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

Abstract—The 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 efficient PDCCH
resource allocation. We first 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 effective in reaching a compromise
between system and cell-edge performance.
I. Introduction
In OFDM-based UTRAN Long Term Evolution (LTE) spec-
ified by Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), dynamic
scheduling and resource allocation has been proven to greatly
enhance spectral efficiency [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 se-
lected Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS).
In LTE systems, the Downlink Control Information (DCI)
messages for both uplink grant and downlink resource assign-
ment are signaled on the Physical Downlink Control Channel
(PDCCH) [3]. During each 1ms Time Transmission Interval
(TTI), only the first 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 max-
imize 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 effective
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
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 efficiently pack users into limited amount of
control resource, this paper allows more flexibility for PDCCH
resource manager to find 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 cell-
edge 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 hexag-
onal 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.

978-1-4244-8016-6/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE 1499


A greedy traffic 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 different DCI messages involved in
the user-related transmission. For convenience, the following
discussion (k)is in terms  of downlink UEs only. Let vector
U(k)
j = u j,1 , . . . , u(k)
j,N denote a prioritized list of total UEs
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
j and U(k),edge
j represents cell-center and cell-edge
UE sublist derived from U(k)
j . Relative order of UEs in cell-
center/edge sublist complies with that in U(k) j .
B. PDCCH Resource Allocation Constraints
As mentioned above, PDCCH is multiplexed with other
downlink control channels within the first M (k) (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
differ among cells and vary over TTIs, and a specific CCE is
not formed by a fixed 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.
Different 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 sufficient
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-specific 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}
where Yk = (X · Yk−1 ) mod Z, X = 39827, Z = 65537 and
Y−1 is initialized with a Radio Network Temporary Identifier
(RNTI) for the intended UE. To limit the complexity of blind
decoding, the number of PDCCH candidates is predefined, 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 Effective SINR Mapping (EESM) is used
to translate Signal to Interference Plus Noise Ratio (SINR)
per subcarrier to effective SINR. Block Error Rate (BLER) of
each UE is then read from a BLER versus SINR curve with
the given effective SINR, where such curve can be obtained
Candidates in TTI-k Candidates in TTI-(k+1)
AL
8
4
2
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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)
j = Φ γ(k)
j,n · S η j,n , (2)
u(k) (k)
j,n ∈U j
 
where UE throughput S η(k)j,n is approximated by an attenuated
and truncated form of the Shannon bound given in [5] using  (k) 
received data channel SINR η(k) j,n . Binary function Φ γ j,n
related with effective control channel SINR γ(k) j,n equals 1
only if control channel resource is assigned
 to u j,n and DCI
decoding is successful; otherwise Φ γ(k) j,n is zero. The state of
DCI decoding (successful/failing) is determined by drawing a
random number based on user’s 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 selec-
tion” 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)
(1) 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 first 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 find empty PDCCH candidates.
The algorithm is formally presented below.
Algorithm: Min-AL
1) Power shaping: Assign the total amount of power avail-
able for PDCCH (Pmax ) evenly among all CCEs, and the
average power per CCE is
P̄CCE = Pmax /NCCE . (3)
1500
 Next, estimate the worst-case SINR per CCE by taking
into account all potential CCI from neighboring cells for
terminal u j,n with
P̄CCE · h̄ j,n h̄ j,n
γ̃ j,n = ≈ J

J 
P̄CCE · h̄l,n + N0
l=1 l=1
l j l j
where h̄ j,n and h̄l,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 γ̃ 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 par-
ticular 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 Σ j,n for user u j,n is the one that satisfies
γ̃ j,n ≥ γΣT j,nh ,
where γΣT j,nh is SINR corresponding to 1% BLER on link
level curve associated with aggregation level Σ j,n and
user u j,n related DCI format. Σ 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 Û j =

û j,1 , . . . , û j,N Σ j,n ≤ Σ 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
following an order defined by Û j , one UE at a time.
For each user u j,n (1 ≤ n ≤ N ) of Σ j,n  0, an attempt is
made to find an empty PDCCH candidate based on (1).
If vacant PDCCH candidates are found available in its
search space, the first 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 Û j
should be given a try until all CCEs are exhausted.
The AL-based scheduling (step 3) in Min-AL) exploits the
benefits 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 suffering from serious CCI. In
order to find a good compromise between system and cell-edge
performance, two algorithms are proposed afterwards.
Power Site 1
2 7
S3
S1 S2
Site 2, 4 and 6
3 1 6
S1
, (4) S2 S3
h̄l,n Site 3, 5 and 7
4 5 S2
S1 S3
CCE Index
Primary CCE Set Secondary CCE Set
Fig. 2. 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
(5) downlink data channel, we apply similar approach to PDCCH
for CCI mitigation. The fundamental idea of CCI-A is illus-
trated 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
1) Power shaping: Load power for every CCE in SCS by
S
PCCE = θ j · P̄CCE , (6)
where θ j ∈ (0, 1] is a configurable parameter chosen
independently in each site. CCEs in PSCs are loaded
with nominal transmit power per CCE P̄CCE (see (3)).
Calculate worst-case SINR γ̃ Pj,n corresponding to S Pj for
each cell-edge user u j,n ∈ Uedge j according to power
pattern in neighboring cells (refer to (4)). Note that two
CCE segments in S Sj may experience different CCI, a
 
set of SINRs γ̃ sj,n = γ̃ s,1 s,2
j,n , γ̃ j,n are then calculated for
each cell-center user u j,n ∈ Ucenter j .
2) AL selection: Determine AL Σ 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 γ̃ Pj,n (see (5)). Supportable
ALs Σ1j,n and Σ2j,n for cell-center user u j,n are chosen
likewise on SCS-related CCE segments, and then let
Σ j,n = min(Σ1j,n , Σ2j,n ). Set Σ j,n and Σ j,n 0 if no suitable
aggregation level is found.
3) User scheduling: Use AL-based scheduling given in 3)
of Min-AL to obtain updated scheduling sublists Ûedge j
and Ûcenter
j respectively with Σ j,n and Σ j,n .
4) Physical resource allocation: The procedure resembles 4)
in Min-AL except for an additional restriction imposed
1501
 TABLE I
Cell-center UE list ˆ center
U Simulation Parameters and Assumptions
j

... Selector
Updated UE list ˆ
U Parameter Values and Assumptions
j
W1 64 sites-3cells/site (only central 16 sites are
Cell layouts
observed), ISD =500m
Cell-edge UE list ˆ edge
U ...
Propagation model Urban Area [5]
j
W2
Tail Head Shadowing deviation 10dB
... 2Tx*2Rx SFBC (antenna radiation pattern
Antenna configuration
Tail Head and gain for BS and UE in [5] )
Multi-path model Extended Pedestrian A 5Hz (EPA5)
BS transmit power 46dBm
Fig. 3. Priority boosting algorithm System bandwidth 10MHz (50RB)
System loading Full buffer services
Number of downlink UEs 50 UEs per cell-or otherwise stated
Data scheduling Round Robin
on available resource for different types of UEs, that is, Number of CCEs per cell 30 (3 OFDM symbols)
S Pj for Ûedge
j and S Sj for Ûcenter
j . CCE Aggregation levels 1, 2, 4, 8 CCE
PDCCH modulation QPSK
Note that the UE-specific search space changes over time, PDCCH BLER target 1% BLER
a temporarily declined cell-edge/center UE due to a lack PDCCH payload 46bits
of suitable PDCCH candidates within PCS/SCS could still
be a competitive applicant for control resource in next TTI. (a) RS (b) Min-AL

Thus the static resource partition involved in CCI-A exerts a 6000

5 13
6000
5 13

negligible effect on user fairness in the long term. 6

7
14
15
6
7
14
15

y (m)

y (m)
4000 8 16 4000 8 16
1 9 1 9
8
C. Priority Boosting Algorithm (PB)
2 10 2 10
3 11 3 11

2000 4 12
2000 4 12 7

An alternative for cutting down blocking probability of cell- 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
6

edge users is to raise their ranks in the order list produced by x (m) x (m) 5
(c) CCI-A, T = 0.5 (d) PB, P = 2
AL-based scheduling, thus permitting them to choose their 6000
4
6000
favorable resource with higher priorities. This idea can be 6
5
14
13
6
5
14
13
3

further developed into a priority boosting algorithm illustrated 7 15 7 15 2

y (m)

y (m)
4000 8 16 4000 8 16
1 9 1 9

in Fig. 3, where a selector functions as a bi-directional switch 2

4
3
10

12
11
2

4
3
10

12
11
1

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 final 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
j and Ucenter
j and get two updated prioritized sub-
lists, i.e., cell-edge sublist Ûedge
j and cell-center sublist
center
Û j . A bi-directional selector is then used to merge
these two sublists into a new UE list Û j , in a manner
of picking UEs one-by-one from the top of either Ûedge j
or Ûcenter with probability W versus W . One simple
j 1 2
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, define preferential factor as follows
W2 /W1
μ =  , s.t.W1 + W2 = 1,
Ûedge Ûcenter its assigned number of CCE(s). Compared with RS, whose
j j
where the function of |·| denotes the size of the corresponding
vector. In the regime of μ > 1, the likelihood that cell-
edge 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 μ. Once the
preferential factor is determined towards the desirable system
performance, probability W1 and W2 can be derived from (7).
2000 2000 0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
x (m)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
x (m)
Fig. 4. Aggregation level distribution over 16 central statistical sites, active
users are marked by dots of different 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 perfor-
mance 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 dif-
ferent algorithms, i.e., each user’s geographic location and
(7)
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
 (a) 10 1.4
Probability Density Function

Average cell throughput (Mbps)

0.3 19.1 UEs
9

Average cell-edge throughput

RS 1.2 5.4 UEs
Min-AL 8 17.9 UEs
3.9 UEs
0.2 16.2 UEs
CCI-A, T =0.5 7 1
PB, P =2 6 4.4 UEs

(Mbps)
0.1 0.8
5 12.8 UEs
2.7 UEs

4 0.6
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 3 0.4
(b) 2
Probability Density Function

0.2
0.4
1
RS
0 0
0.3 Min-AL
CCI-A, T =0.5 RS Min-AL CCI-A, ș  PB, ȝ 
0.2
PB, P =2
0.1 Fig. 7. Average downlink cell throughput (left) and average cell-edge
throughput (right), with the average number of cell/ cell-edge scheduled UEs
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 given on top of each bar corresponding a specific algorithm.
Number of scheduled users

Fig. 5. PDFs of the number of (a) cell scheduled UEs, and (b) cell-edge
scheduled UEs. exhibits higher cell-edge throughput than RS although it has
fewer scheduled users. This is mainly contributed to AL-based
1
scheduling used in CCI-A which picks a larger percentage of
0.95
UEs with good channel quality.
0.9

0.85
V. Conclusion
In this paper we consider PDCCH resource allocation prob-
CCE Utilization

0.8

0.75 lem in systems where the limited PDCCH resource is over-

0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
30 35
Number of processed users
Fig. 6. 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 Min-
AL 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 confirms that CCI-A and
PB are effective in improving cell-edge performance, without
causing significant 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 find empty PDCCH
candidates of larger ALs, thus resulting in less 4-CCE and 8-
CCE scheduled users (see Fig. 4), and inferior cell/cell-edge
blocking performance to PB (see Fig. 5).
The influence 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
loaded with numerous active users. Several simple algorithms
RS following PDCCH constraints are proposed to address the
Min-AL
problem of efficient control resource allocation among mul-
CCI-A, T =0.5
PB, P =2
tiple users. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithms are
proven through simulations. It is shown that the proposed Min-
40 45 50
AL algorithm achieves significant system gain over random
scheduling with regard to the number of scheduled UEs and
downlink throughput. Meanwhile, both of CCI-A and PB algo-
rithms 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 Schedul-
ing and Resource Allocation in Uplink OFDM Systems for Broadband
Wireless Access Networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Commu-
nications, 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 Trans-
actions 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 Multi-
Cell 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