frac{\alpha_A}{\alpha}$). Here, $u_A$ and $u_B$ are the utilities of users in class $A$ and class $B$, respectively, and $u$ represents the utility of the users if they all had loose delay requirements which means $\tilde{\gamma}^*_k=\gamma^*$ for all $k$. Fig. \[fig2\] shows the loss for the matched filter, the decorrelator, and the MMSE detector. We observe from the figure that for the matched filter both classes of users suffer significantly due to the presence of delay sensitive traffic. For example, when half of the users are delay sensitive, the utilities achieved by class $A$ and class $B$ users are, respectively, 50% and 60% of the utilities for the case of no delay constraints. For the decorrelator, only class $A$ users suffer and the reduction in utility is smaller than that of the matched filter. For the MMSE detector, the reduction in utility for class $A$ users is similar to that of the decorrelator, and the reduction in utility for class $B$ is negligible.

We repeat the experiment for a highly loaded network with $\alpha=0.9$ (see Fig. \[fig3\]). Since the matched filter cannot handle such a significant load, we have shown the plots for the decorrelator and MMSE detector only. We observe from Fig. \[fig3\] that because of the higher system load, the reduction in the utilities is more significant for the MMSE detector compared to the case of $\alpha=0.1$. It should be noted that for the decorrelator the reduction in utility of class $A$ users is independent of the system load. This is because the decorrelator completely removes the multiple-access interference.

It should be further noted that in Figs. \[fig2\] and \[fig3\] we have only plotted the ratio of the utilities (not the actual values). As discussed in Section \[multiclass\], the achieved utilities for the MMSE detector are larger than those of the decorrelator and the matched filter.

Conclusions
===========

We have proposed a game-theoretic approach for studying power control in multiple-access networks with (transmission) delay constraints. We have considered a non-cooperative game where each user seeks to choose a transmit power that maximizes its own utility while satisfying the user’s delay requirements. The utility function measures
frac{\alpha_A}{\alpha}$). Here, $ u_A$ and $ u_B$ are the utilities of users in class $ A$ and class $ B$, respectively, and $ u$ represent the utility program of the users if they all had lax delay necessity which means $ \tilde{\gamma}^*_k=\gamma^*$ for all $ k$. Fig. \[fig2\ ] shows the passing for the equal filter, the decorrelator, and the MMSE detector. We observe from the figure that for the matched filter both classes of drug user suffer significantly due to the bearing of delay sensitive traffic. For case, when half of the users are delay sensitive, the utility achieved by class $ A$ and class $ B$ drug user are, respectively, 50% and 60% of the utilities for the case of no delay constraints. For the decorrelator, merely class $ A$ users suffer and the reduction in utility is minor than that of the matched filter. For the MMSE detector, the reduction in utility for class $ A$ users is exchangeable to that of the decorrelator, and the reduction in utility for class $ B$ is negligible. 

 We repeat the experiment for a highly loaded network with $ \alpha=0.9 $ (see Fig. \[fig3\ ]). Since the matched filter cannot handle such a significant cargo, we have shown the plots for the decorrelator and MMSE detector entirely. We note from Fig.   \[fig3\ ] that because of the higher system load, the decrease in the utilities is more meaning for the MMSE detector compared to the case of $ \alpha=0.1$. It should be noted that for the decorrelator the decrease in utility of class $ A$ users is independent of the system load. This is because the decorrelator wholly removes the multiple - access interference. 

 It should be further noted that in Figs.   \[fig2\ ]   and   \[fig3\ ] we have only plotted the proportion of the utility (not the actual values). As discussed in Section \[multiclass\ ], the achieved utilities for the MMSE detector are larger than those of the decorrelator and the matched filter. 

 Conclusions 
 = = = = = = = = = = = 

 We have aim a game - theoretic approach for studying might control in multiple - entree networks with (transmission) delay constraints. We have considered a non - cooperative plot where each user seeks to choose a transmit power that maximizes its own utility program while satisfying the user ’s delay requirements. The utility program function measures
fraf{\alpha_A}{\alpha}$). Here, $u_A$ and $u_B$ are the utilities mf useds in clxss $A$ and class $B$, respectivepy, and $y$ represents the utiligy of the users id thty all had loose vslay requiremskts wkirh means $\tilde{\gsmma}^*_k=\gamma^*$ for all $k$. Fig. \[fkg2\] shows the loss for the matched fileer, the dfcorrelator, anq tht MISE svttctor. We observe from the figure fhat fog the matched filyer both classes of users dufffr significantly dke to the ptssegxe of delay rensitive urcffic. For esample, when half of the users afe dekay sensituvw, tjg utilities echievvd by class $A$ and clavs $B$ usrrs are, respecbivelb, 50% abd 60% of the utilities hor the case of no dglay constsannts. For the decorrelqtir, onny cnass $Q$ urera xurfer ajd vhe reductikn in utiliry is smaller than uhae of the matchsd fileew. For the MMSE detector, the reduction it ufility for class $A$ userw is similar to that lf the desorrelator, and the reduction in utility for class $B$ is vegoinibld.

Qe repeat the experiment for a highly loaded neesotk with $\alpha=0.9$ (sec Fig. \[fig3\]). Since thr layshed filter cxnnot kznsle such a signififant lowd, we have shorn tne plots for the decorrelatir and MMSE betwctor only. We obsexve from Fig. \[yig3\] thst bevause of the higher syscem lozd, the reduftion in ffe utilities is oorv sicnificanu for the MMSE detqctor com'ared to the casg of $\al[ha=0.1$. It shokld bc noted that for thf declrselator thf reduction in utility of class $A$ users is ince[engent of che syxtem load. Thif is because tke decorxelatof completemy remotes the multyple-access indgrference.

It siould be surtyer boted tfxt in Figs. \[fig2\] amd \[fig3\] we kcve only plotted the ratio pf jhs utilities (not tht qctual values). Ss aissudsxd in Vection \[multhclars\], gne acfieved utilltids fpr the MMSE detector are larger than those on the decirrelatow and the matvhed filter.

Concluslons
===========

Wx have proppseq a game-theoretic approach for studying porer control yn mmltikle-access nztworks with (transmission) delay constraiits. We have considered q non-cooperative gakt where each nser sqeks to cvoose a transmit powwr that maximizes its own utility whils sativfyinh the user’s delay requirements. The utility function measures
frac{\alpha_A}{\alpha}$). Here, $u_A$ and $u_B$ are the users class $A$ class $B$, respectively, of users if they had loose delay which means $\tilde{\gamma}^*_k=\gamma^*$ for all $k$. \[fig2\] shows the loss for the matched filter, the decorrelator, and the MMSE We observe from the figure that for the matched filter both classes of suffer due the of delay sensitive traffic. For example, when half of the users are delay sensitive, the utilities by class $A$ and class $B$ users are, 50% and 60% of utilities for the case of delay For the only $A$ suffer and the in utility is smaller than that of the matched filter. For the MMSE detector, the reduction in for class is similar that the and the reduction for class $B$ is negligible. We for a highly loaded network with $\alpha=0.9$ (see \[fig3\]). Since matched filter cannot handle such a load, we have shown the plots for the and MMSE detector only. We observe from Fig. \[fig3\] that because of the higher system reduction in the utilities more significant for MMSE compared the of $\alpha=0.1$. should be noted that for the decorrelator the reduction in utility class $A$ users is independent of the system load. This the completely removes the interference. It should be noted in Figs. \[fig2\] and have plotted the (not actual values). As discussed Section \[multiclass\], the achieved utilities the MMSE detector are decorrelator and the matched filter. Conclusions =========== We proposed a game-theoretic approach for studying power in multiple-access networks with (transmission) delay constraints. We have considered a non-cooperative where each to choose a transmit power that maximizes its utility while satisfying the delay requirements. The utility function measures
frac{\alpha_A}{\alpha}$). Here, $u_A$ and $u_b$ are the utiLitieS of UseRs In clAss $A$ And class $B$, respeCTiveLy, and $u$ represents the utiLity oF tHE useRS iF they All had lOOsE DElaY rEqUirEmENtS whicH meAns $\tildE{\gamma}^*_k=\gamMa^*$ fOr All $k$. Fig. \[fig2\] shOWs The loss for The Matched filteR, thE decorReLatOR, and tHe MmSE deTector. wE obserVe from the FiGUre thaT For the mATChEd fiLter both classes of USeRS suffer signifiCantly DuE To THE prEseNce of delay SeNsitiVE traffiC. foR EXAmpLE, when half of thE users are deLAy sEnsitiVe, The UTilitiEs achIeVEd bY class $A$ and cLass $b$ users are, RespecTIvely, 50% anD 60% Of the utIlitieS foR thE casE Of No DelAy COnsTRaIntS. for The decorReLaTor, onLy clASS $a$ UserS suFfer And thE reduction in uTilIty iS SmaLler tHan thAt of ThE matcHed filTer. FoR tHe MMSE detector, tHe reDuction in UtiLiTy fOr Class $a$ Users iS siMilAr to thaT of the dECorReLATOr, And the reduction in uTiLITy For class $b$ is negLIgIbLE.

We repeaT tHe eXperIMEnt foR a hiGHlY loaded nEtwork WItH $\aLpha=0.9$ (see fiG. \[fig3\]). SiNcE thE maTched FIlteR cannoT handle sUch a sIGnificant load, wE Have shown the pLOtS FOr THe deCorRelator and MmSE dETectOr onLY. WE obSErve fRom FiG. \[fIG3\] tHAt because of the higheR sYstem lOad, thE reduction in tHe utilitieS IS More signIficANt FOr the MMSE detecTor coMpared to thE Case of $\alPha=0.1$. It Should be Noted that FOR the decoRreLatOr tHe rEDUcTion in utility OF ClasS $A$ Users is IndEpendenT of The SysTem LoAd. This is bEcause thE dEcOrReLatOr comPLetely reMoVes ThE muLtiplE-Access InterFereNcE.

IT ShoUld be fuRThER NoteD tHaT in FIgs. \[FiG2\] and \[fIg3\] we HAve Only ploTted the raTio OF the UtIlIties (noT the actual valUeS). As discussEd In SEction \[MULticlass\], The achieved utilities for THe MMSE dEteCtor aRe laRger than tHosE of the DecORrelatOr and tHe matChEd fILTer.

CoNCLuSioNs
===========

we have propOSEd a Game-tHeOretIc approAch for studying poweR ConTrol in multiplE-acCess NETwOrkS WiTH (trAnSMisSIOn) delay constraiNts. We have cOnSIdEred a non-coOPerAtIve game Where eaCh useR Seeks to Choose a trAnsmit powEr That MAXimIzes its own Utility wHile satisFYing tHE uSer’s dElaY requiReMenTs. The UtilitY FunCtion MeasurEs
frac{\alpha_A}{\alpha}$).Here, $u_A $ and  $u _B$  a re t he u tilities of us e rs i n class $A$ and class$B$,re s pect i ve ly, a nd $u$r ep r e sen ts  t heut i li ty of  th e users  if they a llha d loose dela y  r equirement s w hich means $ \ti lde{\g am ma} ^ *_k=\ gam ma^*$  for a l l $k$.  Fig. \[f ig 2 \] sho w s the l o s sforthe matched filte r ,t he decorrelato r, and  t h eM M SEdet ector. Weob serve from th e  f i g u ret hat for the m atched filt e r b oth cl as ses of use rs su ff e r s ignificantl y du e to thepresen c e of de l ay sens itivetra ffi c. F o rex amp le ,  wh e nhal f  of  the use rs  a re de lays e n s itiv e,theutili ties achieved  by  cla s s $ A$ an d cla ss $ B$  user s are,  resp ec tively, 50% and  60%  of the u til it ies  f or th e  caseofnodelay c onstrai n ts.  F o r th e decorrelator, on ly c la ss $A$ u sers s u ff er and there duc tion i n uti lity is  smaller  thant ha tof thema tchedfi lte r.For t h e MM SE det ector, t he re d uction in util i ty for class$ A$ u se r s is  si milar to th at o f  the  dec o rr ela t or, a nd th er ed u ction in utility fo rclass$B$ i s negligible. 

We repea t t he exper imen t  f o r a highly loa ded n etwork wit h  $\alpha =0.9$  (see Fi g. \[fig3 \ ] ). Since  th e m atc hed f il ter cannot ha n d le s uc h a sig nif icant l oad , w e h ave  s hown theplots fo rth ede cor relat o r and MM SE  de te cto r onl y . We o bserv e fr om  F i g.\[fig3\ ]  t h a t be ca us e of  th ehighe r sy s tem  load,the reduc tio n  inth eutiliti es is more si gn ificant fo rthe  MMSEd e tector c ompared to the case of$ \alpha= 0.1 $. It  sho uld be no ted  thatfor the de correl atorth e r e d uctio n in  ut il ity of cla s s  $A $ use rs  isindepen dent of the system loa d. This is be cau se t h e  d eco r re l ato rc omp l e tely removes th e multiple -a c ce ss interfe r enc e. 

It sh ould be  furt h er note d that in  Figs. \[ fi g2\] a nd\[fig3\] w e have o nly plott e d the ra tio o f t he uti li tie s (no t thea ctu al va lues).  A s disc ussed  i n Sectio n \[multiclass\], the a chieve d uti lit ies for t heM MSE  detector  are  larger th antho se of  th e  deco rrel a to r a n d the  mat c hed filte r .
Co n c lu sions
===== = = = === 

Wehav e  propo seda game-theoretica pproach for st udyi n g  po wer cont ro l in multiple- acc es s networks  w ith (transm ission)de l ay co nstrai nts. W e havec o ns i dereda no n-c ooperativ e g am e  whereea ch user s eeks  t o choo se a t r ansm i t  power that maxi mizes i ts ow n  ut ility  w hile sa t isfy ing the us er’s delayrequir emen ts. T he util it y func tio nmeasures
frac{\alpha_A}{\alpha}$). Here,_$u_A$ and_$u_B$ are the utilities_of users_in_class $A$_and_class $B$, respectively,_and $u$ represents_the utility of the_users if they_all_had loose delay requirements which means $\tilde{\gamma}^*_k=\gamma^*$ for all $k$. Fig. \[fig2\] shows the_loss_for the_matched_filter,_the decorrelator, and the MMSE_detector. We observe from the_figure that_for the matched filter both classes of users_suffer_significantly due to_the presence of delay sensitive traffic. For example, when_half of the users are delay_sensitive, the utilities_achieved_by_class $A$ and class_$B$ users are, respectively, 50% and_60% of the utilities for the_case of no delay constraints. For the_decorrelator, only class $A$ users suffer_and the reduction in utility_is smaller_than that of the matched_filter. For the_MMSE detector,_the reduction in_utility for class $A$ users is_similar to that_of the decorrelator, and the reduction_in_utility for class_$B$_is_negligible.

We repeat_the experiment for_a_highly loaded_network_with $\alpha=0.9$ (see Fig. \[fig3\]). Since_the_matched filter cannot handle such a significant_load, we have shown_the_plots for the decorrelator_and MMSE detector only. We_observe from Fig. \[fig3\] that because of_the higher_system load,_the reduction in the utilities is more significant for the MMSE_detector compared to the case of_$\alpha=0.1$. It should be_noted that_for_the decorrelator the_reduction_in utility_of class $A$ users is independent of_the system_load. This is because the decorrelator_completely removes the multiple-access_interference.

It_should be further noted that in_Figs. \[fig2\] and \[fig3\] we have only plotted the_ratio of the utilities (not_the_actual_values). As discussed in Section_\[multiclass\], the achieved utilities for the_MMSE detector are_larger than those of the decorrelator and_the_matched filter.

Conclusions
===========

We have proposed a game-theoretic_approach_for studying power control in multiple-access_networks_with_(transmission) delay constraints. We have_considered a non-cooperative game where each_user seeks to choose a transmit power that maximizes_its own utility_while satisfying the user’s delay_requirements._The_utility function measures