Opportunistic Scheduling in Wireless Networks

Mohammed Eltayeb Obaid Khattak

Project Outline

This report gives an overview of different scheduling algorithms, from the simple round robin algorithm, to opportunistic scheduling algorithms considering QoS, with simulation of system

capacity feedback load and fairness.

We divided the algorithms into fair, semi-fair and greedy algorithms. All simulations are done with Matlab 7.0 with an average SNR of 15dB and 1000 Ts for 30 users.

Back Ground Theory

A scheduling system is implemented both in the mobile station (MS) and in the base station (BS). The BS uses a TDMA scheme and during one time slot, only one user can receive or transmit, and this user is selected by the scheduler.

Fair Algorithms
Round Robin

The RR scheduler is the simplest scheduling algorithm, and it is not opportunistic. When a user connects to the base station (BS), it is given a position in the queue of users, and the scheduler will iterate through the queue.

Fair Algorithms - RR

Fair Algorithms - RR

Fair Algorithms
Opportunistic Round Robin (ORR) The ORR algorithm is a Round Robin scheduler. Channel conditions are taken into account. The scheduler iterates the list of users, and every time the best user is selected and removed from the list.

Fair Algorithm - ORR

Fair Algorithm - ORR

SEMI-FAIR SCHEDULING ALGORITHMS

EXAMPLES AND PERFORMANCE

Semi-Fairness

Middle ground between Fair & Greedy Provide Fairness in terms of scheduling outage Feedback load not zero but not rate optimal either

Example: Switched Diversity Scheduling (SDS)

SDS

Family of algorithms based on multi-antenna systems schemes Specific Threshold th is set Scans users to find CNR > th If user found, selected At each time slot, sequence may be randomized or organized in special way Examples

Selection Combining Transmission (SCT) SET with Post-Selection (SETps)

SCT

Checks ALL users, selects user with highest CNR Fair if all users are i.i.d Advantage

Only form of SDS which is rate optimal Normalized feedback load (NFL) unity

Disadvantage

MASSE Performance of SCT

Throughput Fairness in SCT

SETps

Extension of Switch-and-Examine Transmission (SET) First scanned user with CNR > th selected If no user CNR > th User with greatest CNR selected

Combats scheduling outage Provides level of fairness

At each time slot, list randomized

MASSE of SETps

Throughput Fairness of SETps

Time-slot Fairness of SETps

NFL of SETps

GREEDY SCHEDULING ALGORITHMS

EXAMPLES AND PERFORMANCE

Greedy Algorithms

More concerned with maximizing system throughput, not fairness to individual users Do provide fairness when all users have i.i.d. channel conditions Rate optimal, MASSE values equal Examples

Maximum CNR Scheduling (MCS) Optimal Rate, Reduced Feedback (ORRF)

MCS

All users report their CNR to BS User with best channel selected

Rate optimal

Large overhead in reporting CNR values

Normalized feedback load (NFL) unity

Poor throughput and time-slot fairness

Same as SCT

MASSE of optimal schedulers

Optimal Rate, Reduced Feedback (ORRF)

Scheduler decides threshold CNR

Distributed to all users Users with CNR > Threshold reply Best user selected If no user replies

Scheduler requests full feedback

Every user returns CSI (Channel State Information)

After full feedback or without it, best user selected

NFL of ORRF

Time-slot Fairness of ORRF

Throughput Fairness

MASSE-based Comparison

NFL-based Comparison

References

[1] P. Viswanath, D. N. C. Tse, and R. Laroia, _Opportunistic beamforming using dumb antennas,_ IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 48, pp. 1277_ 1294, June 2002. [2] A. J. Goldsmith and P. P. Varaiya, _Capacity of fading channels with channel side information,_ IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-43, pp. 1896_ 1992, Nov. 1997. [3] D. Gesbert and M.-S. Alouini, _How much feedback is multi-user diversity really worth?,_ in IEEE Int. Conf. on Communications (ICC'04), (Paris, France), pp. 234_238, June 2004. [4] V. Hassel, M.-S. Alouini, G. E. ien, and D. Gesbert, _Rate-optimal multiuser scheduling with reduced feedback load and analysis of delay effects._ Submitted to IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm. (ICC'05), (Seoul, South Korea), May 2005. [5] M. Johansson, _Issues in multiuser diversity._ http://www.signal.uu.se/Research/PCCWIP/Visbyrefs/Johansson_Visby04.pdf. Presentation at WIP/BEATS/CUBAN workshop Wisby, Sweden, Aug. 2004. [6] R. Knopp and P. A. Humblet, _Information capacity and power control in single cell multiuser communications,_ in IEEE Int. Conf. on Communications (ICC'95), (Seattle, WA), pp. 331_335, June 1995. [7] B. Holter, M.-S. Alouini, G. E. ien, and H.-C. Yang, _Multiuser switched diversity transmission._ Accepted for IEEE Veh. Tech. Conf. (VTC'04spring), (Los Angeles, CA), Sept. 2004.