AUtility Based Resource Allocation Scheme with

Delay Scheduler for LTE Service-Class Support

Salman Ali, Muhammad Zeeshan
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan
salmanali@ieee.org, muhammad.zeeshan@seecs.edu.pk
AbstractLTE standard defines strict requirements for service
classes in order to provide end users with exceptional QoS
characteristics including fast connectivity and high data rates.
However there is no standard scheduling algorithm defined for
LTE and the task of protecting end user satisfaction while
maintaining service class restrictions is left upon the service
provider and currently is an open issue. To address this
challenge, in this work we proposed a two-level scheduler with a
utility based game theoretic application in the first level that
distributes physical resource blocks among classes with different
QoS requirements and a delay based air interface scheduling
algorithm in the second level that satisfies the strict levels of
delay budget requirements defined for LTE classes. A
cooperative game is formed between different service class flows
by use of a sigmoid utility function that allows for distribution of
resources. Lagrangian formulation is used to find the associated
Pareto Optimality. The delay based scheduler checks each users
packet delay in its respective service class and makes scheduling
decisions in the downlink direction utilizing current channel
conditions. Simulation results carried out with key performance
matrices including throughput, packet loss ratio, system delay
and fairness index proved the usefulness and efficacy of the
proposed approach as compared to existing Proportional Fair,
Exponential Rule and M-LWDF algorithms.

Keywords - Scheduling, game theory, LTE service class, Quality of
Service, delay budget.
I. INTRODUCTION
The LTE (Long Term Evolution) technology developed by
Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) [1] is meant to
improve the capability of legacy systems by increasing data
rates and extending superior Quality of Service (QoS) support
for various multimedia applications. Since the initial release in
2008, a slightly modified version (Release-9) and a complete
fourth generation standard named LTE-Advanced (Release-
10) have been developed. To cater inter-symbol interference
and selective fading, LTE uses Orthogonal Frequency
Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) in the downlink. Basic
LTE network elements consist of a powerful eNodeB (eNB)
station and several User Equipments (UEs) in addition to a
gateway. The eNB station coordinates with network core via
several standard complex protocols. Basic packet scheduling
is implemented by the network operator in UE and eNB
station for both uplink as well as downlink. However, there
are no rigid specifications set by 3GPP for scheduling
mechanism leaving the details at the discretion of service
provider. Packet Scheduling comes under Radio Resource
Management (RRM) and its main functionality is to decide
users that would transmit their data on the air interface. The
scheduling should integrate fairness in terms of throughput as
well as the service policies to which users subscribe [2].
LTE architecture defines a comprehensive table with
packet delay budget and packet loss rates for implementing
different service class in the network [1] of which some or all
may be implemented by service provider.
TABLE I. LTE SERVICE CLASSES WITH QOS REQUIREMENTS [1]
Resource
Type
Priority
Packet
Delay
Budget
Packet
Error
Loss
Rate
Example services
Guaranteed
Bit Rate
(GBR)
2 100 ms 10
-2
Conversational voice
4 150 ms 10
-3

Conversational video
(live streaming)
3 50 ms 10
-3
Real time gaming
5 300 ms 10
-6

Non-conversational
video (buffered stream)
Non-GBR
1 100 ms 10
-3
IMS signaling
6 300 ms 10
-6

Video (buffered
streaming) TCP-based
(e.g., www, e-mail, chat,
ftp, p2p sharing,
progressive video etc.)
7 100 ms 10
-6

Voice, Video (live
streaming, Interactive
Gaming)
8
300 ms
10
-3

Video (buffered
streaming), TCP-based
(e.g., www, e-mail, chat,
ftp, p2p sharing,
progressive video, etc.)
9 10
-6


To cater different QoS requirements, a number of scheduling
algorithms have been defined in literature including the widely
adopted M-LWDF, PF, EXP-PF and EXP-RULE schedulers
[3][5][7][10]. These schedulers transmit users data in a given
Transmission Time Interval (TTI) by assigning a calculated
priority metric that is specific to the scheduler functionality.
However, due to the lack of delay budget and packet loss rate
attribute (Table 1), these schedulers are not suited for support
of simultaneous Real Time and Non Real Time traffic mix.
To prevent bandwidth starvation in terms of Physical
Resource Blocks (PRBs) by service classes of low priority, a
cooperative game concept has been used in this work. Such a
resource starvation phenomenon is inherent to scheduling
schemes that do not involve fairness as a function of traffic
load in a particular service class. The cooperative game works
at a layer before the actual packet scheduling to distribute
resources among different classes. This is build upon the
concept of divide and conquer, where first service classes
(inter-class) are sorted to allocate resource blocks and then
users in each class (intra-class) are arranged on a delay budget
basis for spectrum access. The cooperative game itself refers
to an approach where coalitions or group of players are subject
to cooperation among themselves. This accounts for a
2012 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference: MAC and Cross-Layer Design
978-1-4673-0437-5/12/$31.00 2012 IEEE 1460
competition at a coalition level and not at an individual player
level. The coalition or group in our case would then
correspond to users in a particular service class.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section II
we discuss the network system model. In section III, related
game theory concepts are highlighted. Section IV is
committed to discussion of Resource Allocation strategy. In
section V we evaluate and compare the performance of our
scheduling method with simulation results while in section VI,
we conclude the paper with some future directions.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
Various parameters influence the QoS of LTE service class
users in addition to channel conditions, delay requirements
and subscription policies. The minimum resource entity that
can be allocated to a user is the resource element which when
combined together constitutes Physical Resource Block (RB)
that stretches across frequency and time domain. In LTE
architecture, each RB lasts 0.5ms in time and consists of a grid
of 6 or 7 symbols with 12 sub-carriers in frequency domain.
The RB spans 180 KHz of bandwidth in length and allocation
is done on 1ms basis because of the practical realization of
scheduling at every TTI [9].
At each transmission period, UEs inform their
instantaneous achievable downlink SNR to eNB station. This
value changes as a function of mobility and frequency or time
selective fading from multi-path. It is then used to determine
the data rate in number of bits for the allocate-able RB. A user
is achievable data rate for ]tb RB at time t is calculated as:
R
I,j
(t) =
n_bits
symbol

n_symbols
slot

n_slots
TTI

n_subcaiiiei
RB
(1)
where n_bits, n_symbols, n_slots and n_subcarrier are
respectively the number-of-bits, number-of-symbols, number-
of-slots and number-of-subcarriers. [19]. The effect of path
loss and fading are determined for each RB [20], but remain
constant throughout the RB transmission duration. The gain of
channel at time t for user i on jth RB as a function of loss is:
C_0oin
,]
(t) = 1u
_
path_loss
1u
]
1u
_
fauing
1u
]
(2)
where path_loss and fading are measured in dB scale. Using
channel gain, UE determines instantaneous downlink SNR
reported to eNB station. The SNR is then calculated as a
function of channel gain [21] using the following formulation:
SNR
I,j
(t) =
P
totaI
C_0oin
,]
(t)
N(N
o
+ I)
(S)
Beie P
totaI
is the aggregated power with which eNB station
transmits in the downlink side, N is the number of total
available RBs, I is the neighbouring cell interference and N
o
is
a thermal noise measure.
III. UTILITY BASED COOPERATIVE GAME
A cooperative game refers to an approach where coalitions or
group of players cooperate among themselves when some
action is required to be taken [11]. This refers to a competition
between player coalitions that make use of mutual decision
making behavior and hence not the decision behavior of
individual players. A formally defined cooperative game
includes a list of players and some related characteristic
functions. If we are given a set of N players, then a coalition is
required to shift or transfer benefits among the players. The
game is then a set of pairs (N, u), where N = {1,2, , n] forms
a finite players set and u is the characteristic or utility function
such that u: 2
n
- R. Also n = |N| and u(u) = u. Coalitions
are therefore a subset C L N such that N\C is a complement
operation for N. When we are given n players, a total of 2
n

coalitions are feasible.
A. Utility function
To allow the transfer of benefits, a utility based game
approach is adopted in our work. The utility function
represents users degree of satisfaction [14][15] for a
particular service class as a function of QoS constraints. Since
LTE specifies different characteristics for a large number of
different service classes, this complexity of wide service flow
characteristics will result in different utility functions for users
making the problem and its solution formulation more
difficult. So to keep the problem simple, we only consider the
network bandwidth dimension which corresponds to the
Physical Resource Blocks (PRB) of LTE. The other
constraints are dealt with in the scheduling of users. We use a
sigmoid utility function [16] to reflect different service class
users resource requirements. The sigmoid utility function is
formulated as
u(J) = x

_
1
1 +c
-t
i
(d-
i
)
-y

_ (4)
such that
`
1
1x

=
(1 +c
t
i

i
)
c
t
i

i
onJ
y

=
1
(1 +c
t
i

i
)


where u(J) is the sigmoid utility as a function of players data
rate, t

and r

reflect the priority type and intrinsic resource

requirement of the service class (see Table 1, priority and
example services column) user and x

, y

are constants used to

normalize utlity function. For a real time connection like VoIP
or streaming video with fixed QoS constraints, J
mn
will
decide the parameter r

and r

> u . The parameter t

is
decided by the combination of J
mn
and J
mux
( J
mn

corresponds to Guaranteed Bit Rate GBR and J
mux
for
Maximum Bit Rate MBR for LTE network). For best effort
traffic (like web browsing or FTP) which corresponds to
NGBR class of LTE, the parameter y

is set to 0. Only the

parameter x

is used to determine the users service elasticity

and priority type. The utility function thus has in itself the
ability to depict users service features like resource
requirements, adaptability and elastic properties.
B. Game Formulation
Since the resources have to be shared between LTE service
classes, the limited resource pool always falls short of the
requirements. So to avoid a situation in which a high service
class completely starves a low service class, a cooperative
game can be formed and implemented at the eNB station that
maximizes the utility function while allocating exactly
divisible PRBs for downlink traffic.

Let the number of classes be F e Z
+
. The PRBs are
distributed among classes with N = {1,2, , n] forming a
finite players set. For each class J = {1,2, , J
P
] represents
the data rate in terms of resources that are assigned to class
users. Based on this, the strategic game form is defined as:
Players: The service class users N = {1,2, , n]
Strategies: The resource assignment vector for users
J = {1,2, , J
P
]
Payoffs: The sum of users utility function
1461
The payoff revenue for a player n

, is computed from the

sum of utility function for that class and is given as

R
I
(u
I
) = f
I
. 0
I
(t
I
, i
I
, u
I
) (5)

where

is the total number of flows or connections in the

class that n

belongs to. u

is the utility function defined in

equation (4) and x

, y

parameters classify the users service

priority. The total network profit is defined as a function of the
payoffs for all users in all classes.
P = R
I
(u
I
)
F
I=1
= f
I
. 0
I
(t
I
, i
I
, u
I
)
F
I=1
(6)
C. Network Profit Optimization
We defined an optimization formulation from the payoffs
and total network profit. The purpose of this is to maximize
the total payoff profit of the system which in turn maximizes
the system throughput. The maximizing framework is defined
as:
max R
I
(u
I
)
F
I=1
= max f
I
. 0
I
(t
I
, i
I
, u
I
)
F
I=1
(7)
such that f
I
u
I
F
I=1
= F u
I
T
Cp

Here Cp denotes the networks total available system capacity.
The optimal solution of a cooperative game is the Pareto
optimality which we define as follows:

P(u
-
(u
1
-
, u
2
-
, . u
F
-
)) P(u(u
1
, u
2
, , u
F
)) (8)

where u
-
= (u
1
-
, u
2
-
, . u
F
-
) is the Pareto optimality and the
solution for (8) if all u = (u
1
, u
2
, , u
F
) satisfy F u
I
T
Cp.
Hence the cooperative game is equal to an optimization
problem to be solved at the eNB station for resource
distribution in the downlink.
IV. RESOURCE ALLOCATION
Since we use a delay scheduler and Utility value function,
we call our proposed methodology as U-DELAY. The
allocation or resource distribution is done by splitting the
complexity in two steps for each transmission interval. At first
step, resource distribution is done among classes using
Sigmoid Utility function approach and then at the second step
a delay budget based scheduler is used to select users for
transmission. This minimizes the complexity of allocation by
following a divide-and-conquer policy where at first step an
inter-class resource distribution is accomplished and at the
second step an intra-class user selection is targeted.

Figure 1. Steps in Utility Based Game Theoretic Resource Allocation Method
A. First Step
In the first step to divide resources among service class
users, Lagrangian optimization approach [17] is used to reduce
the complexity in finding the Pareto optimal solution and to
make the problem a convex optimization. From equation (7),
the Lagrangian is defined as
L(u, ) = f
I
. 0
I
(u
I
) +
F
I=1
_Cp -f
I
. u
I
F
I=1
_ (9)
where z u is the Lagrange multiplier that represents the
network resource prices and is associated with a linear
constraint of capacity. Decomposing further
L(u, ) = f
I
(0
I
(u
I
) -. u
I
) +
F
I=1
Cp (1u)
The function I(J, z) now only depends upon the user i of a
specific classs bandwidth or network resource allocation and
the network resource price z.

Lagrangian dual function for the problem is defined as the
maximization of I(J, z) over J for a given value of z. For all
valid z, each service class maximizes

(u

(J

) - z. J

) over
J. Since the utility function itself is a sigmoid and not a
concave function, the maximum and minimum resource
allocation constraints J
mn
and J
mux
can be obtained through
utility functions parameter x

and y

. Under (u
mIn
, u
max
) we
modify (10) as
L(u, ) = f
I
(0
I
(u
I
) -(u
I
- u
I,mIn
)) +
F
I=1
Cp (11)
u
I
-
() = aig max |0
I
(u
I
) - (u
I
- u
I,mIn
)] (12)

A sub-gradient is used to update the dual variable z and to
resolve the Lagrangian
(m+ 1) = _(m) - (m) _Cp - u
I
-
((m)
F
I=1
__ (1S)
In equation (13) m represents the iteration number while
(m) is the step size. Equations (12) and (13) can be used to
solve network profit optimization problem globally and get
optimal resource allocation vector J
opt
that is Pareto optimal
for the game with the corresponding network optimal resource
price z
opt
.
B. Second Step
After the inter-class resource distribution is done, the next step
is to choose users in a specific class for scheduling on air
interface. The intra class user assortment is done on delay
measurements as a function of the budget described in the
LTE class table (Table 1). For this purpose, a Head of Line
(HoL) packet delay is measured which is defined as the
difference in time measures between the current packet
serving time and the time stamp it first arrived at the MAC
buffer queue. This time is then compared with the delay
budget measures of the specific class the user belongs to. The
packet whose delay difference of HoL delay and class budget
is the lowest is scheduled first. If the difference goes below
zero or is a negative value, this means that the threshold is
exceeded and packet is dropped. In addition, LTE standard
mandates the use of Channel Quality Index (CQI) for
efficiency which we incorporate as SNR values in the
scheduling.

1462
Figure 2. Flow Chart highlighting Second Step of Delay Based Scheduling

Let the delay-budget of packet for a service class i be
represented by
I
where ieF. Then for any use j in ieF, the
HoL time delay t is represented as:

BoL
j
(t) = T
currcnt
(t) - T
stamp
(14)

where T
stamp
represents the time of the packet since it arrived
at the scheduling queue and T
currcnt
is the current packet
processing time. The remaining time for scheduling or the
delay metric is then the function of HoL:


uelay
j
(t) =
I
- BoL
j
(t) (15)
The difference
I
- BoL
j
(t) is only feasible for positive
values, i.e. (
I
- BoL
j
(t)) u. This means that any packet
that crosses the budget is dropped. For final RB allocation, the
user with the lowest uelay
j
(t) metric is chosen.

u = aig minuelay
j
(t) jvusei (16)

Once the user u is selected for RB allocation, the SNR
values received by that user are utilized and the highest of
these is used to decide the actual RB on which the the user
should transmit. Various stages in step 2 of intra user selection
are shown in Fig 2A as a flow chart.

V. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
We use a discrete time event simulator developed in C++ with
LTE specifications and attributes for analysis [6]. The
parameters for LTE system including data traffic and other
performance measure metrics are described below:
A. Performance Measures
We use throughput, fairness index, system delay and packet
loss ratio for performance analysis. These are defined and
explained below:

The throughput of the system is defined as the summation
of the packets that are transmitted in a time interval from all
the UE to eNB station or from eNB to all UEs. Since we cater
for downlink only, therefore the latter case is measured only.
A certain portion of the total packets accounts for overhead,
thereby reducing the good-put, but we consider here the
collective throughput. In mathematical terms, the aggregate
system throughput [18] is defined as
system thioughput =
1
I
p_size
i
(t)
1
t=1
K
=1
(17)
where T is the total time utilized in simulation and p
sIzc

represents the size of the packet in bits transmitted from eNB
station to a particular user i summed over a time interval.
K corresponds to total users of a service class that receive
packets from eNB. Since we are using the scheduler based on
a delay metric, it is essential to analyze the overall delay
experienced by the system as compared to other methods. The
system delay is calculated as an average of the combined time
delay difference between the packet arrival in queue and the
time it is transmitted. This value adds up to the BoL packet
delay and is then averaged over all packets. Mathematically,
system delay [18] is measured as



system uelay =
1
T

1
K
BoL
I
(t) (18)
K
I=1
T
t=1


Here BoL is the same as described earlier, and K is the total
number of users with service flows while T being the total
simulation time.

Fairness is an essential metric for scheduling performance
analysis because the resource allocation done at the first level
adopt utility value method that may alter fairness. Fairness
cant be measured directly since at a lower level the scheduler
enforces an intra user selection method on delay basis for RB
allocation. Therefore to estimate the effects of first level utility
function, a system level fairness metric is used. We define it
mathematically as

faiiness = 1 -
p_size
max
-p_size
min
p_size
i
T
t=1
K
I=1
(19)


where (p_size
max
- p_size
mIn
) is the difference in total
packet sizes of the most and least served user service flows
over some time period T [18]. p_size
I
T
t=1
K
I=1
amounts to
the total accumulated packet size of the flows that arrived at
eNB scheduler over time T.

Finally the packet loss ratio is defined as the ratio of total
packets dropped as a result of exceeding time delay to the
aggregated packet size of all the packets reaching eNB MAC
buffer queue over some simulation time T [18]

PLR =
p_uiscaiu
i
(t)
T
t=1
K
I=1
p_size
i
(t)
T
t=1
K
I=1
(2u)
1463

Figure 10. Average System Delay
B. Simulation Environment
For simulation, we use LTE-Sim [6], a discrete time event
simulator build in C++. The network setup consists of a single
cell network with some interference noise. There are four
service flow types in the network with basic requirements of
440kbps for trace based video data, 300kbs for interactive
gaming data, 8 kbps for VoIP service and CBR traffic at
3kbps. The users are taken in a mixed proportion with 30% for
Interactive Gaming, 30% for Video, 25% for VoIP and 15%
constituting CBR traffic. VoIP class is taken as GBR while the
other classes are specified as Non-GBR type. Users mobility
is defined by random directions averaging at a speed of
3km/hr. Transmission time interval occurs after 1 ms time
interval. The LTE frame is formed by 5 such consecutive TTIs
and within each 1ms time slot, 14 OFDM symbols can be
used. The System Bandwidth for simulation is 15MHz which
includes 75 discrete Physical Resource Blocks in the
downlink. The propagation loss model includes shadowing
(with 0dB mean and 8dB standard deviation for log normal
distribution), multipath (Jakes model), penetration loss (12dB)
and simple path loss (measured as a function of distance form
eNB terminal).

C. Simulation Results
Game Theory with sigmoid utility value characteristic
function and a delay based scheduler at the MAC layer is used
in this work to support LTE service class scheduling.
Algorithms namely M-LWDF, PF and EXP-RULE have been
compared with to score our scheduling scheme. The PF
scheduler allocates resources to users on the basis of channel
quality measures of user and the past running throughput the
user maintained. The general goal in PF is to maximize
aggregated throughput of the system. The M-LWDF scheduler
can serve users with varying QoS requirements. Best channel
conditions and the highest Head of Line packet delay of users
is used to achieve prioritization of service class. The EXP-
RULE uses a metric measure that increases priority of real
time flows as compared to non-real time flows while the delay
threshold approaches.

Results for average throughput of service flows of Video,
Gaming, VoIP and CBR against the number of users are
analyzed. In CBR traffic comparison, for an average 30 users
the throughput of the four schemes remains almost consistent
with each other but after that EXP-RULE deviates most while
the other three algorithms show better performance with U-
DELAY performing superior to all (Fig 4). The average
throughput for VoIP flows shows some variations for the four
schemes (Fig 5). Here EXP-RULE performs fairly similar to
U-DELAY scheme. For an average initial 40 users, PF and M-
LWDF perform comparatively low but after that the
performance is closer to U-Delay. For Video and Gaming
requirements the throughput of the four schemes do not
diverge much for an estimated 20 to 30 users, but when more
users enter the network, the performance of U-DELAY
outweighs the other three schemes with PF showing worst
performance (Fig 3 and 7). For Packet Loss Ratio case (Fig 8),
the PF scheme performs poor when more than 20 users on
average enter the system while U-DELAY maintains a
significant space and introduces only around 24% loss
percentage for more than 80 users making the performance
0
20
40
60
80
100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
S
y
s
t
e
m

D
e
l
a
y

(
m
s
)
Users
U-Delay
PF
M-LWDF
EXP-RULE

Figure 3. Average Throughput for Video Figure 4. Average Throughput for CBR Figure 6. Average Throughput for VoIP

Figure 7. Average Throughput for Gaming Figure 8. Average Packet Loss Ratio Figure 9. Average Fairness Index

150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

(
b
p
s
)
Users
U-Delay
PF
M-LWDF
EXP-RULE
1400
1700
2000
2300
2600
2900
3200
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

(
b
p
s
)
Users
U-DELAY
PF
M-LWDF
EXP-RULE
7500
7700
7900
8100
8300
8500
8700
8900
9100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

(
b
p
s
)
Users
U-Delay
PF
M-LWDF
EXP-RULE
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

(
b
p
s
)
Users
U-DELAY
PF
M-LWDF
EXP-RULE
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
P
a
c
k
e
t

L
o
s
s

R
a
t
i
o
Users
U-DELAY
PF
M-LWDF
EXP-RULE
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.05
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
F
a
i
r
n
e
s
s

I
n
d
e
x
Users
U-DELAY
PF
M-LWDF
EXP-RULE
1464
much visible. For system delay measures (Fig 10), U-DELAY
performs much better than other schemes for average 60 users
but after that the delay of the system cannot be maintained
while EXP-RULE and M-LWDF perform better at this stage.
The rationale for such behavior is the fact that when network
load increase, delay requirements become much tighter to be
met and more packet are lost when delay thresholds reach
early. To counter it, admission controller can be modified to
limit the users according to available system capacity. In
Fairness Index comparison (Fig 9), the use of QoS constraint
based Sigmoid Utility function shows proficient results
depicting scores as high as 0.88 at 80 system users for U-
DELAY while PF scheme score drops to a considerable 0.47
margin.
VI. CONCLUSION
The LTE standard defines classes with strict requirements in
order to provide QoS with fast connectivity and high data
rates. In this work, we proposed a two-level scheduler with
game theoretic approach that distributes physical resources
among classes with a sigmoid utility function at first level and
then an implementation of a delay based scheduler at the
MAC layer to satisfy diverse levels of delay budget
requirements of LTE classes at the second level of proposed
architecture. Cooperative Game is formed between service
class flows of users by use of bargaining that allows for
distribution or allocation of physical Resource Blocks in a
QoS restricted manner. The delay based scheduler checks each
users packet delay budget in relation to the LTE service class
and makes scheduling decisions in the downlink utilizing
current channel conditions experienced by user. Simulation
results carried out with key performance matrices including
throughput, packet loss ratio, and system delay and fairness
index showed that the proposed two-level resource allocation
scheme performs better than existing simple Proportional Fair,
Exponential Rule and M-LWDF algorithms. Proposed
scheduler out performs all existing techniques in throughput
performance specifically when the number of users in the
system exceed on average of 30 mixed service users. Among
all the schemes, PF performs with the lowest rank while EXP-
RULE performs next to our approach. However, EXP-RULE
does not perform well for GBR based Constant Bit Rate
(CBR) traffic when the number of users is high, while the U-
DELAY performs the best. The fairness results show that our
proposed U-DELAY scheme gives a score of 0.88 even when
the system users are as high as 80, while other approaches
drop down to around 0.84 or less. The system delay analysis
depicts satisfactory performance of proposed U-DELAY for
around 70 users in the system. As a final comment, the scheme
can be used for supporting both real time and non-real time
traffic with promising results for QoS and user satisfaction. In
future, we intend to investigate interference issues in resource
allocation and scheduling for LTE.
REFERENCES
[1] 3GPP, http://www.3gpp.org.
[2] QOS over LTE & WiMAX Networks, Mehdi Alasti and Behnam
Neekzad, Jie Hui and Rath Vannithamby, IEEE Journal of
Communications Magazine, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 104111, May 2010
[3] Scheduling Algorithms for 3GPP Long-Term Evolution Systems: From
a Quality of Service Perspective, Mikael Gidlund and J-C Laneri,
Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Symposium on Spread
Spectrum Techniques and Applications (ISSSTA 08), pp. 114117,
August 2008.
[4] Service Class-Aided Scheduling for LTE, Pham, Hung, Vu, Xuan
Nhan, Hwang, Seung-Hoon, IEEE 13th International Conference on
Advanced Communication Technology, pages 39-43, Feb 2011
[5] Performance analysis of EXP/PF and M-LWDF in downlink 3GPP
LTE system, R. Basukala, H. M. Ramli, and K. Sandrasegaran, , in
Proc.of First Asian Himalayas International Conference on Internet, AH-
ICI, Kathmandu, Nepal, Nov. 2009
[6] G. Piro, LTE-Sim - the LTE simulator, Available online at: http://
telematics.poliba.it/LTE-Sim
[7] Cell-throughput analysis of the proportional fair scheduler in the single-
cell environment,, J.-G. Choi and S. Bahk, IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technologies, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 766 778, Mar. 2007.
[8] "QoS control in the 3GPP Envolved Packet System", H. Ekstrom. IEEE
Communications Magazine., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 76-83, Feb. 2009.
[9] "An overview of downlink radio resource management for UTRAN
long-term evolution"K. Pedersen, T. Kolding, F. Frederiksen, I. Kovacs,
D. Laselva and P.Mogensen. IEEE Communications Mag., vol. 47,
no.7, pp. 86-93, Jul. 2009.
[10] B. Sadiq, R. Madan and A. Sampath. "Downlink Scheduling for
Multiclass Trafc in LTE". EURASIP Journal on Wireless
Communications and Networking, vol. 2009 pp. 1-18, July. 2009.
[11] D. Niyato and E. Hossain. "A Cooperative Game Framework for
Bandwidth Allocation in 4G Heterogeneous Wireless Networks" IEEE
International Communications Conference (ICC), vol. 9, pp. 4357-4363,
June 2006. Istanbul, Turkey .
[12] N. Xu, T. Zou, Y. Wang, and P. Zhang, "A MC-GMR Scheduler for
Shared Data Channel in 3GPP LTE System," in IEEE 64th Vehicular
Technology Conference, 2006, pp. 1-5
[13] Y. J. Zhang and S. C. Liew, "Link-Adaptive Largest-Weighted-
Throughput Packet Scheduling for Real-Time Traffics in Wireless
OFDM Networks," in IEEE GLOBECOM, 2005.
[14] H. Lei, L. Zhang, X. Zhang, and D. Yang, "A Packet Scheduling
Algorithm Using Utility Function for Mixed Services in the Downlink of
OFDMA Systems," in IEEE 66th Vehicular Technology Conference,
2007, pp. 1664-1668
[15] Utility-based Multi-service Bandwidth Allocation in the 4G
Heterogeneous Wireless Access Networks, Changqing Luo, Hong Ji,
and Yi Li, IEEE WCNC 2009
[16] The exponential learning equation as a function of successful trials
results in sigmoid performance, Nathaniel Leibowitz, Barak Baum,
Giora Enden, Amir Karniel, Journal of Mathematical Psychology
Volume 54, Issue 3, June 2010, Pages 338-340
[17] An Alternative Lagrange-Dual Based Algorithm for Sparse Signal
Reconstruction, Yiju Wang; Guanglu Zhou; Caccetta, L.; Wanquan
Liu; April 2011 Volume: 59 Issue:4
[18] Delay-Prioritized Scheduling (DPS) for Real Time Traffic in 3GPP
LTE System, Kumbesan Sandrasegaran, Huda Adibah Mohd Ramli and
Riyaj Basukala , in Proc. of IEEE Wireless Communication and
Networking Conference, 2010, Sydney, Australia, pages 1-6.
[19] A Game-theoretic Resource Allocation Algorithm based on Utility in
IEEE 802.11e, LI Yishan, LI Yuhong, LI Tao, 2011 Fifth Int. Conf. on
Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing.
[20] X. Qiu and K. Chawla, "On the Performance of Adaptive Modulation in
Cellular Systems," in IEEE Transactions on Communications. vol. 47,
1999, pp. 884-895.
[21] H. Holma and A. Toskala, WCDMA for UMTS: HSPA Evolution and
LTE, Fourth edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2007.
[22] "Interference Analysis and Subchannel Allocation Schemes in Tri-
Sectored OFDMA Systems," K. Kim, G.-M. Yeo, B.-H. Ryu, and K.
Chang, in IEEE 66th Vehicular Technology Conference, 2007, pp. 1857-
1861.
[23] Utility Fair Non-cooperative Game Approach for Resource Allocation
in Multi-cell OFDM Systems,A. Elyasi Gorji, B. Abolhassani, K.
Honardar, Mehdi Adibi, M. Okhovat, IEEE 2010 Second International
Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation
[24] Resource Allocation Using Shapley Value in LTE Networks, Mauricio
Iturralde, Tara Ali Yahiya, Anne Wei and Andre-Luc Beylot, Proc. of
IEEE Personal Indoor Mobile Radio Communications, PIMRC. Sep.
2011, Toronto, Canada
1465