4.7 Article

Impact of User Pairing on 5G Nonorthogonal Multiple-Access Downlink Transmissions

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY
卷 65, 期 8, 页码 6010-6023

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TVT.2015.2480766

关键词

Cognitive radio; nonorthogonal multiple access (NOMA); power allocation; user pairing and outage probability

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of U.K. [EP/L025272/1]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61471302]
  3. 111 Project of China [111-2-14]
  4. U.S. National Science Foundation [CNS-1456793, ECCS-1343210]
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/L025272/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. EPSRC [EP/L025272/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonorthogonal multiple access (NOMA) represents a paradigm shift from conventional orthogonal multiple-access (MA) concepts and has been recognized as one of the key enabling technologies for fifth-generation mobile networks. In this paper, the impact of user pairing on the performance of two NOMA systems, i.e., NOMA with fixed power allocation (F-NOMA) and cognitive-radio-inspired NOMA (CR-NOMA), is characterized. For F-NOMA, both analytical and numerical results are provided to demonstrate that F-NOMA can offer a larger sum rate than orthogonal MA, and the performance gain of F-NOMA over conventional MA can be further enlarged by selecting users whose channel conditions are more distinctive. For CR-NOMA, the quality of service (QoS) for users with poorer channel conditions can be guaranteed since the transmit power allocated to other users is constrained following the concept of cognitive radio networks. Because of this constraint, CR-NOMA exhibits a different behavior compared with F-NOMA. For example, for the user with the best channel condition, CR-NOMA prefers to pair it with the user with the second best channel condition, whereas the user with the worst channel condition is preferred by F-NOMA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据