1

Symbol-by-Symbol Maximum Likelihood Detection
for Cooperative Molecular Communication

arXiv:1801.02890v2 [] 22 Jan 2018

Yuting Fang, Student Member, IEEE, Adam Noel, Member, IEEE, Nan Yang, Member, IEEE,
Andrew W. Eckford, Senior Member, IEEE, and Rodney A. Kennedy, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—In this paper, symbol-by-symbol maximum likelihood (ML) detection is proposed for a cooperative diffusionbased molecular communication (MC) system. In this system, a
fusion center (FC) chooses the transmitter (TX) symbol that is
more likely, given the likelihood of its observations from multiple
receivers (RXs), where the TX sends a common information
symbol to all RXs. The transmission of a sequence of binary
symbols and the resultant intersymbol interference are considered in the cooperative MC system. We propose five ML detection
variants according to different constraints on the knowledge at
the FC. These five variants demonstrate trade-offs between their
performance and the information available. The system error
probabilities for three ML detector variants are derived, two
of which are in closed form. Numerical and simulation results
show that the ML detection variants provide lower bounds on
the error performance of the simpler cooperative variants and
demonstrate that these simpler cooperative variants have error
performance comparable to ML detectors when the reporting
from RXs to the FC is noisy.
Index Terms—Molecular communication, multi-receiver cooperation, symbol-by-symbol maximum likelihood detection, error
performance.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Over the past decades, the incredible advancements in
nanotechnology and biological science have enabled the miniaturisation and fabrication of nanomachines with simple computation, sensing, communication, and actuation capabilities.
To expand the limited capabilities of a single nanomachine, the
concept of nanonetworks has been envisioned to interconnect
nanomachines to execute complex tasks in a collaborative
and distributed manner. Despite the prevalence of radio transmission, electromagnetic waves are not always practical for
interconnecting nanomachines. Specifically, radio-frequency
transceivers cannot be easily integrated into nanomachines,
due to component size, and would not have enough power
to establish a bidirectional communication channel. Molecular communication (MC) has been heralded as one of the
most promising paradigms to implement communication in
bio-inspired nanonetworks, due to the potential benefits of
bio-compatibility and low energy consumption; see [1]. In
MC, the information transmission between devices is realized
through the exchange of molecules; see [2].
Y. Fang, N. Yang, and R. A. Kennedy are with the Research School of
Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
(e-mail: {yuting.fang, nan.yang, rodney.kennedy}@anu.edu.au).
A. Noel is with the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada (e-mail:
anoel2@uottawa.ca).
A. W. Eckford is with the Department of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science, York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada (email:aeckford@yorku.ca)

The simplest molecular propagation mechanism is free
diffusion, where the information-carrying molecules can propagate from the transmitter (TX) to the receiver (RX) via
Brownian motion. One of the primary challenges posed by
diffusion-based MC is that its reliability rapidly decreases
when the TX-RX distance increases. A naturally-inspired approach, which also makes use of the envisioned collaboration
between nanomachines, is allowing multiple RXs to share information for cooperative detection. Often, cells or organisms
share common information to achieve a specific task, e.g.,
calcium (Ca2+ ) signaling; see [3]. In Ca2+ signaling, Ca2+ insensitive channels detect Ca2+ mobilizing messengers and
release Ca2+ to the cytosol. When gap junctions are formed
between adjacent cells, the release of Ca2+ is also triggered
in these cells. Then, the cells share Ca2+ ions to complete a
specific task, such as muscle contraction; see [4].
The majority of existing MC studies have focused on the
modeling of a single-RX MC system. Recent studies, e.g., [5]–
[12], have expanded the single-RX MC system to a multiRX MC system. Although these studies stand on their own
merit, they did not establish the potential of active cooperation
among multiple RXs to determine a TX’s intended symbol
sequence in a multi-RX MC system. To address this gap,
our work in [13]–[15] analyzed the error performance of a
cooperative diffusion-based MC system where a fusion center
(FC) device combines the binary decisions of distributed RXs
to improve the detection of a TX’s symbols.
In other fields of communications, e.g., wireless communications, the maximum likelihood (ML) detector is commonly
used to optimize detection performance; see [16, Ch, 5]. In the
MC domain, the ML sequence detector has been considered
for optimality in several studies. For example, [17] proposed a
sequence detection variant based on a ML criterion to recover
the transmitted information distorted by intersymbol interference (ISI) and noise. [18], [19] also considered variations to
modify the Viterbi algorithm and reduce the computational
complexity of optimal detection. However, the high complexity
of sequence detection is a significant barrier to implement in
the MC domain, even when applying simplified algorithms.
We note that the (suboptimal) symbol-by-symbol ML detector requires less computational complexity than the ML
sequence detector. Motivated by this, [20], [21] considered
symbol-by-symbol ML detection for MC with a single RX.
Recently, [22]–[24] considered cooperative ML detection for
MC. However, [22], [23] considered detection of an event
and [24] considered detection of the presence of an undesired
biological agent, i.e., [22]–[24] did not consider the detection
of modulated information from a TX.
In this paper, we present symbol-by-symbol ML detection

2

for the cooperative diffusion-based MC system. The significance of this paper is that (i) our results provide lower
bounds on the error performance that can be achieved by
a practical cooperative MC system and (ii) demonstrate the
good performance of more realizable cooperative variants
considered in [13]–[15] relative to symbol-by-symbol ML
variants, particularly when we impose reasonable constraints
on the knowledge available at the FC. In this paper, we
consider relatively simple RXs and keep the relatively high
complexity associated with ML detection at the FC. This
approach is because the RXs may be distributed as needed,
for example throughout the body, whereas the FC could have
a direct interface with the macroscopic world and easier access
to computational resources.
In our proposed system, the transmission of each information symbol from the TX to the FC via the RXs is completed
in two phases, as shown in Fig. 1. In the first phase, the TX
sends a symbol that is observed by all RXs. In the second
phase, the RXs send their detected information to the FC and
the FC chooses the TX symbol that is more likely, given the
(joint) likelihood of its observations from all of the individual
RXs. We note that sequences of multiple symbols will be used
to exchange the information to execute complex tasks (such
as disease detection) and binary symbols are the easiest to
transmit and detect. Thus, we consider the transmission of a
sequence of binary symbols and account for the resultant ISI
in the design and analysis of the cooperative MC system. The
ISI at the RXs and the FC is due to the previous symbols
transmitted by the TX and the RXs, respectively. To the best
of the authors’ knowledge, combined with our previous work
in [25], this work is the first to apply symbol-by-symbol
ML detection to a cooperative MC system with multiple
communication phases.
For tractability, we assume that the system has a symmetric
topology such that the distances between the TX and the
RXs are identical and the distances between the RXs and
the FC are also identical. This assumption could be relaxed
in future work. We note that for some practical applications,
such as health monitoring, we may be able to manually set the
locations of the RXs and FC to ensure that the topology of
the TX (e.g., monitored organism), the RXs (e.g., detectors),
and the FC, is symmetric.
In this paper, we present a number of variants of symbolby-symbol ML detectors, which are summarized in Table
I. The variants are organized according to the knowledge
at the FC, and enable us to demonstrate trade-offs in their
performance versus the information available. First, we categorize the detectors according to their knowledge of the
observations at the RX, i.e., perfect reporting detectors and
noisy reporting detectors. Detectors with perfect knowledge of
the RXs provide a lower bound on variants where the FC has
to receive a noisy signal from each RX. The perfect variants
are also more appropriate for non-diffusive reporting channels,
such as the neurons considered in [26]. Second, we categorize
the detectors that use noisy reporting according to how the
RXs send information to the FC. These variants use either
decode-and-forward (DF) relaying, where each RX makes a
local decision that is propagated to the FC, or amplify-and-

forward (AF) relaying, where each RX amplifies the signal
that it observes without making a local decision. Generally,
AF does not perform as well as DF (see [27]), but is more
suitable for devices with limited computational resources. We
note that ML detection in the current symbol interval requires
knowing the previously-transmitted symbols by the TX (and
by all the RXs for DF). For convenience, we refer to the FCestimated previous symbols as local history and the perfect
knowledge of the previous symbols as genie-aided history.
Our major contributions are summarized as follows:
1) We present novel symbol-by-symbol ML detection designs for the cooperative MC system with all detector
variants, i.e., F-ML, L-ML, SD-ML, MD-ML, and SAML. In our design, for practicality, the FC chooses the
current symbol using its local history. The five variants
reveal trade-offs among the performance, knowledge of
previously-transmitted symbols, the types of molecule
available, and computational complexity.
2) We derive analytical expressions for the system error
probability for L-ML, SD-ML, and SA-ML using the
genie-aided history. The assumption of genie-aided history leads to tractable error performance analysis. The
analytical error probabilities for L-ML and SA-ML are
given in closed form. We note that the error performance
of F-ML and MD-ML is mathematically intractable.
3) Using simulation and numerical results, we demonstrate
the FC’s effectiveness in estimating the previouslytransmitted symbols for all ML detector variants. We
corroborate the accuracy of our analytical expressions
for the system error probability using the genie-aided
history. Importantly, we demonstrate that symbol-bysymbol ML detection can provide lower bounds on the
error performance achieved by the simpler cooperative
variants considered in [13]–[15]. We further demonstrate
the good performance of these simpler and more realizable cooperative variants relative to symbol-by-symbol
ML variants when the reporting from RXs to the FC is
noisy.
We note that in contrast to our preliminary work in [25],
which only presents ML detection design of F-ML, L-ML, and
SD-ML, and derives the system error probability for L-ML,
this paper presents two additional detector variants, i.e., MDML and SA-ML, and derives the system error probability for
SD-ML and SA-ML. Moreover, many of the extensive analytical discussions and comprehensive comparisons of numerical
and simulation results provided in this paper are not included
in [25].
Notations: We use the following notations in this paper:
Pr(·) denotes probability. bxc denotes the greatest integer that
is less than or equal to x, dxe denotes the smallest integer that
is greater than or equal to x, and b·e denotes the nearest integer.
log (·) is the natural logarithm, erf (·) is the error function, and
exp (·) is the exponential function. | · | is the cardinality of a
set.

3

TABLE I
VARIANTS OF ML D ETECTORS
ML Detection Variants
Full Knowledge ML Detection
Limited Knowledge ML Detection
DF with Multi-molecule-type and ML Detection at the FC
DF with Single-molecule-type and ML Detection at the FC
AF with Single-molecule-type and ML detection at the FC

A0

TX

RX1
FC

A0

RX2
(a) First Phase

RX1

D:
D: A1
A: A1
A
1

TX

FC
1

RX2

A
A: A 1
D: A 2
D:

(b) Second Phase
Fig. 1. An example of a cooperative MC system with K = 2. In (a), the
transmission from the TX to the RXs is represented by black solid arrows.
In (b), for the transmission from the RXs to the FC, we consider MD-ML,
SD-ML, and SA-ML which are represented by red, blue, and green dashed
arrows, respectively. In (b), “D” denotes the RXs making decisions and “A”
denotes the RXs amplifying observations. We emphasize that the second stage
shown in (b) only applies to noisy reporting.

II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P RELIMINARIES
A. System Model
We consider a cooperative MC system in a threedimensional space based on [13]–[15], which consists of one
TX, a “cluster” of K RXs, and an FC. An example of the
cooperative MC system is illustrated in Fig. 1. For reliable
reporting, we generally assume that the FC is relatively close
to the cluster of RXs. We also assume that all RXs and
the FC are passive spherical observers such that molecules
can diffuse through them without reacting. Accordingly, we
denote VRXk and rRXk as the volume and the radius of the kth
RX, RXk , respectively, where k ∈ {1, 2, . . . , K}. We also
denote rFC as the radius of the FC. We use the terms “sample”
and “observation” interchangeably to refer to the number of
molecules observed by a RX or the FC at some time t. We
assume that the time between samples is sufficiently large
and the distances between RXs are sufficiently large for all
individual observations to be independent of each other. In
this paper, the transmission interval time from the TX to the
RXs is denoted by ttrans and the report interval time from the
RXs to the FC is denoted by treport . Thus, the symbol interval
time from the TX to the FC is given by T = ttrans + treport .
In the following, we present the timing schedule of the
TX, the RXs, and the FC. At the beginning of the jth

Acronym
F-ML
L-ML
MD-ML
SD-ML
SA-ML

Reporting Scenario
Perfect
Perfect
Noisy
Noisy
Noisy

symbol interval, i.e., (j − 1)T , the TX transmits WTX [j]. The
TX transmits WTX [j] to the RXs over the diffusive channel
via type A0 molecules which diffuse independently. The TX
uses ON/OFF keying [28] to convey information, i.e., the
TX releases S0 molecules of type A0 to convey information
symbol “1” with probability Pr(WTX [j] = 1) = P1 , but no
molecules to convey information symbol “0”. The TX then
keeps silent until the start of the (j + 1)th symbol interval.
We denote L as the number of symbols transmitted by the
TX. We define WlTX = {WTX [1], . . . , WTX [l]} as an l-length
subsequence of the symbols transmitted by the TX, where
l ≤ L. Throughout the paper, W is a single information
symbol and W is a vector of information symbols.
Each RXk observes type A0 molecules over the TX − RXk
link and takes MRX samples in each symbol interval at the
same times1 . The time of the mth sample by each RX in the
jth symbol interval is given by tRX (j, m) = (j −1)T +m∆tRX ,
where ∆tRX is the time step between two successive samples
by each RX, m ∈ {1, 2, . . . , MRX }, and MRX ∆tRX < ttrans . For
noisy reporting variants, at the time (j − 1)T + ttrans , each
RX transmits molecules via a diffusion-based channel to the
FC. The time of the m̃th sample by the FC in the jth symbol
interval is given by tFC (j, m̃) = (j − 1)T + ttrans + m̃∆tFC ,
where ∆tFC is the time step between two successive samples
by the FC and m̃ ∈ {1, 2, . . . , MFC }.
We summarize the ML detection variants in Table I. The
ML detection design for each variant is detailed in Section
III. We denote ŴFC [j] as the FC’s decision
n on the jth symbol
o
l
transmitted by the TX. We define ŴFC = ŴFC [1], . . . , ŴFC [l]
as an l-length subsequence of the FC’s decisions on the
symbols transmitted by the TX.
B. Preliminaries
In this subsection, we establish some fundamental preliminary results for a TX − RXk link and a RXk − FC link. These
preliminary results are needed to evaluate the likelihoods in
the ML detection variants in Section III.
1) TX − RXk Link: We first evaluate the probability
(TX,RXk )
Pob
(t) of observing a given type A0 molecule, emitted
from the TX at t = 0, inside VRXk at time t. Assuming that the
RXs are sufficiently far from the TX, we use [18, Eq. (13)]
(TX,RX )
to write Pob k (t) as


VRXk
d2TX
(TX,RX )
exp
−
,
(1)
Pob k (t) =
4D0 t
(4πD0 t)3/2
1 We note that various methods can be adopted to achieve time synchronization among nanomachines, e.g., [29], [30]. The assumption of perfect
synchronization is widely adopted in existing MC studies, e.g., [11], [31],
[32].

4

where D0 is the diffusion coefficient of type A0 molecules
in m2 /s and dTX is the distance between the TX and RXk in
RX
m. We denote Sob k (t) as the number of molecules observed
b t +1c
within VRXk at time t due to WTXT
. As discussed in [18],
RX
Sob k (t) can be accurately approximated by a Poisson random
variable (RV) with the mean given by
b Tt +1c

X

RX

S̄ob k (t) =

(TX,RXk )

S0 WTX [i]Pob

(t − (i − 1)T ).

(2)

decision rule of ML detection on the jth symbol transmitted
by the TX as
h
i
j−1
ŴFC [j] = argmax L j|WTX [j], ŴFC
(5)
WTX [j]∈{0,1}

or
ŴFC [j] =

argmax
WTX [j]∈{0,1}

h
i
j−1
j−1
L j|WTX [j], ŴFC , ŴFCk ,

(6)

i=1

The sumP
of MRX samples by RXk in the jth symbol interval,
RX
MRX
Sob [j] = m=1
Sob k (tRX (j, m)), is also a Poisson RV. The
RXk
mean of Sob [j] is given by
RXk

RX

S̄ob k [j] =

j
X

S0 WTX [i]

M
RX
X

(TX,RXk )

Pob

((j − i) T + m∆tRX ) .

m=1

i=1

(3)
2) RXk − FC Link: For MD-ML and SD-ML, each RX
detects with a relatively simple energy detector. We denote
ŴRXk [j] as RXk ’s binary decision on the jth transmitted
symbol. Based on the energy detector, RXk makes decision
RX
ŴRXk [j] = 1 if sj k ≥ ξRXk , otherwise ŴRXk [j] = 0, where
RXk
RX
sj is the value of the realization of Sob k [j] and ξRXk is the
j−1
.
constant detection threshold
at RXk , independent
of WTX
n
o
l
We define ŴRXk = ŴRXk [1], . . . , ŴRXk [l] as an l-length
(RX

,FC)

subsequence of RXk ’s binary decisions. We denote Pob,kk (t)
as the probability of observing a given Ak molecule, emitted
from the center of RXk at t = 0, inside VFC at time t. Due to
the relatively close proximity between the RXs and the FC,
(RX ,FC)
we find that (1) cannot be used to evaluate Pob,kk (t). Thus,
(RXk ,FC)
we resort to [32, Eq. (27)] to evaluate Pob,k (t) as2
(RX

Pob,kk

,FC)

(t) =

1
[erf (τ1 ) + erf (τ2 )]
2 √


Dk t 
√ exp −τ12 − exp −τ22 ,
−
dFCk π

rFC +dFCk
√
2 Dk t

where
we
define
L [j|·]
,
Pr (FC’s observations in jth interval|·). We clarify that
(5) applies to ML-F, ML-L, and SA-ML and (6) applies to
SD-ML and
For
i the sake of simplicity, we also
h MD-ML.j−1
, L [j] for F-ML, L-ML, and
define L j|WTX [j], ŴFC
h
i
j−1
j−1
SA-ML. We further define L j|WTX [j], ŴFC , ŴFCk , L [j]
for MD-ML and SD-ML. In the remainder of this section, we
present the detailed communication process and the evaluation
of L [j] for the ML detection variants in the perfect and noisy
reporting scenarios.

A. Perfect Reporting
In the perfect reporting scenario, we only consider onephase transmission of each information symbol from the TX
to the RXs (see Fig. 1(a)), since the FC has perfect knowledge
of the observations at all RXs. In this reporting scenario, we
consider F-ML and L-ML.
1) F-ML: The FC separately assesses the likelihood of
every sample by each RX and chooses the symbol ŴFC [j] that
is more likely, given the joint likelihood of KMRX individual
observations at all RXs in the jth symbol interval. Recalling
that all individual observations are independent of each other,
L [j] is given by

(4)

rFC −dFCk
√
2 Dk t

where τ1 =
, τ2 =
, Dk is the diffusion
coefficient of type Ak molecules in m2 /s, and dFCk is the
distance between RXk and the FC in m.
III. ML D ETECTION D ESIGN
In this section, we present the design of symbol-by-symbol
ML detection for the cooperative MC system. Throughout
Section III, the FC uses the local history to choose the current
symbol. We denote ŴFCk [j] as the FC’s estimated binary
decision n
of RXk on the jth transmitted
symbol. We define
o
l
ŴFCk = ŴFCk [1], . . . , ŴFCk [l] as the FC’s estimate of the
first l binary decisions by RXk . In our symbol-by-symbol
ML detection design, the FC evaluates the likelihood of the
observations in the jth symbol interval based on its own local
j−1
j−1
history, i.e., ŴFC (and ŴFCk for MD-ML and SD-ML).
Using the local history at the FC, we formulate the general
2 We note that (4) is accurate for any d
FCk > 0, while (1) is accurate only
when the RX is sufficiently far from the TX; see [32].

L [j] =

K M
RX
Y
Y



j−1
RX
RXk
Pr Sob k (tRX (j, m)) = sj,m
|WTX [j], ŴFC
,

k=1 m=1

(7)
RX

RX

k
where sj,m
is the value of the realization of Sob k (tRX (j, m)).
2) L-ML: The FC adds each RX’s MRX observations in the
jth symbol interval, i.e., the FC applies an equal weight to
every observation at each RX. The FC chooses the symbol
ŴFC [j] that is more likely, given the joint likelihood
K sums
Pof
RX
RX
MRX RXk
of sj k in the jth symbol interval, where sj k = m=1
sj,m .
Recalling that the K RXs are independent, L [j] is given by

L [j] =

K
Y



j−1
RX
RX
.
Pr Sob k [j] = sj k |WTX [j], ŴFC

(8)

k=1

It is shown that (7) and (8) can be evaluated by the
RX
conditional probability mass function (PMF) of Sob k (t) and
RXk
RXk
RXk
Sob [j]. The conditional means of Sob (t) and Sob [j] given
j−1
ŴFC are obtained by replacing WTX [i] with ŴFC [i] in (2) and
(3), respectively, where i ∈ {1, . . . , j − 1}.

5

j−1

B. Noisy Reporting
In the noisy reporting scenario, the transmission of each
information symbol from the TX to the FC via the RXs is
completed in two phases (see Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)). The first
phase of the noisy reporting scenario is analogous to the onephase transmission of perfect reporting. For the second phase,
we consider three different communication variants between
the RXs and the FC over a diffusion channel, namely, MDML, SD-ML, and SA-ML. In the following, we describe the
communication process of these variants and evaluate their
corresponding L [j].
1) MD-ML: RXk transmits type Ak molecules, which can
be independently detected by the FC, to report ŴRXk [j] to the
FC. Similar to the TX, each RX uses ON/OFF keying to report
its decision to the FC and the RX releases SD molecules of
type Ak to convey information symbol “1”. The FC receives
type Ak molecules over the RXk − FC link and takes MFC
samples of each of the K types of molecules transmitted by all
RXs in every reporting interval. The FC adds MFC observations
for each RXk − FC link in the jth symbol interval. We
FC,D
denote Sob,k
[j] as the total number of Ak molecules observed
within VFC in the jth symbol interval, due to both current and
previous emissions of molecules by RXk . We emphasize that
the TX and RXk use the same modulation method and that
the TX − RXk and RXk − FC links are both diffusion-based.
FC,D
Therefore, Sob,k
[j] can also be accurately approximated by
FC,D
FC,D
a Poisson RV. We denote S̄ob,k
[j] as the mean of Sob,k
[j].
FC,D
FC
Values of realizations of Sob,k [j] are labeled sj,k . We assume
that the K RXk − FC links are independent, so the FC has K
independent sums sFC
j,k from the K RXk − FC links. The FC
chooses the symbol ŴFC [j] that is more likely, given the joint
3
likelihood of the K sums sFC
j,k in the jth interval . We obtain
L [j] by
K 


Y
j−1
L [j] =
Pr ŴRXk [j] = 1|WTX [j], ŴFC
k=1



j−1
FC,D
× Pr Sob,k
[j] = sFC
|
Ŵ
[j]
=
1,
Ŵ
RXk
j,k
FCk


j−1
+ Pr ŴRXk [j] = 0|WTX [j], ŴFC


j−1
FC,D
× Pr Sob,k
[j] = sFC
|
Ŵ
[j]
=
0,
Ŵ
.
RXk
j,k
FCk

ŴjRX ∈R


i
j−1
j−1
FC,D
RX
×Pr Sob
[j] = sFC
|
Ŵ
,
Ŵ
,
.
.
.
,
Ŵ
, (11)
j
j
FC1
FCK
where we clarify that we need to consider every realization
of ŴjRX and the corresponding probability leading to sFC
j .
However, in (11), we note that it is hard for the FC to obtain
j−1
ŴFCk when all RXs transmit type A1 molecules to the FC
j−1

(9)

For the evaluation of the likelihood in all future intervals,
i.e., L [j + 1] , . . . , L [L], the FC also chooses the symbol
ŴFCk [j] in the jth interval given the likelihood of the sum
sFC
j,k from the RXk − FC link in the jth interval. By doing so,
ŴFCk [j] is obtained by


j−1
FC,D
ŴFCk [j] = argmax Pr Sob,k
[j] = sFC
.
j,k |ŴRXk [j], ŴFCk
ŴRXk [j]∈{0,1}

(10)
We clarify that (9) and (10) can be evaluated by applying
the conditional cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the
RX
Poisson RV Sob k [j] and the conditional PMF of the Poisson
3 To

FC,D
FC,D
RV Sob,k
[j]. The conditional means S̄ob,k
[j] given ŴFCk are
(TX,RX )
obtained by replacing S0 , WTX [i], Pob k , MRX , m, and
(RX ,FC)
∆tRX in (3) with SD , ŴFCk [i], Pob,kk , MFC , m̃, and ∆tFC ,
respectively.
2) SD-ML: The behavior of each RXk in SD-ML is the
same as that in MD-ML, except we assume that each RXk
transmits type A1 molecules to report ŴRXk [j] to the FC. This
is because it may not be realistic for each RX to release
a unique type of molecule. For simplicity, the number of
released type A1 molecules for each RXk in SD-ML is also
denoted by SD . The FC receives type A1 molecules over all K
RXk − FC links and takes MFC samples of type A1 molecules
in each symbol interval. The FC adds MFC observations for
all RXk − FC links in the jth symbol interval. We denote
FC,D
Sob
[j] as the total number of A1 molecules observed within
VFC in the jth symbol interval, due to both current and
previous emissions
of molecules by all RXs. We note that
PK
FC,D
FC,D
Sob
[j] = k=1 Sob,k
[j] is a also Poisson RV whose mean is
PK
FC,D
FC,D
[j]. Values of realizations of
given by S̄ob
[j] = k=1 S̄ob,k
FC,D
FC
Sob [j] are labeled sj . The FC chooses the symbol ŴFC [j] that
is more likely, given the likelihood of sFC
j in the jth interval.
To facilitate the evaluation of L [j] for SD-ML, we first define
ŴjRX = {ŴRX1 [j], . . . , ŴRXK [j]} as the set of decisions at all
RXs in the jth symbol interval. We then define a set R which
includes all possible realizations of ŴjRX and |R| = 2K . Using
these notations, we derive L [j] as

X h 
j−1
Pr ŴjRX |WTX [j], ŴFC
L [j] =

decrease the computational complexity at the FC, we consider that the
FC assesses the likelihood of the sum of MFC observations for each RXk −FC
link, which is analogous to L-ML.

in SD-ML. Fortunately, due to the symmetric topology, ŴFCk
is not precisely required for calculating the conditional PMF
FC,D
of Sob
[j] in (11); only the number of RXs that transmitted
symbol “1” in each previous symbol interval is needed. We
first define Z as the set where the elements are the possible
number of RXs that transmit symbol “1” in the each symbol
interval, i.e., Z = {0, 1, . . . , K}. We denote Ẑ[j] as the FC’s
estimate of the number of RXs that transmit
symbol “1”
n
o in the
l
jth symbol interval. We define Ẑ = Ẑ[1], . . . , Ẑ[l] as the
FC’s estimate of the number of RXs transmitting the symbol
“1” in the first l symbol intervals. Hence, for the evaluation of
the likelihood in all future intervals, the FC also chooses Ẑ[j]
in the jth interval from the set Z that is most likely, given the
likelihood of sFC
j in the jth interval. Ẑ[j] is obtained by


j−1
FC,D
Ẑ[j] = argmax Pr Sob
[j] = sFC
.
j |Z, Ẑ

(12)

Z∈Z

Also, since we assume (via symmetry) that the
RXs have independent  and identically distributed

j−1
observations, we have Pr ŴRXk [j] = 1|WTX [j], ŴFC
=

6



j−1
j−1
Pr ŴRX [j] = 1|WTX [j], ŴFC
, Θj . Using Ẑ
and the
notation Θj , we rewrite (11) as
K  
X
K
K−Z
L [j] =
Θj Z (1 − Θj )
Z
Z=0


j−1
FC,D
× Pr Sob
[j] = sFC
|Z,
Ẑ
,
(13)
j
which can be evaluated by applying the conditional CDF of
RX
FC,D
Sob k [j] and the conditional PMF of Sob
[j]. We now derive
j−1
FC,D
the conditional mean of Sob [j] given Z and Ẑ . To this
FC,D
end, we first write S̄ob
[j] as
FC,D
S̄ob
[j] = SD

×

j−1 X
K
X

ŴFCk [i]

i=1 k=1
MFC
X
(RX ,FC)
Pob,kk
m̃=1
K
X

+ SD

((j − i) T + m̃∆tFC )

ŴRXk [j]

MFC
X

(RX

Pob,kk

,FC)

(m̃∆tFC ) .

(14)

m̃=1

k=1

Since we consider a symmetric topology, we rewrite (14)
as
FC,D

S̄ob [j] = SD

j−1
X

Ẑ[i]

i=1

+ SD Z

MFC
X

(RX

Pob,kk

,FC)

((j − i) T + m̃∆tFC )

m̃=1
MFC
X

(RX

Pob,kk

,FC)

(m̃∆tFC ) .

(15)

m̃=1

3) SA-ML: We now detail the second phase for SA-ML.
Each RX amplifies the number of molecules observed in
RX
the jth symbol interval, i.e., SkA [j] = αSob k [j], where SkA [j]
denotes the number of molecules released by RXk in the jth
symbol interval and α is the constant amplification factor at
all RXs. All RXs retransmit SkA [j] molecules of type A1 to the
FC at the same time. Since all RXs in both SA-ML and SDML release molecules of the same type A1 , the description of
the behavior of the FC in SA-ML is analogous to that in SDFC,A
ML. We denote Sob,k
[j] as the number of molecules observed
within VFC in the jth symbol interval, due to the emissions
of molecules from the current and the previous intervals by
RXk . The TX − RXk and RXk − FC links are both diffusionFC,A
based. Therefore, Sob,k
[j] can be accurately approximated by
FC,A
FC,A
a Poisson RV. We denote S̄ob,k
[j] as the mean of Sob,k
[j]. The
FC adds MFC observations for all RXk − FC links in the jth
FC,A
symbol interval and this sum is denoted by the RV Sob
[j]. We
PK
FC,A
FC,A
note that Sob [j] = k=1 Sob,k [j] is also a Poisson RV whose
PK
FC,A
FC,A
mean is given by S̄ob
[j] = k=1 S̄ob,k
[j]. Values of realizaFC,A
tions of Sob
[j] are labeled sFC
j . The FC chooses the symbol
ŴFC [j] that is more likely given the likelihood of sFC
j in the jth
interval. L [j] is given in (16) at the top of the following page.
RX
RX
where Sob k [i] and si k , i ∈ {1, . . . , j} and k ∈ {1, . . . , K},
are defined in Section II-B1 and Section II-B2, respectively.
Theoretically, any number of molecules could be observed at
each RX. Thus, there are infinite realizations for each Poisson
RX
RV Sob k [i] in (16). To enable the evaluation of (16), we
consider finitely many random realizations of each Poisson RV

RX

Sob k [i]4 . For example, we generate 5000 random realizations
j−1
RX
of each Sob k [i] for a given ŴFC , which is sufficient to ensure
the accuracy of (16). It is shown that (16) can be evaluated by
FC,A
applying the conditional PMF of the Poisson RV Sob
[j]. We
FC,A
obtain the conditional mean of Sob,k [j] by replacing S0 WTX [i],
(TX,RX )
(RX ,FC)
Pob k , MRX , m, and ∆tRX in (3) with SkA [j], Pob,kk , MFC ,
PK
FC,A
FC,A
m̃, and ∆tFC , respectively. Based on S̄ob [j] = k=1 S̄ob,k
[j],
FC,A
we can then obtain the conditional mean of Sob [j].
IV. E RROR P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS
In this section, we derive the error probability of the
cooperative MC system in the jth symbol interval using the
genie-aided history, which leads to tractable expressions. We
denote QFC [j] as the error probability of the cooperative MC
j−1
system in the jth symbol interval for a TX sequence WTX
.
To this end, we first present the lower-complexity decision
rules for L-ML, SD-ML, and SA-ML, compared to the general
decision rule in (5) and (6). Based on these decision rules,
we derive QFC [j] for L-ML in perfect reporting and SD-ML
and SA-ML in noisy reporting using the genie-aided history.
We note that the error performance of F-ML and MD-ML
is mathematically intractable. By averaging QFC [j] over all
, the
symbol intervals and all possible realizations of Wj−1
TX
average error probability of the cooperative MC system, QFC ,
can be obtained.
Throughout this section, we need to consider the case where
all previously-transmitted symbols are “0” as a special case
in the derivation of decision rules and corresponding error
probabilities, since the denominators in decision rules cannot
be 0. Although some decision rules may appear to be forms
similar to those in [22], [23], their results cannot be directly
applied to this paper, since [22], [23] only considered onephase RX-FC links for event detection.
A. Perfect Reporting
In this subsection, we analyze the error performance of LML with the genie-aided history to provide an analytical lower
bound on the achievable error performance of the system with
either perfect or noisy reporting.
1) L-ML: We now derive QFC [j] in the perfect reporting
scenario for L-ML. We define λn,k [j] as the expected ISI
at RXk in the jth symbol interval due to the previouslyj−1
transmitted TX symbols WTX
, i.e.,
λn,k [j] =

j−1
X
i=1

S0 WTX [i]

M
RX
X

(TX,RXk )

Pob

((j − i) T + m∆tRX ) .

m=1

(17)
We define λs,k [j] as the number of signal molecules at RXk
in the jth symbol interval due to the currently-transmitted TX
symbol WTX [j] = 1, i.e.,
λs,k [j] = S0

M
RX
X

(TX,RXk )

Pob

(m∆tRX ) .

(18)

m=1
4 We assume that the FC may have sufficiently high computational capabilities such that it can generate random realizations. This assumption is because
the FC could have a direct interface with computational resources.

7

∞
X

L [j] =

∞
X

...

RX1
=0

...

RX1
=0

s1

sj

RX

∞
X
RXK
=0

s1

RX

RX

∞
X

...

RX1
RX1
RX1
1
Pr Sob
[1] = sRX
1 , . . . , Sob [j] = sj , . . . ,

RXK
=0

sj

RXK

Sob K [1] = s1 K , . . . , Sob K [j] = sj

j−1

|WTX [j], ŴFC
RX



FC,A
Pr Sob
[j] = sFC
j
RX

RX

RXK

RX1
RX1
RX1
K
K
K
1
|Sob
[1] = sRX
1 , . . . , Sob [j] = sj , . . . , Sob [1] = s1 , . . . , Sob [j] = sj

We note that the conditional mean of Sob k [j] given Wj−1
is
TX
λs,k [j] + λn,k [j] and λn,k [j] when the jth symbol transmitted
by the TX is WTX [j] = 1 and WTX [j] = 0, respectively. If not
all the previous symbols transmitted by the TX are “0”, i.e.,
Wj−1
6= 0, then we have λn,k [j] > 0. If all previous symbols
TX
transmitted by the TX are “0”, i.e., Wj−1
= 0, then we have
TX
λn,k [j] = 0. Since we assume (via symmetry) that the RXs
have independent and identically distributed observations, we
have λn,k [j] = λn [j] and λs,k [j]
 = λs [j]. For the
sake of
j−1
brevity, for L-ML, we define
L
j|W
[j]
=
1,
W
, L1
TX
TX

and L j|WTX [j] = 0, Wj−1
,
L
.
Applying
the
conditional
0
TX
RX
PMF of the Poisson RV Sob k [j] to (8), we write L1 and L0
as


RX
K
sj k
Y
(λ
[j]
+
λ
[j])
s
n

exp (− (λs [j] + λn [j]))
L1 =
RXk
s
!
j
k=1
RX



(16)

j−1
Based on Theorem 1, when WTX
6= 0, we evaluate QFC [j]
for L-ML as

j−1
RX
ad
QFC [j] = (1 − P1 ) Pr Sob
[j] ≥ ξFC
[j]|WTX [j] = 0, WTX

RX
ad
, (23)
+ P1 Pr Sob
[j] < ξFC
[j]|WTX [j] = 1, Wj−1
TX
PK
RX
RX
where Sob
[j] = k=1 Sob k [j]. When Wj−1
= 0, QFC [j] for
TX
ad
L-ML can be obtained by replacing ≥, <, and ξFC
[j] with >,
=, and 0 in (23), respectively.
Remark 1: If the FC instead adds all RXs’ KMRX observations in the jth symbol interval to obtain the single sum
sRX
j in the jth symbol interval, it can be shown that the error
performance of the FC is actually the same as that of L-ML.
RX
That is, the knowledge of individual sj k for each RX does
not improve detection performance over only knowing the sum
sRX
j .

(19)
B. Noisy Reporting

and
L0 =

K
Y





RXk

sj

 (λn [j])
RX
sj k !
k=1

exp (−λn [j]) ,

(20)

respectively. Based on (19) and (20), we rewrite the general
decision rule of L-ML in (5) as a lower-complexity decision
rule in the following theorem.
Theorem 1: When λn [j] > 0, the decision rule of L-ML is
RX
ad
ŴFC [j] = 1 if sRX
j ≥ ξFC [j], otherwise ŴFC [j] = 0, where sj =
PK RXk
ad
and ξFC [j] = bKλs [j]/log ((λs [j] + λn [j])/λn [j])e.
k=1 sj
When λn [j] = 0, the decision rule of L-ML is ŴFC [j] = 1 if
RX
sRX
j > 0 and ŴFC [j] = 0 if sj = 0.
Proof: Applying (19) and (20) to (5), we write the
decision rule of L-ML as
sRX

(λs [j] + λn [j]) j
exp (K (λs [j] + λn [j]))

ŴFC [j]=1

R
ŴFC [j]=0

sRX

(λn [j]) j
.
exp (Kλn [j])

(21)

(λs [j] + λn [j])
λn [j]

sRX
j

exp (Kλs [j]) .

(22)

ŴFC [j]=0

We rearrange (22) and obtain the decision rule of L-ML
when λn [j] > 0. If λn [j] = 0 and sRX
j = 0, we write (21)
as exp (−Kλs [j]) <1, where the decision at the FC is always
ŴFC [j] = 0. If λn [j] = 0 and sRX
j > 0, we write (21) as
sRX

j−1 X
K
X

ŴRXk [i]

i=1 k=1

MFC
X

(RX

Pob,kk

,FC)

((j − i) T + m̃∆tFC ) .

m̃=1

(24)
We then define λ̂Ds,k [j] as the number of signal molecules
at the FC in the jth symbol interval due to the currentlytransmitted RXk symbol ŴRXk [j] = 1, i.e.,
MFC
X

(RX

Pob,kk

,FC)

(m̃∆tFC ) ,

(25)

m̃=1

ŴFC [j]=1

R

λ̂DN [j] = SD

λ̂Ds,k [j] = SD

When λn [j] > 0, we further write (21) as


In this subsection, we analyze the error performance of SDML and SA-ML with the genie-aided history. We note that the
closed-form expression of QFC [j] for SD-ML is mathematically
tractable when one RX exists in the system, i.e., K = 1.
1) SD-ML: We now derive QFC [j] for the SD-ML variant.
To this end, we first define λ̂DN [j] as the expected ISI at the
FC in the jth symbol interval due to the previous symbols
j−1
j−1
j−1
transmitted by all RXs, ŴRX1 , ŴRX2 , . . . , ŴRXK , i.e.,

(λs [j]) j exp (−Kλs [j]) > 0, where the decision at the FC is
always ŴFC [j] = 1. This completes the proof.

where we have λ̂Ds,k [j] = λ̂Ds [j], since we consider a cooperative
system with a symmetric topology. We note that the condiFC,D
tional mean of Sob
[j] given the previously-transmitted symj−1
j−1
j−1
bols by all RXs, ŴRX1 , ŴRX2 , . . . , ŴRXK , is λ̂DN [j] + Z λ̂Ds [j]
when the number of the RXs transmitting symbol “1” in
the jth symbol interval is Z. If not all previous symbols
j−1
K
P P
ŴRXk [i] 6= 0,
transmitted by all RXs are “0”. i.e.,
i=1 k=1

then we have λ̂DN [j] > 0. If all previous symbols transmitted

8

by all RXs are “0”, i.e.,

j−1
K
P P
i=1 k=1

ŴRXk [i] = 0, then we

have λ̂DN [j] = 0. We then denote Pmd,k [j] and Pfa,k [j] as
the expected miss detection probability and the expected
false alarm probability of the TX − RXk link in the jth
symbol interval for given Wj−1
, respectively; see [14]. Due
TX
to symmetry in the system’s topology, we have Pmd,k [j] =
Pmd [j] and Pfa,k [j] =h Pfa [j]. For the sake of brevity,
for
i
j−1
j−1
SD
SD-ML, we define L j|WTX [j] = 1, WTX , ŴRXk , L1 [j]
h
i
j−1
and L j|WTX [j] = 0, Wj−1
, ŴRXk , LSD
TX
0 [j]. Applying the
FC,D
SD
conditional PMF of Sob [j] to (13), we write LSD
1 [j] and L0 [j]
as
K  
X
−1
K
Z
K−Z
LSD
[j]
=
(1 − Pmd [j]) (Pmd [j])
sFC
1
j !
Z
Z=0



sFC
j
× exp −λ̂DN [j] − Z λ̂Ds [j] λ̂DN [j] + Z λ̂Ds [j]
(26)
and
LSD
0 [j] =

K  
X
K

Z

Z=0

Z

K−Z

Pfa [j] (1 − Pfa [j])

−1
sFC
j !



sFC
j
× exp −λ̂ [j] − Z λ̂s [j] λ̂DN [j] + Z λ̂Ds [j]
,


D
N

D

(27)
respectively. Based on (26) and (27), we rewrite the general
decision rule of SD-ML in (6) as a lower-complexity decision
rule in the following theorem.
Theorem 2: When λ̂DN [j] > 0, the decision rule of SD-ML
ad,SD
is ŴFC [j] = 1 if sFC
j ≥ ξFC [j], otherwise ŴFC [j] = 0, where
ad,SD
SD
ξFC [j] is the solution to the equation LSD
1 [j] = L0 [j]. We
note that this equation has a real-valued solution only when
λ̂DN [j] > 0. When λ̂DN [j] = 0, the decision rule for SD-ML is
FC
ŴFC [j] = 1 if sFC
j > 0 and ŴFC [j] = 0 if sj = 0.
Proof: The proof of Theorem 2 is given in the Appendix.
Based on Theorem 2, when λ̂DN [j] > 0, we evaluate the
conditional QFC as
h
i
QFC j|λ̂DN [j] > 0


FC,D
ad,SD
= P1 Pr Sob
[j] < ξFC
[j]|WTX [j] = 1, λ̂DN [j] > 0


FC,D
ad,SD
[j] ≥ ξFC
[j]|WTX [j] = 0, λ̂DN [j] > 0 ,
+ (1 − P1 )Pr Sob
(28)
FC,D
where the conditional CDF of the Poisson RV Sob
[j] can be
evaluated by


FC,D
ad,SD
Pr Sob
[j] < ξFC
[j]|WTX [j], λ̂DN [j]
K  


X
K
K−Z
=
Θj Z (1 − Θj )
exp −λ̂DN [j] + Z λ̂Ds [j]
Z
Z=0

ad,SD
ξFC
[j]−1 
η
X
(29)
×
λ̂DN [j] + Z λ̂Ds [j] /(η!) .

η=0

In (29), Θj is defined in Section III-B2 and λ̂DN [j] can be
j−1
evaluated by (24) via approximated ŴRXk , k ∈ {1, 2, . . . , K}.
j−1

The approximated ŴRXk can be obtained using the biased
coin toss method introduced in [31]. Specifically, we model
the ith decision at RXk , ŴRXk [i], as ŴRXk [i] = |λ − WTX [i]|,
where i ∈ {1, . . . , j − 1} and λ ∈ {0, 1} is the outcome
of the coin toss with Pr(λ = 1) = Pmd [i] if WTX [i] = 1 and
Pr(λ = 1) = Pfa [i] if WTX [i] = 0. When λ̂DN [j] = 0, we evaluate
the conditional QFC as
h
i
QFC j|λ̂DN [j] = 0


FC,D
= P1 Pr Sob
[j] = 0|WTX [j] = 1, λ̂DN [j] = 0


FC,D
+ (1 − P1 )Pr Sob
[j] > 0|WTX [j] = 0, λ̂DN [j] = 0 , (30)
FC,D
where the conditional CDF of the Poisson RV Sob
[j] can be
evaluated analogously to (29). Combining (30) and (28), we
obtain QFC [j] for SD-ML as


h
i
QFC [j] = Pr λ̂DN [j] > 0|Wj−1
QFC j|λ̂DN [j] > 0
TX


h
i
D
+ Pr λ̂DN [j] = 0|Wj−1
Q
j|
λ̂
[j]
=
0
. (31)
FC
TX
N

Finally, we derive the analytical closed-form expression for
QFC [j] for SD-ML with K = 1. When K = 1, we write (26)
and (27) as



sFC
j
D
D
LSD
[j]
=
P
[j]
exp
−
λ̂
[j]
λ̂
[j]
md
1
N
N


+ (1 − Pmd [j]) exp −λ̂DN [j] − λ̂Ds [j]


sFC

j
D
D
× λ̂N [j] + λ̂s [j]
/ sFC
(32)
j !
and



sFC
j
L0 [j] = (1 − Pfa [j]) exp −λ̂DN [j] λ̂DN [j]


+ Pfa [j] exp −λ̂DN [j] − λ̂Ds [j]


sFC

j
D
D
× λ̂N [j] + λ̂s [j]
/ sFC
j ! ,
SD

(33)

SD
respectively. Substituting (32) and (33) into LSD
1 [j] = L0 [j]
ad,SD
and solving the equation in terms of ξFC [j], we obtain the
ad,SD
closed-form expression for ξFC
[j] when K = 1 as
j



m
ad,SD
ξFC
[j] = λ̂Ds [j] /log λ̂DN [j] + λ̂Ds [j] /λ̂DN [j] . (34)

We note that QFC [j] for SD-ML with K = 1 can be obtained
using (31) via (34).
2) SA-ML: We now derive QFC [j] in the noisy reporting
scenario for SA-ML. In (16), multiple possible realizations of
RX
each Poisson RV Sob k [i] make the analytical error performance
analysis cumbersome. To tackle this cumbersomeness, we
RX
consider only one random realization of Sob k [i] with the mean
RXk
S̄ob [i] for the given previous symbols transmitted by the TX,
Wj−1
. We define λ̂AN [j] as the expected ISI at the FC in the jth
TX
symbol interval due to Wj−1
. We define λ̂As [j] as the number
TX
of the signal molecules at the FC in the jth symbol interval

9

RX

due to WTX [j] = 1. By modeling the realization of Sob k [i] as
RX
its mean S̄ob k [i], we write λ̂AN [j] and λ̂As [j] as
λ̂AN [j] =

j−1
K
X
X
k=1

+ αS0

RXk

αS̄ob [i]

i=1
j−1
X

WTX [i]

×

m̃=1
M
RX
X

(RX ,FC)
Pob,kk

(TX,RX)

Pob

((j − i) T + m̃∆tFC )

((j − i)T + m∆tRX )

m=1

i=1
MFC
X

MFC
X

!
(RX ,FC)
Pob,kk

(m̃∆tFC )

(35)

m̃=1

and
λ̂As [j] =

K
X
k=1

αS0

M
RX
X

(TX,RX)

Pob

(m∆tRX )

m=1

MFC
X

(RX

Pob,kk

,FC)

m̃=1

respectively. λ̂AN [j] in (35) consists of two components. The
first summation over i is the expected ISI at the FC in the
jth symbol interval due to the molecules released by the RXs
but without the amplification of the RXs’ ISI from the TX.
The second summation over i accounts for the amplification
.
of the ISI in the jth symbol interval at all RXs due to Wj−1
TX
FC,A
We note that the conditional mean of Sob
[j] is λ̂As [j] + λ̂AN [j]
FC,A
when WTX [j] = 1, and the conditional mean of Sob
[j] is λ̂AN [j]
when WTX [j] = 0. If not all previous symbols transmitted by
6= 0, then we have λ̂AN [j] > 0.
the TX are “0”. i.e., Wj−1
TX
If all previous symbols transmitted by the TX are “0”, i.e.,
of
Wj−1
= 0, then we have λ̂AN[j] = 0. For the sake
TX

j−1
SA
brevity, for SA-ML, we define
L
j|W
,
L
TX [j] = 1, WTX
1

j−1
SA
and L j|WTX [j] = 0, WTX , L0 . Applying the conditional
FC,A
PMF of the Poisson RV Sob
[j] to (16), we derive LSA
1 and
SA
L0 as
sFC

j
 

λ̂As [j] + λ̂AN [j]
A
A
SA
exp
−
λ̂
[j]
+
λ̂
[j]
(37)
L1 =
s
N
sFC
j !
and
LSA
0 =

λ̂AN [j]

sFC
j

sFC
j !



exp −λ̂AN [j] ,

Parameter
Radius of RXs
Radius of FC
Time step at RXs
Time step at FC
Number of samples by RXs
Number of samples by FC
Transmission time interval
Report time interval
Bit interval time
Diffusion coefficient
Length of symbol sequence
Probability of binary 1

(38)

respectively. Based on (37) and (38), we rewrite the general
decision rule of SA-ML in (5) as a lower-complexity decision
rule in the following theorem.
Theorem 3: When λ̂AN [j] > 0, the decision rule of SA-ML
ad,SA
ad,SA
is ŴFC [j] = 1 if sFC
j ≥ ξFC [j], otherwise ŴFC [j] = 0. ξFC [j]
can be obtained by replacing λ̂Ds [j] and λ̂DN [j] with λ̂As [j] and
λ̂AN [j] in (34), respectively. When λ̂AN [j] = 0, the decision rule
FC
for SA-ML is ŴFC [j] = 1 if sFC
j > 0 and ŴFC [j] = 0 if sj = 0.
Proof: Theorem 3 can be proven analogously to the proof
of Theorem 1.
Based on Theorem 3, when Wj−1
6= 0, we evaluate QFC [j]
TX
for SA-ML as

FC,A
j−1
ad,SA
[j] ≥ ξFC
[j]|WTX [j] = 0, WTX
QFC [j] = (1 − P1 ) Pr Sob

FC,A
ad,SA
+ P1 Pr Sob
[j] < ξFC
[j]|WTX [j] = 1, Wj−1
,
TX
(39)

Symbol
rRXk
rFC
∆tRX
∆tFC
MRX
MFC
ttrans
treport
T
D0 = Dk
L
P1

Value
0.2 µm
0.2 µm
100 µs
30 µs
5
10
1 ms
0.3 ms
1.3 ms
5 × 10−9 m2 /s
20
0.5

TABLE III
D EVICES ’ L OCATION

(m̃∆tFC ) ,
(36)



TABLE II
E NVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS

Devices
TX
RX1
RX2
RX3
RX4
RX5
RX6
FC

X-axis [µm]
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Y-axis [µm]
0
0.6
−0.6
−0.3
−0.3
0.3
0.3
0

Z-axis [µm]
0
0
0
0.5196
−0.519
0.5196
−0.5196
0



ad,SA
FC,A
[j]|WjTX can be evaluated by rewhere Pr Sob
[j] < ξFC
j−1

FC,A
j−1
placing ŴFC and Sob
and
[j] = sFC
j in (16) with WTX
ad,SA
FC,A
Sob [j] < ξFC [j], respectively. Similar to the evaluation of
RX
(16), we consider finitely many random realizations of Sob k [i]
j−1
in (39). When WTX = 0, QFC [j] for SA-ML can be obtained
ad,SA
by replacing ≥, <, and ξFC
[j] with >, =, and 0 in (39),
respectively.

V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS AND S IMULATIONS
In this section, we present numerical and simulation results to examine the error performance of the different ML
detection variants. We simulate using a particle-based method
considered in [33], where the precise locations of all individual
molecules are known. Since we model the RXs and the FC
as passive observers, in our simulation all molecules persist
indefinitely once they are released. Unless otherwise noted,
we consider the environmental parameters in Table II. In the
following figures, we vary ttrans (which also changes ∆tRX and
T ), MFC (which also changes ∆tFC ), and K. Since the topology
is symmetric, we consider the same decision threshold at all
RXs such that ξRXk = ξRX , ∀k.
In the following, we assume that the TX releases S0 =
10000 molecules for symbol “1” and the total number of
molecules released by all RXs for symbol “1” is fixed at
2000. Thus for MD-ML and SD-ML, each RX releases
SD = b2000/Ke molecules to report a decision of “1”. For SAML, each RX uses the amplification factor α = 157, such that
the number of molecules released by all RXs for transmission
of one symbol, averaged over all considered sequences of 20
symbols, is 1000. We consider a system that consists of at
most six RXs. The specific locations of the TX, RXs, and
FC are listed in Table III. Furthermore, the simulated error
probabilities are averaged over independent transmissions of
50000 randomly-generated TX symbol sequences.

5 We introduced and tested simple soft fusion in [13], but we did not analyze
its error performance in [13].

Simulation, Genie-aided History
Simulation, Local History
Analysis
Simulation

-1

10

Majority Rule

-2

10

L-ML
Soft Fusion
-3

10

F-ML
0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Transmission time interval [ms]
∗

Fig. 2. Optimal Average global error probability QFC of different variants
versus the transmission time interval ttrans with K = 3 in the perfect reporting
scenario. The analytical error performance of the majority rule is presented
in [14].

Optimal Average Global Error Probability

In order to provide trade-offs between the performance
versus the information available, we compare the error performance of the proposed ML detection variants with that of
existing alternatives, i.e., the majority rule considered in [13],
[14], SD-Constant considered in [15], and (simple) soft fusion
in [13]. In simple soft fusion5 , the FC makes a decision ŴFC [j]
by comparing the sum sRX
j with ξFC . It can be shown that QFC [j]
for simple soft fusion with any realization of Wj−1
can be
TX
ad
obtained by replacing ξFC
[j] with the constant ξFC in (23). We
also propose one additional variant for comparison, namely,
SA-Constant. In SA-Constant, the behavior of each RX is the
same as that in SA-ML, but the FC makes a decision ŴFC [j]
by comparing sFC
j with a constant threshold ξFC , independent
of Wj−1
.
It
can
be shown that QFC [j] for SA-Constant with
TX
ad,SA
any realization of Wj−1
can be obtained by replacing ξFC
[j]
TX
with the threshold ξFC in (39). We summarize all perfect and
noisy reporting variants considered in this section in Table IV
and Table V, respectively. For these variants, we consider the
same parameters as for the ML detection variants listed in
Table II and described above. This ensures that the fairness of
our comparisons.
∗
In the following figures, we clarify that the value of QFC is
the minimum QFC by numerically optimizing the corresponding constant decision thresholds of each considered variant.
Unless otherwise noted, we emphasize that these thresholds
are constants that are optimized once over all realizations of
j−1
and all symbol intervals.
WTX
In the following figures, for each ML detection variant, we
plot the error probability with the local history and genieaided history. We observe that for all ML detection variants,
the error performance using the local history has a very
small degradation from that using the genie-aided history.
This demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed method
to estimate the symbols previously transmitted by the TX (and
by all the RXs for SD-ML and MD-ML). We also observe that
the simulations have very strong agreement with the analytical
results, thereby validating our analytical results, especially LML, SD-ML, and SA-ML with the genie-aided history.
In Fig. 2, we consider the perfect reporting scenario. We
plot the optimal average global error probability versus the
transmission time interval for F-ML, L-ML, the majority rule,
and the soft fusion variant. For each ttrans , we keep MRX and
treport fixed as in Table II, and let ∆tRX and T be ∆tRX =
ttrans /2MRX and T = ttrans +treport , respectively. In other words,
except for ∆tRX , ttrans , and T , all other parameters remain fixed.
We first observe that F-ML and L-ML achieve a significant
error performance improvement over the majority rule and the
soft fusion variant. This demonstrates the advantage of ML
detection for the cooperative MC system, even though the ML
detection is applied on a symbol-by-symbol basis. Second, we
observe that for the majority rule, the error performance gain
for the soft fusion variant is minimal relative to that achieved
with ML detection. This observation is not surprising since
the decision rule of L-ML is comparing the sum of all RXs’
ad
observations with the adaptive threshold ξFC
[j], while the soft

Optimal Average Global Error Probability

10

Simulation, Genie-aided History
Simulation, Local History
Analysis

SA-ML
10-1

SD-ML
1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of Samples by FC
∗

Fig. 3. Optimal average global error probability QFC of the SD-ML and SAML variants versus the number of samples by FC MFC with K = 1 in the
noisy reporting scenario.

fusion variant compares this sum with a constant threshold
ξFC . Third, we observe that F-ML outperforms L-ML. This is
due to the fact that the likelihood of every sample by each RX
is considered separately in F-ML, whereas only the sum of all
samples by each RX are considered in L-ML. Finally, we see
that the system error performance improves as ttrans increases.
This is because when ttrans and T increase, the ISI decreases.
In Figs. 3–4, we consider the noisy reporting scenario.
∗
We plot the optimal average global error probability QFC of
different variants versus the number of samples by the FC MFC .
In Figs. 3–4, the report time interval is fixed at treport = 0.3 ms
as in Table II and the time step at the FC for each MFC is
∆tFC = 0.3 ms/MFC .
In Fig. 3, we consider a single-RX system (which is
analogous to the two-hop environment considered in [31]). We
plot the optimal average global error probability of the SDML and SA-ML variants versus the number of samples by the
FC. We first observe that the error performance degradation
using the local history compared to the genie-aided history

11

TABLE IV
S UMMARY OF C ONSIDERED P ERFECT R EPORTING VARIANTS
Variants

Available Information at FC
RXk

Individual sample at each RX: sj,m

L-ML
F-ML
Soft Fusion [13]
Majority Rule [13], [14]

RXk

Sum of samples at each RX: sj
Sum of samples at all RXs: sRX
j
Binary decision of each RX: ŴRXk [j]

Behavior at FC
RX

k
Assess joint likelihood of samples sj,m
RXk

Assess joint likelihood of sums sj
Compare sRX
j with constant ξFC
Combine decisions ŴRXk [j]

TABLE V
S UMMARY OF C ONSIDERED N OISY R EPORTING VARIANTS
Variants
Majority Rule [13], [14]
MD-ML
SD-Constant [15]
SD-ML
SA-Constant
SA-ML

Relaying at RXs
DF
DF
DF
DF
AF
AF

Molecules Used in All RXs
Multiple-type
Multiple-type
Single-type
Single-type
Single-type
Single-type

for SD-ML is much smaller than that for SA-ML. This is
because in SD-ML, previous RX symbols can be accurately
estimated by the FC using ML detection from the RX-FC
links. However, for SA-ML, the FC does not directly estimate
the previous RX emissions from the RX-FC links and the FC
just generates many possible previous RX emissions based
on estimated TX symbols, hence the error in the estimation of
previous TX symbols propagates to the estimated previous RX
emissions. Second, we observe that SD-ML outperforms SAML. This is because in SA-ML, RXk amplifies the ISI at RXk
in the current symbol interval due to the previous TX symbols.
However, we note that SD-ML requires more computational
processing at the RXs since they need to decode the TX’s symbols, whereas SA-ML is more biologically realistic. Finally,
we observe that the system error performance improves as MFC
increases. This is because when MFC increases, the number of
molecules expected to be observed at each RX increases.
In Fig. 4, we consider a three-RX system. We plot the
optimal average global error probability versus the number
of samples by the FC for MD-ML and the majority rule,
SD-ML and SD-Constant, and SA-ML and SA-Constant in
Figs. 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c), respectively. We first observe that
the degradation with the local history for SA-ML is more
noticeable than that for MD-ML and SD-ML. In fact, we
made a similar observation in Fig. 3 and it can be explained
with similar reasons, i.e., in SA-ML, the FC does not estimate
the previous emissions of the RXs in the same way as SDML. Second, we observe that MD-ML, SD-ML, and SA-ML
outperform the majority rule, SD-Constant, and SA-Constant,
respectively, i.e., MD-ML, SD-ML, and SA-ML provide lower
bounds on the error probability for the majority rule, SDConstant, and SA-Constant, respectively. Specifically, the error
performance degradation with these simpler cooperative variants are all within an order of magnitude for the range of MFC
considered. This demonstrates the relatively good performance
of the simpler cooperative variants. We emphasize that these
simpler cooperative variants are more realistic to implement
in the MC domain.
In Fig. 5, we plot the optimal average global error probability versus the number of cooperative RXs for SD-ML, SA-ML,
SD-Constant, and SA-Constant in the noisy reporting scenario.

Behavior at FC
Combine estimated decisions
Assess joint likelihood of K sums sFC
j,k
Compare sFC
j with constant ξFC
Assess likelihood of sFC
j
Compare sFC
j with constant ξFC
Assess likelihood of sFC
j

The observations for SD-ML and SD-Constant are consistent
with our observations in Fig. 4(b) and the observations for SAML and SA-Constant are consistent with our observations in
Fig. 4(c). We also observe that SD-Constant outperforms SAML using the local history except when K = 4 and K = 5,
which demonstrates the good performance of SD-Constant
relative to SA-ML. Moreover, we see that the system error
performance improves as K increases, even though the total
number of molecules used in the cooperative MC system is
constrained.
In Fig. 6, we plot the optimal average global error probability versus the number of cooperative RXs for MD-ML,
SD-ML, SA-ML, and the majority rule in the noisy reporting
scenario, and L-ML in the perfect reporting scenario. The
observations for MD-ML and the majority rule are consistent
with our observations in Fig. 4(a). Otherwise, we first observe
that the error performance reduction with the majority rule,
compared to SD-ML, is within an order of magnitude for the
range of K considered. Second, we observe that the majority
rule outperforms SA-ML using the local history. These observations demonstrate the good performance of the majority
rule, relative to SD-ML and SA-ML. Third, we observe that
L-ML has a significant error performance improvement over
MD-ML and the majority rule, i.e., L-ML provides a lower
bound on the achievable error performance of the system in
the noisy reporting scenario. Fourth, we observe that MD-ML
outperforms SD-ML and SD-ML outperforms SA-ML. This is
because the knowledge of individual sFC
j,k for each RXk − FC
link in MD-ML improves detection performance over only
knowing the sum sFC
j in SD-ML. Comparing to RXk making
binary decision in the current symbol interval in SD-ML, RXk
amplifies the ISI at RXk in the current symbol interval due to
the previous TX symbols in SA-ML. In addition, we see again
that the system error performance improves as K increases,
even with a limit on the total number of molecules.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
Combined with our initial work in [25], we presented for
the first time symbol-by-symbol ML detection for the cooperative diffusion-based MC system with multiple communication
phases. This approach enables us to determine lower bounds

Simulation, Genie-aided History
Simulation, Local History
Analysis
Simulation

10-1

Majority Rule
10-2

MD-ML
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Number of Samples by FC

Optimal Average Global Error Probability

Optimal Average Global Error Probability

12

SA-Constant

SA-ML
10-2

SD-Constant

SD-ML

Simulation, Genie-aided History
Simulation, Local History
Analysis
Simulation

10-3

2

3

5

6

∗

Fig. 5. Optimal average global error probability QFC of different variants
versus the number of RXs K in the noisy reporting scenario. The analytical
error performance of SD-Constant is presented in [15].

Simulation, Genie-aided History
Simulation, Local History
Analysis
Simulation

10-1

SD-Constant

10

10-2
SD-ML
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Number of Samples by FC

10

(b) SD-ML and SD-Constant

Optimal Average Global Error Probability

Optimal Average Global Error Probability

Optimal Average Global Error Probability

4

Number of RXs

(a) MD-ML and the majority rule

Simulation, Genie-aided History
Simulation, Local History
Analysis
Simulation

10-1

SA-ML

-2

Simulation, Genie-aided History
Simulation, Local History
Analysis
Simulation

Majority Rule

-3

SD-ML
L-ML

2

3

MD-ML

4

5

6

Number of RXs
SA-Constant

∗

Fig. 6. Optimal average global error probability QFC of different variants
versus the number of RXs K in the noisy reporting scenario. The analytical
error performance of the majority rule is presented in [14].
SA-ML

10-2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Number of Samples by FC
(c) SA-ML and SA-Constant
∗

Fig. 4. Optimal average global error probability QFC versus the number of
samples by FC MFC with K = 3 in the noisy reporting scenario for (a)
MD-ML and the majority rule, (b) SD-ML and SD-Constant, and (c) SA-ML
and SA-Constant. The analytical error performance of the majority rule and
SD-Constant is presented in [14] and [15], respectively.

on the error performance of simpler cooperative variants. We
considered the transmission of a sequence of binary symbols
and accounted for the resultant ISI in the design and analysis
of the cooperative MC system. We presented five ML detection
variants with different constraints on the knowledge available
at the FC, i.e., F-ML, L-ML, MD-ML, SD-ML, and SA-ML.

For practicality, the FC chooses the current symbol using its
own local history. For tractability, we derived the system error
probabilities for L-ML, SD-ML, and SA-ML using the genieaided history. The analytical expressions for system error
probabilities for L-ML and SA-ML are given in closed form.
Using numerical and simulation results, we corroborated the
accuracy of these analytical expressions. We demonstrated
the good performance of the simpler cooperative variants
in [13]–[15] relative to the noisy reporting variants of ML
detectors, e.g., the error performance degradation with these
simpler cooperative variants, compared to noisy ML detector
variants, are all within an order of magnitude in Section V.
Our results revealed the trade-off among the performance,
knowledge of previously-transmitted symbols, the types of
molecule available, and computational complexity.

13

A PPENDIX
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2
We first prove the decision rule for SD-ML when λ̂DN [j] > 0.
To this end, based on (5), we first rewrite the general decision
LSD [j]
rule for SD-ML as ŴFC [j] = 1 if L1SD [j] ≥ 1, otherwise
0

LSD [j]

ŴFC [j] = 0. Thus, if L1SD [j] is a monotonically increasing
0
function with respect to sFC
j , then we can obtain the decision
LSD [j]

rule above. To prove L1SD [j] is a monotonically increasing
0
function with respect to sFC
j , we take the first derivative of
LSD
1 [j]
LSD
0 [j]

with respect to sFC
j as
∂LSD
∂LSD
1 [j] SD
0 [j] SD
L0 [j] −
L1 [j]
FC
∂sj
∂sFC
j

  
K
K
X
X
K
K
= 
Z
Z1
Z=0 Z1 =0,Z>Z1


× exp −2λ̂DN [j] − Z λ̂Ds [j] − Z1 λ̂Ds [j] AB


sFC

sFC
j
j
D
D
D
D
× λ̂N [j] + Z λ̂s [j]
λ̂N [j] + Z1 λ̂s [j]
−2
FC
× LSD
,
(40)
0 [j] sj !

where
A = log



 

λ̂DN [j] + Z λ̂Ds [j] / λ̂DN [j] + Z1 λ̂Ds [j]

(41)

and
Z

B = (1 − Pmd [j]) Pmd [j]K−Z Pfa [j]Z1
K−Z1

× (1 − Pfa [j])

Z

− (1 − Pmd [j]) 1 Pmd [j]K−Z1
K−Z

× Pfa [j]Z (1 − Pfa [j])

.

(42)

In (40), we note that in each summand, except for AB, all
terms are positive. Here, we have A ≥ 0 since Z ≥ Z1 for the
inner sum. We note that B ≥ 0 if 1−Pmd [j]−Pfa [j] ≥ 0 holds
and Z > Z1 . In fact, the condition 1 − Pmd [j] − Pfa [j] ≥ 0 is
always valid. Thus, we have AB ≥ 0 and (40) is always nonLSD [j]
negative. This proves that L1SD [j] is a monotonically increasing
0
function with respect to sFC
j . Thus, we obtain the decision rule
when λ̂DN [j] > 0. The decision rule when λ̂DN [j] = 0 can be
proven analogously to the proof of Theorem 1. This completes
the proof.
R EFERENCES
[1] W. Guo, T. Asyhari, N. Farsad, H. B. Yilmaz, B. Li, A. W. Eckford, and
C.-B. Chae, “Molecular communications: Channel model and physical
layer techniques,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 4, pp.
120–127, Aug. 2016.
[2] T. Nakano, A. W. Eckford, and T. Haraguchi, Molecular Communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
[3] T. Nakano and J. Q. Liu, “Design and analysis of molecular relay
channels: An information theoretic approach,” IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci.,
vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 213–221, Sep. 2010.
[4] S. M. Baylor and S. Hollingworth, “Calcium indicators and calcium signalling in skeletal muscle fibres during excitation-contraction coupling,”
Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol., vol. 105, pp. 162–179, June 2010.
[5] B. Atakan and O. B. Akan, “On molecular multiple-access, broadcast,
and relay channels in nanonetworks,” in Proc. ICST BIONETICS, Nov.
2008, pp. 16:1–16:8.

[6] M. J. Moore, T. Suda, and K. Oiwa, “Molecular communication:
Modeling noise effects on information rate,” IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci.,
vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 169–180, June 2009.
[7] T. Nakano, Y. Okaie, and A. V. Vasilakos, “Transmission rate control
for molecular communication among biological nanomachines,” IEEE
J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 835–846, Dec. 2013.
[8] C. T. Chou, “Extended master equation models for molecular communication networks,” IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 79–92,
June 2013.
[9] A. Einolghozati, M. Sardari, and F. Fekri, “Design and analysis of
wireless communication systems using diffusion-based molecular communication among bacteria,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12,
no. 12, pp. 6096–6105, Dec. 2013.
[10] ——, “Networks of bacteria colonies: A new framework for reliable molecular communication networking,” Nano Commun. Networks,
vol. 7, pp. 17 – 26, 2016.
[11] B. H. Koo, C. Lee, H. B. Yilmaz, N. Farsad, A. W. Eckford, and C.-B.
Chae, “Molecular MIMO: From theory to prototype,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 600–614, Mar. 2016.
[12] T. Furubayashi, T. Nakano, A. W. Eckford, and T. Yomo, “Reliable endto-end molecular communication with packet replication and retransmission,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Dec. 2015, pp. 1–6.
[13] Y. Fang, A. Noel, N. Yang, A. W. Eckford, and R. A. Kennedy,
“Distributed cooperative detection for multi-receiver molecular communication,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Dec. 2016, pp. 1–7.
[14] ——, “Convex optimization of distributed cooperative detection in
multi-receiver molecular communication,” submitted to IEEE Trans.
Mol. Bio. Multi-Scale Commun., pp. 1–16, 2016. [Online]. Available:
arXiv:1611.05590
[15] Y. Fang, A. Noel, Y. Wang, and N. Yang, “Simplified cooperative
detection for multi-receiver molecular communication,” in Proc. IEEE
ITW, Nov. 2017, pp. 1–5.
[16] J. G. Proakis, Digital Communication, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
2000.
[17] D. Kilinc and O. B. Akan, “Receiver design for molecular communication,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 705–714, Dec.
2013.
[18] A. Noel, K. C. Cheung, and R. Schober, “Optimal receiver design for
diffusive molecular communication with flow and additive noise,” IEEE
Trans. Nanobiosci., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 350–362, Sept. 2014.
[19] L. S. Meng, P. C. Yeh, K. C. Chen, and I. F. Akyildiz, “On receiver
design for diffusion-based molecular communication,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 22, pp. 6032–6044, Nov. 2014.
[20] M. U. Mahfuz, D. Makrakis, and H. T. Mouftah, “A comprehensive
analysis of strength-based optimum signal detection in concentrationencoded molecular communication with spike transmission,” IEEE
Trans. Nanobiosci., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 67–83, Jan. 2015.
[21] A. Singhal, R. K. Mallik, and B. Lall, “Performance analysis of
amplitude modulation schemes for diffusion-based molecular communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 5681–5691,
Oct. 2015.
[22] T. C. Mai, M. Egan, T. Q. Duong, and M. D. Renzo, “Event detection
in molecular communication networks with anomalous diffusion,” IEEE
Commun. Lett., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1249–1252, June 2017.
[23] R. Mosayebi, V. Jamali, N. Ghoroghchian, R. Schober, M. N. Kenari, and
M. Mehrabi, “Cooperative abnormality detection via diffusive molecular
communications,” pp. 1–30. [Online]. Available: arXiv:1703.10084
[24] U. Rogers and M. S. Koh, “Parallel molecular distributed detection with
brownian motion,” IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci., vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 871–880,
Dec. 2016.
[25] Y. Fang, A. Noel, N. Yang, A. W. Eckford, and R. A. Kennedy,
“Maximum likelihood detection for cooperative molecular communication,” 2017, pp. 1–7, submitted to IEEE ICC 2018. [Online]. Available:
arXiv:1704.05623
[26] J. Suzuki, D. H. Phan, and H. Budiman, “A nonparametric stochastic optimizer for TDMA-based neuronal signaling,” IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci.,
vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 244–254, Sept. 2014.
[27] A. Ahmadzadeh, A. Noel, A. Burkovski, and R. Schober, “Amplify-andforward relaying in two-hop diffusion-based molecular communication
networks,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Dec. 2015, pp. 1–7.
[28] M. S. Kuran, H. B. Yilmaz, T. Tugcu, and I. F. Akyildiz, “Modulation
techniques for communication via diffusion in nanonetworks,” in Proc.
IEEE ICC, June 2011, pp. 1–5.
[29] H. ShahMohammadian, G. G. Messier, and S. Magierowski, “Blind
synchronization in diffusion-based molecular communication channels,”
IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 2156–2159, Nov. 2013.

14

[30] S. Abadal and I. F. Akyildiz, “Bio-inspired synchronization for
nanocommunication networks,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Dec. 2011,
pp. 1–5.
[31] A. Ahmadzadeh, A. Noel, and R. Schober, “Analysis and design of
multi-hop diffusion-based molecular communication networks,” IEEE
Trans. Mol. Biol. Multi-Scale Commun., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 144–157,
June 2015.
[32] A. Noel, K. C. Cheung, and R. Schober, “Using dimensional analysis to
assess scalability and accuracy in molecular communication,” in Proc.
IEEE ICC, June 2013, pp. 818–823.
[33] S. S. Andrews and D. Bray, “Stochastic simulation of chemical reactions
with spatial resolution and single molecule detail,” Physical Biology,
vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 135–151, Aug. 2004.

