2011
DOI: 10.1109/tvt.2011.2159034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Joint Performance Analysis of Channel Quality Indicator Feedback Schemes and Frequency-Domain Scheduling for LTE

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
34
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The proposed method is inefficient because there is no consideration for non-best CQI values which may have a low SNR strength. An analytical evaluation of the system performance of CQI feedback for LTE systems was addressed in [30]. Similarly, authors in [31] proposed the best-M averaging method for special processing and feedback calculation.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proposed method is inefficient because there is no consideration for non-best CQI values which may have a low SNR strength. An analytical evaluation of the system performance of CQI feedback for LTE systems was addressed in [30]. Similarly, authors in [31] proposed the best-M averaging method for special processing and feedback calculation.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In each subframe, the MAC scheduler of the eNB decides which Resource Block (RB) has to be allocated to which user. This is performed with the help of the Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) reporting mechanism [4]. The UE, periodically or when requested by the eNB, monitors the downlink channel quality based on the downlink data traffic as well as the reference signals transmitted by the eNB.…”
Section: A Ltementioning
confidence: 99%
“…To evaluate this probability, we need the PDF of the EESM of ordered subband effective SNRs, which is analytically intractable. We circumvent this problem by deriving an approximate expression that involves only a single integral as follows [21]:…”
Section: A Proof Of Claimmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, EESM was not considered and the analysis was limited to determining the fading-averaged probability that channel information about a given number of clusters of subcarriers is fed back. While [19]- [21] did model the coarseness, the arithmetic mean (AM) of the subcarrier SNRs was used. The AM is less accurate than the EESM [3], but entails a simpler and easier analysis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%