 or more PrUs is still unqualified, loop back to step 3 until the result converges or the maximum number of iterations is reached, or all the users become qualified. 6. If one or more PrUs is unqualified, reject the new user and roll back to position at step 1 and end (B1 only). 8.5 Isolation 8.5.1.3 Type C: Without Compensation - C1 and C2 The inclusion of compensation in Type B adds complexity to the process since extra resources must be allocated and this increases the implementation time. However, the simple step of using roll back guarantees the operation of the CAC SO Type C omits compensation: version C1 implements roll back and, for comparison, version C2 does not roll back and rejects all unqualified users. 1. Store the current RB allocation and interference map. 2. Mark all existing QUs as PrUs. 3. Use the game-theoretic approach to allocate resources to all the unqualified users (RB reallocation). 4. Omitted (PrU compensation). 5. If one or more PrUs is still unqualified, loop back to step 3 until the result converges or the maximum number of iterations is reached, or all the users become qualified. 6. If one or more PrUs is still unqualified, reject new user and roll back to position at step 1 and end (C1 only); reject any unqualified user, including unqualified PrUs (C2). The comparison was carried out with users being distributed with a random uniform distribution across all seven cells, with no constraint on maintaining the same number of users in each cell. Each set of results² shown in Figures 8.16-8.18 below is the average of multiple runs of the simulation. At each measurement point a new user request occurs (chosen randomly to be in any one of the seven cells) and the algorithms run: if the new user cannot be added then it is rejected and "cleared" SO that it is not considered again. The results show the performance as more users are added until the system becomes saturated. Type A: Baseline - CAC without network isolation and without protection for existing users Type B: Optimum types (includ