2010 IEEE 21st International Symposium on Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications

Multi-User Resource Allocation for Downlink

Control Channel in LTE Systems
Li Li, Mugen Peng, and Wenbo Wang
Wireless Signal Processing and Network Lab
Key Lab of Universal Wireless Communications, Ministry of Education
Beijing University of Posts & Telecommunications
Beijing, 100876 P. R. China
AbstractThe Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH)
is used to signal dynamic resource assignment information in the
Long Term Evolution (LTE) system. In the presence of numerous
active users, the system performance is likely to be hindered by
shortage of control channel resource. In this paper, several simple
algorithms are brought forward for making ecient PDCCH
resource allocation. We rst propose a minimum aggregation
level algorithm (Min-AL) to maximize the total number of
scheduled users by exploiting multi-user diversity gain, followed
by algorithms with the purpose of improving the blocking
performance of cell-edge area through co-channel interference
avoidance (CCI-A) and priority boosting (PB). Simulation results
have shown that the Min-AL algorithm achieves the best system
performance at the expense of cell-edge performance, while both
CCI-A and PB algorithms are eective in reaching a compromise
between system and cell-edge performance.

I. Introduction
In OFDM-based UTRAN Long Term Evolution (LTE) specied by Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), dynamic
scheduling and resource allocation has been proven to greatly
enhance spectral eciency [1][2]. However, these gains are
achieved at the cost of high signaling overhead which is
needed to inform scheduled users of necessary information
such as assigned Physical Resource Blocks (PRBs) and selected Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS).
In LTE systems, the Downlink Control Information (DCI)
messages for both uplink grant and downlink resource assignment are signaled on the Physical Downlink Control Channel
(PDCCH) [3]. During each 1ms Time Transmission Interval
(TTI), only the rst 1 to 3 OFDM symbols are reserved to be
used by PDCCH and several other downlink control channels,
e.g. Physical Control Format Indicator Channel (PCFICH).
The key objective of PDCCH resource allocation is to maximize the supportable number of scheduled User Equipments
(UEs) in each TTI while satisfying user Quality of Service
(QoS) requirements, given such small subset of time and
frequency resource available. Several algorithms for eective
PDCCH scheduling are proposed in [4]. According to previous
work, data scheduler is assumed to have higher priority over
PDCCH scheduler, i.e., the priorities of UEs in acquiring
control resource follow those generated by data scheduler. It is
true that maintenance of priorities chosen by data scheduler is
of great importance for dynamic resource allocation. However,
when there is an inadequate amount of control resource, which

978-1-4244-8016-6/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE

is often the case in a densely populated system with numerous

small-packet active users, the overall system performance in
terms of blocking probability is likely to be hampered by the
passive manner of scheduling in PDCCH manager.
In order to eciently pack users into limited amount of
control resource, this paper allows more exibility for PDCCH
resource manager to nd its best way to assign control resource
to users chosen by data scheduler. Several types of PDCCH
resource allocation algorithms with feasible complexities are
introduced in this work. We start with one aggressive algorithm
attempting to maximize the number of UEs served by PDCCH
by taking advantage of multi-user diversity, i.e. allocating
resource to UEs in an order determined by the size of their
required resource. However, a large group of cell-edge users
could be rejected by this aggressive algorithm since more
resource is needed to compensate for serious signal attenuation
and Co-Channel Interference (CCI). We then go farther by
looking for means to decrease the blocking probability of celledge users without causing much system loss. Two algorithms
are subsequently presented on basis of aggressive algorithm
for this purpose, one by improving cell-edge user channel
quality through CCI avoidance, and the other by increasing
the likelihood of cell-edge users to get control resource.
This paper is organized as follows: in the next section
we describe basic assumptions and constraints involved in
PDCCH resource allocation; several algorithms for PDCCH
resource allocation are proposed in Section III; in Section IV
simulation results are shown to compare the performance of
these algorithms; we conclude this paper in Section V.
II. Assumptions and Constraints
A. Basic Assumptions
We consider a LTE cellular system featuring typical hexagonal cell layouts [5], in which a site consists of one base
station (BS) and three cells, and the overall J cells operate on
the same frequency bandwidth. A large number of UEs are
uniformly distributed across the system, and serving BS/cell
each UE connected to is selected based on Reference Signal
Received Power (RSRP). UEs bound to the inner 2/3 area of
a site are categorized as cell-center users, the remaining UEs
near site border as cell-edge users. Since UE density per area
is equal over the entire system, cell-center and cell-edge UEs
approximately comprise 2/3 and 1/3 of total users in each cell.

1499

A greedy trac source is assumed for all users in the

system, such that there is a perpetual need for each user to be
scheduled. In each TTI, UEs selected by data scheduler consist
of both uplink and downlink users. PDCCH resource allocation
for these UEs, either uplink or downlink, is implemented in
a similar way, except for dierent DCI messages involved in
the user-related transmission. For convenience, the following
discussion
 of downlink UEs only. Let vector
 (k)is in terms
(k)
U(k)
=
u
,
.
.
.
,
u
j
j,N denote a prioritized list of total UEs
j,1
passed by data scheduler in cell j and TTI k, where 1 j J,
0 k < 10, and N is the average number of active UEs per
cell. U(k),center
and U(k),edge
represents cell-center and cell-edge
j
j
UE sublist derived from U(k)
j . Relative order of UEs in cellcenter/edge sublist complies with that in U(k)
j .
B. PDCCH Resource Allocation Constraints
As mentioned above, PDCCH is multiplexed with other
(k)
downlink control channels within the rst M (k)
j (1 M j 3)
OFDM symbols in TTI k and cell j. Control region, namely the
Resource Elements (REs) dedicated to PDCCH are grouped
into Control Channel Elements (CCEs) and numbered in a
way depicted in [3]. The number of total CCEs available may
dier among cells and vary over TTIs, and a specic CCE is
not formed by a xed group of REs. In this paper, however, we
assume a constant M (k)
j in all cells and TTIs, leading to a total
number of CCEs per cell NCCE . In addition, CCE of a given
index is of the same place in time and frequency domain.
Dierent amount of CCEs (1, 2, 4 or 8) are aggregated
to enable various coding rates for UEs according to channel
conditions. For example, for a cell-edge UE with a poor
channel, 4 or even 8 CCEs are required to achieve sucient
robustness; while 1 CCE may be adequate for a UE close to the
BS. The UE has no prior knowledge about the exact number
and index/indices of CCE(s) used for its related control
information transmission. In such cases, the UE shall attempt
to decode control information by monitoring a set of PDCCH
candidates. Here, we mainly focus on PDCCH candidates in
UE-specic search space. For a particular Aggregation Level
(AL) of CCEs L {1, 2, 4, 8} in TTI k, the corresponding set
of CCEs originates from the one with index of WL(k) as
WL(k) = L {Yk mod NCCE /L}

(1)

where Yk = (X Yk1 ) mod Z, X = 39827, Z = 65537 and

Y1 is initialized with a Radio Network Temporary Identier
(RNTI) for the intended UE. To limit the complexity of blind
decoding, the number of PDCCH candidates is predened, i.e.,
6 for 1-CCE and 2-CCE, 2 for 4-CCE and 8-CCE, respectively.
Fig. 1 shows an example of PDCCH candidates for a given UE
in two successive TTIs, in the case of Yk = 1 and NCCE = 30.
C. Link-to-System Mapping
The Exponential Eective SINR Mapping (EESM) is used
to translate Signal to Interference Plus Noise Ratio (SINR)
per subcarrier to eective SINR. Block Error Rate (BLER) of
each UE is then read from a BLER versus SINR curve with
the given eective SINR, where such curve can be obtained

Candidates in TTI-k

Candidates in TTI-(k+1)

AL
8
4
2
1
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

CCE Index

Fig. 1.

An illustrative example for PDCCH candidates

through link level simulation for a certain combination of AL

and DCI format. Under realistic control channel constraints,
downlink cell throughput in TTI k is expressed by

   (k) 
C (k)
(2)
(k)
j =
j,n S j,n ,
(k)
u(k)
j,n U j

 
where UE throughput S (k)
j,n is approximated by an attenuated
and truncated form of the Shannon bound given in [5] using
 (k) 
received data channel SINR (k)
j,n . Binary function j,n
related with eective control channel SINR (k)
j,n equals 1
only if control channel resource is assigned
to u j,n and DCI

decoding is successful; otherwise (k)
j,n is zero. The state of
DCI decoding (successful/failing) is determined by drawing a
random number based on users BLER.
III. PDCCH Resource Allocation Algorithms
To facilitate our discussion, the process of PDCCH resource
allocation presented below is divided into four major steps,
namely 1) power shaping, 2) AL selection, 3) user scheduling
and 4) physical resource allocation. Power shaping deals
with the power allocation for control subcarriers. AL selection determines the number of CCEs that shall be assigned
for each user to guarantee reliable DCI message delivery.
In user scheduling, the prioritized lists of active users are
generated through some PDCCH-oriented strategies, followed
by physical resource allocation to sequentially assign CCEs
to UEs from the ordered lists. For simplicity, TTI index is
omitted, and resource allocation in cell j is given as an
example in the remainder of this paper.
A. Minimum Aggregation Level Algorithm (Min-AL)
The target of Min-AL algorithm is for UEs as many as
possible to be multiplexed in PDCCH during one TTI when
subject to a certain BLER target. Notice that allowing UEs of
4- or 8-CCEs to access rst could cause greater blocking rate
due to the fact that the resource collision for a UE tends to
occur more frequently with an increasing amount of occupied
resource. Therefore, we allocate resource in an order from UEs
with lower ALs to those with higher ones, so that more UEs
would have better chances to nd empty PDCCH candidates.
The algorithm is formally presented below.
Algorithm: Min-AL
1) Power shaping: Assign the total amount of power available for PDCCH (Pmax ) evenly among all CCEs, and the
average power per CCE is

1500

P CCE = Pmax /NCCE .

(3)

Next, estimate the worst-case SINR per CCE by taking

into account all potential CCI from neighboring cells for
terminal u j,n with

Power

Site 1

7
S1

S2

S3
Site 2, 4 and 6

j,n =

P CCE h j,n
J

P CCE

l=1
l j

h j,n
J
,


hl,n
hl,n + N0

(4)

S1

S2

S3
Site 3, 5 and 7

l=1
l j

5
S1

where h j,n and h l,n respectively denotes u j,n s average

channel gain against serving cell and other co-channel
cells. In interference-limited systems, noise power per
CCE N0 is small enough to be ignored, and j,n is
independent of actual transmit power, making it an
objective prediction of channel quality.
2) AL selection: The suitable aggregation level for a particular UE is typically the one achieving the highest
coding rate while satisfying 1% BLER target [6]. The
aforementioned BLER versus SINR link level curves
are adopted to assist our decision, and the chosen
aggregation level j,n for user u j,n is the one that satises
j,n T j,nh ,

(5)

where T j,nh is SINR corresponding to 1% BLER on link

level curve associated with aggregation level j,n and
user u j,n related DCI format. j,n is set to 0 if even the
highest AL is unable to meet the target
 BLER. 
3) User scheduling: Sort U j =
u j,1 , . . . , u j,N in
an ascending order in terms of UE aggregation

level to form a new prioritized user list U

=
j



u j,1 , . . . , u j,N j,n j,n , 1 n n N , so that users
with lower ALs are given higher priorities to choose
control resource within their search space than users
with higher ALs. If two users have identical ALs, their
relative order is kept the same as in U j .
4) Physical resource allocation: Allocate CCEs to UEs
, one UE at a time.
following an order dened by U
j
For each user u j,n (1 n N ) of j,n  0, an attempt is
made to nd an empty PDCCH candidate based on (1).
If vacant PDCCH candidates are found available in its
search space, the rst one is assigned to u j,n and then
marked occupied; otherwise, u j,n is blocked. Since
blocking of one user does not necessarily mean blocking

for another under PDCCH constraints, every user in U

j
should be given a try until all CCEs are exhausted.

S2

S3
CCE Index

Primary CCE Set

Fig. 2.

Secondary CCE Set

Co-channel interference avoidance algorithm

B. Co-Channel Interference Avoidance Algorithm (CCI-A)

One method to enhance the competitiveness of cell-edge
users in AL-based scheduling is to improve their received
SINRs so that lower ALs can be supported. Inspired by the
technique of Fractional Frequency Reuse (FFR) [7] used in
downlink data channel, we apply similar approach to PDCCH
for CCI mitigation. The fundamental idea of CCI-A is illustrated in Fig. 2. First, the whole set of CCEs are evenly divided
into three segments (S 1 , S 2 and S 3 ), and then grouped into
primary CCE set (PCS) and secondary CCE set (SCS), denoted
respectively by S Pj and S Sj . PCSs for cell-edge users are kept
orthogonal among neighboring sites. Less power is loaded for
SCSs for cell-center users, thus lowering CCI in cell edge area.
Algorithm: CCI-A

The AL-based scheduling (step 3) in Min-AL) exploits the

benets of multi-user diversity by allocating the current CCEs
to UEs who can best utilize them. In general, UEs assigned
with low ALs on PDCCH are likely to have good downlink
channel for high data rate. The Min-AL, therefore, is also able
to improve system throughput by passing a large number of
good UEs. However, Min-AL dose not treat all users equally,
especially those cell-edge UEs suering from serious CCI. In
order to nd a good compromise between system and cell-edge
performance, two algorithms are proposed afterwards.

1501

1) Power shaping: Load power for every CCE in SCS by

S
PCCE
= j P CCE ,

(6)

where j (0, 1] is a congurable parameter chosen

independently in each site. CCEs in PSCs are loaded
with nominal transmit power per CCE P CCE (see (3)).
Calculate worst-case SINR Pj,n corresponding to S Pj for
according to power
each cell-edge user u j,n Uedge
j
pattern in neighboring cells (refer to (4)). Note that two
CCE segments in S Sj may experience dierent CCI, a


s,2
set of SINRs sj,n = s,1
j,n ,
j,n are then calculated for
each cell-center user u j,n Ucenter
.
j
2) AL selection: Determine AL j,n for cell-edge user
u j,n as the minimum one whose PDCCH candidates
(at least one) locate within S Pj and with which the
target BLER can be met by Pj,n (see (5)). Supportable
ALs 1j,n and 2j,n for cell-center user u j,n are chosen
likewise on SCS-related CCE segments, and then let
j,n = min(1j,n , 2j,n ). Set j,n and j,n 0 if no suitable
aggregation level is found.
3) User scheduling: Use AL-based scheduling given in 3)
edge
of Min-AL to obtain updated scheduling sublists U
j
center respectively with j,n and j,n .
and U
j
4) Physical resource allocation: The procedure resembles 4)
in Min-AL except for an additional restriction imposed

Selector
W1

edge
U
j

U
j

Parameter

...

Propagation model
Shadowing deviation

Head

Antenna configuration

Head

Fig. 3.

Values and Assumptions

Cell layouts

W2
Tail

...
Tail

Updated UE list

Multi-path model
BS transmit power
System bandwidth
System loading
Number of downlink UEs
Data scheduling
Number of CCEs per cell
CCE Aggregation levels
PDCCH modulation
PDCCH BLER target
PDCCH payload

Priority boosting algorithm

on available resource for dierent types of UEs, that is,

edge and S S for U
center .
S Pj for U
j
j
j
Note that the UE-specic search space changes over time,
a temporarily declined cell-edge/center UE due to a lack
of suitable PDCCH candidates within PCS/SCS could still
be a competitive applicant for control resource in next TTI.
Thus the static resource partition involved in CCI-A exerts a
negligible eect on user fairness in the long term.

W2 /W1
=

, s.t.W1 + W2 = 1,
U
edge U
center
j
j

(7)

where the function of || denotes the size of the corresponding

vector. In the regime of > 1, the likelihood that celledge UEs are picked by selector is greater in proportion to
that of cell-center UEs. The impact of such biased selection
will become more conspicuous with a larger . Once the
preferential factor is determined towards the desirable system
performance, probability W1 and W2 can be derived from (7).

(a) RS

(b) Min-AL

6000

6000
5

y (m)

4000

6
15

16
1

2000

13
14

7
8

9
10

3
4

4000

9
10

2000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

x (m)
(d) PB, P = 2

13

16
9

1
2

10
3

4000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

x (m)

15

7
16

1
10

11

11
12

2000

14

6
15

4
13

14
7

11
12

6000
5

2000

15
16

11
12

6000

4000

13
14

7
8
2

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

x (m)
(c) CCI-A, T = 0.5

y (m)

C. Priority Boosting Algorithm (PB)

An alternative for cutting down blocking probability of celledge users is to raise their ranks in the order list produced by
AL-based scheduling, thus permitting them to choose their
favorable resource with higher priorities. This idea can be
further developed into a priority boosting algorithm illustrated
in Fig. 3, where a selector functions as a bi-directional switch
turning on each of the two prioritized lists with a certain
probability (W1 versus W2 for cell-center and cell-edge UE
list) to build the nal UE list for resource allocation.
Algorithm: PB
1) Power shaping: This is the same as 1) for Min-AL.
2) AL selection: Use the same procedure as for Min-AL.
3) User scheduling: First, implement AL-based scheduling
for Uedge
and Ucenter
and get two updated prioritized subj
j
edge and cell-center sublist
lists, i.e., cell-edge sublist U
j
center . A bi-directional selector is then used to merge
U
j
, in a manner
these two sublists into a new UE list U
j
edge
of picking UEs one-by-one from the top of either U
j
center with probability W1 versus W2 . One simple
or U
j
way to carry out this process is through Bernoulli trials
which takes value 1 (cell-center list) with probability W1
and value 0 (cell-edge list) with probability W2 .
4) Physical resource allocation: Same as 4) for Min-AL.
To quantitatively analyze how much the cell-edge users are
favored, dene preferential factor as follows

64 sites-3cells/site (only central 16 sites are

observed), ISD =500m
Urban Area [5]
10dB
2Tx*2Rx SFBC (antenna radiation pattern
and gain for BS and UE in [5] )
Extended Pedestrian A 5Hz (EPA5)
46dBm
10MHz (50RB)
Full buffer services
50 UEs per cell-or otherwise stated
Round Robin
30 (3 OFDM symbols)
1, 2, 4, 8 CCE
QPSK
1% BLER
46bits

y (m)

...
Cell-edge UE list

TABLE I
Simulation Parameters and Assumptions

center
U
j

y (m)

Cell-center UE list

12

2
1
0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

x (m)

Fig. 4. Aggregation level distribution over 16 central statistical sites, active

users are marked by dots of dierent color corresponding to various ALs
(blocked UEs with 0-AL are marked by blue dots).

IV. Simulation Results

In this section, simulation results are shown for various
algorithms presented above to evaluate their impact on the
downlink system performance. The quasi-static system-level
simulation is done in accordance with PDCCH descriptions
in 3GPP LTE Release 8 and link-to-system model given
in Section II. More details of simulation parameters and
assumptions can be found in Tab. 1. To witness the performance gain yielded by PDCCH-oriented scheduling, random
scheduling (RS), an approach whose UE priorities are decided
by data scheduling instead of PDCCH scheduling, is adopted
for comparisons in the following discussion. Other resource
allocation procedures of RS are the same with Min-AL.
Fig. 4 plots aggregation level distribution pattern of different algorithms, i.e., each users geographic location and
its assigned number of CCE(s). Compared with RS, whose
scheduled UEs spreading over the entire system in a random
manner, the Min-AL favors more the 1- and 2-CCE cell-center
users, leaving the majority of cell-edge users unattended. By
contrast, CCI-A and PB have relative larger coverage than
Min-AL since more users in cell edge area are accommodated.
Fig. 5 shows the Probability Density Functions (PDFs) of
the number of total and cell-edge scheduled users for each
algorithm. All our proposed algorithms, i.e., Min-AL, CCI-

1502

RS
Min-AL

0.2

CCI-A, T =0.5
PB, P =2

0.1
0

10

15

20

25

30

(b)
0.4

RS
Min-AL

0.3

4
6
8
Number of scheduled users

10

12

Fig. 5. PDFs of the number of (a) cell scheduled UEs, and (b) cell-edge
scheduled UEs.
1
0.95
0.9

CCE Utilization

0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
RS

0.65

Min-AL

0.6

CCI-A, T =0.5

0.55
0.5
30

Fig. 6.

PB, P =2
35

40
Number of processed users

45

17.9 UEs
16.2 UEs

12.8 UEs

1.2

5.4 UEs
3.9 UEs

1
0.8

4.4 UEs
2.7 UEs

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Min-AL

CCI-A, 

PB, 

Fig. 7.
Average downlink cell throughput (left) and average cell-edge
throughput (right), with the average number of cell/ cell-edge scheduled UEs
given on top of each bar corresponding a specic algorithm.

0.1
0

1.4

19.1 UEs

RS

CCI-A, T =0.5
PB, P =2

0.2

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Average cell-edge throughput

(Mbps)

Average cell throughput (Mbps)

Probability Density Function

Probability Density Function

(a)

0.3

50

CCE utilization versus the number of processed users

A and PB, outperform RS concerning the total number of

scheduled UEs, among which Min-AL passes the greatest
number of scheduled UEs (avg. 19.1), with growth nearly
as much as 50% than RS, followed by 40% gain produced
by PB (avg. 17.9) and 27% by CCI-A (avg. 16.2). When it
comes to cell-edge performance, however, the aggressive MinAL carries the least cell-edge users, only 2.7 UEs on average;
while an average of 5.4 and 3.9 cell-edge users are supported
by PB and CCI-A, representing 100% and 45% improvement
over Min-AL. Analysis given above conrms that CCI-A and
PB are eective in improving cell-edge performance, without
causing signicant loss to system performance.
In Fig. 6, the CCE utilization is shown against the number
of processed users. We notice that those algorithms that are
able to pass more users tend to have lower CCE utilization.
The potential explanation for CCI-A demonstrating lower CCE
utilization than PB is that the resource partition employed
in CCI-A brings obstacles for users to nd empty PDCCH
candidates of larger ALs, thus resulting in less 4-CCE and 8CCE scheduled users (see Fig. 4), and inferior cell/cell-edge
blocking performance to PB (see Fig. 5).
The inuence of PDCCH resource allocation on average
downlink throughput is illustrated in Fig. 7. By and large, the
downlink throughput increases proportionally to the average
number of scheduled users. An exception lies in that CCI-A

exhibits higher cell-edge throughput than RS although it has

fewer scheduled users. This is mainly contributed to AL-based
scheduling used in CCI-A which picks a larger percentage of
UEs with good channel quality.
V. Conclusion
In this paper we consider PDCCH resource allocation problem in systems where the limited PDCCH resource is overloaded with numerous active users. Several simple algorithms
following PDCCH constraints are proposed to address the
problem of ecient control resource allocation among multiple users. The eectiveness of the proposed algorithms are
proven through simulations. It is shown that the proposed MinAL algorithm achieves signicant system gain over random
scheduling with regard to the number of scheduled UEs and
downlink throughput. Meanwhile, both of CCI-A and PB algorithms work well in improving the cell-edge performance and
simultaneously maintaining acceptable system performance.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported in part by the Fok Ying Tong
Education Foundation Application Research Projects (Grant
No. 122005), and the State Major Science and Technology
Special Projects (Grant No. 2009ZX03002-012-01).
References
[1] J. Huang, V. G. Subramanian, R. Agrawal, and R. Berry, Joint Scheduling and Resource Allocation in Uplink OFDM Systems for Broadband
Wireless Access Networks, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 27, pp. 226-234, Feb. 2009.
[2] J. Huang, V. G. Subramanian, R. Agrawal, and R. Berry, Downlink
Scheduling and Resource Allocation for OFDM Systems, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 8, pp. 288-296, Jan. 2009.
[3] 3GPP TS 36.211; TS 36.212; TS 36.213, Evolved Universal Terrestrial
Radio Access (E-UTRA) (Release 8): Physical Channels and Modulation;
Multiplexing and Channel Coding; Physical Layer Procedures, May
2009, Version 8.7.0.
[4] P. Hosein, Resource Allocation for the LTE Physical Downlink Control
Channel, IEEE GLOBECOM Workshops, pp. 1-5, Nov. 2009.
[5] 3GPP TR 36.942, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA)
Radio Frequency (RF) system scenarios, Dec. 2008, Version 8.1.0.
[6] M. Bohge, A. Wolisz, A. Furuskar, and M. Lundevall, Multi-User OFDM
System Performance Subject to Control Channel Reliability in a MultiCell Environment, IEEE International Conference on Communications
(ICC 08), pp. 3647-3652, May 2008.
[7] G. Boudreau, J. Panicker, Ning Guo, et al., Interference Coordination
and Cancellation for 4G Networks, IEEE Wireless Commun. Magazine,
vol. 47, pp. 74-81, Apr. 2009.

1503