilled their expected quality of service. In order to increase the number of satisfied users in the system we identify radio resource allocation as a key functionality. Radio resource allocation is responsible for managing and distributing the available scarce resources of the radio interface to the active connections. In this chapter, we present radio resource allocation strategies with multiple antennas at the transmitter and/or receivers to increase the number of satisfied users in cellular networks based on two approaches: heuristic and utility-based strategies. While the heuristic design provides simple and quick solutions to the radio resource allocation problems, the utility-based approach is a flexible and general tool for radio resource allocation design. Simulation results show that the proposed algorithms following these design guidelines are able to achieve high number of satisfied users in modern networks.

Keywords

Transmission Time Interval Real Time Service Equal Power Allocation Radio Resource Allocation Real Time User

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Appendix 1: Utility-Based Optimization Formulation for NRT Services

Let us consider a utility-based optimization problem in a scenario with NRT services formulated as:

$$\begin{aligned}&\underset{\fancyscript{K}_j}{\text {max}} \sum _{j=1}^{J} U\left( T_j\left[ n\right] \right) \end{aligned}$$

(2.35a)

$$\begin{aligned} \text {subject to} \quad&\bigcup _{j=1}^{J} \fancyscript{K}_j \subseteq \fancyscript{K}, \end{aligned}$$

(2.35b)

$$\begin{aligned}&\fancyscript{K}_i \bigcap \fancyscript{K}_j = \emptyset , \quad i \ne j, \quad \forall i,j \in \{1, 2, \ldots , J\}, \end{aligned}$$

(2.35c)

where $J$ is the total number of users in a cell, $K$ is the total number of resources in the system (sub-carriers, codes, or the like) to be assigned to the users, $\fancyscript{K}$ is the set of all resources in the system, $\fancyscript{K}_j$ is the subset of resources assigned to user $j$, and $U\left( T_{j}\left[ n\right] \right) $ is an increasing utility function based on the current throughput $T_{j}\left[ n\right] $ of the user $j$ in TTI $n$. Constraints (2.35b) and (2.35c) state that the union of all subsets of resources assigned to different users must be contained in the total set of resources available in the system, and that these subsets must be disjoint, i.e., the same resource cannot be shared by two or more users in the same TTI.

The throughput of user $j$ is calculated using an exponential smoothing filtering, as indicated below:

$$\begin{aligned} T_{j}\left[ n\right] = \left( 1 - f^{\mathrm {thru}}\right) \cdot T_{j}\left[ n-1\right] + f^{\mathrm {thru}} \cdot R_j\left[ n\right] , \end{aligned}$$

(2.36)

where $R_j\left[ n\right] $ is the instantaneous data rate of user $j$ and $f^{\mathrm {thru}}$ is a filtering constant.

Evaluating the objective function in (2.35a) and the throughput expression in (2.36), the derivative of $U\left( T_{j}\right) $ with respect to the transmission rate $R_j$ is given by:

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial U}{\partial R_j} = \frac{\partial U}{\partial T_j} \cdot \frac{\partial T_j}{\partial R_j} = f^{\mathrm {thru}} \cdot \left. \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial T_j}\right| _{T_{j} = \left( 1 - f^{\mathrm {thru}}\right) \cdot T_{j}\left[ n-1\right] + f^{\mathrm {thru}} \cdot R_j\left[ n\right] }. \end{aligned}$$

In the case that $f^{\mathrm {thru}}$ is sufficiently small, the expression above can be simplified as follows [32]:

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial U\left( T_{j}\left[ n\right] \right) }{\partial R_{j}\left[ n\right] } \approx f^{\mathrm {thru}} \cdot \left. \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial T_j}\right| _{T_j = T_{j}\left[ n-1\right] }, \end{aligned}$$

(2.37)

where the previous resource allocation totally determines the current values of the marginal utilities. Using the one-order Taylor formula for the utility function [25, 32] and considering (2.37), we have

$$\begin{aligned}&\sum _{j=1}^{J} U\left( T_{j}\left[ n\right] \right) \approx \sum _{j=1}^{J} U\left( T_{j}\left[ n-1\right] \right) +\nonumber \\&\sum _{j=1}^{J} \left. \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial T_j}\right| _{T_j = T_{j}\left[ n-1\right] } \cdot \left( f^{\mathrm {thru}} \cdot R_j\left[ n\right] - f^{\mathrm {thru}} \cdot T_j\left[ n-1\right] \right) \!. \end{aligned}$$

(2.38)

Notice that maximizing (2.38) leads to the maximization of the original objective function (2.35a). Since $f^{\mathrm {thru}}$ is a constant and $T_j\left[ n-1\right] $ is known and fixed before the resource allocation at the current TTI $n$, the objective function of our simplified optimization problem becomes linear in terms of the instantaneous user’s data rate, and is given by

$$\begin{aligned} \underset{\fancyscript{K}_j}{\text {max}} \sum _{j=1}^{J} U^{'}\left( T_{j}\left[ n-1\right] \right) \cdot R_{j}\left[ n\right] , \end{aligned}$$

(2.39)

where $U^{'}\left( T_{j}\left[ n-1\right] \right) = \left. \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial T_j}\right| _{T_j = T_{j}\left[ n-1\right] }$ is the marginal utility (derivative of the utility function) of user $j$ with respect to its throughput in the previous TTI. The objective function (2.39) characterizes a weighted sum rate maximization problem [8], whose weights are adaptively controlled by the marginal utilities.

Notice that we started with an optimization formulation based on throughput given by (2.35a), made some logical assumptions and mathematical simplifications, and ended up with a linear optimization formulation based on instantaneous rates given by (2.39). According to these arguments, we claim that the instantaneous optimization maximizing (2.39) leads to a long-term optimization that maximizes (2.35a).

Appendix 2: Utility-Based Optimization Formulation for RT Services

Let us consider a utility-based optimization problem in a scenario with RT services formulated as:

$$\begin{aligned}&\underset{\fancyscript{K}_j}{\text {max}} \sum _{j=1}^{J} U\left( d_j^{\mathrm {hol}}\left[ n\right] \right) \end{aligned}$$

(2.40a)

$$\begin{aligned} \text {subject to} \quad&\bigcup _{j=1}^{J} \fancyscript{K}_j \subseteq \fancyscript{K}, \end{aligned}$$

(2.40b)

$$\begin{aligned}&\fancyscript{K}_i \bigcap \fancyscript{K}_j = \emptyset , \quad i \ne j, \quad \forall i,j \in \{1, 2, \ldots , J\}, \end{aligned}$$

(2.40c)

where $J$ is the total number of users in a cell, $K$ is the total number of resources in the system (sub-carriers, codes, or the like) to be assigned to the users, $\fancyscript{K}$ is the set of all resources in the system, $\fancyscript{K}_j$ is the subset of resources assigned to user $j$, and $U\left( d_j^{\mathrm {hol}}\left[ n\right] \right) $ is a decreasing utility function based on the current HOL delay $d_{j}^{\mathrm {hol}}\left[ n\right] $ of user $j$ at TTI $n$. Constraints (2.40b) and (2.40c) state that the union of all subsets of resources assigned to different users must be contained in the total set of resources available in the system, and that these subsets must be disjoint, i.e., the same resource cannot be shared by two or more users in the same TTI.

In order to understand the model used in this work for the calculation of the HOL delays, Fig. 2.12a is presented. This figure illustrates a packet queue for a given RT user. As it can be seen in the figure, the traffic model for RT services used in this work assumes a packet arrival rate of $L$ packets per second, i.e., a new packet of $b_j^{\mathrm {hol}}$ bits (fixed size) arrives in the buffer of user $j$ every $1/L$ s.

Fig. 2.12
Modeling of a RT user buffer a User buffer as a sequence of packets b User buffer as a sequence of time slices

Taking into account Fig. 2.12a and considering a generic user $j$, we propose in this work a recursive model for calculating an approximate value of the HOL delay. The recursive equation is

$$\begin{aligned} d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}\left[ n+1\right] = d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}\left[ n\right] + t^{\mathrm {tti}} - \frac{1}{L} \cdot \left( \frac{R_j\left[ n\right] \cdot t^{\mathrm {tti}}}{b_j^{\mathrm {hol}}}\right) , \end{aligned}$$

(2.41)

where $t^{\mathrm {tti}}$ is the duration of the TTI in seconds, $L$ is the packet arrival rate, $b_j^{\mathrm {hol}}$ is the packet size in bits, and $R_{j}\left[ n\right] $ is the instantaneous achievable transmission rate on TTI $n$. In this queue model, we assume that the packet size $b_j^{\mathrm {hol}}$ is sufficiently small, so that the queue can be represented ideally by a sequence of time slices with duration $1/L$ s each (see Fig. 2.12b). Notice that this assumption does not invalidate the mathematical and conceptual RRA framework, and makes the optimization model much more tractable.

Looking at (2.41), first it can be seen that the HOL delay is always incremented by at least the duration of one TTI, no matter how many bits were transmitted in the current transmission interval. This represents the passing of time in the system, which means that all packets in the queue will be one TTI older. Second, the decrement of the HOL delay depends on the number of time slices (duration of $1/L$ seconds each) that is decremented due to the transmission in the current TTI. If user $j$ has not been served by any resource in TTI $n$, $R_{j}\left[ n\right] $ is equal to zero and no time slices are decremented. If the instantaneous transmission rate is such that the HOL packet is totally transmitted in the current TTI, it means that one time slice with duration of $1/L$ seconds should be decremented in the HOL delay. If the instantaneous transmission rate is sufficiently high so that many packets in the queue can be transmitted, the corresponding number of time slices should be decremented in the HOL delay.

Assessing the objective function in (2.40a) and the HOL delay expression in (2.41), we can see that the derivative of $U\left( d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}\right) $ with respect to the transmission rate $R_j$ can be expressed as

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial U}{\partial R_j} = \frac{\partial U}{\partial d_j^\mathrm {hol}} \cdot \frac{\partial d_j^\mathrm {hol}}{\partial R_j} = \frac{\partial U}{\partial d_j^\mathrm {hol}} \cdot \left( -\frac{t^{\mathrm {tti}}}{L \cdot b_j^{\mathrm {hol}}} \right) . \end{aligned}$$

Using the result above and assuming that the TTI duration is sufficiently small, the Lagrange theorem of the mean can be used [15, 25], which says that

$$\begin{aligned}&\sum _{j=1}^{J} U\left( d_{j}^{\mathrm {hol}}\left[ n+1\right] \right) \nonumber \\&\approx \sum _{j=1}^{J} U\left( d_{j}^{\mathrm {hol}}\left[ n\right] \right) + \sum _{j=1}^{J} \left. \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial R_j}\right| _{R_j=R_j\left[ n-1\right] } \cdot \left( R_j\left[ n\right] - R_j\left[ n-1\right] \right) \nonumber \\&=\sum _{j=1}^{J} - \left. \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}}\right| _{d_{j}^\mathrm {hol} = d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}\left[ n\right] } \cdot \frac{t^{\mathrm {tti}}}{L \cdot b_j^{\mathrm {hol}}} \cdot \left( R_j\left[ n\right] - R_j\left[ n-1\right] \right) \nonumber \\&=\sum _{j=1}^{J} \left. \left| \dfrac{\partial U}{\partial d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}} \right| \right| _{d_{j}^\mathrm {hol} = d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}\left[ n\right] } \cdot \frac{t^{\mathrm {tti}}}{L \cdot b_j^{\mathrm {hol}}} \cdot \left( R_j\left[ n\right] - R_j\left[ n-1\right] \right) \!. \end{aligned}$$

(2.42)

The absolute value operator was used in (2.42) because the utility function was assumed to be decreasing, which yields a negative marginal utility (derivative of the utility function) and cancels the negative sign in (2.42). Notice that the maximization of (2.42) leads to the maximization of (2.40a). Taking into account (2.42), we have that $t^{\mathrm {tti}}$, $L$, and $b_j^{\mathrm {hol}}$ are constants, and that $d_{j}^{\mathrm {hol}}\left[ n\right] $ and $R_j\left[ n-1\right] $ are known and fixed before the resource allocation at TTI $n$. Therefore, our simplified optimization objective function is given by

$$\begin{aligned} \underset{\fancyscript{K}_j}{\text {max}} \sum _{j=1}^{J} \left| U^{'}\left( d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}\left[ n\right] \right) \right| \cdot R_j\left[ n\right] \!, \end{aligned}$$

(2.43)

where $U^{'}\left( d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}\left[ n\right] \right) = \left. \dfrac{\partial U \left( d_{j}^\mathrm {hol} \right) }{\partial d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}}\right| _{d_{j}^\mathrm {hol} = d_{j}^\mathrm {hol}\left[ n\right] }$ is the marginal utility of user $j$ with respect to its current HOL delay. The objective function (2.43) is a weighted sum rate maximization [8], where the weights are given by the absolute value of the marginal utility with respect to the current HOL delay.

Notice that after some logical assumptions and mathematical simplifications made upon (2.40a), a linear optimization formulation based on instantaneous rates given by (2.43) was achieved. Therefore, we claim that the instantaneous optimization maximizing (2.43) leads to a long-term optimization that maximizes (2.40a).

References

1.
3GPP: Deployment aspects. Technical Report TR 25.943 V9.0.0, Third Generation Partnership Project (2009)Google Scholar
2.
Andrews, M., Kumaran, K., Ramanan, K., Stolyar, A., Whiting, P., Vijayakumar, R.: Providing quality of service over a shared wireless link. IEEE Commun. Mag. 32(2), 150–154 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.
Braga, A.R., Rodrigues, E.B., Cavalcanti, F.R.P.: Packet scheduling for VoIP over HSDPA in mixed traffic scenarios. In: IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio, Communications, pp. 1–5 (2006)Google Scholar
4.
Ericsson: Ericsson mobility report: on the pulse of the networked society. Whitepaper (2012)Google Scholar
5.
Gross, J., Bohge, M.: Dynamic mechanisms in OFDM wireless systems: a survey on mathematical and system engineering contributions. Technical Report TKN-06-001, Telecommunication Networks Group (TKN), Technical University of Berlin, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
6.
Gueguen, C., Baey, S.: Scheduling in OFDM wireless networks without tradeoff between fairness and throughput. In: IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, pp. 1–5 (2008)Google Scholar
7.
Holma, H., Toskala, A. (eds.): WCDMA for UMTS: radio access for third generation mobile communications, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (2004)Google Scholar
8.
Hoo, L.M.C., Halder, B., Tellado, J., Cioffi, J.M.: Multiuser transmit optimisation for multicarrier broadcast channels: asymptotic FDMA capacity region and algorithms. IEEE Trans. Commun. 52(6), 922–930 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.
Hosein, P.A.: QoS control for WCDMA high speed packet data. In: International Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Communications, Network, pp. 169–173 (2002)Google Scholar
10.
Jain, R., Chiu, D., Hawe, W.: A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination for resource allocation in shared computer systems. Technical Report TR-301, DEC Research (1984)Google Scholar
11.
Jakes, W.C.: Microwave mobile communications. Wiley / The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (1994)Google Scholar
12.
Jang, J., Lee, K.B.: Transmit power adaptation for multiuser OFDM systems. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 21(2), 171–178 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.
Kela, P., Puttonen, J., Kolehmainen, N., Ristaniemi, T., Henttonen, T., Moisio, M.: Dynamic packet scheduling performance in UTRA long term evolution downlink. In: International Symposium on Wireless, Pervasive Computing, pp. 308–313 (2008)Google Scholar
14.
Kelly, F.: Charging and rate control for elastic traffic. Eur. Trans. Commun. 8, 33–37 (1997)Google Scholar
15.
Lei, H., Zhang, L., Zhang, X., Yang, D.: A packet scheduling algorithm using utility function for mixed services in the downlink of OFDMA systems. In: IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, pp. 1664–1668 (2007)Google Scholar
16.
Lima, F.R.M.: Satisfaction oriented resource allocation for wireless OFDMA systems, Master’s thesis, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil (2008)Google Scholar
17.
Lima, F.R.M., dos Santos, R.B., Cavalcanti, F.R.P., Freitas, W.C.: Radio resource allocation for maximization of user satisfaction. In: IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications, pp. 565–569 (2008)Google Scholar
18.
Lima, F.R.M., Wänstedt, S., Cavalcanti, F.R.P., Freitas, W.C.: Scheduling for improving system capacity in multiservice 3GPP LTE. J. Electr. Comput. Eng, 21–36 (2010) http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jece/2010/819729/cta/
19.
Mehlführer, C., Wrulich, M., Ikuno, J.C., Bosanska, D., Rupp, M.: Simulating the long term evolution physical layer. In: European Signal Processing Conference. Glasgow, Scotland (2009)Google Scholar
20.
Mongha, G., Pedersen, K.I., Kovacs, I.Z., Mogensen, P.E.: QoS oriented time and frequency domain packet schedulers for the UTRAN long term evolution. In: IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, pp. 2532–2536 (2008)Google Scholar
21.
Paulraj, A., Biglieri, E., Goldsmith, A.: MIMO wireless communications, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
22.
Paulraj, A., Nabar, R., Gore, D.: Introduction to space-time wireless communications, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
23.
Pokhariyal, A., Pedersen, K.I., Monghal, G., Kovacs, I.Z., Rosa, C., Kolding, T.E., Mogensen, P.E.: HARQ aware frequency domain packet scheduler with different degrees of fairness for the UTRAN long term evolution. In: IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, pp. 2761–2765 (2007)Google Scholar
24.
Rappaport, T.S. (ed.): Wireless communications: principles and practice, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, USA (2002)Google Scholar
25.
Rodrigues, E.B.: Adaptive radio resource management for OFDMA-based macro- and femtocell networks. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain (2011)Google Scholar
26.
Rodrigues, E.B., Casadevall, F.: Adaptive radio resource allocation framework for multi-user OFDM. In: IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, pp. 1–6 (2009)Google Scholar
27.
Rodrigues, E.B., Casadevall, F.: Control of the trade-off between resource efficiency and user fairness in wireless networks using utility-based adaptive resource allocation. IEEE Commun. Mag. 49(9), 90–98 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.
Rodrigues, E.B., Cavalcanti, F.R.P., Wänstedt, S.: QoS-driven adaptive congestion control for voice over IP in multiservice wireless cellular networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 46(1), 100–107 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.
Ryu, S., Ryu, B., Seo, H., Shin, M.: Urgency and efficiency based wireless downlink packet scheduling algorithm in OFDMA system. In: IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, vol. 3, pp. 1456–1462 (2005)Google Scholar
30.
dos Santos, R.B., Lima, F.R.M., Freitas, W.C., Cavalcanti, F.R.P.: Qos based radio resource allocation and scheduling with different user data rate requirements for OFDMA systems. In: International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio, Communications, pp. 1–5 (2007)Google Scholar
31.
Shakkottai, S., Stolyar, A.L.: Scheduling algorithms for a mixture of real-time and non- real-time data in HDR. In: International Teletraffic Congress, pp. 793–804 (2001)Google Scholar
32.
Song, G., Li, Y.G.: Cross-layer optimization for OFDM wireless networks - part II: algorithm development. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 4(2), 625–634 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
33.
Song, G., Li, Y.G.: Utility-based resource allocation and scheduling in OFDM-based wireless broadband networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 43(12), 127–134 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
34.
UMTS: Selection procedures for the choice of radio transmission technologies of the umts. Tech. Rep. TR 101 112 V3.2.0 - UMTS 30.03, Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), Sophia Antipolis, France (1998)Google Scholar
35.
Viswanath, P., Tse, D.N.C., Laroia, R.: Opportunistic beamforming using dumb antennas. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor. 48(6), 1277–1294 (2002)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
36.
Zhang, Y., Liew, S.C.: Link-adaptive largest-weighted-throughput packet scheduling for real-time traffics in wireless OFDM networks. In: IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, vol. 5, pp. 2490–2494 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Francisco R. M. Lima
- 1
Email author
Emanuel B. Rodrigues
- 1
Tarcisio F. Maciel
- 1
Mats Nordberg
- 2

1.Wireless Telecommunications Research Group (GTEL)Federal University of CearáFortalezaBrazil
2.Ericsson ResearchLuleåSweden

Resource Allocation for Improved User Satisfaction with Applications to LTE

Abstract

Keywords

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter