Multicast Service Delivery Solutions in

LTE-Advanced Systems
Leonardo Militano, Massimo Condoluci, Giuseppe Araniti, Antonio Iera
DIIES Dept., ARTS Lab., University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria, Italy
e-mail: [leonardo.militano|massimo.condoluci|araniti|antonio.iera]@unirc.it
AbstractMulticast services over Long Term Evolution (LTE)
have recently attracted the interest of the research commu-
nity. Particular attention has been put on handling fairness
requirements of multicast users and experienced channel quality.
Conventional Multicast Scheme (CMS), Opportunistic Multicast
Scheme (OMS), and multicast subgroup formation are the
principal policies adopted to address this research issue. Little
attention has been given so far to multicarrier systems like LTE-
Advanced although the need for solutions appropriate to this
system is strongly felt. In this paper we design radio resource
management policies for the efcient delivery of multicast ser-
vices in multicarrier LTE-Advanced systems and show how the
relation between fairness and system efciency can be controlled.
Concerning the system resource management, game theoretic
bargaining solutions are considered to best model fairness and
efciency (expressed in terms of throughput).
Index TermsLTE-Advanced, Multicast, Efcient Scheduling,
Radio Resource Management
I. INTRODUCTION
L
ONG Term Evolution (LTE) is probably the most promis-
ing wireless system able to support group-oriented ser-
vices (i.e., multicast and broadcast) over mobile devices [1].
An issue attracting several research activities is represented by
the effective handling of different fairness requirements and
diverse channel quality experienced by multicast users in the
same Multicast Group (MG). Different approaches for man-
aging multicast services have been proposed in the literature
[2] [3]. A rst approach is the Conventional Multicast Scheme
(CMS) [4], where the total throughput is limited by the user
with the worst channel conditions. As a consequence, CMS
might be considered as as a fair policy, since all the users are
served at the same throughput. Nevertheless, it achieves a poor
performance in terms of network throughput and satisfaction
experienced by the users with good channel conditions. An
alternative approach is the Opportunistic Multicast Scheme
(OMS) [5]. According to it, not all User Equipments (UEs)
are served in a given time slot. This allows to maximize
the system throughput according to the channel quality. A
third alternative approach to overcome the limitations of CMS
and OMS algorithms is based on the multicast subgrouping
policy [6] [7], whereby multicast destinations are grouped into
different subgroups depending on the UE channel quality.
The research of Massimo Condoluci is supported by European Union,
European Social Fund and Calabria Regional Government. This paper reects
the views only of the authors, and the EU, and the Calabria Regional
Goverment cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of
the information contained therein.
When considering multicast services, little attention has
been given so far to multicarrier systems like LTE-Advanced
[8]. The main objective of the present paper is to investigate
in this direction, propose possible solutions to adopt in the
multicarrier scenario, and compare the system performance in
terms of system efciency (expressed by the total achievable
throughput) and fairness among the UEs (this is a well-known
analysis in wireless networks [9]). In our opinion blind
extensions of approaches studied for LTE standard are not the
best solution, as they do not exploit the enhanced potentials of
the multiple carriers available. The conceptual ideas of CMS,
OMS and subgrouping solutions proposed for LTE can still
be valid in multicarrier systems. Notwithstanding, a further
investigation can lead to an improved service performance.
We propose a general framework featuring the possibility of
tuning some system settings so to meet the desired fairness and
efciency properties. In particular, game theoretic bargaining
solutions are considered for the resource allocation in the
multicarrier system [10]-[11]. Besides, the possibility to have a
differentiated behaviour on the available carriers is introduced.
The performance of the proposed framework is compared to
alternative solutions: the mere extension of CMS and OMS
policies to the multicarrier system.
II. RESEARCH BACKGROUND
The downlink LTE air interface is based on the Orthogonal
Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA). The spectrum
is managed in terms of Resource Blocks (RBs): in the fre-
quency domain each RB corresponds to 12 consecutive and
equally spaced sub-carries. The RB is the smallest frequency
resource, which can be assigned to a UE. The overall number
of available RBs varies from 6 (1.4 MHz channel bandwidth)
to 100 (20 MHz) [7]. LTE is considered as the rst step toward
the real 4G wireless system [12], under investigation by the
3GPP in the LTE-Advanced project [8]. The main objective
of this project, in terms of spectrum management, is to allow
wider bandwidth up to 100 MHz while keeping backward
compatibility with LTE. In order to meet this expectation,
a carrier aggregation scheme is proposed which consists of
grouping up to ve LTE Component Carriers (CCs, each one
up to 20 MHz). A Packet Scheduler (PS) is implemented at
the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer relevant to each CC
[13]. The main functionality of the PS is to efciently handle
the resource allocation in the time and frequency domains.
The Frequency Domain Packet Scheduler (FDPS) relevant
978-1-4673-3122-7/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE
IEEE ICC 2013 - Wireless Networking Symposium
4547
to each CC is in charge of the spectrum management. The
FDPS assigns the adequate number of RBs to each scheduled
user and selects the modulation and coding scheme (MCS)
for each RB. These procedures are conducted based on the
Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) feedback transmitted by the
UE to the base station and are the main focus of the proposed
framework. The CQI is associated to the maximum supported
MCS [7]; Transmission parameters (i.e., MCS) are adapted
every CQI Feedback Cycle (CFC), which can last one or
several Transmission Time Interval (TTI, equal to 1 ms) [7].
Based on previous experiences on the LTE standard system,
we identify four different approaches that can be followed to
properly design a FDPS in multicarrier systems: 1) Multicar-
rier CMS (MC-CMS), where all UEs are served on every CC in
each TTI, according to the worst CQI among all UEs in every
CC; 2) Multicarrier OMS (MC-OMS), where not necessarily
all UEs have to be served by the system in a given TTI, and
the system throughput is maximized according to the CQI of
the UEs on every CC; 3) Conservative-Opportunistic Multicast
Scheme (COMS), where all UEs are served by the system in
each TTI, but not necessarily on every CC, the CMS solution
is adopted on one CC only, while the OMS solution is adopted
on the remaining CCs [14]; 4) Multicarrier Subgrouping (MS),
where all UEs are served by the system in each TTI, but not
necessarily on every CC, and multicast subgrouping solutions
are adopted with constraints on the per CC handling.
While the MC-CMS approach is a straightforward extension
of the CMS solution for LTE to all the available CCs, the
remaining approaches can be modeled by setting an appropri-
ate constraint on the different CCs in the subgroup formation
framework presented in the next section.
III. MULTICAST SUBGROUP FORMATION AND RESOURCE
ALLOCATION
Let us consider a general case where the MG is composed
by N LTE-Advanced devices. Let c be the CQI value associ-
ated to a generic user, where c can vary from 1 to 15.
1
For a
given CQI value c, the attainable throughput depends on the
number of assigned RBs, which can vary from 1 to R, where R
depends on the system bandwidth conguration. The proposed
resource allocation and multicast subgroup formation algo-
rithm foresees the following steps: 1) CQI collection phase:
the eNodeB collects the CQI feedbacks from each UE on every
CC; 2) Denition of potential subgroup partitions per CC: by
accounting for the collected CQI feedbacks, it determines all
the possible combinations of MCSs that can be activated by
forming a correspondent number of multicast subgroups. The
basic assumption is that all the UEs experiencing the same CQI
value are associated to the same multicast subgroup. Of course,
a subgroup could serve UEs with different CQI values. With
this assumption, the possible number of multicast subgroups
to activate per CC varies from 1 to 15; 3) Radio resource
allocation phase: the resources to be allocated to any of the
1
We assume no errors in the CQI estimation. The impact of the CQI
estimation errors on the performance is shown in Section IV-A.
potential subgroup combinations are determined according to
an appropriate game theoretic bargaining solution; 4) Multicast
subgroups creation phase: according to a chosen performance
index P and based on the resource allocations for the potential
multicast subgroup partitions, the nal choice is made on
which of the multicast subgroups to activate in every CC.
As already mentioned, the Radio resource allocation phase
in this paper is based on game theoretic solutions, which
offer the possibility to nicely investigate on the existing
dualism between fairness and efciency of the framework [15].
First, we need to dene the utility of the involved multicast
subgroups. In particular, the total utility for a generic activated
subgroup j is strictly related to the number of associated UEs,
and the number of assigned RBs:
u
j
= V
j
g
j
(1)
where V
j
is the number of UEs associated to subgroup j and
g
j
represents the data rate assigned by the base station to
the j-th subgroup and varies as a function of the MCS and
the RBs (i.e., 1 RB
j
R) assigned to the j-th subgroup
[7]. The so dened utility is used for the Multicast subgroups
creation phase. In particular, for the P index we will adopt the
Aggregate Utility (AU), that is the total utility of the system:
AU =

J
j=1
u
j
, where J is the total number of enabled
subgroups for a candidate subgroups partition.
A. Bargaining Solutions for Radio Resource Allocation
For the Radio Resource Allocation Phase, four different
game theoretic bargaining solutions are considered in this
paper. For the axiomatic denition the interested reader can
refer to the literature, while here the basic formulations are
briey reported. Let K={1, 2, . . . , K} be the set of players
which compete for the resources assignment. Each player
is characterized by a performance function f
j
dened on a
convex closed and non-empty set X R
K
, which is the set of
game strategies for the K players. The performance functions
dene the performance vector f(x)=(f
1
(x),...,f
K
(x))). The set
F={u R
K
: x X, u=(f
1
(x),...,f
K
(x))} is the set of
achievable performance values (or utilities). Each player is
also characterized by an initial minimum performance, the
so-called disagreement point, the players require to enter the
game, d=(d
1
,d
2
,...,d
K
) R
K
, such that F
d
={u F: u d}
= . Let X
d
={x X: f(x) d} be the subset of strategies
that enable the players to achieve at least their disagreement
point performance.
In the reference problem, the potential MCS levels to be
activated will be the players of the game, the performance
functions f
j
are dened as in equation (1), while the setting
of the disagreement point d will be discussed later in this
section as this is the key parameter for the implementation of
the different solutions discussed in section II. As for the X
set for the bargaining problem, this is the set of possible RB
assignments to each player. This is actually not a convex set
in R
K
because only integer values of RB can be assigned to
each subgroup. Nevertheless, this issue is solved by studying
the problem on the smallest convex set containing X, the
4548
convex hull X
c
(thus, also the utility set F becomes the
convex hull F
c
). A nal step is introduced to approximate
the bargaining solutions, dened on the convex hull set, to the
discrete integer-value domain of RBs and to the corresponding
utilities [16].
Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS): The idea promoted by
the NBS is that after a minimal requirement is satised for all
players, the remaining resources are allocated according to the
conditions of each player. As demonstrated in the literature, the
proportional fairness in scheduling problems is a special case
of the NBS, and it is equivalent to the following optimization:
NBS = Max

jJ
ln(f
j
(x) d
j
), x X
d
(2)
Kalai-Smorodinsky Solution (KSS): According to KSS,
the utilities assigned to the players should be proportional
to their maximum possible values. In practice, this solu-
tion assigns the maximal point of the feasible set on the
segment connecting the disagreement point to the so-called
utopia point. This ideal point, in which each player would
get his maximum possible benet, is dened as h
j
(F, d) =
max{u
j
|u F}, j K. For the reference problem, the
utopia point is considered as the point where all available
RBs are assigned to the given MCS level. A formulation for
the KSS can be given in the form of a weighted max-min
fairness solution, which focuses on improving the payoff of the
weakest players, weighted according to the best-case payoff:
KSS = max
uF,
min
jK

u
j
d
j
h
j
d
j

(3)
Egalitarian Solution (ES): The ES assigns the point in the
feasible set where all players achieve maximal equal increase
in utility w.r.t. the disagreement point. The formulation can be
given in the form of a strict max-min fairness:
ES = max
uF
min
jK
(u
j
d
j
) (4)
Utilitarian Solution (US): The US maximizes the sum
of the utilities and is, therefore, also called as Maximum
throughput scheduler in scheduling problems:
US = max
uF,ujdjj
K

j=1
u
j
(5)
B. Setting the disagreement point
An appropriate denition of the disagreement point in the
game theoretic solutions will set the constraints to model the
four different approaches listed in section II. In particular,
by adopting the US as bargaining solution and setting the
disagreement point equal to 0 in every CC, the MC-OMS
approach can be modeled. By applying the same reasoning
on only 4 CCs and adopting a CMS solution on the remaining
CC, the COMS approach is obtained. Finally, the multicarrier
Subgrouping approach can be modeled by setting the disagree-
ment point to one only in a subset of CCs and to zero in the
remaining CCs. In this case, the question arises on which of
the available CCs it is more convenient to set the disagreement
point equal to one. As already stated, all users are assumed
to be active on all carriers. Therefore, to increase the overall
system throughput performance, the CCs on which to set a
non-zero disagreement point are those with the highest average
in the CQI values for the UEs in the relative CCs.
According to the different considered approaches, each UE
will be associated to a variable number of CCs. Such a
system conguration can, for instance, be adopted for a content
distribution service based on Multiple Description Coding
(MDC) with different unique content descriptors being sent
to the activated multicast subgroups. A UE associated to more
multicast subgroups will receive a correspondent number of
descriptors increasing the quality of the received content.
IV. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
We conducted a simulation campaign where, according to
the LTE-Advanced assumptions, R = 100 RBs are available
on each of the ve CCs. Channel conditions for each UE
are evaluated in terms of Signal to Interference and Noise
Ratio (SINR) when path-loss, shadowing, and multipath fading
affect the signal reception [17]. The effective SINR, calculated
through the Exponential Effective SIR Mapping (EESM), is
eventually mapped onto the CQI level ensuring a BLER
smaller than 10% [17]. We consider a typical on-campus
scenario with N = 100 UEs forming the LTE-Advanced
multicast group distributed over a concentrated area within
the cell. We focus on the results achieved only in a single
TTI, to analyze the effectiveness of the proposed FDPSs.
Differences among the proposed approaches and bargaining
solutions are mainly based on network coverage plots (dened,
for a given throughput x, as the percentage of UEs served
with a throughput equal or lower than x), as this parameter
best shows the differences in terms of fairness and system
efciency for the solutions.
For the sake of clearness in the presentation of the results,
we will rst focus only on the MC-CMS, MC-OMS and
COMS solutions (see Fig. 1). As it clearly appears from the
plot, the MC-CMS and MC-OMS approaches show somehow
a dual behavior in terms of fairness and system efciency. In
particular, the MC-CMS shows very low throughput values and
high fairness, while the MC-OMS shows higher throughput
and lower fairness. These results are in line with what obtained
in LTE standard study cases (see e.g., [10]), with the difference
of higher throughput values achieved in the LTE-Advanced
system since 5 CCs are now available. Another aspect to
underline is that the MC-OMS solution is not serving all
the UEs in the system in a given TTI, hence it requires
additional data coding for reliable trafc delivery to the
whole set of multicast members [5]. In particular, the results
showed that, on average, only 50% of the UEs are actually
served by the system, while in all other considered solutions
the system guarantees that all UEs are served at least in
one CC. When considering instead the COMS solution, the
performance is somehow a trade-off in terms of fairness and
4549
Fig. 1. Network coverage for CM-CMS, CM-OMS and COMS solutions.
efciency between the previous two solutions. Nevertheless,
even if the advantages of the COMS solution are evident, still
enhancements are possible in the exibility of the system.
By this we mean that by applying a simple solution, such as
the COMS, there is no possibility to tune the performance
levels according to our system and service requirements. Such
a exibility can be obtained, instead, with the game theoretic
multicarrier subgrouping solutions.
In analyzing the performance for the multicarrier subgroup-
ing solutions we consider, as a further variable, the number of
CCs on which we require that all UEs are served. As described
in section III-B, such a system choice can be modeled by
properly setting the disagreement point in the different CCs.
In particular, we consider three study cases: (A), Disagreement
point set to one on 1 CC and to zero on 4 CCs; (B),
Disagreement point set to one on 3 CC and to zero on 2 CCs;
(C), Disagreement point set to one on all 5 CCs.
As it clearly appears from the plots in Fig. 2, in all the
three cases the MS-ES shows a higher fairness and a lower
throughput; the MS-US offers instead a higher throughput
and a lower fairness; nally, the MS-KSS and MS-NBS are
falling in between the other two solutions. Really interesting
to observe is that in the three different study cases the
relation among the bargaining solutions remains the same;
the differences become more evident when increasing the
number of CCs where the disagreement point is set to one.
The reason for this result is that, in most of the cases, the
system will choose to work with a classic OMS approach on
the CCs where the disagreement point is set to zero (since no
constraints exist on the UEs to serve) and forms subgroups on
the other CCs. Thus the differences in the bargaining solutions
are more evident in study case C, Fig. 2(c).
To conclude the analysis, in Table I we summarize, for all
the considered solutions, the average throughput per node, the
average percentage number of UEs served in each CC, and the
average number of multicast subgroups formed in the system.
Moreover, the fairness index (FI), as dened in equation (6),
is also reported:
FI =
(

N
i=1
T
i
)
2
N(

N
i=1
T
i
2
)
(6)
where T
i
is the total throughput for UE i in the system (on
TABLE I
PERFORMANCE FIGURES FOR DIFFERENT MULTICARRIER APPROACHES.
Case Throughput FI Served UEs Number of
per CC Subgroups
MC-CMS 14.1 Mbps 1 100% 5
MC-OMS 67.1 Mbps 0.412 45.6% 5
COMS 56.2 Mbps 0.431 56.2% 5
MS-NBS
A 60.9 Mbps 0.417 100% 10
B 63.3 Mbps 0.432 78.1% 8
C 65.8 Mbps 0.445 56.3% 6
MS-KSS
A 37.6 Mbps 0.418 100% 10
B 49.3 Mbps 0.436 78.1% 8
C 61.1 Mbps 0.468 56.3% 6
MS-ES
A 23 Mbps 0.423 100% 13.2
B 40.4 Mbps 0.453 78.1% 9.6
C 57.9 Mbps 0.509 56.3% 6.4
MS-US
A 66.5 Mbps 0.412 100% 10
B 66.7 Mbps 0.412 78.1% 8
C 66.9 Mbps 0.412 56.3% 6
all available CCs); FI = 1 is the maximum fairness, achieved
when all UEs are served with the same throughput as for
the MC-CMS solution. As it can be read from the Table,
the overall throughput obtained by each UE in the system
is the highest with the MC-OMS and the lowest with MC-
CMS. As for the bargaining based solutions, the throughput
per UE is the highest in case C and the lowest in case A.
Moreover, comparing these values to the COMS solution, in all
tested cases the MS-NBS and the MS-US solution outperform
the COMS, while for the MS-KSS and MS-ES this happens
only in case C. When looking instead at the FI, no important
difference can be observed between the MS-US and MC-OMS
solutions. The further three bargaining solutions are always
outperforming the COMS solution (cases B and C), with the
MS-ES showing the highest FI, followed by the MS-KSS and
the MS-NBS. For case A instead, the FI for these solutions is
lower than the COMS. Concerning the average percentage of
served UEs per CC, it is interesting to see that this coincides
for all subgrouping policies. This is an expected result since
for these solutions all UEs are served when the disagreement
point is set to one, while in the remaining CCs all solutions
actually have the same OMS behavior. Consequently, in these
cases, all UEs are served by the system, but not on every
CCs. Concerning the number of subgroups that are formed,
this number increases with the number of CCs where the
disagreement point is set to one. In particular, the highest
number of groups activated is obtained with the MS-ES in
Case A (i.e., 13.2).
A. Impact of the CQI estimation assumption
As briey described in Section III, a simplication has
been made in the analysis as errors in the CQI estimation are
not considered. To justify the assumption, in this section the
impact that this has on the proposed solutions is evaluated,
and it is shown that it does not introduce major errors or
inefciencies into the system. For this analysis, we approxi-
mated the measured SINR with the ideal value and an additive
independent identically distributed zero mean Gaussian error
4550
(a) Case A. (b) Case B. (c) Case C.
Fig. 2. Network coverage for Multicarrier Subgrouping solutions.
Fig. 3. ADR variation due to CQI estimation errors.
with standard deviation equal to 1 dB [18]. In Fig. 3, the
system ADR variation is plotted, by varying the percentage of
UEs reporting an imperfect CQI value. It can be observed that
in general the considered solutions are robust to such errors
(as long as the standard deviation is below 2 dB). Even in
the worst case, when all the UEs reported an incorrect CQI,
the ADR variation is always lower than 10%. Moreover, we
observe that the ES is always less affected by the errors.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented an analysis of solutions for an efcient
delivery of multicast services in LTE-Advanced networks.
Extensions of classic solutions adopted for the LTE standard,
like CMS and OMS, have been investigated for the multicarrier
system. It has been shown that the main advantages and
drawbacks of the two approaches are even more pronounced
in LTE-Advanced systems where up to ve CCs are available.
A mixed solution, considering CMS on one CC and OMS
on the remaining CCs, proved a better trade-off performance.
As an alternative, multicast subgrouping policies have been
considered in the LTE-Advanced system within a framework
based on cooperative bargaining solutions.We showed how it
is possible to tune the system performance and the relationship
between fairness and efciency, by setting differentiated bar-
gaining constraints on the available CCs. Finally, an analysis
on the impact of errors in the CQI estimation has been
presented, showing that this impact is negligible in general.
REFERENCES
[1] I. Bisio, A. Delno, G. Luzzati, F. Lavagetto, M. Marchese, C. Fra,
and M. Valla, Opportunistic estimation of television audience through
smartphones, Int. Symp. on Performance Evaluation of Computer and
Telecommunication Systems (SPECTS), 2012.
[2] C. Campolo, C. Casetti, C. F. Chiasserini, and A. Molinaro, A multirate
MAC protocol for reliable multicast in multihop wireless networks,
Computer Networks, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 15541567, 2012.
[3] A. Richard, A. Dadlani, and K. Kim, Multicast scheduling and resource
allocation algorithms for OFDMA-based systems: A survey, in IEEE
Comm. Surveys and Tutorials, 2012, pp. 115.
[4] W. Rhee and J. Ciof, Increase in capacity of multiuser OFDM systems
using dynamic subchannel allocation, IEEE 51st VTC-Spring, 2000.
[5] T. P. Low, M. O. Pun, Y. W. P. Hong, and C. C. J. Kuo, Optimized op-
portunistic multicast scheduling (OMS) over wireless cellular networks,
IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 9, pp. 791801, Sept. 2009.
[6] G. Araniti, M. Condoluci, and A. Iera, Adaptive multicast scheduling
for HSDPA networks in mobile scenarios, IEEE BMSB, June 2012.
[7] G. Araniti, V. Scordamaglia, M. Condoluci, A. Molinaro, and A. Iera,
Efcient frequency domain packet scheduler for point-to-multipoint
transmissions in LTE networks, IEEE ICC, June 2012.
[8] I.F. Akyildiz, D.M. Gutierrez-Estevez, and E.C. Reyes, The evolution
to 4G cellular systems: LTE-Advanced, Physical Comm., 2010.
[9] A.B. Sediq, R.H. Gohary, and H. Yanikomeroglu, Optimal tradeoff
between sum-rate efciency and jains fairness index in resource alloca-
tion, under review in IEEE Trans. on Wireless Comm.
[10] L. Militano, M. Condoluci, G. Araniti, and A. Iera, Bargaining
solutions for multicast subgroup formation in LTE, IEEE 76th Vehicular
Technology Conference (VTC Fall), 2012.
[11] L. Militano and A. Iera, Adopting Bargaining Solutions for Bluetooth-
based User Cooperation, IEEE PIMRC 2012.
[12] S. Frattasi, R.L. Olsen, M. De Sanctis, F.H.P. Fitzek, and R. Prasad,
Heterogeneous services and architectures for next-generation wireless
networks, Int. Symp. on Wireless Comm. Systems (ISWCS), 2005.
[13] Yuanye Wang, K.I. Pedersen, T.B. Srensen, and P.E. Mogensen, Car-
rier load balancing and packet scheduling for multi-carrier systems,
IEEE Trans. on Wireless Comm., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 17801789, 2010.
[14] Shun-Shim Chun, Young-Il Kim, and Young-Soo Park, The manage-
ment method of multi-carrier for multicast services, ICACT, Feb. 2012.
[15] A. Iera, L. Militano, L. Romeo, and F. Scarcello, Fair cost allocation in
cellular-bluetooth cooperation scenarios, 2011, vol. 10, pp. 25662576,
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications.
[16] Y. Jiao, M. Ma, Q. Yu, and Y. Ma, Quality of service provisioning
in worldwide interoperability for microwave access networks based on
cooperative game theory, in IET Comm., 2011, vol. 5, pp. 284295.
[17] C. Mehlfhrer, M. Wrulich, J. C. Ikuno, D. Bosanska, and M. Rupp,
Simulating the Long Term Evolution physical layer, in EUSIPCO,
2009.
[18] K.I. Pedersen, G. Monghal, I.Z. Kovacs, T.E. Kolding, A. Pokhariyal,
F. Frederiksen, and P. Mogensen, Frequency domain scheduling for
OFDMA with limited and noisy channel feedback, VTC-Fall, 2007.
4551