Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Research Paper01
Research Paper01
Abstract— Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access is very low, it can be assured that subcarriers are assigned to
(OFDMA) basestations allow multiple users to transmit simulta- the users who see good channel gains on them.
neously on different subcarriers during the same symbol period. The problem of assigning subcarriers and power to the
This paper considers basestation allocation of subcarriers and
power to each user to maximize the sum of user data rates, different users in an OFDMA system has recently been an area
subject to constraints on total power, bit error rate, and propor- of active research. In [5], the margin-adaptive resource alloca-
tionality among user data rates. Previous allocation methods have tion problem was tackled, wherein an iterative subcarrier and
been iterative nonlinear methods suitable for offline optimization. power allocation algorithm was proposed to minimize the total
In the special high subchannel SNR case, an iterative root-finding transmit power given a set of fixed user data rates and bit error
method has linear-time complexity in the number of users and
N log N complexity in the number of subchannels. We propose rate (BER) requirements. In [6], the rate-adaptive problem was
a non-iterative method that is made possible by our relaxation investigated, wherein the objective was to maximize the total
of strict user rate proportionality constraints. Compared to the data rate over all users subject to power and BER constraints.
root-finding method, the proposed method waives the restriction It was shown in [6] that in order to maximize the total capacity,
of high subchannel SNR, has significantly lower complexity, and each subcarrier should be allocated to the user with the best
in simulation, yields higher user data rates.
gain on it, and the power should be allocated using the water-
I. I NTRODUCTION filling algorithm across the subcarriers. However, no fairness
among the users was considered in [6]. This problem was
OFDMA, also referred to as Multiuser-OFDM [1], is being partially addressed in [7] by ensuring that each user would
considered as a modulation and multiple access method for 4th be able to transmit at a minimum rate, and also in [8] by
generation wireless networks [2]. OFDMA is an extension of incorporating a notion of fairness in the resource allocation
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), which through maximizing the minimum user’s data rate. In [9], the
is currently the modulation of choice for high speed data fairness was extended to incorporate varying priorities. Instead
access systems such as IEEE 802.11a/g wireless LAN [3] and of maximizing the minimum user’s capacity, the total capacity
IEEE 802.16a fixed wireless broadband access [4] systems. was maximized subject to user rate proportionality constraints.
OFDM systems divide a broadband channel into many This is very useful for service level differentiation, which
narrowband subchannels. Each subchannel carries a quadra- allows for flexible billing mechanisms for different classes
ture amplitude modulated (QAM) signal. The subcarriers are of users. However, the algorithm proposed in [9] involves
combined in a computationally efficient manner by means of solving non-linear equations, which requires computationally
an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT) in the transmitter. expensive iterative operations and is thus not suitable for a
Each complex-valued IFFT input is obtained from a QAM cost-effective real-time implementation.
constellation mapping (lookup table). The IFFT outputs form This paper extends the work in [9] by developing a sub-
the transmitted symbol. Before transmission, a cyclic prefix carrier allocation scheme that linearizes the power allocation
(copy of the last few symbol samples) is prepended to the problem while achieving approximate rate proportionality.
symbol. The receiver performs the dual operations of cyclic The resulting power allocation problem is thus reduced to a
prefix (CP) removal, FFT, and QAM demapping. solution to simultaneous linear equations. In simulation, the
In current OFDM systems, only a single user can transmit proposed algorithm achieves a total capacity that is consis-
on all of the subcarriers at any given time, and time division tently higher than the previous work, requires significantly less
or frequency division multiple access is employed to support computation, while achieving acceptable rate proportionality.
multiple users. The major setback to this static multiple access
scheme is the fact that the different users see the wireless II. S YSTEM M ODEL
channel differently is not being utilized. OFDMA, on the other The block diagram for the downlink of a typical OFDMA
hand, allows multiple users to transmit simultaneously on the system is shown in Fig. 1. At the base station transmitter,
different subcarriers per OFDM symbol. Since the probability the bits for each of the different K users are allocated to the
that all users experience a deep fade in a particular subcarrier N subcarriers, and each subcarrier n (1 ≤ n ≤ N ) of user
2
The underlying premise behind these steps is that in practical
Nk
Hk,n − Hk,1 systems, adherence to the proportionality constraints need not
Vk = , (8) be strictly enforced. Note that the proportionality constraints
n=2
Hk,n Hk,1
are used to differentiate various services, wherein the service
N 1
provider may choose to prioritize their customers based on
k
Hk,n
Nk
(a) Initialize
and
1 if k = 1 ck,n = 0, ∀k ∈ {1, · · · , K} and ∀n ∈ {1, · · · , N }
dk = N1 φk (13) Rk = 0, ∀k ∈ {1, · · · , K}
if k = 2, 3, . . . , K.
Nk φ1
p = Ptot /N 2
We shall refer to this method of subcarrier and power allo- N = {1, 2, · · · , N }
cation as ROOT-FINDING. Although (11) can be solved with (b) for k = 1 to K
less computation than solving (7), iterative methods for root Sort Hk,n in ascending order
finding are still needed. This motivates a different approach to n = arg maxn∈N |Hk,n |
the resource allocation problem. ck,n = 1
IV. P ROPOSED S OLUTION Nk = Nk − 1, N = N \ {n}
Rk = R k + N B
log2 (1 + pHk,n )
We utilize a combination of the approaches in [7] and ∗
(c) while N > N
[9] to exploit the nature of the problem and reap significant
complexity reduction benefits while maintaining reasonable K = {1, 2, . . . , K}
performance. The proposed steps are as follows: k = arg mink∈K Rk /φk
n = arg maxn∈N |Hk,n |
Step 1 Determine the number of subcarriers Nk to be initially
if Nk > 0
assigned to each user;
Step 2 Assign the subcarriers to each user in a way that ck,n = 1
ensures rough proportionality; Nk = Nk − 1, N = N \ {n}
Step 3 Assign the total power Pk for user k to maximize the Rk = R k + N B
log2 (1 + pHk,n )
capacity while enforcing the proportionality; 1 We use script letters, e.g. A, to denote sets; \ to denote set subtraction;
Step 4 Assign the powers pk,n for each user’s subcarriers and A to denote the cardinality of the set A.
subject to his total power constraint Pk 2 Equal power allocation among the subcarriers is initially assumed.
3
else where
K = K \ {k}
N1 Hk,1 Wk
(d) K = {1, 2, . . . , K} ak,k = − (19)
for n = 1 to N ∗ Nk H1,1 W1
k = arg maxk∈K |Hk,n |
N1 H1,1 V1 W1 Hk,1 Vk Wk
ck,n = 1 bk = Wk − W 1 + − . (20)
H1,1 N1 Nk
Rk = R k + N B
log2 (1 + pHk,n )
K = K \ {k} This set of simultaneous linear equations can be easily solved
The first step of the algorithm initializes all the variables. due to its well ordered symmetric and sparse structure. In order
Rk keeps track of the capacity for each user and N is the set to see this, we first reorder the equations in (18) into
of yet unallocated subcarriers.
The second step assigns to each user the unallocated sub- ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
aK,K 0 ... 1 PK bK
carrier that has the maximum gain for that user. Note that ⎢
⎢ 0 aK−1,K−1 ... 1 ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ bK−1 ⎥
⎢ PK−1
⎥ ⎢
⎥⎢ ⎥
an inherent advantage is gained by the users that are able to ⎢ .. .. ⎥ = ⎢ .. ⎥
.. ⎥ ⎢ ..
⎣ ..
choose their best subcarrier earlier than others, particularly for . . ⎦ ⎣ . ⎦
. . ⎦⎣ .
the case of two or more users having the same subcarrier as 1 1 ... 1 P1 Ptot
their best. However, this bias is negligible when N K since (21)
the probability of that happening will be very low. and then perform LU factorization on the coefficient matrix to
The third step proceeds to assign subcarriers to each user obtain
according to the greedy policy that the user that needs a ⎡ ⎤
subcarrier most in each iteration gets to choose the best 1 0 ... 0
subcarrier for it. Since we are enforcing proportional rates, ⎢ 0 1 ... 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
the need of a user is determined by the user who has the L=⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥ (22)
⎣ . . . . ⎦
least capacity divided by its proportionality constant. Once the 1 1
aK,K aK−1,K−1 ... 1
user gets his allotment of Nk subcarriers, he can no longer be
assigned any more subcarriers in this step.
The fourth step assigns the remaining N ∗ subcarriers to the ⎡ ⎤
aK,K 0 ... 1
best users for them, wherein each user can get at most one ⎢ 0 aK−1,K−1 ... 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
unassigned subcarrier. This is to prevent the user with the best ⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥
U =⎢ . . . . ⎥. (23)
gains to get the rest of the subcarriers. This policy balances ⎢ ⎥
achieving proportional fairness while increasing overall capac- ⎣
K
1
⎦
0 0 ... 1− ak,k
ity. Notice that as a consequence of our subcarrier allocation k=2
scheme,
Finally, using forwards-backwards substitution, the individual
N1 : N 2 : · · · : N K ≈ φ 1 : φ 2 : · · · : φ K (16) powers are given by
with the approximation getting tighter as N → ∞ and N
K
bk
K
1
K. This is a reasonable assumption since current wireless P1 = Ptot − / 1− (24)
akk akk
systems that utilize OFDMA [4] satisfy these conditions. k=2 k=2
4
Average CPU time comparison
V. A LGORITHMIC C OMPLEXITY −2
10
5
4.75 TABLE I
S UMMARY OF P ERFORMANCE C OMPARISON
4.7
Performance Criterion ROOT-FINDING LINEAR
Subcarrier Allocation Complexity O(KN log 2 N ) O(KN log2 N )
4.65
Power Allocation Complexity O(nK), n ≈ 9 O(K)
capacity (bit/s/Hz)
4.5
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a new method to solve the rate-adaptive
4.45
4 6 8 10
number of users
12 14 16 resource allocation problem with proportional rate constraints
for OFDMA systems. It improves on the previous work in
Fig. 3. Total capacity versus number of users in an OFDMA system with this area [9] by developing a novel subcarrier allocation
N = 64 subcarriers and subchannel SNR = 38 dB and SNR gap Γ = 3.3. scheme that achieves approximate rate proportionality while
The capacity achieved by the proposed LINEAR method is consistently higher
than for the ROOT-FINDING method for a system with 4 up to 16 users. maximizing the total capacity. This scheme was also able
to exploit the special linear case in [9], thus allowing the
0.16
Proportions (φk)
optimal power allocation to be performed using a direct
LINEAR
ROOT−FINDING
algorithm with a much lower complexity versus an iterative
0.14
algorithm. It is shown through simulation that the proposed
0.12 method performs better than the previous work in terms of
significantly decreasing the computational complexity, and yet
Normalized Rate Proportions
0.1
achieving higher total capacities, while being applicable to a
0.08
more general class of systems.
0.06
R EFERENCES
[1] E. Lawrey, “Multiuser OFDM,” in Proc. International Symposium on
0.04 Signal Processing Applications’99, vol. 2, 1999, pp. 761–764.
[2] T. S. Rappaport, A. Annamalai, R. M. Beuhrer, and W. H. Tranter,
0.02 “Wireless Communications: Past Events and a Future Perspective,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 148–161, May 2002.
0 [3] Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Specification, IEEE Std. 802.11, 1997.
User Number (k)
[4] Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems, MAC and
Additional PHY Specifications for 2-11 GHz, IEEE Std. 802.16a, 2003.
Fig. 4. Normalized capacity ratios per user for 16 users averaged over 100 [5] C. Y. Wong, R. S. Cheng, K. B. Lataief, and R. D. Murch, “Multiuser
channels, with the required proportions φk shown as the leftmost bar for each OFDM System with Adaptive Subcarrier, Bit, and Power Allocation,”
user. The proposed LINEAR method has minimal deviation from the required IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 17, pp. 1747–1758, Oct 1999.
proportions, but ROOT-FINDING adheres to it much better. [6] J. Jang and K. B. Lee, “Transmit Power Adaptation for Multiuser
OFDM Systems,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 21, pp. 171–
178, February 2003.
[7] H. Yin and H. Liu, “An Efficient Multiuser Loading Algorithm for
of simulation parameters. This advantage can be attributed OFDM-based Broadband Wireless Systems,” in Proc. IEEE Global
to the relaxation of the proportionality constraints, and the Telecommunications Conference, vol. 1, 2000, pp. 103–107.
added freedom of assigning the N ∗ subcarriers in Step 2 of [8] W. Rhee and J. M. Cioffi, “Increase in Capacity of Multiuser OFDM
System Using Dynamic Subchannel Allocation,” in Proc. IEEE Vehic.
the proposed algorithm described in Section IV-B. Tech. Conf., Tokyo, Japan, May 2000, pp. 1085–1089.
[9] Z. Shen, J. G. Andrews, and B. L. Evans, “Optimal Power Allocation
D. Proportionality in Multiuser OFDM Systems,” in Proc. IEEE Global Communications
Fig. 4 shows the normalized proportions of the capacities Conference, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2003, pp. 337–341.
[10] S. T. Chung and A. Goldsmith, “Degrees of Freedom in Adaptive
for each user for the case of 16 users averaged over 100 Modulation: A Unified View,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49, no. 9,
channel
16samples. The normalized capacities are given by pp. 1561–1571, Sept 2001.
Rk / k=1 Rk , and are observed for both LINEAR and ROOT- [11] T. Ibaraki and N. Katoh, Resource Allocation Problems–Algorithmic
Approaches, M. Garey, Ed. MIT Press, 1988.
FINDING. This is compared to the normalized proportional- [12] Z. Shen, J. G. Andrews, and B. L. Evans, “Adaptive Resource Allocation
ity constraints {φk }16
k=1 . In contrast to the ROOT-FINDING in Multiuser OFDM Systems with Proportional Fairness,” IEEE Trans.
method, the proportionality among the users for the LINEAR Wireless Commun., submitted for publication.
[13] D. Bertsekas, Nonlinear Programming. Athena Scientific, 1995.
method is no longer being strictly enforced, but this has been [14] M. Abramowitz and I. E. Stegun, Eds., Handbook of Mathematical
argued to be not much of a problem in Section III. Functions. National Bureau of Standards, 1972.
A summary of the comparisons of the two methods is shown [15] M. M. G. Forsythe and C. Moler, Computer Methods for Mathematical
Computations. Prentice Hall, 1977.
in Table I.