Rate-Splitting for Multi-Antenna Non-Orthogonal
Unicast and Multicast Transmission
Yijie Mao∗ , Bruno Clerckx† and Victor O.K. Li∗
∗

arXiv:1802.05567v2 [] 16 Feb 2018

The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
†
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
∗
Email: {maoyijie, vli}@eee.hku.hk, † b.clerckx@imperial.ac.uk
Abstract—In a superimposed unicast and multicast transmission system, one layer of Successive Interference Cancellation
(SIC) is required at each receiver to remove the multicast stream
before decoding the unicast stream. In this paper, we show that a
linearly-precoded Rate-Splitting (RS) strategy at the transmitter
can efficiently exploit this existing SIC receiver architecture. By
splitting the unicast message into common and private parts and
encoding the common parts along with the multicast message into
a super-common stream decoded by all users, the SIC is used for
the dual purpose of separating the unicast and multicast streams
as well as better managing the multi-user interference between
the unicast streams. The precoders are designed with the objective
of maximizing the Weighted Sum Rate (WSR) of the unicast
messages subject to a Quality of Service (QoS) requirement of the
multicast message and a sum power constraint. Numerical results
show that RS outperforms existing Multi-User Linear-Precoding
(MU–LP) and power-domain Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access
(NOMA) in a wide range of user deployments (with a diversity
of channel directions and channel strengths). Moreover, since one
layer of SIC is required to separate the unicast and multicast
streams, the performance gain of RS comes without any increase
in the receiver complexity compared with MU–LP. Hence, in such
non-orthogonal unicast and multicast transmissions, RS provides
rate and QoS enhancements at no extra cost for the receivers.
Index Terms—non-orthogonal multicast and unicast transmission, rate-splitting, rate region, WMMSE algorithm

I. I NTRODUCTION
The scarcity of radio resources and the heterogeneity of wireless applications in 5G and beyond motivate recent research
on the non-orthogonal unicast and multicast transmission [1]–
[4], which is based on Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM)
in the literature of digital television systems [5]. The unicast
and multicast messages are precoded and superimposed at the
transmitter and then broadcast to the receivers in the same timefrequency resources. Each receiver decodes and removes the
multicast message using Successive Interference Cancellation
(SIC) before decoding its intended unicast message. Joint
unicast and multicast beamforming of multi-cell cooperative
transmission has been studied, e.g., for transmit power minimization [1], [2], Weighted Sum Rate (WSR) maximization
[3] and energy efficiency maximization [4]. However, all of the
above works consider the use of Multi-User Linear Precoding
(MU–LP) beamforming for the unicast messages. Once the
common message is successfully decoded and subtracted from
the received signal, each receiver fully decodes its intended
unicast message by treating the interference as noise. However,
MU–LP is sensitive to the user channel orthogonality and
strengths. Another method is to apply power-domain Nonorthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA) to decode the unicast
This work is partially supported by the U.K. Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under grant EP/N015312/1.

messages at the cost of more layers of SICs. Power-domain
NOMA relies on Superposition Coding (SC) at the transmitter
and SIC at the receivers [6]. It is denoted in short as SC–SIC
in this work. By using SC–SIC, some users are forced to fully
decode and cancel interference created by other users. Such
method is only suitable when the user channels are (semi-)
aligned and exhibit a large disparity of strengths.
In contrast to MU–LP and SC–SIC, linearly-precoded RateSplitting (RS) is an emerging multi-user multi-antenna transmission strategy where each unicast message is split into a
common part and a private part at the transmitter [7]. The
common part is required to be decoded by all the receivers
and removed from the received signal using SIC before each
receiver decodes its intended private part by treating the interference from other users as noise. RS can be viewed mathematically as a non-orthogonal unicast and multicast transmission
strategy given the superimposed transmission of common and
private messages. Hence, RS was termed joint multicasting
and broadcasting in [8]. However, common message in RS
has an objective different from that of a conventional multicast
message. The multicast message is intended and decoded by all
the users while the common message of RS is decoded by all
users but is intended to a subset of users. Its presence enables
the decoding of part of the multi-user interference and treating
the remaining part of the interference as noise.
In this work, motivated by the benefits of RS in multiantenna Broadcast Channels (BC) [7], [9], [10], we propose
the use of RS in non-orthogonal unicast and multicast transmissions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
work that applies RS to non-orthogonal unicast and multicast
transmissions. In such a setup, we split the unicast messages
into common and private parts and encode the common parts
along with the multicast message into a super-common stream
decoded by all users. A single layer of SIC in RS is then used
for the dual purpose of separating the unicast and multicast
streams as well as better managing the multi-user interference
of the unicast streams. We design the precoders by formulating
the WSR maximization problem of the unicast messages with a
Quality of Service (QoS) requirement of the multicast message
and a sum power constraint. The problem is transformed into an
equivalent Weighted Minimum Mean Square Error (WMMSE)
problem and solved using an Alternating Optimization (AO)
algorithm. We demonstrate in the numerical results that the
rate region of RS is always equal to or larger than that of MU–
LP and SC–SIC. Importantly, this performance gain comes at
no additional cost for the receivers since one layer of SIC
is required to separate unicast and multicast streams in the

conventional MU–LP strategy. In other words, RS makes a
better use of the existing SIC architecture.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section
II, the existing MU–LP beamforming is overviewed. The
proposed RS beamforming and the optimization framework are
respectively specified in Section III and Section IV. Section V
illustrates numerical results and Section VI concludes the paper.
Notations: C and E{·} respectively refer to the complex
space and the statistical expectation. The boldface uppercase
and lowercase letters represent matrices and vectors, respectively. k·k is the Euclidean norm. The superscripts (·)T and
(·)H correspond to transpose and conjugate-transpose operators. tr(·) and diag(·) are the trace and diagonal entries.
II. E XISTING MU–LP B EAMFORMING
In this work, we consider a BS equipped with Nt antennas
serving K single-antenna users. The users are indexed by
the set K = {1, . . . , K}. In each time frame, the BS wants
to transmit a multicast message W0 intended for all users
and K unicast messages W1 , . . . , WK intended for different users. The messages W0 , W1 , . . . , WK are independently
encoded into data streams s0 , s1 , . . . , sK . The stream vector
s = [s0 , s1 , . . . , sK ]T is precoded using the precoder P =
[p0 , p1 , . . . , pK ], where p0 ∈ CNt ×1 and pk ∈ CNt ×1 are the
respective precoders of the multicast stream s0 and the unicast
stream sk , ∀k ∈ K. Assuming that E{ssH } = I, the transmit
power is constrained by tr(PPH ) ≤ Pt . The resulting transmit
signal x ∈ CNt ×1 is given by
X
x = Ps = p0 s0 +
pk s k .
(1)
k∈K

The signal received at user-k is yk = hH
k x + nk , where
hk ∈ CNt ×1 is the channel between the BS and user-k. nk ∼
2
CN (0, σn,k
) is the Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN)
at user-k. Without loss of generality, we assume the noise
variances are equal to one. The transmit SNR is equal to the
total power consumption Pt . We assume perfect Channel State
Information at the Transmitter (CSIT) and perfect Channel
State Information at the Receivers (CSIR).
At user sides, each user first decodes the multicast stream by
treating the signal of all the unicast streams as interference. The
Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR) of the multicast
2
2 P
H
+ 1).
stream at user-k is γk,0 = hH
k p0 /( j∈K hk pj
Once s0 is successfully decoded, its contribution to the original
received signal yk is subtracted. After that, user-k decodes
its unicast stream sk by treating the unicast streams of other
users as noise. The SINR of decoding the unicast stream sk
2
2 P
H
at user-k is γk = hH
+ 1). The
k pk /( j∈K,j6=k hk pj
corresponding achievable rates of s0 and sk at user-k are
Rk,0 = log2 (1 + γk,0 ) and Rk = log2 (1 + γk ) .
(2)
To ensure that s0 is successfully decoded by all users, the
achievable rate of s0 shall not exceed
R0 = min {R1,0 , . . . , RK,0 } .
(3)
In this work, we maximize the WSR of the unicast messages
while the rate constraint of the multicast message and the power
constraint of the BS should be met. For a given weight vector
u = [u1 , . . . , uK ], the WSR achieved by the unicast messages

Fig. 1: K-user RS assisted multi-antenna non-orthogonal unicast and multicast transmission model
in the K-user MU–LP assisted multi-antenna non-orthogonal
unicast and multicast is
X
uk Rk
(4a)
RMU−LP (u) = max
P

k∈K

s.t. Rk,0 ≥ R0th , ∀k ∈ K

(4b)

H

(4c)

tr(PP ) ≤ Pt
where R0th is the lower bound on the multicast rate.
III. P ROPOSED R ATE - SPLITTING B EAMFORMING

In this section, we introduce the use of RS to the system. We
highlight the difference between the proposed RS beamforming
and the existing MU–LP beamforming. The contents that are
not specified remain consistent with Section II.
The main difference between MU–LP and RS beamforming
lies in the generation of the data streams. Different from MU–
LP beamforming where the messages are directly encoded
into independent streams, the unicast message Wk intended
for user-k is split into a common part Wk,c and a private
part Wk,p , ∀k ∈ K. The common parts of the unicast messages W1,c , . . . , WK,c are encoded along with the multicast
message W0 into a super-common stream s0 . It is required
to be decoded by all users. Note that s0 includes not only
the whole multicast message, but parts of the unicast messages intended for different users. The private parts of the
unicast streams W1,p , . . . , WK,p are independently encoded
into the private streams s1 , . . . , sK . The stream vector s =
[s0 , s1 , . . . , sK ]T are linear precoded via the precoder matrix
P = [p0 , p1 , . . . , pK ] and broadcast to users. The system
model is illustrated in Fig. 1.
At user sides, the super-common stream and private streams
are decoded using SIC as in MU–LP. The achievable rate of the
super-common stream Rk,0 and the private stream Rk , ∀k ∈ K
are calculated based on equation (2). To ensure that the supercommon stream s0 is successfully decoded by all users, the
achievable super-common rate R0 is calculated by equation
(3). R0 is shared by the rate of transmitting the multicast
message W0 and the rates of transmitting the common parts of
the unicast messages of all users, W1,c , . . . , WK,c . Denote C0
as the portion of R0 transmitting W0 and Ck,0 as the user-k’s
portion of R0 transmitting Wk,c , the achievable super-common
rate is equal to
X
C0 +
Ck,0 = R0
(5)
k∈K

Following the RS structure described above, the total achievable rate of the unicast message of user-k is Rk,tot = Ck,0 +
Rk . For a given weight vector u, the WSR achieved by the
private messages in the K-user RS assisted multi-antenna nonorthogonal unicast and multicast is

RRS (u) = max
P,c

s.t.

C0 +

X

uk Rk,tot

(6a)

k∈K

X

Ck,0 ≤ Rk,0 , ∀k ∈ K

(6b)

k∈K
C0 ≥ R0th

(6c)

Ck,0 ≥ 0, ∀k ∈ K

(6d)

tr(PPH ) ≤ Pt

(6e)

where c = [C0 , C1,0 , . . . , CK,0 ] is the common rate vector.
We note that problem (6) boils down to problem (4) when no
power is allocated to the common messages W1,c , . . . , WK,c .
Hence, RS always achieves the same or superior performance
to MU–LP.
In the unicast-only transmission, RS requires one layer of
SIC to decode the common parts of the unicast messages
for the purpose of enabling the capability of decoding part
of the multi-user interference and treating part of the multiuser interference as noise [7], [9], [10]. In comparison, MU–
LP does not require any SIC at each receiver in the unicastonly transmission. However, one-layer of SIC is necessary at
each user to decode the multicast stream before decoding the
intended unicast stream in the MU–LP assisted joint unicast
and multicast transmission and RS still requires one layer of
SIC at no extra cost for the receivers. The SIC of RS in the
joint unicast and multicast transmission is used for separating
the unicast and multicast streams as well as better managing
the multi-user interference between the unicast streams.

to γk,0 = 1/εMMSE
− 1 and γk = 1/εMMSE
− 1 based on
k,0
k
(9). The rates become Rk,0 = − log2 (εMMSE
k,0 ) and Rk =
− log2 (εMMSE
).
The
WMSEs
are
given
by
k
ξk,0 = uk,0 εk,0 − log2 (uk,0 ), ξk = uk εk − log2 (uk ),

where uk,0 and uk are weights associated with the MSEs of
∗
MMSE
and gk∗ = gkMMSE
user-k. The optimum equalizers gk,0
= gk,0
∂ξk,0
∂ξk
are then derived by solving ∂gk,0 = 0 and ∂g
= 0.
k
MMSE
Substituting gk,0
and gkMMSE into (10), we have

MMSE
= uk,0 εMMSE
− log2 (uk,0 ),
ξk,0 gk,0
k,0

(11)
MMSE
MMSE
ξk gk
= u k εk
− log2 (uk ).
The optimum MMSE weights are obtained by solving
MMSE
MMSE
∂ξk (gk
∂ξk,0 (gk,0
)
)
= 0 and
= 0, which are given by
∂uk,0
∂uk
−1
u∗k,0 = uMMSE
, (εMMSE
, u∗k = uMMSE
, (εMMSE
)−1 (12)
k,0
k,0 )
k
k

The Rate-WMMSE relationships are finally established by
substituting (12) into (11). They are given by
MMSE
,
ξk,0

(7)
εk = |gk |2 Tk − 2ℜ{gk hH
k pk } + 1,
P
H
2
2
where Tk,0 , |hH
k p0 | +
j∈K |hk pj | + 1 and Tk , Tk,0 −
2
H
|hk p0 | . The optimum MMSE equalizers are then calculated
∂ε
∂εk
by solving ∂gk,0
= 0 and ∂g
= 0, which are given by
k,0
k
−1
−1
MMSE
MMSE
gk,0
= pH
= pH
0 hk Tk,0 , gk
k hk T k .

(8)

Substituting (8) into (7), the MMSEs are
−1
εMMSE
, min εk,0 = Tk,0
Ik,0 , εMMSE
, min εk = Tk−1 Ik ,
k,0
k
gk,0

gk

(9)
2
where Ik,0 = Tk and Ik = Tk − |hH
p
|
.
The
SINRs
of
k
k
decoding s0 and sk at user-k can be respectively transformed

(13)

uk ,gk

Based on the Rate-WMMSE relationships in (13), the optimization problem (6) is transformed equivalently into the
WMMSE problem given by
X
min
uk ξk,tot
(14a)
P,x,u,g

εk,0 = |gk,0 |2 Tk,0 − 2ℜ{gk,0 hH
k p0 } + 1,

min ξk,0 = 1 − Rk,0 ,

uk,0 ,gk,0

ξkMMSE , min ξk = 1 − Rk .

IV. O PTIMIZATION F RAMEWORK
The WMMSE algorithm to solve the sum rate maximization
problem in RS without a multicast message is proposed in
[9]. It is extended to solve the problem (4) and (6). We firstly
explain the procedure to solve the RS problem (6) and then
specify how (4) can be solved correspondingly.
User-k decodes s0 and sk sequentially using SICs. The
common stream s0 is decoded first. By using the equalizer
gk,0 , s0 is estimated as ŝ0 = gk,0 yk . sk is estimated using the
equalizer gk as ŝk = gk (yk − hH
k p0 s0 ) after s0 is successfully
decoded and removed from yk . The Mean Square Errors
(MSEs) of the common and private streams are defined as
εk,0 , E{|ŝk,0 − sk,0 |2 } and εk , E{|ŝk − sk |2 }, respectively.
They are given by

(10)

s.t.

X0 +

k∈K

X

Xk,0 + 1 ≥ ξk,0 , ∀k ∈ K

(14b)

k∈K

X0 ≤ −R0th

(14c)

Xk,0 ≤ 0, ∀k ∈ K

(14d)

H

tr(PP ) ≤ Pt

(14e)

where x = [X0 , X1,0 , . . . , XK,0 ] is the transformation of
the common rate c. u = [u1,0 , . . . , uK,0 , u1 , . . . , uK ] and
g = [g1,0 , . . . , gK,0 , g1 , . . . , gK ] are the weights and equalizers,
respectively. ξk,tot = Xk,0 + ξk , ∀k ∈ K.
Denote uMMSE and gMMSE as two vectors formed by the
corresponding MMSE equalizers and weights. According to
the KKT conditions of problem (14), it is easy to show that
(uMMSE , gMMSE ) are optimal and unique. We can obtain
(uMMSE , gMMSE ) by minimizing (14a) with respect to u and
g, respectively. Problem (14) can be transformed to problem
(6) based on the Rate-WMMSE relationship (13) and the
common rate transformation c = −x. The solution given by
(c∗ = −x∗ , P∗ ) meets the KKT optimality conditions of (6)
for any point (x∗ , P∗ , u∗ , g∗ ) satisfying the KKT optimality
conditions of (14). Therefore, problem (6) and problem (14)
are equivalent.
The joint optimization of (x, P, u, g) in problem (14) is nonconvex. With fixed (x, P, u), the MMSE equalizer gMMSE is
optimal. With fixed (x, P, g), the MMSE weight uMMSE is the
optimal weight. With fixed (u, g), the optimization problem
(14) is a convex Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Program
(QCQP) which can be solved using interior-point methods.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Initialize: n ← 0, P[n] , WSR[n] ;
repeat
n ← n + 1;
P[n−1] ← P;
u ← uMMSE (Pn−1 ); g ← gMMSE (Pn−1 );
update (x, P) by solving (14) using the updated u, g;
until |WSR[n] − WSR[n−1] | ≤ ǫ;

V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, the performance of the proposed RS beamforming is illustrated by comparing with the existing MU–LP
and SC–SIC beamforming. We focus on the two-user case since
different two-user rate regions are easily compared in a twodimensional figure.
The SC–SIC assisted joint unicast and multicast transmission
is briefed before we illustrate the results. Different from RS
where the multicast message is encoded with the common parts
of the unicast messages, the multicast message in SC–SIC is
encoded along with the unicast message to be decoded first into
a super-common stream s0 . Hence, the super-common rate R0
of SC–SIC is shared by the rate of the multicast message as
well as the rate of the unicast message to be decoded first. Following the system model of RS in Section III and the difference
between SC–SIC and RS, we can formulate the problem of
SC–SIC and solve it by modifying the optimization framework.
Note that the receiver complexity of SC–SIC increases with the
number of users. More layers of SICs are required at each user
to decode the interference from more users. Moreover, SC–
SIC is a particular instance of the proposed RS strategy when
K = 2 [10]. RS should always achieve the same or superior
performance to MU–LP and SC–SIC.
We investigate the influence of the multicast rate constraint,
channel strength disparity and channel angle between the users
on the performance. The BS is equipped with four antennas
(Nt = 4) serving two single-antenna users (K = 2). The
simulation setting follows the underloaded two-user deployment in [10]. The channels of users are realized as h1 =

(b) θ=2π/9

10

10

8

8

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

(a) θ=π/9

6
4
2

6
4
2

0

0
0

5

10

0

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

10

(d) θ=4π/9
10

8

8

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

10

6
4
RS
SC-SIC
MU-LP

2

5

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

(c) θ=π/3

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

Hence, the AO algorithm is motivated to solve the problem.
In the nth iteration, the equalizers and weights are
 calculated
by (u, g) = uMMSE (P[n−1] ), gMMSE (P[n−1] ) based on
the precoder P[n−1] in the (n − 1)th iteration. (x, P) are
then calculated by solving problem (14). (u, g) and (x, P)
are iteratively updated until the convergence of the WSR.
Algorithm 1 shows the steps of AO, where ǫ is the error
tolerance for convergence and WSR[n] is the WSR calculated
based on the updated (x, P) in nth iteration. Since WSR[n] is
increasing with n and it is bounded above for a given power
constraint, the AO algorithm is guaranteed to converge. Note
that the global optimality of the solution cannot be guaranteed
in general as the problem is non-convex. The initialization of
the precoder P will influence the final results.
The optimization framework described above are adopted
to solve the MU–LP problem (4) by reformulating it into its
equivalent WMMSE problem and using the AO algorithm to
solve it.
Algorithm 1: Alternating Optimization Algorithm

6
4
2

0

0
0

5

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

10

0

5

10

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

Fig. 2: Achievable rate region comparison of different strategies
in perfect CSIT, γ = 1, R0th = 0.5 bit/s/Hz

H
H
[1, 1, 1, 1] , h2 = γ × 1, ejθ , ej2θ , ej3θ . In the following
results, γ = 1 and γ = 0.3, which respectively represent equal
channel strength and 5 dB channel strength
 difference.
For each
π 4π
γ, we consider four different θ, θ ∈ π9 , 2π
,
,
9 3 9 . When
θ is less than π9 , the user channels are sufficiently aligned.
When θ is larger than 4π
9 , the user channels are sufficiently
orthogonal. The rate region is the set of all achievable points.
Its boundary is calculated by varying the weights assigned
to users. We follow the weights in [11], where the weight
of user-1 is fixed to u1 = 1 for each weight of user-2 in
u2 ∈ 10[−3,−1,−0.95,··· ,0.95,1,3] . The precoders of RS, MU–
LP and SC–SIC are initialized using the same methods as
discussed in [10]. SNR is fixed to 20 dB.
Fig. 2 shows the results when user-1 and user-2 have equal
channel strengths (γ = 1) and the multicast rate constraint
is R0th = 0.5 bit/s/Hz. In each subfigure, the rate region
achieved by RS is confirmed to be equal to or larger than
that of SC–SIC and MU–LP. RS performs well for any angle
between the user channels. As the SC–SIC strategy is motivated
by leveraging the channel strength difference of users, it is
sensitive to the channel strength disparity. When users have
equal channel strengths, SC–SIC has poor performance. RS
exhibits a clear rate region improvement over SC–SIC and
MU–LP when θ = π9 . The performance of MU–LP is poor
when the user channels are closely aligned to each other. MU–
LP is sensitive to the channel angle. As θ increases, the gap
between the rate regions of RS and MU–LP decreases. When
θ = 4π
9 , RS reduces to MU–LP.
Fig. 3 shows the results when γ = 1, R0th = 1.5 bit/s/Hz.
Comparing the corresponding subfigures of Fig. 2 and Fig.
3, the rate regions of all the strategies increase as the rate
threshold of the multicast message decreases. Moreover, the
rate region gain of RS over MU–LP and SC–SIC increases as
the rate threshold of the multicast message decreases. This is
due to the fact the super-common stream can absorb a larger
portion of the unicast messages as the rate of the multicast
message decreases. RS is able to overcome the limitations of
MU–LP and SC–SIC by dynamically determining the level of
the multi-user interference to decode and treat as noise. When

(b) θ=2π/9
10

8

8

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

(a) θ=π/9
10

6
4
2

6
4
2

0

0
0

5

10

0

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)
(c) θ=π/3

10

(d) θ=4π/9

10

10
RS
SC-SIC
MU-LP

8

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

5

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

6
4
2

8
6
4
2

0

0
0

5

10

0

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

5

10

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

Fig. 3: Achievable rate region comparison of different strategies
in perfect CSIT, γ = 1, R0th = 1.5 bit/s/Hz
(b) θ=2π/9
6

5

5

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

(a) θ=π/9
6

4
3
2
1

4
3
2
1

0

0
0

5

10

0

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

10

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

(c) θ=π/3

R EFERENCES

(d) θ=4π/9

6

6
5

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

5

R2,tot (bit/s/Hz)

5

4
3
2

RS
SC-SIC
MU-LP

1

4
3
2
1

0

0
0

5

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

VI. C ONCLUSIONS
To conclude, we exploit the benefit of the linearly-precoded
RS in the joint unicast and multicast transmission systems.
Comparing with the conventional MU–LP assisted unicast
and multicast transmission system where one layer of SIC is
required at each receiver to remove the multicast stream before
decoding the unicast stream, the proposed RS-assisted unicast
and multicast transmission system further exploits the merits
of the existing one layer of SIC. By utilizing a super-common
stream to encapsulate the multicast message and parts of the
unicast messages, RS uses one layer of SIC to not only separate
the unicast and multicast streams but also dynamically manage
the multi-user interference. We show in the numerical results
that the performance of MU–LP and SC–SIC is more sensitive
to the channel strength disparity and channel angles among
users. Thanks to its ability of partially decoding the interference
and partially treating the interference as noise, RS softly
bridges and outperforms MU–LP and SC–SIC in any user
deployments. Moreover, the performance gain of RS increases
as the rate threshold of the multicast message decreases. The
benefit of RS is obtained without any increase in the receiver
complexity compared with MU–LP. Therefore, RS is a more
powerful transmission scheme for downlink multi-antenna nonorthogonal unicast and multicast transmission systems.

10

0

5

10

R1,tot (bit/s/Hz)

Fig. 4: Achievable rate region comparison of different strategies
in perfect CSIT, γ = 0.3, R0th = 0.5 bit/s/Hz
the rate threshold of the multicast message decreases, more
power is allocated to the unicast stream. RS exhibits further
benefits of dynamic interference management.
Fig. 4 shows the results when γ = 0.3, R0th = 0.5 bit/s/Hz.
Comparing with the corresponding subfigures of Fig. 2, the
rate region of SC–SIC is closer to that of RS when there is
a 5 dB channel strength difference. However, the rate region
gap between RS and SC–SIC increases with θ despite the 5
dB channel strength difference. Comparing with RS, SC–SIC
is more sensitive to the angle between the user channels. In
Fig. 4(b), SC–SIC and MU–LP outperform each other at one
part of the rate region and the rate region of RS is larger than
the convex hull of the rate regions of SC–SIC and MU–LP. We
can easily draw the conclusion from Fig. 4(b) that RS softly
bridges and outperforms MU–LP and SC–SIC. Comparing with
MU–LP and SC–SIC, RS is more robust to a wide range of
channel gain difference and channel angles among users. RS
always outperforms MU–LP and SC–SIC. This performance
gain comes at no additional cost for the receivers since one
layer of SIC is required to separate unicast and multicast
streams in the conventional MU–LP strategy.

[1] J. Zhao, O. Simeone, D. Gunduz, and D. Gomez-Barquero, “Nonorthogonal unicast and broadcast transmission via joint beamforming
and LDM in cellular networks,” in 2016 IEEE Global Communications
Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec 2016, pp. 1–6.
[2] Y. F. Liu, C. Lu, M. Tao, and J. Wu, “Joint multicast and unicast
beamforming for the MISO downlink interference channel,” in 2017 IEEE
18th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless
Communications (SPAWC), July 2017, pp. 1–5.
[3] E. Chen, M. Tao, and Y.-F. Liu, “Joint base station clustering and
beamforming for non-orthogonal multicast and unicast transmission with
backhaul constraints,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01508, 2017.
[4] O. Tervo, L.-N. Tran, S. Chatzinotas, M. Juntti, and B. Ottersten,
“Energy-efficient joint unicast and multicast beamforming with multiantenna user terminals,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.03723, 2017.
[5] L. Zhang, W. Li, Y. Wu, X. Wang, S. I. Park, H. M. Kim, J. Y. Lee,
P. Angueira, and J. Montalban, “Layered-division-multiplexing: Theory
and practice,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 62, no. 1, pp.
216–232, March 2016.
[6] Y. Saito, Y. Kishiyama, A. Benjebbour, T. Nakamura, A. Li, and
K. Higuchi, “Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) for cellular future
radio access,” in 2013 IEEE 77th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC
Spring), June 2013, pp. 1–5.
[7] B. Clerckx, H. Joudeh, C. Hao, M. Dai, and B. Rassouli, “Rate splitting
for MIMO wireless networks: A promising PHY-layer strategy for LTE
evolution,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 98–105,
May 2016.
[8] H. Joudeh and B. Clerckx, “Sum rate maximization for MU-MISO
with partial CSIT using joint multicasting and broadcasting,” in 2015
IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), June 2015,
pp. 4733–4738.
[9] ——, “Sum-rate maximization for linearly precoded downlink multiuser
MISO systems with partial CSIT: A rate-splitting approach,” IEEE
Transactions on Communications, vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 4847–4861, Nov
2016.
[10] Y. Mao, B. Clerckx, and V. O. K. Li, “Rate-splitting multiple access
for downlink communication systems: Bridging, generalizing and outperforming SDMA and NOMA,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.11018v3, 2017.
[11] S. S. Christensen, R. Agarwal, E. D. Carvalho, and J. M. Cioffi,
“Weighted sum-rate maximization using weighted MMSE for MIMO-BC
beamforming design,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 4792–4799, Dec 2008.

