wireless access networks are the typical last - mile networks connecting multiple users to a high speed backbone . in these networks , a base station ( bs ) serves a large group of users .
traditionally , either the time or the frequency are divided to ensure users do not interfere with each other .
modern coding techniques , however , allow for multiple users to either transmit or receive simultaneously , and be decoded successfully using the appropriate multiple access channel ( mac ) codes or broadcast channel ( bc ) codes , respectively .    nevertheless , consider a bs serving a very large number of users . in practical scenarios ,
not all users can be served simultaneously , and the problem of user selection or scheduling arises . in the downlink setting , where a bs transmits to a group of users , it is common to assume channel state information ( csi ) is available at the bs , hence intelligent user selection can be employed .
e.g. , the bs can select a subset of the users with both strong channel norms ( high snr ) and relatively orthogonal directions ( to avoid interference ) . see section  [ sec .
related ] for a literature survey .
such a selection can exploit the _ multi - user diversity _ inherent in these models .    in the uplink setting , however , since the users transmit to the bs , it is highly desirable to avoid the process of collecting all information at the bs beforehand , and notifying the users which should transmit .
this process is prohibitively complex when the number of users is very large .
in fact , this is one of the main reasons why an emerging standard , ieee 802.11ac , includes multi - user multiple input multiple output ( mu - mimo ) only at the downlink @xcite .
that is , the allegedly complex process of selecting a subset of users in the uplink is refrained from .
hence , efficient and distributed algorithms for selecting the appropriate group of users are desirable . this way , there is hope to harness the benefits of multi - user diversity without the need to collect csi from all users . in this paper
, we show that this is indeed possible , by showing the order - optimality of distributed algorithms .
we consider a mimo mac channel with @xmath0 receiving antennas and @xmath1 users .
we suggest distributed algorithms for selecting a group of users to transmit in each slot . in the first
, a threshold value for the norm of the channel vector is set , and only users above the threshold transmit .
hence , there is no need to collect csi from all users . nor is any cooperation required . in the second ,
an iterative process is suggested , where _ multiple thresholds _ are set on the norms of the _ projections of the channel vectors _ on the spaces of previously selected users . in this case
, csi is shared , but _ only among the selected group_.    an analysis of the resulting sum capacity in the limit of large @xmath2 and the respective scaling laws are given for both zero - forcing ( zf ) and minimal mean square error ( mmse ) receivers .
this analysis employs recent tools from both point process approximation and asymptotic random matrix theory , that to the best of our knowledge , were not used in this setting before . via this analysis ,
the simple distributed , threshold based algorithm , is shown to achieve the optimal scaling laws .
consequently , the benefit compared to traditional ( centralized ) techniques is demonstrated both analytically and via simulation results .
the rest of this paper is organized as follows : section  [ sec . related ]
includes the most relevant related work .
section  [ sec .
prelim ] includes the required preliminary material
. section  [ sec .
dist alg ] introduces the distributed algorithm , gives its analysis and scaling law under zf decoding .
section  [ sec .
sic ] gives an improved , multi - stage algorithm , which , while only semi - distributed ( as it requires messaging between the selected users ) , gives better performance for a small number of users .
section  [ sec .
mmse rec ] gives the analysis under an mmse receiver . while conceptually similar , this analysis is the more technically challenging .
section  [ sec : proofs ] gives the previously omitted proofs .
section  [ sec .
conc ] concludes the paper .
the essence of multi - user diversity was introduced in @xcite , where selecting the strongest user in each time slot was first suggested .
the work was followed by numerous scheduling algorithms for various scenarios .
we list here only the most relevant .    in @xcite ,
the authors considered the impact of multi - user diversity on the mimo downlink channel ( bc ) . assuming channel state information at the bs , the authors used order statistics to evaluate the effective snr when scheduling the strongest user in each slot .
however , _ only one user was scheduled _ in each slot , and the results were given in terms of the @xmath2-fold statistics , without an extreme value analysis for large @xmath2 .    in @xcite ,
a similar downlink model was considered , however , when users are scheduled simultaneously .
the authors considered zero - forcing beamforming ( zfbf ) , and suggested a greedy algorithm to schedule the strongest and most orthogonal users .
additional scheduling algorithms for downlink communication were given in @xcite .
in fact , in the downlink scenario , it was shown later that zfbf and optimal user selection can indeed achieve the dirty paper coding ( dpc ) region @xcite , and is hence optimal in the gaussian case @xcite .
additional surveys and scaling laws can be found in @xcite .    a closely related scheme , yet still for the downlink model , was suggested in @xcite . using block diagonalization ( bd ) ,
a capacity - based greedy algorithm was suggested , in which first the strongest user is scheduled , and then additional users are added , one by one , based on their marginal contribution to the total capacity . in the same context ,
@xcite considered the special case of two transmit antennas and one receive antenna per user , and showed that a greedy , two - stage algorithm , which first selects the strongest user and then the second to form the best pair is asymptotically optimal . in the context of heterogeneous users
, @xcite proposed a scheduling scheme which selects a small subset of the users with favorable channel characteristics .
the above works focus on the downlink setting . in this scenario ,
it is reasonable to assume that at least some information is available at the bs , and a centralized decision can be made . in the uplink ( mac ) model , however , if one wishes to select a group of users without centralized processing at the bs , distributed algorithms are required . in this paper , we suggest both a single - stage distributed algorithm , and a multi - stage semi - distributed one for the uplink scenario , and , in addition , analyze their sum capacity in the limit of large number of users and give the resulting scaling laws .    a pioneering study of the uplink model was done in @xcite , where a decentralized mac protocol for orthogonal frequency division multiple access ( ofdma ) channels was suggested . in this scheme , each user estimates the channel gain and compares it to a threshold .
only above - the - threshold users can transmit .
@xcite extended the scheme to a multi - channel setup , where each user competes on @xmath3 channels . in @xcite ,
the authors used a similar approach for power allocation in the multi - channel setup , and suggested an algorithm that asymptotically achieves the optimal water filling solution .
however , the works above do not consider a _ mimo setting _ , nor do they consider the interaction within a group of users , when all are scheduled to use _ the same resources_. space - time coding for fading multi - antenna mac was considered in @xcite . the focus therein , however , was on joint code design for a given point in the rate region and the resulting error probability , rather than user scheduling and its resulting capacity .
recently , we proposed a point process approximation which facilitates the analysis of various distributed threshold - based scheduling algorithms in the non - homogeneous scenario @xcite .
this work , however , assumed only a single user can be successfully decoded in each time slot .
a key contribution of the current work is the non - trivial extension of the work in @xcite to truly multiple - access protocols , where several users transmit simultaneously and should be decoded successfully , hence the questions that arise are how to distributively select a good subset of users to transmit and what the mutual influence between the users in the selected group is .
for example , a closely related work is @xcite .
therein , various decoding procedures were discussed , and the corresponding best user selection _ for the uplink setting _ was given . however , while reinforcing the necessity of proper user selection , the work in @xcite considered only the scenario where _ one user _ can access the radio channel at a given time .
as for more complex topologies , spatial diversity in the context of multiple relays was considered in @xcite .
therein , communication between a source and a destination is done through a group of relays .
however , unlike conventional relay schemes , only the relays with the _ strongest received signal _ decode the message and cooperate via space time coding to successfully relay it to the destination . an asymptotically optimal scheme for multiple base stations ( with joint optimization )
was given in @xcite .
extreme value theory ( evt ) is a key tool in proving capacity results under scheduling and multi - user diversity . in @xcite ,
the authors suggested a sub - carrier assignment algorithm , and used order statistics to derive an expression for the resulting link outage probability . in @xcite ,
the authors used evt to derive the scaling laws for scheduling systems using beamforming and linear combining .
@xcite analyzed the scaling laws of base station scheduling , and showed that by scheduling the strongest among @xmath2 stations one can gain a factor of @xmath4 in the expected capacity ( compared to random or round - robin scheduling ) .
in this section , we describe the system model and relevant results which will be used throughout this paper .      throughout this paper , random matrices and random vectors
are denoted in bold upper - case and bold lower - case letters , respectively .
we consider a multiple - access model with k users , each with a single transmit antenna . the bs is equipped with @xmath0 receiving antennas .
when @xmath5 users utilize the channel simultaneously , the received signal at the base station can be described as : @xmath6 where @xmath7 is the transmitted signal ( scalar ) .
@xmath8 is constrained in its total power to @xmath9 , i.e. , @xmath10\leq p$ ] . however , in most cases , we will assume a _
constant _ power constraint @xmath9 .
@xmath11 denotes the uncorrelated gaussian noise .
@xmath12 is a complex random gaussian channel vector . when all users are identically and independently distributed , it is common to assume that all entries of @xmath13 are independent and have zero mean and variance @xmath14 imaginary and real parts , for all users .
we assume that the channel is memoryless , that is , for each channel use ( slot ) , independent realizations of @xmath15 are drawn .
furthermore , we assume full csi is available at the transmitter .
that is , @xmath13 is known to the @xmath16th user .
this can be accomplished by sending a pilot signal form each of the @xmath0 antennas at the base station .
evt is a key tool in evaluating the capacity under scheduling in multi - user systems .
we review here the most relevant result .
moreover , we develop new normalizing constants for the problem at hand ( evt for the @xmath17 distribution ) , which will later aid at speeding up convergence results .    the capacity obtained by letting an arbitrary user @xmath16 utilize the channel is given by @xmath18 . however , as mentioned , it is beneficial to schedule the strongest user in each slot .
denote by @xmath19 the received channel vector with the largest norm .
scheduling the strongest user clearly results in @xmath20 , while letting a _ group of @xmath0 orthogonal users _ , with the largest channel gains to utilize an uplink channel , results in a sum - rate that has the following upper bound:@xmath21    for the downlink channel , the sum - rate upper bound has the form  @xcite @xmath22 the difference between the uplink to the downlink originates in the power constraint applied to the transmitter .
that is , in the downstream , when transmitting to a group of receivers , each receiver gets a share of the available power , while in the upstream , there is a group of transmitters that transmit to a single receiver .
it should be noted that usually the power constraint @xmath9 for the downlink and uplink are not equal , since the base station has a strong and steady power supply , whereas the user has a limited battery power supply .
as the sum rate is mainly influenced by the channel vectors gains and directions , our goal is to explore this behavior for large number of users .
specifically , we first wish to explore the behavior of the maximal gain .
since the entries of @xmath23 are complex gaussian , the channel s gain follows a @xmath17 distribution with @xmath24 degrees of freedom , denoted @xmath25 .
we utilize the following evt theorem .
[ theorem .
evt ] let @xmath26 be a sequence of i.i.d
.  random variables with distribution @xmath27 , and let @xmath28 . if there exists a sequence of normalizing constants @xmath29 and @xmath30 such that as @xmath31 , @xmath32 for some non - degenerate distribution g , then g is of the generalized extreme value ( gev ) distribution type @xmath33 and we say that @xmath27 is in the domain of attraction of @xmath34 , where @xmath35 is the shape parameter , determined by the ancestor distribution @xmath27 .
the normalizing constants and the shape parameter of the gev can be obtained as follows .
let @xmath36 be the reciprocal hazard function @xmath37 where @xmath38 and @xmath39 are the lower and upper endpoints of the ancestor distribution , respectively .
the shape parameter @xmath35 is obtained as the following limit  @xcite : @xmath40 when @xmath41 is a sequence of i.i.d .
@xmath42 variables , the asymptotic distribution of @xmath43 is a gumbel distribution @xcite . specifically , @xmath44 where @xmath45 and @xmath46 is the gamma function . in the sequel , we will also use the upper incomplete gamma function , @xmath47 .    however , for i.i.d .
@xmath25 random variables ,
the convergence of the maxima to the gumbel distribution using the above normalizing constants is quite slow .
that is , the approximation of the maximal value will not be tight for moderate values of @xmath48 .
hence , a more appropriate set of normalizing constants for the @xmath25 distribution , which takes into account both @xmath0 and @xmath49 should be derived .
letting @xmath30 to be the @xmath50 quantile , i.e. , @xmath51 , and choosing @xmath52 @xcite , we have the following .    for the @xmath25-distribution , the following normalizing constants apply .
@xmath53 where @xmath54 is the inverse of the regularized upper incomplete gamma function , that is , @xmath55 , and the inverse is defined with respect to @xmath56 .
the @xmath17 distribution is a special case of the gamma distribution .
i.e. , if @xmath57 then @xmath58 , where @xmath59 is the gamma distribution with shape parameter @xmath0 and rate parameter @xmath60 .
accordingly , for the @xmath61 constant we consider the @xmath50 quantile of the gamma distribution , which can be obtained by using the inverse of the regularized upper incomplete gamma function .
in particular , @xmath62 yields the @xmath50 quantile of the gamma distribution . to attain the @xmath63 constant ,
let us examine the hazard function @xmath36 of the gamma distribution .
@xmath64 accordingly , for @xmath65 we obtain , @xmath66    figures [ fig : max_norm_dist30 ] and [ fig : max_norm_dist ] depict the simulation results versus the analytical results of the evt with the new normalizing constants derived herein ( @xmath63 and @xmath61 given in and , respectively ) .
the maximum of @xmath2 @xmath17-distributed random variables is compared to the gumbel distribution predicted by evt .
figure  [ fig : max_norm_dist30 ] depicts the case where @xmath67 while in figure  [ fig : max_norm_dist ] for @xmath68 . in both cases ,
figures are plotted for several values of receiving antennas ( @xmath0 ) .
tight convergence is clearly visible , with reasonable approximation even for @xmath69 users .    to see how the new normalizing constants relate to the previous ones reported in the literature ,
figure  [ fig : an_convergence ] depicts the value of @xmath63 for several values of @xmath0 , as @xmath49 increases . while the new constant converges to @xmath70 slowly , it is constant for moderate values of @xmath49 , hence the tight convergence of _ the distribution of the maximum to the gumbel distribution_.     degrees of freedom , respectively .
the graphs are given for @xmath67 users . ]
degrees of freedom , respectively .
the graphs are given for @xmath68 users . ]     for @xmath71 receiving antennas to the limit @xmath72 .
note that this slow convergence does not affect the convergence of the actual distribution , as the values of @xmath63 are within a constant factor from @xmath70 even for very moderate @xmath49 . ]
as we aim at analysing the capacity under practical constraints such as scheduling only a subset of the users in each time slot , we focus our attention on linear decoding at the bs .
such decoders , such as the zf decoder or the mmse decoder , are indeed widely used in practice .
hence , the analysis in this paper will be based on either linear decorrelation ( section  [ sec .
dist alg ] ) or the mmse receiver ( section  [ sec .
mmse rec ] ) , assuming optimal coding of the resulting single user gaussian channels , given the effective signal to noise ratio ( snr ) .
specifically , for the zf receiver , focusing on the signal received from the @xmath73th user , rewrite as : @xmath74 let @xmath75 be a unitary matrix representing the null space of the subspace spanned by @xmath76 . since the entries of the channel vectors are i.i.d .
, when @xmath5 users transmit the subspace spanned by the vectors @xmath76 has rank @xmath77 with probability one ( * ? ? ?
* chapter 8) .
thus , to decode , the receiver projects the received vector @xmath78 on the subspace spanned by @xmath75 , and nulls the inter - stream interference .
finally , the signal of user @xmath73 can be demodulated using a matched filter ( i.e. , maximal ratio combiner ) .
the algorithm is given in figure  [ alg .
note that a full degrees - of - freedom gain is attained when @xmath0 users transmit . in this case ,
@xmath79 , and @xmath80 , e.g. , @xcite .
accordingly , when using a zf receiver , we aim at algorithms which select at most @xmath0 users ( of the available @xmath2 ) in each time slot . as mentioned , since we focus on the scenario in which @xmath1 , the set of selected users has a crucial effect on the system capacity .
optimally , a bs would receive csi from all users , and schedule the @xmath0 best users for transmission . under the linear decorrelation above
, the resulting expected capacity is @xmath81 however , we wish to avoid the overhead and complexity of such a centralized process , and select a group of users , approximating the optimal selection , distributively .    while simple and intuitive , the zf receiver is limited in its performance .
the mmse receiver , however , although still linear , maximizes the mutual information and hence achieves better performance ( e.g. @xcite ) . in this receiver , to decode the @xmath82 data stream , the receiver treats the rest of the streams as noise .
it then whitens the resulting colored noise and uses a matched filter to obtain maximum sinr .
let @xmath83 be a matrix whose columns are the channel vectors of the transmitting users .
similarly , let @xmath84 be the matrix @xmath83 with its @xmath82 column removed and define @xmath85 then , the corresponding output @xmath86 on the stream @xmath16 can be expressed by @xcite : @xmath87 this sinr value will be at the basis of our analysis in section  [ sec .
mmse rec ] .
a common approach to select a single user distributively , is a threshold - based procedure , in which a capacity threshold is set , and only a user who exceeds it transmits ( @xcite ) .
of course , the events in which none of the users or several users exceed the threshold should be taken into account . in this paper , however , we wish to select a group of users , and analyze the resulting capacity .    at the heart of the algorithms
we suggest herein , stands a similar threshold - based procedure . however , the challenge is twofold .
first , in selecting a threshold such that a favorable _ group of users _ exceed it .
second , in analyzing the results under the various decoding procedures and at the limit of large @xmath2 .
when doing this , a few important questions arise : on which variable should a threshold be set and how many users will pass it ? how can one assess the mutual interference between the users which passed ? what will be the loss in this distributed procedure compared to the optimal , centralized one ?    in the next three sections , we answer the above questions .
we set a threshold on the _ channel norms _ , and analyze the resulting exceedance rate .
we further analyze the mutual interference , in terms of the _ angles _ between the exceeding users , and conclude by analysing the resulting _ sum capacity _ , showing that a distributed algorithm can achieve the _
same scaling laws _ as a centralized one .    in particular ,
we suggest two distributed algorithms . in the first ,
described in this section , a single threshold is utilized when decoding is done using linear decorrelation . in the second , described in section  [ sec .
sic ] , we offer a _ set of thresholds _ to match a successive interference cancellation ( sic ) procedure .    given the number of users @xmath2 , we set a threshold @xmath88 on the norm @xmath89 , such that @xmath90 strongest users exceed it on average . in each slot , each user estimates its channel s norm .
a user with a norm greater than the threshold , transmits .
we assume the transmission includes the channel vector as a low - rate preamble so the bs has the csi _ of the transmitting users_. the algorithm for user @xmath16 is given in figure  [ alg .
channel access ] .
note that the receiver can not recover more than @xmath0 data streams .
that is , since for more than @xmath0 users the performance ( both under zf decoding and mmse decoding in section [ sec .
mmse rec ] ) deteriorates significantly , if more than @xmath0 users begin transmission simultaneously , we assume a collision occurs and the whole slot is lost ( zero capacity ) .
similarly , since users act independently , a slot might be idle , if no user exceeded the threshold .
thus , we say that a slot is utilized if at least one user , but no more than @xmath0 users , are transmitting .
the first result , proposition  [ c zf uniform users exact ] below , gives the sum capacity under the above distributed user selection algorithm and zf decoding .
note that this simple proposition still includes an expectation on the channel vectors seen by the users , hence can not give the understanding we wish regarding the sum capacity under the suggested algorithm .
still , it will be the starting point , from which we will derive the bounds which give the right insight and scaling laws .
[ c zf uniform users exact ] for @xmath1 , the expected sum capacity of algorithm channel - access with zf decoding is given by @xmath91 + o\left(\frac{\log \log k}{k}\right),\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath5 , to be optimized , is the expected number of users to exceed the threshold @xmath88 , the @xmath92 are the channel vectors of the users who exceeded the threshold and @xmath93 are the corresponding null spaces .
according to the law of total probability , we express the expected capacity in a slot by summing over the number of users who exceed the threshold , and the sum capacity these users see , given that they exceeded the threshold .
as mentioned , if more than @xmath0 users are transmitting in a slot , the receiver can not successfully null the inter - stream interference , and the capacity in that slot is zero .
hence , the expected capacity has the form : @xmath94.\ ] ] when the users are i.i.d . , the probability of @xmath73 threshold exceedances follows the binomial distribution with probability @xmath95 to exceed the threshold .
since we consider large @xmath2 and small values of @xmath5 , the number of users to exceed threshold can be approximated by the poisson distribution with an approximation error in the order of @xmath96 .
this is based on the poisson point process approximation developed in @xcite for the single - user scenario . in short ,
this method gives a poisson approximation for the number of users exceeding a high threshold @xmath88 .
however , as this approximation error is within the sum , it is multiplied by the individual capacities , which scales like the optimal scaling law of the multi - user diversity when a single , strongest user , is scheduled , i.e. , @xmath97 ( see e.g. , @xcite and the references therein ) .
hence , the @xmath98 approximation error .
finally , note that the number of exceeding users @xmath73 affects the effective snr seen by the attending users .
in particular , when @xmath73 users exceed threshold , the dimension of @xmath99 is @xmath100 .
thus , as @xmath73 decreases , the signal of the attending users is projected on a less restrictive null - space .
accordingly , each stream may spread on more receiving antennas in the zf process , which leads to a higher power gain ( for details on zf decoding , see @xcite ) .
nonetheless , the reader should not be confused .
the highest capacity is attained when @xmath0 users utilize the channel simultaneously to achieve a full degrees - of - freedom gain .    to ease notation ,
the @xmath98 approximation error is omitted from now on .    to evaluate the result in proposition  [
c zf uniform users exact ] , the behavior of @xmath101 should be understood , especially considering the fact that the number of users exceeding the threshold is random . to this end , the following upper and lower bounds are useful .
these bounds will be the basis of the scaling laws we derive .
[ c zf uniform users upper ] the expected sum capacity of algorithm channel - access with zf decoding satisfies the following upper bound @xmath102 where @xmath103 is given by and @xmath88 is the threshold set such that @xmath5 users exceed it on average .    the bound in lemma  [ c zf uniform users upper ] , while not giving the exact capacity , still depicts the essence of the system behavior . to understand its implications , we note the following : we set a threshold such that @xmath5 out of the @xmath2 users exceed it on average .
i.e. , the average exceedance rate is @xmath5 .
indeed , the expression @xmath104 in the sum over @xmath73 gives the probability for exactly @xmath73 users exceeding .
each of the @xmath73 users , under zero forcing , experiences a single user channel , with its power @xmath9 scaled according to two factors : ( i ) a multiplication by @xmath105 , as this is the average norm of its channel vector , where @xmath88 is the threshold exceeded , and @xmath106 is the average distance _ above _ the threshold .
( ii ) a multiplication by @xmath107 , as in case only @xmath108 users exceeded the threshold , the zero forcing algorithm does not have to cancel @xmath109 users , only @xmath110 , hence the null space has a larger dimension , yet the number of receive antennas is @xmath0 .
as the threshold @xmath111 will be shown to be @xmath112 , the optimal scaling law will follow .
a complete discussion will be given after the lower bound is introduced .
indeed , as it turns out in the simulation results , the bound in lemma  [ c zf uniform users upper ] is tight even for relatively small number of antennas and users .
note , however , that if less than @xmath0 users exceed , as a higher snr can be attained at the receiver , in order to achieve the capacity in this case , a user must know how many users exceeded , so it can exploit the high snr for , e.g. , higher transmission rate .
hence , we require that the number of users that actually exceeded the threshold will be announced .
note that in practice it is beneficial to choose @xmath5 slightly smaller than the number of antennas @xmath0 .
this is since if less than @xmath0 users exceed , the snr seen by each user is only larger , yet if more than @xmath0 users exceed , the slot is lost .
we start with proposition  [ c zf uniform users exact ] . by jensen inequality , @xmath113 \nonumber\\ & \leq & \sum_{j=1}^{r}\frac{k^{j}e^{-k}}{j ! }
\sum_{i=1}^{j } \log\big(1 + p \text{e}\left[\left .
\arrowvert { \mathbf{v}}_i { \mathbf{h}}_i \arrowvert^2 \right| \vert   { \mathbf{h}}_i \vert^2 > u_k \right ] \big).\label{eq . in upper bound proof}\end{aligned}\ ] ] consider the norm @xmath101 , where @xmath99 has @xmath114 rows . denoting by @xmath115 the @xmath3th row of @xmath99 , we have @xmath116 & = & \text{e}\left[\left.\sum_{m=1}^{r - j+1 } \vert \langle{\mathbf{v}}_i^{(m)},{\mathbf{h}}_i\rangle \vert^2 \right|   \vert { \mathbf{h}}_i \vert^2 > u_k\right]\\ & \stackrel{(a)}{= } & \sum_{m=1}^{r - j+1 } \text{e}\left[\left . \arrowvert { \mathbf{h}}_i \arrowvert^2 \frac{\vert \langle{\mathbf{v}}_i^{(m)},{\mathbf{h}}_i\rangle \vert^2}{\arrowvert { \mathbf{h}}_i \arrowvert^2 \arrowvert
{ \mathbf{v}}^{(m)}_i \arrowvert^2 } \right| \vert { \mathbf{h}}_i \vert^2 > u_k\right]\\ & \stackrel{(b)}{= } & \text{e}[\left.\arrowvert { \mathbf{h}}_i \arrowvert^2 \right| \vert { \mathbf{h}}_i \vert^2 > u_k ] \sum_{m=1}^{r - j+1 } \text{e } \left [ \frac{\vert \langle{\mathbf{v}}_i^{(m)},{\mathbf{h}}_i\rangle \vert^2}{\arrowvert { \mathbf{h}}_i \arrowvert^2 \arrowvert { \mathbf{v}}^{(m)}_i \arrowvert^2}\right]\\ & \stackrel{(c)}{= } &   \text{e}[\left.\arrowvert { \mathbf{h}}_i \arrowvert^2 \right| \vert { \mathbf{h}}_i \vert^2 > u_k](r - j+1 ) \int_{0}^{1}(1-\alpha)^{r-1}d \alpha\\ & \stackrel{(d)}{= } &   ( u_k + a_k ) ( r - j+1 ) \frac{1}{r}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] in the above chain of equalities , ( a ) is since @xmath117 ( b ) is since @xmath13 is a random i.i.d .
complex normal vector , and the squared - normalized inner product @xmath118 is its angle from @xmath115 , a vector in the null space of @xmath119 . since these vectors are independent of @xmath13 , this angle is independent of the norm of @xmath13 ( c ) is since the distributions of the norms and angles are independent of @xmath3 , and since , by ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 3.2 ) , the angle has the same distribution as the minimum of @xmath109 independent uniform @xmath120 $ ] random variables ( i.e. , with cdf @xmath121 , @xmath122 ) ( d ) is the result of computing the expected norm of an i.i.d .
complex normal random vector , _ given that it is above a threshold which is exceeded by only @xmath5 out of @xmath2 norms on average_. the details are in corollary  [ coro : expected capacity above est by gev thr ] , section  [ sec : proofs ] .    substituting in , we have @xmath123 which completes the proof .
we now present a corresponding lower bound .
[ c zf uniform users lower ] the expected sum capacity of algorithm channel - access with zf decoding satisfies the following lower bound .
@xmath124 where @xmath88 is a threshold set such that @xmath5 users exceed it on average .
it is important to note that the integral in lemma  [ c zf uniform users lower ] above has a finite series expansion with @xmath0 summands .
this finite series has @xmath125 at the leading term , resulting in the expected scaling law .
we describe it in claim  [ claim .
integral result ] below , within the proof of the main result in this section - theorem  [ theorem : c zf uniform users - scaling ] .    following the derivations of the upper bound , we have @xmath126 \\ & \stackrel{(a)}{\ge } \sum_{j=1}^{r}\frac{k^{j}e^{-k}}{j ! }
\sum_{i=1}^{j } \text{e}\log\left(1 + p u_k \sum_{m=1}^{r - j+1 } \frac{\langle{\mathbf{v}}_i^{(m)},{\mathbf{h}}_i\rangle^2}{\arrowvert { \mathbf{h}}_i \arrowvert^2 \arrowvert { \mathbf{v}}^{(m)}_i \arrowvert^2 } \right ) \\ & \stackrel{(b)}{= } \sum_{j=1}^{r}\frac{k^{j}e^{-k}}{j!}j \text{e}\log\left(1 + p u_k \sum_{m=1}^{r - j+1 } \frac{\langle{\mathbf{v}}_{i'}^{(m)},{\mathbf{h}}_{i'}\rangle^2}{\arrowvert { \mathbf{h}}_{i ' } \arrowvert^2 \arrowvert { \mathbf{v}}^{(m)}_{i ' } \arrowvert^2 } \right ) \\ & \ge \sum_{j=1}^{r}\frac{k^{j}e^{-k}}{j ! }
j \text{e}\log\left(1 + p u_k   \frac{\langle{\mathbf{v}}_{i'}^{(1)},{\mathbf{h}}_{i'}\rangle^2}{\arrowvert { \mathbf{h}}_{i ' } \arrowvert^2 \arrowvert { \mathbf{v}}^{(1)}_{i'}\arrowvert^2 } \right ) \\ &
\stackrel{(c)}{= } \sum_{j=1}^{r}\frac{k^{j}e^{-k}}{j ! } j \int_{0}^{1}(r-1)(1-\alpha)^{r-2}\log\left(1+p u_k
\alpha\right ) d \alpha\end{aligned}\ ] ] where ( a ) is since the norms of _ all users participating _ are above the threshold @xmath88 ; ( b ) is since the angles in the inner sum are identically distributed and independent of @xmath16 , hence an arbitrary @xmath127 can be used ; ( c ) is by explicitly computing the expectation over the angle between @xmath13 and @xmath128 , remembering that it has a density @xmath129 for @xmath122 .
this completes the proof .
the results above lead to the following scaling law , which is the main result in this section .
it asserts that the scaling law of @xmath130 for the sum rate in a multi - user system can in fact _ be achieved distributively _ , without collecting all channel states from all users and scheduling them in a centralized manner .
in other words , the threshold based algorithm suggested selects an optimal _ set of users _
( asymptotically in the number of users ) distributively and without any cooperation .
this is summarized in the next theorem .
[ theorem : c zf uniform users - scaling ] the expected sum capacity of algorithm channel - access with zf decoding scales as @xmath131 for large enough number of users @xmath2 .    by lemma
[ c zf uniform users upper ] , @xmath132 on the other hand , consider the lower bound given in lemma  [ c zf uniform users lower ] .
since @xmath5 is a parameter to be optimized , the optimum is at least as large as when choosing @xmath133 .
we have @xmath134 where the last inequality is by evaluating the sum at @xmath135 .
note that larger values of @xmath0 give only slightly larger values , with a limit of @xmath136 as @xmath137 .
, calculated at @xmath109 . the limiting behavior can be found in @xcite . ]
now , consider the integral over @xmath138 in lemma  [ c zf uniform users lower ] . in section  [ sec :
proofs ] , we prove the following claim .
integral result ] the integral over @xmath138 in lemma  [ c zf uniform users lower ] has the following finite series expansion : @xmath139    this gives a finite series expansion for the integral , in terms of the power @xmath9 and the threshold @xmath140 .
for example , for @xmath141 we have @xmath142 thus , the integral can be easily approximated by @xmath143 .    since we consider the regime of large enough number of users @xmath2 , yet a finite number of antennas @xmath0 , we have @xmath144 and as a result @xmath145 .
in fact , since the distribution of the projected channel gain seen by a user in this decoding scheme is the exponential distribution with rate @xmath14 , it can be shown that @xmath146 ( we discuss the threshold value in detail in section  [ sec : thr est ] ) .
this gives rise to the @xmath147 scaling law .
it is well known that linear decorrelation is asymptotically optimal at high snr .
the suggested algorithms pick the users with the highest snr , accordingly , they operate at high snr and loose only a constant fraction of the optimal centralized scheduling scheme .
extensive simulations were conducted to compare the analytical bounds derived above to real world situations with a finite number of users . in figure
[ fig : mac_sim248 ] , we compare the bounds on the expected capacity of the threshold - based scheduling scheme under zf - receiver ( i.e. , lemma  [ c zf uniform users upper ] and lemma  [ c zf uniform users lower ] ) , to the simulation results .
the bounds and simulation are for @xmath68 users , with @xmath148 and @xmath149 receiving antennas at the bs .
the tightness of the upper bound is clearly visible . while the lower
bound is looser , it still gives the correct behaviour as a function of the number of users passing the threshold on average , @xmath5 .
indeed , it is clear from the figure that a key factor affecting the system performance is the number of users passing the threshold
. this distribution gives the graphs their poisson - like shape .    to see that the trend holds even for a relatively small number of users , figure  [
fig : mac_sim24830 ] includes the same plots for @xmath67 .
note that even for @xmath69 users the algorithm manages to achieve a significant rate ( compared , e.g. , to the one achieved with @xmath150 users ) .
this means the essence of the multi - user diversity is exploited by the algorithm even for a relatively small number of users .
note , however , that as @xmath0 approaches @xmath2 then the accuracy of the bounds decreases .
the results in figure  [ fig : mac_sim248 ] and figure  [ fig : mac_sim24830 ] give the expected sum capacity as a function of @xmath5 .
the capacity distribution , compared to different algorithms , will be given in the subsequent sections .    .
bars are simulation results , while the solid and dashed lines represent the upper and lower bounds , respectively .
the threshold @xmath88 is set such that @xmath5 users exceed it on average .
the green ( upper ) , red ( middle ) and blue ( lower ) lobes are for @xmath151 and @xmath70 receive antennas , respectively . note that the optimal @xmath5 is smaller than @xmath0 .
this is since it is better to aim at slightly less than @xmath0 users passing , as the performance deteriorates significantly for more than @xmath0 users transmitting concurrently . ]    .
bars are simulation results , while the solid and dashed lines represent the upper and lower bounds , respectively .
the threshold @xmath88 is set such that @xmath5 users exceed it on average .
the green ( upper ) , red ( middle ) and blue ( lower ) lobes are for @xmath151 and @xmath70 receive antennas , respectively .
note that the essence of the analysis holds for even a relatively small number of users as @xmath69 , as the bounds still depict the key elements affecting the performance . ]
in the previous section , only a single threshold was used , and a user s data was decoded by projecting the received signal on the null space of the sub - space spanned by the channels of the interfering users . while this algorithm managed to capture the key performance - enhancing aspects of the multi - user system , and achieve the optimal scaling laws distributively , better results can be expected for low to moderate number of users . in that regime , harnessing additional multiple access techniques and a more sophisticated thresholding algorithm can achieve better performance . in this section , we see that this is indeed so .    when using sic  ( * ? ? ?
* ch.6 ) , the decoder uses the decoded signal of a previous user to decode the next one ( by subtracting it from the received stream ) .
after @xmath109 iterations of sic , all data streams are decoded . with this in mind , we derive a second , iterative algorithm , to further utilizing the benefits of sic in a threshold based algorithm . at first glance , for large number of users , a _ set of thresholds _
@xmath152 should be chosen , such that in each iteration only a single user exceeds on average .
this way , one can adapt the thresholds set according to the users  admitted " thus far ( that is , users who already passed ) .
for example , one can set the next threshold based on the angles of the previously admitted users .
however , it is very likely that in some of the @xmath0 iterations , more than one user , or no user , will exceed the threshold . specifically , the probability that exactly one user will exceed in an iteration is approximately @xmath153 . yet ,
if a carrier sense , or collision detection mechanism is available , collisions can be resolved by allocating a few mini - slots devoted to finding the strongest user in each iteration  @xcite .
this gives rise to the following algorithm : after the strongest user is found , it begins its transmission by announcing its channel vector . in the @xmath154th iteration ,
the rest of the users project their channel vector on the orthonormal basis @xmath155 , which spans the null space of the channels vectors announced thus far .
now , the scheduled user for iteration @xmath154 is the one with the _
strongest projection_. the process ends when @xmath0 users are selected .
note that this involves announcements of the channel vectors only from the @xmath156 selected users .
the algorithm is described in figure  [ alg .
@xmath157 ; @xmath158    when a user projects its channel on @xmath159 , the resulting gain distribution follows the @xmath17-distribution with @xmath160 degrees of freedom @xcite .
that is , @xmath161 .
let @xmath162 be the channel with the strongest norm in iteration @xmath154 , i.e. , @xmath163 note that in practice , the bs _ does not have to search for the maximum above _ , but , instead , a threshold is set , only the strongest users pass , and one is selected using a collision resolution mechanism . utilizing the evt for the @xmath164-distribution , the norm @xmath165 can then be characterized .
we have the following .    [ prop : c uniform users sic ] for sufficiently large @xmath2 , the expected sum capacity of algorithm sic - channel - access with zf - sic decoding is given by : @xmath166 \nonumber , \label{eq : expected capacity sic}\ ] ] where @xmath167 is the channel vector of with the largest norm after the @xmath168 projection .    note that the above result assumes each transmitting user can adapt its transmission rate to be decoded successfully at the base station .
this is possible as each user _ knowns the channel vectors on the interfering users _ and his own channel vector , thus can calculate the snr the bs will experience when decoding .
furthermore , a splitting algorithm is used @xcite , hence the poisson coefficients can be omitted .    again , to evaluate the performance of proposition  [ prop : c uniform users sic ] , the distribution of @xmath169 should be examined .
we now derive upper and lower bounds to better evaluate the performance unders the suggested algorithm .
[ c sic uniform users upper ] the expected sum capacity of algorithm sic - channel - access with zf - sic decoding satisfies the following upper bound .
@xmath170 where @xmath171 are the normalizing constant given in  ( [ eqn : a_n normalized ] ) and ( [ eqn : b_n normalized ] ) respectively , and @xmath172 is the euler gamma constant .    note that @xmath173 ( as it converges to @xmath174 in equation ) , hence the same scaling law is achieved .    by jensen inequality ,
@xmath175 \nonumber\\ & \leq & \sum_{l=1}^{r } \log\big(1 + p \text{e } \left [   \arrowvert { \mathbf{h}}^{(l ) } \arrowvert^2 \right ] \big)\nonumber\\ & = &   \sum_{l=1}^{r } \log\big(1 + p \text{e } \left [   \max_{1\leq i\leq k}\vert { \mathbf{v}}^{(l-1)}{\mathbf{h}}_i \vert^2   \right ] \big).\nonumber \ ] ] to analyse the expectation some care is needed . without conditioning in the @xmath154-th iteration on the event that the remaining users did not come out ahead in the previous iterations ,
that is ,  allowing " all users to compete again , the norm @xmath176 follows @xmath177-distribution .
hence , by theorem  [ theorem .
evt ] , @xmath178 follows the gumbel distribution , with normalizing constants @xmath179 and @xmath180 given and , respectively .
however , when such a conditioning is applied , the expectation can only decrease , as the previous users are not allowed to participate .
thus , the expected maximal norm is upper bounded by the expected value of the gumbel distribution with the above parameters .
lemma  [ c sic uniform users upper ] then follows .
to bound the performance from below , we only derive probabilistic lower bound .
that is , a set of fixed relatively low threshold values are computed , such that in each iteration , we can guarantee that the norm of the strongest channel is greater than that value with high probability .
however , in order to attain a non - trivial bound , these values need to be as high as possible , yet , maintain the lower bound with high probability .
specifically , in each iteration , we chose a threshold value that is greater than the strongest norm with probability @xmath181 ( hence the probability that no user exceeds it is @xmath181 ) .
this corresponds to a threshold that @xmath182 users exceed it on average . nonetheless ,
depending on the strictness of the bound , a different threshold sets can be chosen .
accordingly , we have the following .
[ c sic uniform users lower ] the expected sum capacity of algorithm sic - channel - access with zf - sic decoding satisfies the following lower bound with high probability .
@xmath183 where @xmath184 is a threshold such that @xmath182 projected channel norms exceeds it on average , in iteration @xmath154 .
let us consider the probability that the no user exceeds the threshold @xmath184 on iteration @xmath154 .
this can be expressed as @xmath185 since @xmath186 is monotone , @xmath187 let @xmath188 , namely , the event in which the strongest channel in iteration @xmath154 is greater than threshold @xmath184 .
we have @xmath189 that is , the probability that at least one user exceeds the threshold in each iteration , is greater than @xmath190 . as a result , since each l.h.s . element is greater than threshold with high probability , we conclude that @xmath191 with high probability
consequently , @xmath192 \geq \sum_{l=1}^r \log(1+u_{\log k}^{(l)}).\ ] ]    note that the sic scheme above achieves the same scaling law as the former linear decorrelation scheme ( clearly , one can not do better asymptotically ) , yet , it also achieves higher power gain , i.e. , there is a boost in performance since the effective snr is increasing in each iteration .
this is clearly seen in the simulations below , where the results are clearly better for the finite population we tested .
specifically , figure  [ fig : mac_distributions4 ] depicts the gain of multi - user scheduling with and without sic , and compares it to scheduling schemes which schedule a single user at a time .
receiving antennas and @xmath68 users , each with a single transmitting antenna .
green ( left ) : a single arbitrary user is scheduled ( approximately gaussian ) .
yellow ( second left ) : the strongest user is scheduled ( approximately gumbel ) .
pink ( second right ) : a group of 4 strongest users are scheduled , with zf receiver .
blue ( right ) : a group of 4 users are scheduled , with the suggested multi - threshold algorithm and zf - sic receiver . ]
note that the capacity distribution in each iteration under sic can be approximated by the gumbel distribution .
further , the sum - capacity distribution under sic is also approximated by the gumbel distribution , since the gumbel distribution is infinitely divisible  @xcite .
this is also consistent with figure  [ fig : mac_distributions ] , which zooms in on the comparison between the capacity distributions : when the receiver uses zf versus zf - sic to decode the data streams .
receiving antennas and @xmath68 users , each with a single transmitting antenna .
the left ( pink ) lobe depicts the capacity when a group of @xmath141 users are scheduled , and the receiver demodulates the data streams by null forcing ( all users are above a threshold , according to the algorithm in section  [ sec .
dist alg ] ) .
the right ( blue ) lobe depicts the capacity when a group of @xmath141 users are scheduled ( using the multi - threshold algorithm ) , and the receiver demodulates the data streams using sic . ]    note that in the suggested sic algorithm , the users are naturally ordered from the strongest to the @xmath154-strongest user .
hence , to improve the sum capacity , one might devise a distributed water - filling algorithm ( e.g. @xcite ) , such that each user will invest a power amount proportional to its order .
the zf receiver discussed thus far is on the one hand simple enough to facilitate rigorous analysis , yet , as shown in the previous sections , powerful enough in the sense that with intelligent user selection ( in this paper , distributed ) can achieve the optimal scaling laws .
still , this is not the optimal linear receiver . in this section ,
we explore the scaling laws of the expected capacity of the mmse receiver .
as mentioned , in this case we let @xmath83 denote a matrix whose columns are the channel vectors of the _ transmitting users_. that is , when using the channel - access algorithm , vectors with norm greater than the threshold .
@xmath84 is the matrix @xmath83 with its @xmath82 column removed . under these definitions ,
the sinr seen at the @xmath16th stream was given in .
let @xmath193 denote the set of channels with norm greater than a threshold .
then , the expected capacity under the threshold based scheduling algorithm in section  [ sec .
dist alg ] is as follows .
[ c mmse uniform users][prop .
c mmse ] for @xmath1 , the expected sum capacity with mmse decoding is @xmath194 = & \sum_{j=1}^{r}\frac{k^{j}e^{-k}}{j ! } \sum_{i=1}^j \text{e}\left[\left.\log\left(1 + p { \mathbf{h}}_i^{\dagger}{\mathbf{r}}{\mathbf{h}}_i \right)\right| \vert { \mathbf{h}}_s \vert^2 > u_k , \forall s \in \mathcal{s } \right ] + o\left(\frac{\log \log k}{k}\right)\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath88 is the threshold set such that @xmath5 users exceed it on average .
this expected capacity should be optimized over @xmath5 .
the proof is similar to the zf setting .
the only change is in the snr seen by the users , as reflected by the term within the @xmath195 .
when zf decoding was used , the effective snr seen by a user was @xmath196 .
as the matrix @xmath99 is unitary , it is clear why scaling up @xmath13 resulted in scaling up the snr . in the mmse case
, however , the analysis is intricate .
the snr is @xmath197 . while @xmath13 scales up
, @xmath198 may appear to scale down as the eigenvalues of @xmath199 scale up .
however , note that @xmath199 is not full rank , hence has at least one zero eigenvalue . as a result
, @xmath200 has at least one eigenvalue which does not scale down .    to evaluate the expected capacity in propositions  [ prop .
c mmse ] , the characteristics of the random variables @xmath201 should be understood , especially when the number of transmitting users is random .
further , the influence of the norms @xmath202 on @xmath201 should be evaluated .
the key technical challenge , however , is due to the norm condition _ inducing dependence on the matrix elements _ , hence the random matrix theory usually used in the mimo literature does not hold .
part of the contribution in this section , is by bringing new tools to tackle this problem .
note that in this section , regular type letters represent random variables as well as scalar variables .
the difference will be clear from the context .
as a first tool to handle the dependence within the matrix entries , we start with the following claim :    [ claim . entries var of above thr vec ] assume the norms @xmath203 are above a given threshold @xmath88 . then the following properties hold :    * the entries of the channel vector remain zero mean .
* the variance of each entry in the vector scales . in particular , is equals to @xmath204 = ( u_k + a_{\{k , r\}})/r . \ ] ] * the vector elements remain uncorrelated in pairs .
note that , to begin with , the entries of @xmath83 are i.i.d .
the claim states that conditioned on exceeding a threshold , while not i.i.d .
, they sustain the zero correlation . this property will be useful throughout the remainder of this paper .
the proof of claim  [ claim .
entries var of above thr vec ] is deferred to section  [ sec : proofs ] .
now we are ready to derive the scaling - law of the mmse receiver , using the following upper and lower bounds on the threshold based expected capacity .
c mmse upper ] the expected sum capacity of algorithm channel - access with mmse decoding satisfies the following upper bound .
@xmath205 \leq \sum_{j=1}^{r}\frac{k^{j}e^{-k}}{j ! } j \\ \log\left(1 + p\bigg ( 1 - \frac{(j-1 ) u_k^2}{r\left((1+\frac{j}{r})(u_k + a_{\{k , r\}})^2 + a_{\{k , r\ } } ( a_{\{k , r\}}+1)+ u_k\right)}\bigg ) ( u_k + a_{\{k , r\ } } )   \right ) . \ ] ] where @xmath103 is given by ( [ eqn : a_n normalized ] ) and @xmath88 is the threshold set such that @xmath5 users exceed it on average .
before we prove the lemma , it is interesting to compare the scaling law under mmse decoding to that achieved with zf decoding . in both lemma  [ c zf uniform users upper ] and lemma  [ lem .
c mmse upper ] , the capacity seen by each user is approximately @xmath206 , for some constant @xmath207 .
asymptotically , it follows that @xmath208 , and in both cases , the capacity gain comes from the threshold value @xmath88 , which is , as mentioned , @xmath209 .
this gives the growth rate of @xmath210 per user .
however , note that while @xmath211 in lemma  [ c zf uniform users upper ] , for large enough @xmath88 the gain in lemma  [ lem .
c mmse upper ] is asymptotically @xmath212 , that is , a larger gain for any @xmath213 .
this is not surprising , as an mmse decoder does give a better power gain , but does not improve the already optimal scaling law .    the capacity seen by user @xmath16
is bounded by :    [ eq : mmse upper bound ] [ c_i ( u_k ) ] & ( 1 + p ) + & ( 1 + p ) + & ( 1 + p _
n=1^r_m=1^r ) + & ( 1 + p _
n=1^r ) + & ( 1 + p )    in the above chain of equalities , ( a ) follows from jensen inequality .
( b ) is the equivalent quadric form of @xmath214 .
( c ) is since the vector @xmath13 is independent in the column vectors of the matrix @xmath200 .
( d ) is since by claim  [ claim .
entries var of above thr vec ] part ( iii ) , the elements of the vector @xmath13 are uncorrelated .
( e ) follows from claim  [ claim .
entries var of above thr vec ] part ( ii ) .
now , to address @xmath215 , conditioned on @xmath216 , we first use the following upper bound on the trace of the inverse of a matrix . for a symmetric @xmath217 positive definite matrix a @xcite , @xmath218 where @xmath219 is the smallest eigenvalue of the matrix @xmath220 . in our case , take @xmath221 . to obtain @xmath222 , we recall that @xmath223 and that @xmath224 is an @xmath217 matrix with rank @xmath110 , with @xmath225 , thus , by the eigenvalues decomposition theorem , @xmath224 has @xmath114 of its eigenvalues
equal to zero .
hence , the smallest eigenvalue of @xmath226 is @xmath227 .
thus , using ( [ eq : trace inequality ] ) , it follows that @xmath228 - \text{tr}^2\left({\mathbf{r}}^{-1}\right ) -
r^2}{\text{tr}\left({\mathbf{r}}^{-\dagger}{\mathbf{r}}^{-1}\right ) - \text{tr}\left({\mathbf{r}}^{-1}\right)}\\ & = & \frac{r\left[\text{tr}\left({\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger } { \mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger}\right ) + \text{tr}\left({\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger}\right ) \right ] - \text{tr}^2\left({\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger}\right)}{\text{tr}\left({\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger } { \mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger}\right ) + \text{tr}\left({\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger}\right)}\\ & = & r - \frac{\text{tr}^2\left({\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}\right)}{\text{tr}\left({\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger } { \mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}\right ) + \text{tr}\left({\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}^{\dagger}{\mathbf{h}}_{(-i)}\right)}. \label{eq : inverse trace bound}\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that the expression in  ( [ eq : mmse upper bound ] ) had a power loss of factor @xmath0 , that is , @xmath9 is divided by @xmath0 .
however , it is multiplied by @xmath229 $ ] . in the last equality above
we actually see that in this multiplication we gain back a factor of the form @xmath230 .
this suggests that the mmse decoder is superior to the zf decoder in terms of power gain , as the expression in the zf decoder performance does not have this multiplicative factor ( this in consistent with , e.g. , @xcite ) .
we will later evaluate the value of @xmath231 explicitly .
furthermore , note that @xmath232 is actually the squared frobenius norm of @xmath226 , which is equal to the sum of squares of it entries .
thus , we have ,    & & + & r - & + & = r - & + & = r - &    where @xmath233 is the squared inner product .
note that the numerator inside the expectation is at least @xmath234 .
thus ,    & & + & r + &    now , we have a concave function of the form @xmath235 inside the expectation . accordingly , using jensen inequality for concave functions , we obtain that    & & + & r - ( j-1)^2 u_k^2 ( ) ^-1 & + & = r - ( j-1)^2 u_k^2 ( _ ^j . & + & + 2_^j_^j & + & + . _ ^j)^-1 & +    where the last equality follows from the linearity of the expectation and since @xmath236 , which is the angle between two independent vectors , @xmath237 and @xmath238 , is independent of the vectors norms .
moreover , we can now remove the conditioning on the norm when taking the expectation of the angle .
accordingly , an upper bound can be evaluated by computing the expectations in the denominator as follows .
& r - ( j-1)^2 u_k^2 ( _ ^j . & + & + 2_^j_^j & + & + . _ ^j)^-1 & + & r - ( j-1)^2 u_k^2 & + & ( ( j-1)(u_k^2 + 2a_\{k , r}u_k + 2a_\{k , r}^2 ) + j(j-1 ) ( u_k + a_\{k , r})^2 + ( j-1)(u_k + a_\{k , r } ) ) ^-1 & + & = r - ,    where ( a ) follows since the limit distribution of the channel norm tail is exponentially distributed with rate parameter @xmath239 given that it is above high threshold .
namely , @xmath240 , @xcite .
thus , @xmath241 $ ] can be interpreted as a second moment of exponential random variable .
similar to section  [ sec .
dist alg ] , by ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 3.2 ) , the angle has the same distribution as that of the minimum of @xmath109 independent uniform @xmath120 $ ] random variables ( i.e. , with cdf @xmath121 , @xmath122 ) .
the expectations of the norms , again , follow from the evt .
details are in corollary  [ coro : expected capacity above est by gev thr ] , section  [ sec : proofs ] .      to completely characterize the performance of the suggested threshold - based algorithm under mmse decoding
, we proceed to derive a corresponding lower bound . to this end
, the following claims will be useful .
the proofs are deferred to section [ sec : proofs ] .
r is unitarily invariant ] let @xmath83 be a complex gaussian matrix with i.i.d .  entries .
then ,    * @xmath242 is unitary invariant .
in particular , @xmath200 can be decomposed as @xmath243 , where @xmath244 is a unitary matrix , independent of the diagonal matrix @xmath245 . * the property above holds conditioned on all norms of the columns @xmath13 of @xmath83 being above a threshold @xmath140 . in particular , conditioned on @xmath246 , @xmath247 and @xmath13 have the same distribution .
lower bound on upper gamma s geq 2 ] for @xmath248 , we have @xmath249 .
lower bound on expectation ] let @xmath250 and let @xmath251 , independent of @xmath252 , for some integer @xmath253 .
then , @xmath254   >   \left(\frac{\gamma(r ) \gamma(r - j+1,u/2)}{\gamma(r , u/2)\gamma(r - j+1 ) } + \frac{e^{-u/2}u^{r-1}}{2^{r-1}\gamma(r , u/2)}\right)\log(u ) \\      \quad \quad   + \frac{e^{-u/2}u^{r-1}}{2^{r-1}\gamma(r , u/2 ) } \left ( \psi(r - j+1 ) - \psi(r )
\right ) + e \frac{\gamma(r ) \gamma(r - j,1+u/2)}{\gamma(r , u/2)\gamma(r - j+1 ) } , \ ] ] where @xmath255 is the digamma function .    to understand claim [ claim .
lower bound on expectation ] , note that @xmath256 .
hence , it is not hard to show that @xmath257 moreover , using claim [ claim .
lower bound on upper gamma s geq 2 ] above , one can also show that @xmath258 hence , the importance of claim [ claim .
lower bound on expectation ] is in showing that @xmath259=\theta(\log u_k)$ ] .
similar to the upper bound , since @xmath145 , the scaling law of @xmath260 will result . to conclude , a lower bound on the performance of our threshold - based algorithm with mmse receiver is as follows . for simplicity of the presentation
, we assume @xmath261 .
c mmse lower ] for sufficiently large @xmath2 , the expected sum capacity under the threshold - based algorithm and mmse decoding satisfies the following lower bound .
@xmath205       > \sum_{j=2}^{r}\frac{k^{j}e^{-k}}{j ! }
j \left[\left(\frac{\gamma(r ) \gamma(r - j+1,u_k/2)}{\gamma(r , u_k/2)\gamma(r - j+1 ) } + e^{-u_k/2}\frac{u_k^{r-1}}{2^{r-1}\gamma(r , u_k/2)}\right)\log(u_k ) \right .
\\      \quad \quad \left .
+ e^{-u_k/2}\frac{u_k^{r-1}}{2^{r-1}\gamma(r , u_k/2 ) } \left ( \psi(r - j+1 ) - \psi(r ) \right ) + e \frac{\gamma(r ) \gamma(r - j,1+u_k/2)}{\gamma(r , u_k/2)\gamma(r - j+1 ) } \right].\end{gathered}\ ] ]    we assume @xmath253 users begin their transmission simultaneously and let @xmath193 denote the set of channels with norm greater than threshold .
note that when only one user passed the threshold , while its capacity is easy to compute , as it is the single - user miso capacity , within this bound it is negligible as it is multiplied by the probability ( under the poisson distribution ) that only one user passed the threshold .
hence , it is omitted for simplicity .    in this case , the capacity of stream @xmath16 under mmse receiver satisfies the following lower bound .
[ c_i ( u_k ) ] & = & + & & + & & + & & + & & + & & + & = &    in the above chain of inequalities , ( a ) is since by claim [ claim .
r is unitarily invariant ] , there is a unitary matrix @xmath244 such that @xmath262 with @xmath263 . as a result
, we have the following quadric form : @xmath264 ( b ) is since the eigenvalues of @xmath200 are the reciprocals of those of @xmath226 .
( c ) and ( d ) follow since , first , the dimensions of @xmath224 is @xmath217 and its rank is @xmath110 .
thus , @xmath114 of the eigenvalues of @xmath226 ( corresponding to the zero eigenvalues of @xmath224 ) are equal to one .
then , as @xmath224 is positive semidefinite , the non - zero eigenvalues are non negative .
in fact , the eigenvalues of @xmath265 which are not unity , are relatively large as all columns of @xmath83 are above a threshold .
( e ) is by claim [ claim .
r is unitarily invariant ] ( ii ) .
now , setting @xmath266 and @xmath267 , claim  [ claim .
lower bound on expectation ] completes the proof .    in figure
[ fig : mmse_sim ] we simulate the expected capacity of the threshold - based scheduling scheme , with mmse - receiver and compare the simulation results to the upper and lower capacity bounds given in lemma  [ lem .
c mmse upper ] and lemma  [ lem .
c mmse lower ] , respectively .    in figure
[ fig : zflower_vs_mmselower ] we compare the mmse receiver lower bound ( dot - dashed line ) and the zf receiver lower bound ( dashed line ) .
as expected the mmse achieves better performance when the threshold is lower , which corresponds to a lower snr , and further , to a lower idle slot probability . on the other hand , as the threshold gets higher , which translates to high snr , the zf yields same results as mmse . from this observation ,
since the mmse receiver requires lower threshold to achieve higher sum - rate , we comprehend that the mmse receiver is preferable to the zf receiver , both in terms of sum - rate and idle slot probability , yet , still has a linear decoding complexity .    .
the threshold @xmath88 is set such that @xmath5 users exceed it on average .
bars are the capacity under the threshold based scheme simulation results under mmse receiver , while the solid and dashed lines represent the upper and lower bounds , respectively .
the orange ( upper ) , green ( 2nd from above ) , red ( 3rd from above ) and blue ( lower ) lobes are for @xmath268 and @xmath70 receive antennas , respectively .
note that the optimal @xmath5 is smaller than @xmath0 . ]     and @xmath70 receive antennas , respectively
. note that since one should choose @xmath5 for best results , the mmse lower bound predicts better results , achieved for a smaller @xmath5 per @xmath0 ( the number of receive antennas ) . ]
the methods discussed in the previous sections are based on a common baseline procedure .
first , given that the norm threshold was exceeded , we wish to get a handle on the capacity distribution .
then , we wish to express the rate at which users exceed the threshold , in order to understand how likely is that a given number of users exceed a certain threshold . finally , a threshold is estimated .
this threshold is set according to the fraction of users which are required to exceed it on average . in this paper ,
the threshold is set on the channel vector norm , either directly or after projecting it on the null - space of the already chosen users .
note that we used a similar approach to analyze the expected rate , when the channel capacity is approximately gaussian in  @xcite . in this section ,
we discuss the following problems directly for the problem at hand .
once a threshold is set , it is important to evaluate both the distribution of the number of users which exceed it as well as the conditional distribution of the norm given that the threshold was exceeded .
herein , we utilize the point process approximation @xcite and its specific usage for threshold arrival rates in the _ single user case _ @xcite in order to derive these distributions for the problem at hand .
assume that @xmath269 is a sequence of i.i.d .
random variables with a distribution function @xmath27 , such that @xmath27 is in the domain of attraction of some gev distribution g , with normalizing constants @xmath270 and @xmath30 .
we construct a sequence of points @xmath271 on @xmath120 \times { \mathbb{r}}$ ] by @xmath272 and examine the limit process , as @xmath273 .
consider @xmath274 on the set @xmath120 \times ( b_l + \epsilon , \infty)$ ] , where @xmath275 .
by @xcite , @xmath276 , where @xmath9 is a non - homogeneous poisson process with intensity density @xmath277 .
@xmath56 is the sample value , and @xmath278 is the index of occurrence . in fact , in the i.i.d .
case , the process intensity density @xmath279 is independent of @xmath278 .
let @xmath280 be the expected number of points in the set @xmath281 .
@xmath280 can be obtained by integrating the intensity of the poisson process over @xmath281 , that is @xmath282 .
as we are interested in sets of the form @xmath283 \times ( v,\infty)$ ] , where @xmath284 ( threshold exceedance ) , we have @xmath285 , where @xmath286 denotes @xmath287 ( e.g. , @xcite ) . that is , the number of users whose channel norms exceed a threshold can be modeled by a poisson process , with parameter @xmath288 .
note that for @xmath289 , as in the case of the @xmath17 distribution , we have @xmath290 , hence setting a threshold @xmath291 results in a per - user arrival rate of @xmath292 , and , as a result , a total arrival rate of @xmath5 .    to compute the conditional distribution , we proceed similar to  @xcite . for
any fixed @xmath293 , let @xmath294 , and let @xmath295
. then @xmath296^{-1/\xi}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath297 and @xmath298 are the corresponding excess value @xmath299 at index @xmath278 , and the corresponding excess value at time @xmath278 in the limit process , respectively .
namely , the result is a generalized pareto distribution , @xmath300 .
note that for the @xmath17 distribution , @xmath301 , and we have @xmath302 for all @xmath303 .
that is , the tail distribution can be approximated using an exponential distribution with rate @xmath304 . as a result , taking the expected value ,
we obtain the following corollary .
[ coro : expected capacity above est by gev thr ] given a random complex gaussian vector , and a threshold such that @xmath5 users out of @xmath2 exceed it on average , then @xmath305 = u_k + a_{\{k , r\}},\ ] ] where @xmath103 is given in .
let @xmath88 be a threshold such that only the @xmath5 users with the strongest channel norm @xmath306 will exceed it on average .
since @xmath306 follows @xmath42 distribution , @xmath88 can be easily estimated using the inverse - gamma function .
that is , @xmath307 note , however , that the expression above does not give any intuition on the actual threshold value , or , more importantly , how it scales with @xmath2 for fixed @xmath5 .
yet , note that the threshold @xmath88 is closely related to the normalizing constant @xmath308 , since both aim to capture the last quantiles of the ancestor distribution .
the exact relation can be obtain using the point process approximation .
specifically , the exceedance rate for the @xmath17-distribution is @xmath309 accordingly , choosing @xmath310 gives a rate of @xmath5 in total .
thus , letting @xmath103 and @xmath308 to be set according to and , respectively , @xmath88 is set .
now , to see the scaling law , note that @xmath308 in converges to @xmath174 in ( [ eqn : b_n normalized slow ] ) , hence @xmath311 .
figure [ fig : convergence of b ] depicts the above convergence result .     in and the value in ( [ eqn : b_n normalized slow ] ) .
the curves are plotted for @xmath268 and @xmath70 , top to bottom . ]
we wish to solve the following definite integral : @xmath312 we first make the substitution @xmath313 . as a result , we obtain the following integral : @xmath314 now , using integration by parts , we have @xmath315 first , note that @xmath316 now , performing a polynomial long division , the term inside the integral can be expressed as @xmath317 finally , we exchange the integration with the ( finite ) summation , then integrate each term in the sum according to @xmath318 .
we have : @xmath319 thus , claim  [ claim .
integral result ] follows .
it can be shown by the total law of expectation , that the entries of the channel vector remain zero , given that the channel norm is greater than a threshold , as follows .
@xmath320 & = & \text{e}\left [ h_{i , n }   \big| \sum_{n=1}^r \vert h_{i , n } \vert^2 > u_k\right]\\   & = & \text{e}\left[\left . \text{e}\left
[ h_{i , n }   \big| \sum_{n=1}^r \vert h_{i , n } \vert^2 > u_k , \sum_{\substack{m=1 , \\ m\neq n}}^r \vert h_{i , m } \vert^2 = \tilde{u } \right]\right| \sum_{n=1}^r \vert h_{i , n } \vert^2 > u_k    \right]\\   & = & \text{e}\left[\left . \underbrace{\text{e}\left
[ h_{i , n }   \big|   \vert h_{i , n } \vert^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right]}_{(\ast)}\right| \sum_{n=1}^r \vert h_{i , n } \vert^2 >
u_k    \right ] \ ] ] since @xmath321 is complex gaussian random variable , the inner expectation @xmath322 can be decomposed to a real and an imaginary part as @xmath323&= & \text{e}\left [ a + i b   \big|   a^2+b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right]\\ & = & \text{e}\left [ a \big|   a^2+b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right]+ i \text{e}\left [ b   \big|   a^2+b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right]\\ \ ] ] to ease notation , let us denote @xmath324 .
focusing on the real part , we use the total expectation law again to obtain : @xmath325 & = & \text{e}\left[\left .
\text{e}\left[a \big| a^2 > u_k -\tilde{u } - b^2 , b^2\right ] \right| a^2 + b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right]\\ & = & \text{e}\left[\left .
\text{e}\left[a \big| \vert a \vert > \tilde{\tilde{u } } , b^2\right ] \right| a^2 + b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right]\\ & = & \text{e}\left[\left.\underbrace{\text{e}\left[sign(a ) \vert a \vert \big| \vert a \vert > \tilde{\tilde{u } } , b^2\right ] } _ { ( \ast \ast ) } \right| a^2 + b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right ] . \ ] ] now , we show that the sign of @xmath326 is independent of the amplitude @xmath327 and @xmath328 .
@xmath329 thus , the sign of @xmath326 , the amplitude @xmath327 and @xmath328 are independent .
consequently , the inner expectation @xmath330 is equal to : @xmath331&= & \text{e}\left[sign(a)\right]\text{e}\left [ \vert a \vert \big| \vert a \vert > \tilde{\tilde{u } } , b^2\right]\\ & = & 0 . \ ] ] from symmetry , same result can be obtained for the imaginary part .
thus , the vectors are still zero mean vectors .    however , the variance of the vector entries increase , given that the vector norm is greater than a threshold .
remember , by evt @xcite , the tail is exponentially distributed with rate parameter @xmath239 .
thus , it follows that @xmath332 \\ & \stackrel{(b)}{= } & \sum_{n=1}^r \text{e}\left[\left .
\vert h_{i , n } \vert^2\right| \vert { \mathbf{h}}_i \vert^2 >
u_k \right ] \\ & \stackrel{(c)}{= } & r \text{e}\left[\left .
\vert h_{i , n } \vert^2\right| \vert { \mathbf{h}}_i \vert^2 > u_k \right ] \label{eq : element conditional expectation}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where ( a ) is the result of computing the expected norm of an i.i.d .
complex normal random vector , given that it exceeded a threshold @xmath88 .
( b ) follows from the linearity of expectation operator .
( c ) is since the elements of @xmath13 are identically distributed .
we point out that choosing vectors with norm greater than a threshold increase the variance of the entries to @xmath333 .
similar to the entries conditional expectation , it can be shown that the matrix entries are still uncorrelated in pairs .
namely , @xmath334&\\   & = \text{e}\left [ h_{i , n}^{\ast}h_{i , m }   \big| \sum_{n=1}^r \vert h_{i , n } \vert^2 > u_k\right]&\\   & = \text{e}\left[\left . \text{e}\left [ h_{i , n}^{\ast}h_{i , m }   \big| \sum_{n=1}^r \vert h_{i , n } \vert^2 > u_k ,
\sum_{\substack{m=1 \\m\neq n}}^r \vert h_{i , m } \vert^2 = \tilde{u } \right]\right| \sum_{n=1}^r \vert h_{i , n } \vert^2 > u_k    \right]&\\   & = \text{e}\left[\left .
\underbrace{\text{e}\left [ h_{i , n}^{\ast}h_{i , m }   \big|   \vert h_{i , n } \vert^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right]}_{(\tilde{\ast})}\right| \sum_{n=1}^r \vert h_{i , n } \vert^2 > u_k    \right ] &   \ ] ] similar to the method above , we decompose @xmath335 to its real and imaginary part .
thus , the inner expectation @xmath336 is @xmath337&\\    & = \text{e}\left [ a h_{i , m } - i b h_{i , m }   \big|   a^2 + b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right]&\\    & = \text{e}\left [ a h_{i , m } \big|   a^2 + b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right]- i \text{e}\left [ b h_{i , m } \big|    a^2 + b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u } \right ] & \ ] ] using the total expectation law on the real part of the expectation , we have @xmath338&\\ & = \text{e}\left[\left .
\text{e}\left [ a h_{i , m } \big|   a^2   > u_k - \tilde{u } - b^2 , b^2 \right ]
\right|    a^2 + b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u }   \right]&\\ & = \text{e}\left[\left . \underbrace{\text{e}\left
[ sign(a ) \vert a \vert h_{i , m } \big|   \vert a \vert   > \tilde{\tilde{u } } , b^2 \right]}_{(\tilde{\ast \ast } ) } \right|    a^2 + b^2 > u_k - \tilde{u }   \right ] . & \ ] ] now , similar to the above method , let us show that the sign of @xmath326 is independent of @xmath327 and @xmath339 .
@xmath340 thus , the inner expectation @xmath341 can be expressed as @xmath342&= & \text{e}\left[sign(a)\right]\text{e}\left [ \vert a \vert h_{i , m } \big| \vert a \vert >
\tilde{\tilde{u } } , b^2\right]\\ & = & 0 . \ ] ] from symmetry , same result can be obtained for the imaginary part .
thus , given that the norm is greater than a threshold , the vector entries sill are uncorrelated .
thus , claim  [ claim .
entries var of above thr vec ] follows .
a hermitian random matrix is unitary invariant if the joint distribution of its entries does not change under unitary transformation , namely , @xmath343 for any unitary matrix @xmath344 .
it is well known that a gaussian matrix is unitary invariant ( e.g. , @xcite ) .
it is not hard to see that @xmath345 .
that is , the wishart matrix is also unitary invariant .
similarly , as @xmath346 , @xmath347 .    since @xmath348 is unitary invariant , by ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 2.6 ) , there is a decomposition such that @xmath349 , @xmath244 being unitary and independent of @xmath350 , hence @xmath351 and part ( i ) follows with @xmath352 .
note that if we are only interested in the decomposition , and the independence between the unitary matrix and the eigenvalues is not required ( as is the case in the lower bound below ) , the proof is simpler since @xmath200 is hermitian .    for part ( ii ) , note that if @xmath353 , then @xmath354 .
this is since the unitary transform does not change the vector norm , hence the set of instances @xmath355 with @xmath356 is the same as those with @xmath357 .
the rest follows in the same manner .
first , note that , @xmath358,\ ] ] where @xmath359 .    accordingly , since @xmath360 is convex in @xmath278 for the corresponding @xmath361 , we apply jensen s inequality to the r.h.s .  and note that @xmath362 = 1 $ ] , proving the bound .
we wish to bound the following expectation , when @xmath250 and @xmath251 , independent of @xmath252 : @xmath363       = \frac{1}{\pr\left({\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{y}}>u\right ) } \\ \left[\int_{x=0}^{u } \int_{y = u - x}^{\infty}\log(1+x)f_{{\mathbf{x}}}(x ) f_{{\mathbf{y}}}(y ) dy dx + \int_{x = u}^{\infty } \int_{y=0}^{\infty}\log(1+x)f_{{\mathbf{x}}}(x ) f_{{\mathbf{y}}}(y)dy dx \right].\end{gathered}\ ] ] performing integration on @xmath364 , we have the following .    [ eq .
mmse lower bound ] & e[(1+x)|+ > u ] & + & = &    where @xmath365 is the upper incomplete gamma function .
further , note that the complement cdf of the @xmath366-distribution is @xmath367 .
accordingly , to evaluate ( [ eq .
mmse lower bound ] ) , we need to evaluate both @xmath368 and @xmath369 .
we begin with integration by parts on @xmath368 , where the anti - derivative is @xmath370 .
we have @xmath371 where the last equality follows since @xmath372 .
now , to bound the above expression , we restrict our attention to @xmath253 .
since @xmath373 , utilizing claim  [ claim .
lower bound on upper gamma s geq 2 ] , we have @xmath374    next , let us address @xmath369 .
again , using claim  [ claim .
lower bound on upper gamma s geq 2 ] , we have @xmath375 let @xmath376 .
accordingly , we have @xmath377\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath378 is the beta function .
note that while @xmath379 as @xmath380 , the integral converges as this is the mean of @xmath381 when @xmath382 has a beta distribution .
accordingly , we have @xmath383.\ ] ] to complete the proof , remember that @xmath384 .
thus , we have @xmath385      > \frac{\gamma(r)}{\gamma(r , u/2)}\bigg(\frac{e^{-u/2 } u^{r-1}}{2^{r-1 } \gamma(r ) } \left[\log ( u ) + \psi(r - j+1 ) - \psi(r ) \right ] \\ + \frac{\gamma(r - j+1,u/2)}{\gamma(r - j+1 ) } \log(1+u ) + e\frac{\gamma(r - j,1+u/2)}{\gamma(r - j+1 ) } \bigg ) .      \end{gathered}\ ] ]
in this paper , we suggested a distributed multiuser scheduling algorithm which utilizes the multiuser diversity and achieves the optimal capacity scaling laws ( for large number of users ) . specifically , we offered threshold - based algorithms , and characterized the scaling law of the expected capacity under linear decoding , e.g. , zf , zf - sic and mmse . to support the results , we provided both tractable analysis which gave insightful results as well as simulations which showed tightness even for moderate number of users .
we concluded that the distributed algorithm achieves the optimal scaling laws , i.e. , @xmath386 .
li , ping and paul , debashis and narasimhan , ravi and cioffi , john , `` on the distribution of sinr for the mmse mimo receiver and performance analysis , '' in _ information theory , ieee transactions on _ , vol  52 , 2006 , pp . 271286 .
j.  kim , s.  park , j.  lee , j.  lee , and h.  jung , `` a scheduling algorithm combined with zero - forcing beamforming for a multiuser mimo wireless system , '' in _ ieee vehicular technology conference _ , vol .  1 , 2005 , pp . 211215 .
m.  airy , s.  shakkattai , and r.  heath  jr , `` spatially greedy scheduling in multi - user mimo wireless systems , '' in _ the thirty - seventh asilomar conference on signals , systems and computers _ , vol .
1.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emieee , 2003 , pp .
982986 .    c.  swannack , e.  uysal - biyikoglu , and g.  wornell , `` low complexity multiuser scheduling for maximizing throughput in the mimo broadcast channel , '' in _ proc .
allerton conf .
communications , control and computing _ , 2004 .
g.  primolevo , o.  simeone , and u.  spagnolini , `` channel aware scheduling for broadcast mimo systems with orthogonal linear precoding and fairness constraints , '' in _ ieee international conference on communications _ , vol .  4 , 2005 , pp .
27492753 .
t.  yoo , n.  jindal , and a.  goldsmith , `` finite - rate feedback mimo broadcast channels with a large number of users , '' in _ information theory , 2006 ieee international symposium on_.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em ieee , 2006 , pp .
12141218 .
t.  yoo and a.  goldsmith , `` on the optimality of multiantenna broadcast scheduling using zero - forcing beamforming , '' _ selected areas in communications , ieee journal on _ , vol .  24 , no .  3 , pp .
528541 , 2006 .
h.  weingarten , y.  steinberg , and s.  shamai , `` the capacity region of the gaussian multiple - input multiple - output broadcast channel , '' _ information theory , ieee transactions on _ , vol .
52 , no .
39363964 , 2006 .
z.  shen , r.  chen , j.  andrews , r.  heath , and b.  evans , `` low complexity user selection algorithms for multiuser mimo systems with block diagonalization , '' _ signal processing , ieee transactions on _ , vol .
54 , no .  9 , pp . 36583663 , 2006 .
k.  jagannathan , s.  borst , p.  whiting , and e.  modiano , `` efficient scheduling of multi - user multi - antenna systems , '' in _ modeling and optimization in mobile , ad hoc and wireless networks , 2006 4th international symposium on_.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emieee , 2006 , pp .
x.  qin and r.  berry , `` exploiting multiuser diversity for medium access control in wireless networks , '' in _
infocom 2003 .
twenty - second annual joint conference of the ieee computer and communications .
ieee societies _ , vol .
2.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emieee , 2003 , pp .
10841094 .
k.  bai and j.  zhang , `` opportunistic multichannel aloha : distributed multiaccess control scheme for ofdma wireless networks , '' _ vehicular technology , ieee transactions on _ , vol .
55 , no .  3 , pp .
848855 , 2006 .
j.  kampeas , a.  cohen , and o.  gurewitz , `` capacity of distributed opportunistic scheduling in heterogeneous networks , '' in _ proceedings of the annual allerton conference on communication control and computing _ , 2012 .
j.  choi and f.  adachi , `` user selection criteria for multiuser systems with optimal and suboptimal lr based detectors , '' _ signal processing , ieee transactions on _ , vol .
58 , no .
10 , pp . 54635468 , 2010 .
j.  laneman and g.  wornell , `` distributed space - time - coded protocols for exploiting cooperative diversity in wireless networks , '' _ information theory , ieee transactions on _ , vol .  49 , no .  10 , pp . 24152425 , 2003 .
l.  wang , c.  chiu , c.  yeh , and c.  li , `` coverage enhancement for ofdm - based spatial multiplexing systems by scheduling , '' in _ ieee wireless communications and networking conference , wcnc_.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emieee , 2007 , pp . 14391443 .
m.  pun , v.  koivunen , and h.  poor , `` opportunistic scheduling and beamforming for mimo - sdma downlink systems with linear combining , '' in _
ieee 18th international symposium on personal , indoor and mobile radio communications _
, 2007 , pp .
16 .
a.  janssen , j.  van  leeuwaarden , and b.  zwart , `` gaussian expansions and bounds for the poisson distribution applied to the erlang b formula , '' _ advances in applied probability _ , vol .
40 , no .  1 ,
122143 , 2008 .