1

On Optimal Power Allocation for Downlink
Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access Systems

arXiv:1707.06350v1 [] 20 Jul 2017

Jianyue Zhu, Student Member, IEEE, Jiaheng Wang, Senior Member, IEEE, Yongming Huang, Member, IEEE,
Shiwen He, Member, IEEE, Xiaohu You, Fellow, IEEE, and Luxi Yang, Member, IEEE

Abstract—Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) enables
power-domain multiplexing via successive interference cancellation (SIC) and has been viewed as a promising technology for 5G
communication. The full benefit of NOMA depends on resource
allocation, including power allocation and channel assignment,
for all users, which, however, leads to mixed integer programs.
In the literature, the optimal power allocation has only been
found in some special cases, while the joint optimization of power
allocation and channel assignment generally requires exhaustive
search. In this paper, we investigate resource allocation in downlink NOMA systems. As the main contribution, we analytically
characterize the optimal power allocation with given channel
assignment over multiple channels under different performance
criteria. Specifically, we consider the maximin fairness, weighted
sum rate maximization, sum rate maximization with quality of
service (QoS) constraints, energy efficiency maximization with
weights or QoS constraints in NOMA systems. We also take
explicitly into account the order constraints on the powers of
the users on each channel, which are often ignored in the
existing works, and show that they have a significant impact
on SIC in NOMA systems. Then, we provide the optimal power
allocation for the considered criteria in closed or semi-closed
form. We also propose a low-complexity efficient method to
jointly optimize channel assignment and power allocation in
NOMA systems by incorporating the matching algorithm with
the optimal power allocation. Simulation results show that the
joint resource optimization using our optimal power allocation
yields better performance than the existing schemes.
Index Terms—Non-orthogonal multiple access, power allocation, successive interference cancellation, quality of service,
combinatorial optimization, sum rate, fairness, energy efficiency,
channel assignment.

I. I NTRODUCTION
As a result of the popularity of internet-of-things and
cloud-based applications, there is an explosive demand of
new services and data traffic for wireless communications.
Hence, the fifth generation (5G) communication systems propose higher requirements in data rates, lower latency, and
massive connectivity [1]. In order to meet these high demands,
some potential technologies, such as massive multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO) [2], millimeter wave [3], small cell
[4]–[6] and device to device communication [7], [8] will be
introduced into 5G communication systems. Recently, nonorthogonal multiple access (NOMA), which can support overloaded transmission with limited resources and further improve
The authors are with the National Mobile Communications Research
Lab, Information Science and Engineering School, Southeast University, Nanjing, China (email: {zhujy, jhwang, huangym, shiwenhe, xhyu,
lxyang}@seu.edu.cn).

the spectral efficiency [9], arises as a promising technology for
5G communication systems.
The conventional multiple access schemes, which are categorized as orthogonal multiple access technologies, are not
sufficient to support a massive connectivity because different
users are allocated to orthogonal resources in order to mitigate multiple access interference [10]. On the other side, by
using superposition coding at the transmitter with successive
interference cancellation (SIC) at the receiver, NOMA allows
allocating one (frequency, time, code, or spatial) channel to
multiple users at the same time [11], which can lead to
better performance in terms of spectral efficiency, fairness, or
energy efficiency [12]. Therefore, NOMA has received much
attention recently. In [13] and [14], the authors discussed
an combination of NOMA with MIMO technologies. NOMA
has also been introduced to be used with other technologies,
e.g., visible light communication [15] and millimeter wave
communication [16].
The basic idea of NOMA is to implement multiple access
in the power domain [9]. Hence, the key to achieve the
full benefit of NOMA systems is resource allocation, which
usually include power allocation and channel assignment.
Unfortunately, the joint optimization of power allocation and
channel assignment in NOMA systems leads to a mixed
integer program [17], which has been proved to be a NP-hard
problem in [18]. Hence, finding the jointly optimal resource
allocation generally requires exhaustive search [19], which,
however, causes prohibitive complexity and is not applicable
for practical systems. Therefore, suboptimal but efficient resource optimization methods are more preferred in practice.
Such efficient methods are often obtained by optimizing power
allocation and channel assignment alternately [17], [20]–[22].
In this paper, we investigate resource allocation with a focus on
power allocation for downlink NOMA systems under various
criteria.
A. Related Works
In NOMA systems, resource allocation has been studied for
different performance measures. In the literature, the sum rate
maximization is the most commonly adopted objective, and
there are a number of related works [19], [20], [22], [23].
In [23], the authors investigated the optimal power allocation
to maximize the sum rate with QoS constraints only for two
users on one channel. In [20], the problem of maximizing
the weighted sum rate in a downlink orthogonal frequency
division multiplexing access (OFDMA) based NOMA system

2

was studied, where the nonconvex power allocation problem
was solved via DC (difference of two convex functions)
programming and thus only a suboptimal power allocation
solution was provided. In [19], the authors also considered
the weighted sum rate maximization and exploited monotonic
optimization to develop an optimal joint power allocation and
channel assignment policy, which, however, has an exponential
complexity and only serves as a system performance benchmark. In [22], the authors introduced a resource allocation
method based on waterfilling to improve the total achieved
system throughput but there is no guarantee for the optimality
of the obtained solution.
Fairness is also an important issue in NOMA systems, where
the most common fairness indication is the maximin fairness
(MMF). Therefore, a number of works has studied resource
allocation for MMF, e.g., [24]–[26]. In [24] and [26], the
authors investigated the optimal power allocation based on
MMF for users on one channel using statistical channel state
information (CSI) and instantaneous CSI, respectively. The
proportional fairness scheduling that maximizes the weighted
MMF was studied in [25], where the optimal solution was
only derived for two users on a single channel.
As energy efficiency (EE) becomes an important performance measure of wireless communication systems, the resource problem that maximizes the EE in NOMA systems
has also been considered but only in two works [21], [27].
In [27], the authors developed the optimal power allocation
for maximizing the EE with QoS constraints but only for
the users on one channel. The joint power allocation and
channel assignment for maximizing the EE was considered
in [21], whereas only a suboptimal solution was obtained via
DC programming.
In summary, so far the optimal power allocation was only
found for users on a single channel under particular performance criteria, but unknown in the general case for all
users on multiple channels. Furthermore, in almost all existing
works, the order constraints on the powers of users were either
ignored or not explicitly taken into account.
B. Contributions
In this paper, we investigate resource allocation in downlink
NOMA systems with a focus on seeking the optimal power allocation for multiple channels and users under various performance criteria. The contributions in this paper are summarized
in the following:
• We consider different criteria that lead to different problem formulations, including the maximin fairness, the
weighted sum rate maximization, the sum rate maximization with QoS constraints, the energy efficiency
maximization with weights or QoS constraints.
• We take explicitly into account the order constraints on
the powers of users on each channel that guarantee the
decoding order of SIC on each channel unchanged in
NOMA systems.
• Then, we analytically characterize the optimal power allocation and provide closed-form or semi-closed solutions
to the formulated power optimization problems.

It is shown that the power order constraints could result
in an equal signal strength, which may cause a failure of
SIC or a large error propagation. Thus, we introduce the
concept of SIC-stability and identify the conditions that
avoid equal power allocation in NOMA systems under
different criteria.
• We propose an efficient method to jointly optimize the
channel assignment and power allocation by incorporating the matching algorithm with our optimal power
allocation and iteratively using them to refine the solution.
• The obtained optimal power allocation can also be used
with other channel assignment algorithms and can even
reduce the complexity of the exhaustive search for jointly
optimal resource allocation.
• Finally, it is shown via simulations that the proposed joint
resource optimization method outperforms the existing
schemes and achieves near-optimal performance.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
introduces the NOMA system model and various resource
optimization problems under different performance criteria
and constraints. In Section III, Section IV, and Section V,
we investigate the optimal power allocation for the MMF,
sum rate maximization, and EE maximization, respectively. In
Section VI, a joint channel assignment and power allocation
optimization algorithm is proposed. The performance of the
proposed power allocation is evaluated in section VII by
simulations and the conclusion is drawn in Section VIII.
•

II. P ROBLEM S TATEMENT
A. System Model
Consider a downlink NOMA network wherein a base station
(BS) serves N users through M channels. The total bandwidth
B is equally divided to M channels so the bandwidth of each
channel is Bc = B/M . Let Nm ∈ {N1 , N2 , ..., NM } be the
number of users using channel m for m = 1, 2, · · · , M and
UEn,m denotes user n on channel m for n = 1, 2, · · · , Nm .
The signal transmitted by the BS on each channel m can be
expressed as
Nm
X
√
pn,m sn
xm =
n=1

where sn is the symbol of UEn,m and pn,m is the power
allocated to UEn,m . The received signal at UEn,m is
yn,m =

√
pn,m hn,m sn +

Nm
X

√
pi,m hn,m si + zn,m

i=1,i6=n

where hn,m = gn,m d−α
is the channel coefficient from the
n
BS to UEn,m , gn,m follows a Rayleigh distribution, dn is
the distance between the BS and UEn,m , α is the path2
loss exponent, and zn,m ∼ CN (0, σm
) is the additive white
Gaussian noise (AWGN).
According to the principle of NOMA, one channel can
be assigned to multiple users, who will use SIC to decode
2
2
their signals. Specifically, let Γn,m = |hn,m | /σm
be the
channel to noise ratio (CNR) of UEn,m . Assume without loss

3

of generality (w.l.o.g.) that the CNRs of the users on channel
m are ordered as
Γ1,m ≥ · · · ≥ Γn,m ≥ · · · ≥ ΓNm ,m
i.e., UE1,m and UENm ,m are the strongest and weakest users
on channel m, respectively. Then, the NOMA protocol allocates higher powers to the users with lower CNRs [9], [28],
leading to p1,m ≤ · · · ≤ pn,m ≤ · · · ≤ pNm ,m . Hence, UEn,m
is able to decode signals of UEi,m for i > n and remove
them from its own signal, but treats the signals from UEi,m
for i < n as interference. Therefore, the signal to interferenceplus-noise ratio (SINR) of UEn,m using SIC is given by
γn,m =

pn,m Γn,m
.
Pn−1
1 + i=1 pi,m Γn,m

Thus, the data rate of UEn,m is

pn,m Γn,m
Rn,m (pn,m ) = Bc log 1 +
Pn−1
1 + i=1
pi,m Γn,m

!

.

Using SIC at each user’s receiver causes additional complexity, which is proportional to the number of users on
the same channel. Thus, in practice, each channel is often
restricted to be assigned to two users [21], [28], [29], which
is also beneficial to reduce the error propagation of SIC. In
this paper, we would also like to focus on this typical situation
and assume that Nm = 2 for m = 1, 2, · · · , M and N = 2M .
In this case, suppose w.l.o.g. that the CNRs of UE1,m and
UE2,m are ordered as Γ1,m ≥ Γ2,m . Then, the rates of UE1,m
and UE2,m on channel m are given respectively by
R1,m = Bc log (1
 + p1,m Γ1,m ) , 
R2,m = Bc log 1 +

p2,m Γ2,m
p1,m Γ2,m +1

.

B. Problem Formulation
The performance of a NOMA scheme relies on resource
allocation, including power allocation and channel assignment,
for all users. In this paper, we investigate optimization of
resource allocation for NOMA systems. For this purpose, we
consider the following performance measures.
1) Maximin fairness: A common criterion is the maximin
fairness (MMF), which aims to provide fairness for all
users. The corresponding resource allocation problem is
given by
max

min

m=1,...,M

{R1,m , R2,m } .

(1)

The similar problems have been studied in [24]–[26],
whereas the optimal power allocation was only found
for a few users on a single channel but unknown for all
users over multiple channels.
2) Sum rate: The most common objective is to maximize
the sum rate (SR) of all users. To avoid that the resource
on each channel is occupied by one user, weights or QoS
constraints are often introduced into SR maximization.
In this paper, we consider both the weighted SR maximization:
M
X
max
(W1,m R1,m + W2,m R2,m )
(2)
m=1

where Wn,m is the weight of UEn,m , and the SR
maximization with QoS constraints:
max

M
X

(R1,m + R2,m )

(3)

m=1
min
s.t. Rn,m ≥ Rn,m
, n = 1, 2, ∀m
min
where Rn,m
is the QoS threshold of UEn,m . Although
two problems have been studied in a number of works,
e.g., [19], [20], [22], [23], the optimal power allocation
was only found for two users on one channel [23], while
the joint resource optimization is either suboptimal [20],
[22] or needs exhaustive search [19].
3) Energy efficiency: In this paper, we also consider improving energy efficiency (EE) of the NOMA system,
which is defined as the ratio between the sum rate
and the power consumption of the whole system. When
weights or QoS constraints are introduced, the EE maximization problem can be formulated as
PM
m=1 (W1,m R1,m + W2,m R2,m )
(4)
max
PM
PT + m=1 (p1,m + p2,m )
or
PM
m=1 (R1,m + R2,m )
(5)
max
PM
PT + m=1 (p1,m + p2,m )
min
s.t. Rn,m ≥ Rn,m
, n = 1, 2, ∀m

where PT is the power consumption of the circuits and
SIC on all channels. This problem has only been studied
in [27] but only for one channel.
In addition to the above objectives and QoS constraints, one
shall also consider power constraints in NOMA systems. The
transmit power constraint of the BS is given by
M
X

(p1,m + p2,m ) ≤ P

m=1

where P is the total power budget of the BS. In NOMA
systems, there is an implicit power constraint for the users
on each channel m, i.e .,
p1,m ≤ p2,m , m = 1, . . . , M
which is to guarantee that a higher power is allocated to the
user with a lower CNR (i.e.,UE2,m ) on channel m so that the
decoding order of the SIC is not changed. However, in most
existing works, the power order constraints were ignored. In
this paper, we will show that it is important to take such
constraints into account explicitly in power allocation for
NOMA.
The joint optimization of power allocation and channel
assignment in NOMA systems is, unfortunately, a mixed
integer problem. Finding the jointly optimal solution requires
exhaustive search [17], which results in prohibitive computational complexity. Therefore, in practice, power allocation
and channel assignment are often separately and alternatively
optimized, i.e., fix one and optimize the other [17], [20],
[21], which may lead to, though possibly suboptimal, efficient
resource allocation solutions. In this paper, we would also

4

like to use this methodology. Specifically, we first optimize
power allocation with given channel assignment, and then
optimize channel assignment. The most exciting thing is that,
different from all existing works, we are able to find the
optimal power allocation for all users over multiple channels
for all above considered performance measures. The optimal
power allocation is either given in a closed-form expression or
can be efficiently obtained via the proposed algorithms. Our
results will dramatically simplify the joint resource allocation
and improve the system performance.
III. O PTIMAL P OWER A LLOCATION FOR M AXIMIN
FAIRNESS
The NOMA scheme enables a flexible management of
the users’ achievable rates and provides an efficient way to
enhance user fairness. In this section, we study the optimal
power allocation to achieve the maximin fairness (MMF) in
the NOMA system. According to (1), with given channel
assignment, the MMF problem is equivalent to the following
power allocation problem:

of OP MMF
2,m is R1,m (p1,m ), which is increasing in p1,m . So the
maximizer is the upper bound p1,m = Λm . Therefore, the
optimal point is p⋆1,m = Λm . Finally, it can be verified that
p⋆1,m = Λm ≤ qm /2 .

Remark 1. From Proposition 1, we obtain R1,m (p⋆1,m , p⋆2,m ) =
MMF⋆
R2,m (p⋆1,m , p⋆2,m ) = fm
, where
MMF⋆
fm
,
q


Γ2,m −Γ1,m + (Γ1,m +Γ2,m ) 2 +4Γ1,mΓ22,m qm
,
Bc log
2Γ2,m

(6)

i.e., UE1,m and UE2,m achieve the same rate at the optimal
point. This indicates that, under the MMF criterion, the
NOMA system will provide absolute fairness for two users
on one channel.
To elaborate another important insight, we introduce the
following definition.

Definition 1. A NOMA system is called SIC-stable if the
optimal
power allocation satisfies p1,m < p2,m on each
max min {R1,m (p1,m , p2,m ), R2,m (p1,m , p2,m )}
p1 ,p2 m=1,...,M
channel
m.
OP MMF
:
P
1
s.t. 0 ≤ p1 ≤ p2 , M
m=1 p1,m + p2,m ≤ P
Remark 2. In NOMA systems, SIC is performed according
M
.
However,
and
p
=
{p
}
where p1 = {p1,m }M
to the order of the CNRs of the users on one channel [9],
2,m
m=1
m=1
2
OP MMF
is
a
nonconvex
problem,
as
its
objective
is
not
[28], which is guaranteed by imposing an inverse order of the
1
concave. Its optimal solution has only been found in the special powers allocated to the users, i.e., p1,m ≤ p2,m on channel m.
case M = 1 [24]–[26], i.e., a single channel, but unknown in Specifically, UE1,m (the strong user with a higher CNR) first
the general case yet.
decodes the signal of UE2,m (the weak user with a lower CNR)
To address this problem, we first introduce auxiliary vari- and then subtracts it from the superposed signal. Therefore,
ables q = {qm }M
from the SIC perspective, a difference between the signal
m=1 , where qm represents the power budget
for channel m with p1,m + p2,m = qm . Suppose that the strengths of UE2,m and UE1,m is necessary [30]. However,
MMF
channel power budgets {qm }M
even with the power order constraint, the power optimization
m=1 are given. Then, OP 1
is decomposed into a group of subproblems for each channel may lead to p1,m = p2,m , i.e., UE1,m and UE2,m have the
m:
same signal strength, which is the worst situation for SIC. In
max min {R1,m (p1,m , p2,m ), R2,m (p1,m , p2,m )} this case, SIC may fail or has a large error propagation and
p1,m ,p2,m
OP MMF
thus is unstable. Indeed, the authors in [31] pointed out that
2,m :
s.t.
0 ≤ p1,m ≤ p2,m , p1,m + p2,m = qm .
the power of the weak user must be strictly larger than that
MMF
We first solve subproblem OP 2,m and show that its optimal of the strong user, otherwise the users’ outage probabilities
will always be one. Definition 1 explicitly concretizes such a
solution is given in a closed form.
practical requirement in NOMA systems.
Proposition 1. Suppose that Γ1,m ≥ Γ2,m . Then, the optimal
⋆
⋆
Lemma 1. The NOMA system is SIC-stable for OP MMF
.
1
solution to OP MMF
2,m is given by p1,m = Λm and p2,m = qm −
2

2
p⋆1,m , where Γl,m , |hl,m | /σm
and
Proof. Given Γ1,m ≥ Γ2,m , we have
q
2Γ2,m qm
− (Γ1,m + Γ2,m )+ (Γ1,m + Γ2,m ) 2 + 4Γ1,m Γ22,m qm Λm =
q
.
Λm ,
(Γ1,m + Γ2,m ) + (Γ1,m + Γ2,m ) 2 + 4Γ1,m Γ22,m qm
2Γ1,m Γ2,m
qm
Γ2,m qm
Proof. From the constraint p1,m +p2,m = qm , we have p2,m =
≤
,
<
Γ1,m + Γ2,m
2
qm − p1,m , so p1,m ≤ p2,m is equivalent to p1,m ≤ qm /2.
Substituting p2,m = qm −p1,m into R1,m and R2,m , we obtain which indicates p⋆1,m < p⋆2,m for each m. Therefore, the
NOMA system is SIC-stable.
R1,m (p1,m ) , Bc log (1
),
 + p1,m Γ1,m
qm Γ2,m +1
Remark 3. According to Definition 1 and indicated by Lemma
R2,m (p1,m ) , Bc log p1,m
Γ2,m +1 .
1, the NOMA system is always SIC-stable under the MMF
If p1,m ≥ Λm , then R1,m (p1,m ) ≥ R2,m (p1,m ) and the criterion, as in this case the optimal power allocation always
objective of OP MMF
satisfies p⋆1,m < p⋆2,m , ∀m. On the other hand, in the sub2,m is R2,m (p1,m ), which is decreasing in
p1,m . So the maximizer is the lower bound p1,m = Λm . If sequent sections, we will show that a NOMA system is not
p1,m ≤ Λm , then R1,m (p1,m ) ≤ R2,m (p1,m ) and the objective always SIC-stable under different criteria and constraints.

5

To obtain the optimal power allocation for all channels,
we shall optimize the power budget qm for each channel m.
According to OP MMF
and OP MMF
1
2,m , the corresponding power
budget optimization problem is given by
OP MMF
3

max

:

q

s.t.

min

MMF⋆
fm
(qm )

m=1,...,M
PM
m=1 qm

≤ P, q ≥ 0

MMF⋆
where fm
(qm ) is the optimal objective value of OP MMF
2,m
and given in (6).
MMF⋆
Lemma 2. fm
(qm ) is a concave function.
MMF⋆
2
Proof. It can be verified that ∂ 2 fm
/∂qm
< 0 and hence
MMF⋆
fm (qm ) is concave.

From Lemma 2, OP MMF
is actually a convex problem,
3
whose solution can be efficiently found via standard convex
optimization tools, e.g., CVX. Nevertheless, we are able to
analytically characterize the optimal solution to (8).
Theorem 1. The optimal solution to OP MMF
is given by
3
⋆
qm
=

(Z (λ) Γ2,m + Γ1,m ) (Z (λ) − 1)
, ∀m
Γ1,m Γ2,m

(7)

Z (λ) ,X +

X2 +

PM

Bc
2λ

PM

m=1

1/Γ1,m

m=1

,

t

q,t

s.t.

q ≥ 0,

PM

m=1 qm

MMF⋆
≤ P, fm
(qm ) ≥ t, ∀m

= 0.

It follows from (9) and (10) that µm = λ 6= 0. Then, (10) is
equivalent to
C1 a2t − C2 at − 1 = 0
PM
where C1
=
2λ ln a m=1 1/Γ1,m and C2
=
PM
λ ln a m=1 (Γ2,m − Γ1,m )/(Γ1,m Γ2,m ). By solving this
quadratic equation, we obtain
s
2

1
C2
C2
t
+
+
a =
2C1
2C1
C1
s
Bc
= X + X2 +
= Z (λ) .
PM
2λ m=1 1/Γ1,m
Finally, from (11), we have

(at Γ2,m + Γ1,m ) (at − 1)
Γ1,m Γ2,m
(Z (λ) Γ2,m + Γ1,m ) (Z (λ) − 1)
≥0
=
Γ1,m Γ2,m

qm =

(12)

Proof. Given the optimal qm in (12), it can be verified that
MMF⋆
fm
(qm ) = t for m = 1, . . . , M .

Proof. We first transform OP MMF
into
3
max

qm − P

Corollary 1. Under the MMF criterion, the optimal power
allocation achieves the absolute fairness for all the users on
all channels, i.e., R1,m = R2,m = r, m = 1, . . . , M , for some
r ≥ 0.

(Γ2,m − Γ1,m ) / (Γ1,m Γ2,m )
PM
4 m=1 1/Γ1,m
PM
⋆
and λ is chosen such that m=1 qm
= P.
X,

m=1

!

which completes the proof.

where
s

λ

M
X

(8)

MMF⋆
where fm
(qm ) ≥ t is equivalent to qm ≥ (at Γ2,m +
t
Γ1,m )(a − 1)/(Γ1,m Γ2,m ) with a = 21/Bc . Then, the Lagrange of (8) can be written as


M
X
(at Γ2,m + Γ1,m ) (at − 1)
µm qm −
L =t +
Γ1,m Γ2,m
m=1
!
M
X
−λ
qm − P
m=1

where {µm }M
m=1 and λ are the Lagrange multipliers. Since
(8) is a convex optimization problem, its optimal solution is
characterized by the following Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT)
conditions:
∂L
= µm − λ = 0,
(9)
∂qm
M
M
M
X
∂L
2µm ln a t X µm ln a t X µm ln a
+a
−a
= 0,
= 1−a2t
∂t
Γ1,m
Γ1,m
Γ2,m
m=1
m=1
m=1
(10)


(at Γ2,m + Γ1,m ) (at − 1)
= 0,
(11)
µm qm −
Γ1,m Γ2,m

The optimal power allocation under the MMF criterion is
fully characterized by Theorem 1 and Proposition 1. It follows
⋆
from (7) that qm
is P
monotonically decreasing in λ, so the
M
⋆
= P can be efficiently found
optimal λ satisfying m=1 qm
via a simple bisection method.
IV. O PTIMAL P OWER A LLOCATION

FOR

S UM R ATE

In this section, we seek the optimal power allocation for
maximizing the weighted sum rate (SR) or maximizing the
SR with QoS constraints.
A. Weighted SR Maximization (SR1)
According to (2), with given channel assignment, the problem of maximizing the weighted sum rate is equivalent to the
following power allocation problem:
PM
max
m=1 g(p1,m , p2,m )
SR1
OP 1 : p1 ,p2
PM
s.t. 0 ≤ p1 ≤ p2 ,
m=1 (p1,m + p2,m ) ≤ P

where g(p1,m , p2,m )
,
W1,m R1,m (p1,m , p2,m ) +
W2,m R2,m (p1,m , p2,m ). As the objective of OP SR1
is
1
not a concave function, OP SR1
is
also
a
nonconvex
problem.
1
Although this problem has been studied in [19], [20], [22],
the solution is either suboptimal or needs exhaustive search.
Introduce auxiliary variables q = {qm }M
m=1 that represent
the power budgets on each channel m with p1,m + p2,m = qm .

6

Then, OP SR1
is decomposed into a group of subproblems for
1
each channel m:
OP SR1
2,m :

max

p1,m ,p2,m

s.t.

g(p1,m , p2,m )
0 ≤ p1,m ≤ p2,m , p1,m + p2,m = qm .

We first solve the subproblem OP SR1
2,m for each channel m.
Note that OP SR1
is
still
a
nonconvex
problem due to the
2,m
interference between UE1,m and UE2,m . Nevertheless, its
optimal solution can be characterized in a closed form.
Proposition 2. Suppose that Γ1,m ≥ Γ2,m , 1
W2,m /W1,m < Γ1,m /Γ2,m and qm > 2Ωm , with
Ωm ,

<

W2,m Γ2,m − W1,m Γ1,m
.
Γ1,m Γ2,m (W1,m − W2,m )

⋆
Then, the optimal solution to OP SR1
2,m is given by p1,m = Ωm
⋆
⋆
and p2,m = qm − p1,m .

Proof. Since p2,m = qm − p1,m , p1,m ≤ p2,m is equal to
p1,m ≤ qm /2, and the objective becomes
F (p1,m ) ,W1,m Bc log (1 + p1,m Γ1,m )


qm Γ2,m + 1
.
+ W2,m Bc log
p1,m Γ2,m + 1
By setting the derivative of F to zero, we have
dF
W1,m Bc
W2,m Bc
=
−
= 0,
dp1,m
1/Γ1,m + p1,m
1/Γ2,m + p1,m
leading to a unique root p1,m = Ωm , which satisfies the constraint p1,m ≤ qm /2 since Ωm < qm /2. Given Γ1,m ≥ Γ2,m
and 1 < W2,m /W1,m < Γ1,m /Γ2,m , it follows that
∂2F
Bc W2,m
Bc W1,m
=
−
∂p21,m
(1/Γ2,m + Ωm ) 2
(1/Γ1,m + Ωm ) 2

2
Bc Γ21,m Γ22,m (W1,m − W2,m )
1
1
<0,
−
=
2
W2,m W1,m
(Γ2,m − Γ1,m )
indicating that Ωm is a maximizer.
Remark 4. In Proposition 2, the conditions 1 < W2,m /W1,m <
Γ1,m /Γ2,m and qm > 2Ωm are both to avoid a failure of SIC.
Indeed, if W2,m /W1,m < 1 or W2,m /W1,m > Γ1,m /Γ2,m , the
⋆
⋆
solution to OP SR1
2,m is p1,m = p2,m = qm /2 , i.e., the NOMA
system is unstable according to Definition 1. SIC may also
fail on channel m if qm ≤ 2Ωm , which will lead to p⋆1,m =
p⋆2,m = qm /2 too. Therefore, the NOMA system is SIC-stable
on channel m if and only if 1 < W2,m /W1,m < Γ1,m /Γ2,m
and qm > 2Ωm . For all channels, we have the following result.
CorollaryP
2. For OP SR1
1 , the NOMA system is SIC-stable only
M
if P > 2 m=1 Ωm and 1 < W2,m /W1,m < Γ1,m /Γ2,m for
m = 1, . . . , M .
Next, we further optimize the power budget qm for each
channel m. To guarantee that the NOMA system is SIC-stable,
it is reasonable to assume that qm ≥ Θm > 2Ωm and P ≥
P
M
SR1
and
m=1 Θm for some positive Θm . Then, from OP 1

OP SR1
2,m , the corresponding power budget optimization problem
is given by
PM
SR1⋆
max
(qm )
m=1 fm
q
:
OP SR1
PM
3
s.t.
m=1 qm ≤ P, qm ≥ Θm , ∀m

SR1⋆
where fm
(qm ) is the optimal objective value of OP SR1
2,m and
given by
SR1⋆
fm
(qm ) =W1,m Bc log (1 + Ωm Γ1,m )


qm Γ2,m + 1
.
+ W2,m Bc log
Ωm Γ2,m + 1

(13)

SR1⋆
It is easily seen that fm
(qm ) is a concave function, so
SR1
OP 3 is a convex problem, whose solution is provided in
the following result.

Theorem 2. The optimal solution to OP SR1
is given by
3

∞
W2,m Bc
1
⋆
qm
=
(14)
−
λ
Γ2,m Θm
PM
⋆
where λ is chosen such that m=1 qm
= P.
Proof. The solution of OP SR1
is given by the well-known
3
waterfilling form.

Consequently, the optimal power allocation for the sum
rate maximization with weights in NOMA systems is jointly
characterized by Theorem 2 and Proposition 2 under the SICstability.
B. SR Maximization with QoS (SR2)
Now, we consider maximizing the SR with QoS constraints.
According to (3), in this case the power allocation problem is
given by
PM
max
m=1 (R1,m (p1,m , p2,m ) + R2,m (p1,m , p2,m ))
p1 ,p2
SR2
OP 1 : s.t. 0 ≤ p ≤ p , PM (p
+ p ) ≤ P,
1

2

m=1

1,m

2,m

min
Rn,m ≥ Rn,m
, n = 1, 2, m = 1, . . . , M.

As a special case of OP SR2
1 , [23] studied the power allocation
for one channel. Thus, OP SR2
is still an open problem and its
1
optimal solution is unknown yet.
We use the similar method to address OP SR2
1 . By introducing the power budget qm on each channel m, OP SR2
1
decomposes into the following subproblems for each channel
m:
OP SR2
2,m

:

max

R1,m (p1,m , p2,m ) + R2,m (p1,m , p2,m )

s.t.

0 ≤ p1,m ≤ p2,m , p1,m + p2,m = qm ,
min
min
R1,m ≥ R1,m
, R2,m ≥ R2,m
.

p1,m ,p2,m

The optimal solution to OP SR2
2,m , although it is nonconvex, is
provided in the following result.
Proposition 3. Suppose that Γ1,m ≥ Γ2,m , A2,m ≥ 2, and
qm ≥ Υm , with
Al,m = 2
Ξm ,

Rmin
l,m
Bc

,

Υm ,

Γ2,m qm −A2,m +1
.
A2,m Γ2,m

A2,m (A1,m −1)
Γ1,m

+

A2,m −1
Γ2,m ,

7

⋆
Then, the optimal solution to OP SR2
2,m is given by p1,m = Ξm
⋆
⋆
and p2,m = qm − p1,m .

Proof. Since p2,m = qm − p1,m , p1,m ≤ p2,m is equal to
p1,m ≤ qm /2 and the objective becomes


qm Γ2,m + 1
.
T (p1,m ) , Bc log (1 + p1,m Γ1,m )+Bc log
p1,m Γ2,m + 1
Given Γ1,m ≥ Γ2,m , we take the derivative of T (p1,m ) and
have
Bc
Bc
dT
=
−
≥ 0,
dp1,m
1/Γ1,m + p1,m
1/Γ2,m + p1,m
implying that T (p1,m ) is monotonically nondecreasing, so
the maximum is achieved at the upper bound of p1,m . From
min
min
R1,m ≥ R1,m
and R2,m ≥ R2,m
, we obtain
A1,m − 1
≤ p1,m ≤ Ξm
Γ1,m
which holds if and only if (A1,m − 1)/Γ1,m ≤ Ξm , i.e., qm ≥
Υm . Finally, since A2,m ≥ 2, p1,m = Ξm < qm /2 holds. Thus
the optimal solution is p⋆1,m = Ξm .
Remark 5. Similarly, in Proposition 3, the conditions A2,m ≥
2 and qm ≥ Υm are to guarantee the SIC-stability. Indeed, if
A2,m < 2, then Ξm > qm /2 and the optimal solution will be
p⋆1,m = p⋆2,m = qm /2, which may leads a failure of SIC. At
the same time, SIC may also fail on channel m if qm < Υm ,
which will lead to p⋆1,m = p⋆2,m = qm /2 as well. Therefore,
the NOMA system is SIC-stable on channel m if and only if
A2,m ≥ 2 and qm ≥ Υm . For all the channels, we have the
following result.
OP SR2
1 ,

Corollary
the NOMA system is SIC-stable only
PM3. For
if P ≥ m=1 Υm and A2,m ≥ 2 for m = 1, . . . , M .

Remark 6. According to Proposition 3, if the NOMA system
is SIC-stable, the optimal solution will be p⋆1,m = Ξm and
min
p⋆2,m = qm −p⋆1,m . Hence, we have R2,m (p⋆1,m , p⋆2,m ) = R2,m
,
implying that the user with a lower CNR (i.e., UE2,m ) receives
the power to meet its QoS requirement exactly, while the
remaining power is used to maximize the rate of the user with
a higher CNR (i.e., UE1,m ).
Then, we focus on optimizing the power budget qm for
each channel. Similarly, to guarantee the NOMAPsystem is
M
SIC-stable, we assume that qm ≥ Υm and P ≥ m=1 Υm .
SR2
SR2
According to OP 1 and OP 2,m , the corresponding power
budget optimization problem is as follows
PM
SR2⋆
max
SR2
m=1 fm (qm )
q
PM
OP 3 :
s.t.
m=1 qm ≤ P, qm ≥ Υm , ∀m
SR2⋆
(qm ) is the optimal objective value of OP SR2
where fm
2,m and
given by
SR2⋆
min
fm
(qm ) = w(qm ) + R2,m
(15)
(A

Γ

−A

Γ

+Γ

Γ

q +Γ

)

Theorem 3. The optimal solution to OP SR2
is given by
3

∞
Bc
A2,m
1
A2,m
⋆
qm =
+
−
−
λ
Γ1,m
Γ2,m
Γ2,m Υm
PM
⋆
where λ is chosen such that m=1 qm
= P.
Proof. The proof is simple and thus omitted.

Therefore, the optimal power allocation for the SR maximization with QoS constraints in NOMA systems is jointly
characterized by Proposition 3 and Theorem 3. Note that,
unlike the MMF criterion, for the SR maximization with
weights or QoS constraints, NOMA systems are not always
SIC-stable but have to satisfy some conditions on the weights,
power budgets, and QoS thresholds as indicated in this section.
V. O PTIMAL P OWER A LLOCATION FOR E NERGY
E FFICIENCY
In this section, we investigate the optimal power allocation
for maximizing the energy efficiency (EE) of the NOMA
systems with weights or QoS constraints.
A. EE Maximization with Weights (EE1)
According to (4), with given channel assignment, the problem of maximizing the EE with weights is equivalent to the
following power allocation problem:
OP EE1
:
1

max
p1 ,p2

s.t.

PM
g(p1,m ,p2,m )
m=1
P
PT + M
m=1 (p1,m +p2,m )
PM
0 ≤ p1 ≤ p2 ,
m=1 (p1,m

+ p2,m ) ≤ P

where g(p1,m , p2,m )
,
W1,m R1,m (p1,m , p2,m ) +
W2,m R2,m (p1,m , p2,m ). The difficulties in solving OP EE1
1
lie in its nonconvex and fractional objective. In the literature,
only [21], [27] investigated this problem, whereas [27] only
found the optimal solution in the special case M = 1, i.e.,
a single channel, and [21] obtained a suboptimal power
allocation solution. In the following, we will show that this
problem can also be optimally solved.
We use the similar trick to address this problem, i.e., introM
ducing the auxiliary variables {qm }m=1 with p1,m + p2,m =
EE1
qm for each channel m. Then, OP 1 is decomposed into the
following subproblems for each channel m:
OP EE1
2,m :

max

p1,m ,p2,m

s.t.

g(p1,m ,p2,m )
P
PT + M
k=1 qk

0 ≤ p1,m ≤ p2,m , p1,m + p2,m = qm

whose optimal solution is provided in the following.
Proposition 4. Suppose that Γ1,m ≥ Γ2,m , 1
W2,m /W1,m < Γ1,m /Γ2,m and qm > 2Ωm , with
Ωm ,

<

W2,m Γ2,m − W1,m Γ1,m
.
Γ1,m Γ2,m (W1,m − W2,m )

SR1
Then the optimal solution to OP EE1
2,m is same with OP 2,m , i.e.,
⋆
⋆
⋆
p1,m = Ωm and p2,m = qm − p1,m .

1,m
1,m 2,m m
1,m
.
where w(qm ) = Bc log 2,m 2,m 2,mA2,m
Γ2,m
to see that with given channel
SR2
SR2⋆
Since fm (qm ) is a concave function, OP 3 is a convex Remark 7. It is not difficult
EE1
M
power
budgets
{q
}
,
OP
m
m=1
2,m is actually equivalent to
problem, whose solution is also given in a waterfilling form.
SR1
OP 2,m , so they have the same optimal solution. Therefore,

8

we obtain the same SIC-stability conditions for OP EE1
2,m : the
NOMA system is SIC-stable on channel m if and only if
qm > 2Ωm and 1 < W2,m /W1,m < Γ1,m /Γ2,m , and is
P
SIC-stable on all channels only if P > 2 M
m=1 Ωm and
1 < W2,m /W1,m < Γ1,m /Γ2,m for m = 1, . . . , M .

Then, we concentrate on searching the optimal power budget qm for each channel. Similarly, to guarantee the NOMA
system
PisMSIC-stable, it is assumed that qm ≥ Θm > 2Ωm and
P ≥ m=1 Θm for some positive Θm . According to PropoEE1
sition 4, OP EE1
1 , and OP 2,m , the power budget optimization
problem is formulated as
OP EE1
3

:

max
q

η(q) ,
PM

PM

SR1⋆
fm
(qm )
m=1P
M
m=1 qm

PT +

m=1 qm

s.t.

≤ P, qm ≥ Θm , ∀m

SR1⋆
where fm
(qm ) is the optimal value of OP SR1
2,m and given
SR1⋆
in (13). Although fm
(qm ) is a concave function, OP EE1
is
3
nonconvex due to the fraction form. To solve it, we introduce
the following objective function:
!
M
M
X
X
SR1⋆
H(q, α) ,
fm (qm ) − α PT +
qm

=

m=1
M 
X

m=1

R̃1,m + W2,m Bc log

m=1

− α PT +

M
X

m=1

qm



qm Γ2,m + 1
Ωm Γ2,m + 1



!

where R̃1,m , W1,m Bc log (1 + Ωm Γ1,m ) and α is a positive
parameter. Then, we consider the following convex problem
with given α:
OP 4EE1 :

max
q

s.t.

H (q, α)
PM
m=1 qm ≤ P, qm ≥ Θm , ∀m.

The relation between OP3EE1 and OP4EE1 is given by the
following lemma.

Algorithm 1 Channel Power Budget Optimization for EE
⋆
1: Initialization: set αini = 0, Hini
= ∞ and precision δ > 0.
2: While |H ⋆ (α)| > δ do
3:
Find the optimal q ⋆ according to Theorem 4;
4:
Calculate H ⋆ (α) ;
5:
Update α = η (q ⋆ );
6:.Return α and q ⋆ .

Algorithm 1, which is guaranteed to converge to the desirable
α [32]. Thereby, the optimal power allocation for the EE
maximization with weights in NOMA systems is provided by
Algorithm 1, Proposition 4 and Theorem 4.
B. EE Maximization with QoS (EE2)
In this subsection, we consider maximizing the EE with QoS
constraints. According to (5), in this case the power allocation
problem is given by
max

OP EE2
:
1

p1 ,p2

s.t.

PM

1,m ,p2,m )+R2,m (p1,m ,p2,m ))
m=1 (R1,m (pP
PT + M
m=1 (p1,m +p2,m )

PM
0 ≤ p1 ≤ p2 ,
m=1 (p1,m + p2,m ) ≤ P,
min
Rn,m ≥ Rn,m
, n = 1, 2, m = 1, . . . , M.

Similarly, OP EE2
is a nonconvex fractional optimization prob1
lem. In the literature, the EE maximization with QoS constraints has only been studied in [27], but the optimal solution
was only found for one channel, i.e., M = 1. Therefore,
OP EE2
is an open problem and its solution in the general
1
case is still unknown.
M
To solve OP EE2
1 , we also adopt {qm }m=1 with p1,m +
EE2
p2,m = qm and decompose OP 1 into a group of subproblems for each channel m:
R1,m (p1,m , p2,m ) + R2,m (p1,m , p2,m )
max
PM
p1,m ,p2,m
PT + k=1 qk
OP EE2
2,m :

s.t. 0 ≤ p1,m ≤ p2,m , p1,m + p2,m = qm ,
min
min
R1,m ≥ R1,m
, R2,m ≥ R2,m

⋆

Lemma 3. ( [32, pp. 493-494]) Let H (α) be the optimal
objective value of OP4EE1 and q ⋆ (α) be the optimal solution
if
of OP4EE1 . Then, q ⋆ (α) is the optimal solution to OP EE1
3
and only if H ⋆ (α) = 0.
Lemma 3 indicates the optimal solution to OP3EE1 can
be found by solving OP4EE1 parameterized by α and then
updating α until H ⋆ (α) = 0. For this purpose, we first
solve OP4EE1 with given α, whose solution is provided in the
following result.
is
Theorem 4. The optimal solution to OP EE1
4
∞

1
W2,m Bc
⋆
−
qm
=
α+λ
Γ2,m Θm
PM
⋆
where λ is chosen such that m=1 qm
=P .

(16)

Proof. The solution is obtained by exploiting the KKT conditions of OP4EE1 .
After the optimal solution to OP 4EE1 is obtained, we shall
find an α such that H ⋆ (α) = 0. This can be achieved by

whose solution is given in the following closed form.
Proposition 5. Suppose that Γ1,m ≥ Γ2,m , A2,m ≥ 2, and
qm ≥ Υm , with
Al,m = 2
Ξm ,

Rmin
l,m
Bc

,

Υm ,

Γ2,m qm −A2,m +1
.
A2,m Γ2,m

A2,m (A1,m −1)
Γ1,m

+

A2,m −1
Γ2,m ,

⋆
Then, the optimal solution to OP EE2
2,m is p1,m = Ξm and
⋆
⋆
p2,m = qm − p1,m .

Remark 8. It is not surprising that the solutions of OP EE2
2,m and
SR2
EE2
SR2
OP 2,m coincide, since OP 2,m is equivalent to OP 2,m with
M
given {qm }m=1 . Therefore, the same SIC-stability conditions
EE2
hold for OP EE2
2,m and OP 1 : the NOMA system is SIC-stable
on channel m if and only if qm ≥ Υm and A2,m ≥ 2, and
PM
is SIC-stable on all channels only if P ≥
m=1 Υm and
A2,m ≥ 2 for m = 1, . . . , M .
Next, we optimize the channel power budget qmPfor each
M
channel. First, we assume that qm ≥ Υm and P ≥ m=1 Υm

9

to guarantee the SIC-stability. Then, according to Proposition
EE2
5, OP EE2
1 , and OP 2,m , the power budget optimization problem is given by

in NOMA systems. Unfortunately, such a joint optimization
problem has been shown to be NP-hard [18]. Hence, finding the jointly optimal solution generally requires exhaustive
PM
search
[17], which results in prohibitive computational comSR2⋆
f
(q
)
m
Pm
max η(q) , Pm=1
M
EE2
plexity.
Therefore, in practice suboptimal but efficient joint
q
+
m
T
q
m=1
OP 3 :
PM
optimization
methods are more preferred [17], [20]–[22].
s.t.
q
≤
P,
q
≥
Υ
,
∀m
m
m
m=1 m
Enlightened by the optimal multichannel power allocation
SR2⋆
where fm
(qm ) is the optimal value of OP SR2
obtained above, in this paper we propose a low-complexity
2,m and given
,
we
also
introduce
a
parameterized
in (15). To solve OP EE2
method to jointly optimize the power allocation and channel
3
objective function
assignment in NOMA systems. Specifically, we incorporate
!
the dynamic matching algorithm [33], which is an efficient
M
M
X
X
SR2⋆
method to deal with assignment problems, with our optimal
Q(q, α) ,
fm (qm ) − α PT +
qm
power allocation, and iteratively exploit them to refine the
m=1
m=1
!
M
M
solution.
X
X

min
w(qm ) + R2,m
− α PT +
qm
=
To describe the dynamic matching between the users and
m=1
m=1
the channels, we consider channel assignment as a two-sided
(A
Γ
−A
Γ1,m +Γ1,m Γ2,m qm +Γ1,m ) matching problem between the set of N users and the set of
where w(qm ) = Bc log 2,m 2,m 2,mA2,m
,
Γ2,m
M channels, where N = 2M since each channel is shared by
α is a positive parameter, and formulate the following problem
two users. Denote channel m by Cm . We say UEn and Cm are
with given α:
matched with each other if UEn is assigned on Cm . Moreover,
max
Q
(q,
α)
denote
P F (UEn ) for n = 1, 2, · · · N and P F (Cm ) for m =
OP EE2
: q
PM
4
1,
2,
·
·
·
M to be the preference lists of the users and channels,
s.t.
m=1 qm ≤ P, qm ≥ Υm , ∀m.
respectively. We say UEn prefers Ci to Cj if UEn has a higher
Then, according to Lemma 3, the optimal solution to OP3EE2 channel gain on Ci than on Cj , and it can be expressed as
can be found by solving OP4EE2 for a given α and then updatCi (n) ≻ Cj (n).
ing α until the optimal objective value of OP4EE2 , denoted by
⋆
⋆
EE2
Q (α), satisfies Q (α) = 0. Therefore, we first solve OP4 , In addition, we say that Cm prefers user set ςl to user set ςk
which is a convex problem since Q(q, α) is concave in q. (where ςl and ςk are the subsets of {1, 2, · · · N }) if the users
In particular, the optimal solution to OP4EE2 is provided as in set ςl can provide better performance than the users in set
follows.
ςk on Cm . This preference is expressed as
Theorem 5. The optimal solution to OP EE2
is
4
∞

A2,m
1
A2,m
W1,m Bc
⋆
+
−
−
qm
=
λ+α
Γ1,m
Γ2,m
Γ2,m Υm
PM
⋆
=P .
where λ is chosen such that m=1 qm

Om (ςl ) > Om (ςk ), ςl , ςk ⊂ {UE1 , UE2 · · · UENm }

Proof. The solution is obtained by exploiting the KKT conditions of OP4EE2 .

where Om (ςl ) denotes the performance measure of user set
ςl on Cl , which could be the maximin fairness, sum rate,
or energy efficiency introduced in Section II-B. Now, we are
ready to formulate the channel assignment optimization as a
two-side matching problem according to matching theory [34].
The following definition formally introduces a matching in the
NOMA system.

VI. C HANNEL A SSIGNMENT

Definition 2. Consider the users and channels as two disjoint
sets. A two-to-one matching Φ is a mapping from all the
subsets of users N into the channels set M , which satisfies
the following properties for U En ∈ N and Cm ∈ M
(a) Φ (UEn ) ∈ M ;
(b) Φ−1 (Cm ) ⊆ N ;
(c) |Φ (UEn )| = 1, Φ−1 (Cm ) = 2;
(d) Cm ∈ Φ (UEn ) ⇐⇒ UEn ∈ Φ−1 (Cm ).

In the previous sections, we have found the optimal power
allocation with given channel assignment under various performance criteria for NOMA systems. Specifically, we first
achieve the optimal power allocation of the users on each
channel, which can be expressed as functions of the power
budget of each channel. Then, we further optimized the
power budgets of all channels and thus obtained the optimal
multichannel power allocation, which can be characterized in
a closed or semi-closed form. In this section, we consider the
joint optimization of power allocation and channel assignment

In Definition 2, property (a) states that each user matches
with one channel, property (b) indicates that each channel
can be matched with a subset of users, property (c) states
that each channel can only be assigned to two users, and
property (d) means that U En and Cm are matched with
each other. Consequently, the channel assignment problem is
to identify a matching between the users and the channels.
However, the globally optimal matching that maximizes the
aggregate performance of all users is hard to find and usually
requires exhaustive search. Instead, in practice, people are

After obtaining the optimal solution to OP GEE2
, we shall
4
find an α such that Q⋆ (α) = 0. This can also be achieved
by Algorithm 1, where Theorem 4 and H ⋆ (α) are replaced
by Theorem 5 and Q⋆ (α), respectively. Consequently, the
optimal power allocation for the EE maximization with QoS
constraints in NOMA systems is obtained by using Theorem
5, Proposition 5, and Algorithm 1.

10

Algorithm 2 Channel Assignment via Matching
1: Initialize:
1) SMatch (m) is the matched list to record users matched
on Cm , m = {1, 2 · · · M }.
2) SUnMatch is the set of unmatched users.
3) Obtain preference lists P F (UEn ) , n = {1, 2, · · · N }
and P F (Cm ) , m = {1, 2 · · · M } according to CNRs.
2: while {SUnMatch } is not empty
3: for n = 1 to N do
Each user sends matching request to its most preferred
channel m∗ according to its preference list P F (UEn ).
4:
if |SMatch (m∗ )| < 2 then
Channel m∗ adds UEn to SMatch (m∗ ) and removes
UEn from {SUnMatch } .
end if
5:
if |SMatch (m∗ )| = 2 then
1) Identify the power allocation for every two users
in SςL ,SςL ⊂ {SMatch (m∗ ), n} according to the
corresponding proposition with qm∗ .
2) Channel m∗ selects a set of 2 users SςL satisfying
the objective functions Om∗ (ςl ) > Om∗ (ςk ) ,
ςl , ςk ⊂ {SMatch (m∗ ) , n}.
3) Channel m∗ sets SMatch (m∗ ) = ςl ,and reject other
users. Remove the allocated users from {SUnMatch },
add the unallocated user to{SUnMatch }.
4) The rejected user remove channel m∗ from their
preference lists.
end if
end for
end while

more interested in seeking a so-called stable matching, which
can be efficiently found by the deferred acceptance (DA)
procedure [35].
Definition 3. Given a matching Φ such that UEn ∈
/ Φ−1
 (Cm )
−1
and Cm ∈
/ Φ (UEn ). If Om (Snew ) > Om Φ (Cm ) where
Snew ⊆ {UEn } ∪ S and S = Φ−1 (Cm ), then Snew is the
preferred user set for Cm and (UEn , Cm ) is a preferred pair.
According to the DA procedure, each user sends a matching
request to its most preferred channel according to its preference list, while this preferred channel has the right to accept
or reject the user according to the performance that all users
can achieve on this channel. Thus, the DA procedure is to
find preferred pairs for each user and each channel, which is
formally described in Algorithm 2. In Algorithm 2, the first
step is to initialize the preference lists of channels and users
according to the CNRs. Meantime, SMatch (m) and SUnMatch (m)
for m = 1, 2, · · · M are respectively initialized to record the
allocated users on Cm and unallocated users. The next step is
the matching procedure, where at each round each user sends a
matching request according to its preferred list P F (UEn ) for
n = 1, 2, · · · N . Then, the channel accepts the user directly
if the number of the users on this channel is less than two,
otherwise only the user that can improve the performance will
be accepted. This matching process will terminate when there
is no user left to be matched.

Algorithm 3 Joint Channel Assignment and Power Allocation
Optimization
P
for m = 1, . . . , M ;
1: Initialize: qm = M
2: Repeat
M
3:
Obtain channel assignment {S Match (m)}m=1 using
Algorithm 2;
4:
Compute p⋆1 , p⋆2 , q ⋆ according to the results in this
paper;
5: Until the prescribed iteration number is reached;
M
6: Output: {S Match (m)}m=1 , p⋆1 , p⋆2 .

Now, we are able to jointly optimize channel assignment
and power allocation by using Algorithm 2 and the optimal
power allocation obtained in this paper, which is described in
Algorithm 3. In the initialization, the BS allocates equal power
budgets to all channels. In the next step, we obtain the channel
assignment using Algorithm 2, then update the optimal power
allocation for each user and power budget for each channel,
and so on.
Remark 9. It is worth pointing out that the optimal power
allocation provided in this paper can be jointly used not
only with the DA matching algorithm (i.e., Algorithm 2) but
also with any other assignment algorithms. One just needs
to replace Algorithm 2 by the desirable assignment algorithm
in Algorithm 3. Furthermore, our results can also reduce the
complexity of exhaustive search. Indeed, in [19], the exhaustive search was performed in the joint continuous-discrete
dimension of powers and channels. Now, given the optimal
power allocation of all users over multiple channels for fixed
channel assignment, one can focus on searching the optimal
channel assignment by, e.g., checking all possible user-channel
matchings, which is a pure combinatorial problem but not a
mixed one anymore. In fact, we will show in the next section
that the performance of the proposed low-complexity joint
resource optimization method is quite close to that of the
globally optimal solution found by exhaustive search.
VII. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the optimal
power allocation and the proposed joint resource optimization
method via numerical simulations. In simulations, the base
station is located in the cell center and the users are randomly
distributed in a circular range with a radius of 300m. The
minimum distance between users is set to be 30m, and
the minimum distance between users and BS is 40m. Each
channel coefficient follows an i.i.d. Gaussian distribution as
gm ∼ CN (0, 1) for m = 1, . . . , M and the path loss exponent
is α = 2. The total power budget of the BS is P = 41dBm
and the circuit power consumption is PT = 30dBm. The noise
2
power is σm
= BN0 /M , where the bandwidth is B = 5MHz
and the noise power spectral density is N0 = −174dBm. We
set the user weights to be W1,m = 0.9 and W2,m = 1.1
min
for ∀m and the QoS thresholds to be Rl,m
= 2 bps/Hz
for l = 1, 2, ∀m. We compare the proposed joint resource
allocation (JRA) method that uses the optimal power allocation and matching algorithm, with OFDMA where each user

11

120

110

115

105

Total Sum Rate of System (Mbps)

Total Sum Rate of System (Mbps)

occupies a bandwidth B/N and the power is optimized in a
waterfilling manner, the DC method used in [20], [21] where
the power allocation was optimized via DC programming, the
conventional user pairing (CUP) method used in [36] where
the same channel is assigned to the users with a significant
channel gain difference, and the exhaustive search.
Fig. 1 depicts the minimum user rates of the NOMA system
using the proposed JRA method under the MMF criterion
(NOMA JRA), the CUP method with our optimal power
allocation for MMF (NOMA CUP), and the OFDMA system
for different total power budgets and user numbers. It is
clearly seen that NOMA is better than OFDMA in terms of
user fairness and the performance gap between NOMA and
OFDMA becomes larger as the number of users increases.
Meantime, the proposed JRA method outperforms the CUP
method.

110
105
100
NOMA SR1 CMA
NOMA SR1 DC
NOMA SR1 CSS
OFDMA

95
90
85

100

95
NOMA SR2 CMA
NOMA SR2 CSS
OFDMA

90

85

80

80
75

75
0

5

10

15

0

Power of BS with 10 Users (Watt)

5

10

15

Power of BS with 10 Users (Watt)

Fig. 2. Sum rate versus BS power
10
NOMA JRA N=10
NOMA JRA N=20
NOMA JRA N=30
NOMA CUP N=10
NOMA CUP N=20
NOMA CUP N=30
OFDMA N=10
OFDMA N=20
OFDMA N=30

7
6

800
700

4
3
2
1
3

4

5

NOMA SR2 CMA

NOMA SR1 DC

NOMA SR2 CSS

600

NOMA SR1 CSS

5

2

700
NOMA SR1 CMA

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

600

OFDMA

Spectral Efficiency (bit/s/Hz)

8

Spectral Efficiency (bit/s/Hz)

The Minimum Rate of System (Mbps)

9

OFDMA

500
400
300
200

500

400

300

200

100

100

Power of BS (Watt)
0

Fig. 1. Minimum user rate for different number of users versus
BS power
In Fig. 2, we display the sum rates achieved by various
schemes. SR1 JRA and SR2 JRA denote the proposed JRA
method for maximizing the weighted SR and the SR with QoS
constraints, while SR1 DC represents the DC method for maximizing the weighted SR. Meanwhile, SR1 CUP and SR2 CUP
use the CUP method with our optimal power allocation under
the criteria of maximizing the weighted SR and the SR with
QoS constraints, respectively. The number of users is 10 in this
scenario. As expected, all NOMA schemes (SR1 JRA, SR2
JRA , SR1 CUP, SR2 CUP and SR1 DC) outperform OFDMA.
Moreover, it is also observed that SR1 JRA outperforms SR1
DC. This is because the proposed resource allocation uses
the optimal power allocation while the DC method leads to a
suboptimal power allocation. In addition, both SR1 JRA and
SR2 JRA achieve better performance than SR1 CUP and SR2
CUP, which implies the proposed channel assignment method
is essential to the performance of the NOMA system.
Fig. 3 shows the spectral efficiency versus the number of
users. One can observe the similar phenomenon as in Fig.
2. where the spectral efficiency of NOMA outperforms that
of OFDMA and the proposed JRA method leads to higher
spectral efficiency than the DC method and the CUP method.

0
0

20

40

Number of Users

60

0

20

40

60

Number of Users

Fig. 3. Spectral efficiency versus the number of users
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 display the EE versus the power budget
of BS and the number of users, respectively. The proposed
methods for maximizing EE with weights or QoS constraints
are denoted by EE1 JRA and EE2 JRA, respectively, while
EE1 DC denotes the EE maximization using DC programming.
EE1 CUP and EE2 CUP represent the method of CUP with
our optimal power solutions to maximize EE with weights or
QoS constraints, respectively. From Figs. 4 and 5, one can
see that the EE of NOMA is significantly higher than that of
OFDMA. Meanwhile, EE1 JRA achieves better performance
than EE1 DC as a result of using the optimal power allocation.
EE1 JRA and EE2 JRA are respectively better than EE1 CUP
and EE2 CUP because the channel assignment is optimized
by the proposed joint optimization method.
Finally, in Fig. 6, all of our JRA methods are compared
to the exhaustive search (ES). Due to the high complexity
of ES, we set the number of users N = 6 and the power
budget of the BS ranges from 2W to 12W. From Fig. 6,
the performance achieved the proposed methods is very close
to the globally optimal value and the maximum gap is less

12

20 19
18
17
15
4

5

6

10

5

0

25

5

10

4

5

6

10

5

0

Power of BS with 10 Users (Watt)

5

10

15

Power of BS with 10 Users (Watt)

Fig. 4. Energy efficiency versus BS power

Energy Efficiency of System (bits/Joule/Hz)

Energy Efficiency of System (bits/Joule/Hz)

NOMA EE1 CMA
NOMA EE1 DC

50

NOMA EE1 CSS
OFDMA

40

30

20

10

0
20

40

Number of Users

60

5

100

SR1 ES
SR1 JRA
SR2 ES
SR2 JRA

5
10
Power of BS (Watt)

15

40
EE1 ES
EE1 JRA

30
20
10
0
0

5
10
Power of BS (Watt)

15

0

5
10
Power of BS (Watt)

15

40
EE2 ES
EE2 JRA

30
20
10
0
0

5
10
Power of BS (Watt)

15

R EFERENCES
NOMA EE2 CMA

45

NOMA EE2 CSS

40

OFDMA

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

0

MMF ES
MMF JRA

Fig. 6. Comparison with the exhaustive search (ES)

50

60

10

0

18
17
16

15

15

15

50

20

0
0

150
Sum Rate (Mbps)

30

20

Energy Efficiency (Mbps/Joule)

25

NOMA EE2 CMA
NOMA EE2 CSS
OFDMA

Energy Efficiency (Mbps/Joule)

30

Minimum Rate(Mbps)

35
NOMA EE1 CMA
NOMA EE1 DC
NOMA EE1 CSS
OFDMA

Energy Efficiency of System (Mbits/Joule)

Energy Efficiency of System (Mbits/Joule)

35

0

20

40

60

Number of Users

Fig. 5. Energy efficiency versus the number of users
than 5%. Therefore, the proposed joint channel assignment
and power allocation method is able to achieve near-optimal
performance with low complexity.
VIII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have studied the power allocation in downlink NOMA systems to maximize the MMF, sum rate, and EE
with weights or QoS constraints. The optimal power allocation
has been characterized in closed or semi-closed forms for all
considered performance criteria. We have explicitly considered
the power order constraints in power allocation problems and
introduced the concept of the SIC-stability to avoid an equal
power allocation on each channel in NOMA systems. We
have proposed an efficient method to jointly optimize the
channel assignment and power allocation in NOMA systems
by exploiting the matching algorithm along with the optimal
power allocation. The simulation results have shown that the
proposed joint resource optimization method achieve nearoptimal performance.

[1] J. G. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. V. Hanly, A. Lozano, A. C. K.
Soong, and J. C. Zhang, “What will 5G be?” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014.
[2] V. Jungnickel, K. Manolakis, W. Zirwas, B. Panzner, V. Braun, M. Lossow, M. Sternad, R. Apelfrojd, and T. Svensson, “The role of small cells,
coordinated multipoint, and massive MIMO in 5G,” IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 44–51, May. 2014.
[3] S. He, Y. Huang, J. Wang, L. Yang, and W. Hong, “Joint antenna selection and energy-efficient beamforming design,” IEEE Signal Process.
Lett., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1165–1169, Sept. 2016.
[4] J. G. Andrews, H. Claussen, M. Dohler, S. Rangan, and M. C. Reed,
“Femtocells: Past, present, and future,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,
vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 497–508, Apr. 2012.
[5] J. Wang, W. Guan, Y. Huang, R. Schober, and X. You, “Distributed
optimization of hierarchical small cell networks: A GNEP framework,”
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 249–264, Feb. 2017.
[6] H. Wang, J. Wang, and Z. Ding, “Distributed power control in a twotier heterogeneous network,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14,
no. 12, pp. 6509–6523, Dec. 2015.
[7] J. Wang, D. Zhu, C. Zhao, J. C. F. Li, and M. Lei, “Resource sharing
of underlaying device-to-device and uplink cellular communications,”
IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1148–1151, Jun. 2013.
[8] J. Wang, Q. Tang, C. Yang, R. Schober, and J. Li, “Security enhancement
via device-to-device communication in cellular networks,” IEEE Signal
Process. Lett., vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1622–1626, Nov. 2016.
[9] Z. Wei, J. Yuan, D. W. K. Ng, M. Elkashlan, and Z. Ding,
“A survey of downlink non-orthogonal multiple access for
5G wireless communication networks,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.01856.
[10] W. Peng, X. Jun, and L. Ping, “Comparison of orthogonal and nonorthogonal approaches to future wireless cellular systems,” IEEE Veh.
Technol. Mag., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 4–11, Sept. 2006.
[11] Y. Saito, Y. Kishiyama, A. Benjebbour, T. Nakamura, A. Li, and
K. Higuchi, “Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) for cellular
future radio access,” in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf., Dresden,
Germany, Jun. 2013, pp. 1–5.
[12] L. Dai, B. Wang, Y. Yuan, S. Han, C. l. I, and Z. Wang, “Non-orthogonal
multiple access for 5G: Solutions, challenges, opportunities, and future
research trends,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 74–81, Sept.
2015.
[13] Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. V. Poor, “A general MIMO framework for
NOMA downlink and uplink transmission based on signal alignment,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 4438–4454, Jun.
2016.
[14] Z. Ding, F. Adachi, and H. V. Poor, “The application of MIMO to nonorthogonal multiple access,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15,
no. 1, pp. 537–552, Jan. 2016.

13

[15] X. Zhang, Q. Gao, C. Gong, and Z. Xu, “User grouping and power
allocation for NOMA visible light communication multi-cell networks,”
IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 21, no. 99, pp. 777 – 780, Mar. 2016.
[16] Z. Ding, P. Fan, and H. V. Poor, “Random beamforming in millimeterwave NOMA networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 7667–7681, Feb. 2017.
[17] S. Zhang, B. Di, L. Song, and Y. Li, “Radio resource allocation for
non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) relay network using matching
game,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Commun., KUL, Malaysia, May. 2016, pp.
1–6.
[18] L. Lei, D. Yuan, C. K. Ho, and S. Sun, “Joint optimization of power and
channel allocation with non-orthogonal multiple access for 5G cellular
systems,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf., San Diego, CA, Dec.
2015, pp. 1–6.
[19] Y. Sun, D. W. K. Ng, Z. Ding, and R. Schober, “Optimal joint power and
subcarrier allocation for full-duplex multicarrier non-orthogonal multiple
access systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 99, pp. 1077 – 1091,
Mar. 2017.
[20] P. Parida and S. S. Das, “Power allocation in OFDM based NOMA
systems: A DC programming approach,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom
Workshops, Austin, TX, USA, Dec. 2014, pp. 1026–1031.
[21] F. Fang, H. Zhang, J. Cheng, and V. C. M. Leung, “Energy-efficient resource allocation for downlink non-orthogonal multiple access network,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 3722–3732, May. 2016.
[22] M. R. Hojeij, J. Farah, C. A. Nour, and C. Douillard, “Resource
allocation in downlink non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) for
future radio access,” in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf., Dresden,
Germany, May. 2015, pp. 1–6.
[23] C. L. Wang, J. Y. Chen, and Y. J. Chen, “Power allocation for a downlink
non-orthogonal multiple access system,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett.,
vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 532–535, Oct. 2016.
[24] J. Cui, Z. Ding, and P. Fan, “A novel power allocation scheme under
outage constraints in NOMA systems,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett.,
vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1226–1230, Sept. 2016.
[25] J. Choi, “Power allocation for max-sum rate and max-min rate proportional fairness in NOMA,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 20, no. 10, pp.
2055–2058, Oct. 2016.
[26] S. Timotheou and I. Krikidis, “Fairness for non-orthogonal multiple
access in 5G systems,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 22, no. 10, pp.
1647–1651, Oct. 2015.
[27] Y. Zhang, H. M. Wang, T. X. Zheng, and Q. Yang, “Energy-efficient
transmission design in non-orthogonal multiple access,” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 99, pp. 2852–2857, Sept. 2016.
[28] Z. Ding, M. Peng, and H. Poor, “Cooperative non-orthogonal multiple
access in 5G systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1462–
1465, Aug. 2015.
[29] Z. Ding, P. Fan, and H. V. Poor, “Impact of user pairing on 5G
nonorthogonal multiple-access downlink transmissions,” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 6010–6023, Aug. 2016.
[30] M. S. Ali, H. Tabassum, and E. Hossain, “Dynamic user clustering
and power allocation for uplink and downlink non-orthogonal multiple
access (NOMA) systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 6325–6343, Aug.
2016.
[31] Z. Ding, Z. Yang, P. Fan, and H. V. Poor, “On the performance of
non-orthogonal multiple access in 5G systems with randomly deployed
users,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1501–1505, Dec.
2014.
[32] W. Dinkelbach, “On nonlinear fractional programming,” Manage. Sci.,
vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 492–498, 1967.
[33] G. Hua, J. Goh, and V. L. L. Thing, “A dynamic matching algorithm
for audio timestamp identification using the ENF criterion,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Forensics Secur., vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1045–1055, July. 2014.
[34] L. Gao, L. Duan, and J. Huang, “Two-sided matching based cooperative
spectrum sharing,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 538–
551, Feb. 2017.
[35] Y. Gao, Z. Qin, Z. Feng, Q. Zhang, O. Holland, and M. Dohler, “Scalable
and reliable IoT enabled by dynamic spectrum management for M2M
in LTE-A,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1135–1145, Dec.
2016.
[36] H. Zhang, D. K. Zhang, W. X. Meng, and C. Li, “User pairing algorithm
with SIC in non-orthogonal multiple access system,” in Proc. Int. Conf.
Commun., KUL, Malaysia, May. 2016, pp. 1–6.

Jianyue Zhu (S’17) received the B.S. degree from
Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China, in
2015. She is currently working towards the Ph.D.
degree in information and communication engineering at the School of Information Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China. Her
current research interests include non-orthogonal
multiple access and optimization theory.

Jiaheng Wang (M’10, SM’14) received the Ph.D.
degree in electronic and computer engineering from
the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong, in 2010, and the B.E.
and M.S. degrees from the Southeast University,
Nanjing, China, in 2001 and 2006, respectively.
He is a Full Professor at the National Mobile Communications Research Laboratory (NCRL),
Southeast University, Nanjing, China. From 2010 to
2011, he was with the Signal Processing Laboratory,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden. He also held visiting positions at the Friedrich Alexander University
Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany, and the University of Macau, Macau.
His research interests are mainly on optimization in communication systems
and wireless networks.
Dr. Wang has published more than 80 articles on international journals and
conferences. He serves as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Signal Processing
Letters. He is a recipient of the Humboldt Fellowship for Experienced
Researchers, and a recipient of the Best Paper Award in WCSP 2014.

Yongming Huang (M’10) received the B.S. and
M.S. degrees from Nanjing University, Nanjing,
China, in 2000 and 2003, respectively, and the Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering from Southeast University, Nanjing, in 2007.
Since March 2007, he has been a faculty member
with the School of Information Science and Engineering, Southeast University, China, where he is
currently a full professor. In 2008-2009, he visited
the Signal Processing Laboratory, School of Electrical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology
(KTH), Stockholm, Sweden. His current research interests include MIMO
wireless communications, cooperative wireless communications and millimeter wave wireless communications. He has published over 200 peerreviewed papers, hold over 40 invention patents, and submitted over 10
technical contributions to IEEE standards. Since 2012, he has served as an
Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, EURASIP
Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, and EURASIP Journal on Wireless
Communications and Networking.

14

Shiwen he (M’14) received the M.S. degree from
Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu, China,
and the Ph.D. degree in information and communication engineering from Southeast University, Nanjing,
China, in 2009 and 2013, respectively.
From 2013 to 2015, he was a Postdoctoral Researcher with the State Key Laboratory of Millimeter
Waves, Department of Radio Engineering, Southeast
University. Since October 2015, he has been with
the School of Information Science and Engineering,
Southeast University. He has authored or coauthored
over 80 technical publications, hold over 16 granted invention patents, and
submitted over 20 technical proposals to IEEE standards. From December
2015, he serves as a technical sub-editor for IEEE 802.11aj. His research
interests include multiuser MIMO communication, cooperative communications, energy efficient communications, millimeter wave communication, and
optimization theory.

Xiaohu You (F’11) was born in 1962. He received
his Master and Ph.D. degrees from Southeast University, Nanjing, China, in Electrical Engineering in
1985 and 1988, respectively. Since 1990, he has
been working with National Mobile Communications Research Laboratory at Southeast University,
where he held the rank of director and professor.
His research interests include mobile communication
systems, signal processing and its applications. He
has contributed over 100 IEEE journal papers and
2 books in the areas of adaptive signal processing,
neural networks and their applications to communication systems. From 1999
to 2002, he was the Principal Expert of the C3G Project, responsible for
organizing China’s 3G Mobile Communications R&D Activities. From 20012006, he was the Principal Expert of the China National 863 Beyond 3G
FuTURE Project. Since 2013, he has been the Principal Investigator of China
National 863 5G Project.
Prof. You was the general chairs of IEEE WCNC 2013 and IEEE VTC
2016. Now he is Secretary General of the FuTURE Forum, vice Chair of China
IMT-2020 Promotion Group, vice Chair of China National Mega Project on
New Generation Mobile Network. He was the recipient of the National First
Class Invention Prize in 2011, and he was selected as IEEE Fellow in same
year due to his contributions to development of mobile communications in
China.

Luxi Yang (M’96) received the M.S. and Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering from the Southeast
University, Nanjing, China, in 1990 and 1993, respectively.
Since 1993, he has been with the Department of
Radio Engineering, Southeast University, where he
is currently a full professor of information systems
and communications, and the Director of Digital
Signal Processing Division. His current research
interests include signal processing for wireless communications, MIMO communications, cooperative
relaying systems, and statistical signal processing. He has authored or coauthored of two published books and more than 100 journal papers, and holds
30 patents. Prof. Yang received the first and second class prizes of science and
technology progress awards of the state education ministry of China in 1998,
2002 and 2014. He is currently a member of Signal Processing Committee
of Chinese Institute of Electronics.

