1

Multicarrier Relay Selection for Full-Duplex
Relay-Assisted OFDM D2D Systems
Shuping Dang, Student Member, IEEE, Gaojie Chen, Member, IEEE,

arXiv:1708.03295v1 [cs.IT] 10 Aug 2017

and Justin P. Coon, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract
In this paper, we propose a full-duplex orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) deviceto-device (D2D) system in two-hop networks, where multiple full-duplex decode-and-forward (DF)
relays assist the transmission from D2D user equipment (DUE) transmitter to DUE receiver. By such
a transmission mechanism, the signal transmitted by the DUE transmitter does not need to go through
a base station (BS). Meanwhile, due to the adoption of underlay D2D communication protocol, power
control mechanisms are thereby necessary to be applied to mitigate the interference to conventional
cellular communications. Based on these considerations, we analyze the outage performance of the
proposed system, and derive the exact expressions of outage probabilities when bulk and per-subcarrier
relay selection criteria are applied. Furthermore, closed-form expressions of outage probabilities are
also obtained for special cases when the instantaneous channel state information (CSI) between BS
and cellular user equipments (CUEs) is not accessible, so that a static power control mechanism is
applied. Subsequently, we also investigate the outage performance optimization problem by coordinating
transmit power among DUE transmitter and relays, and provide a suboptimal solution, which is capable
of improving the outage performance. All analysis is substantiated by numerical results provided by
Monte Carlo simulations. The analytical and numerical results demonstrated in this paper can provide
an insight into the full-duplex relay-assisted OFDM D2D systems, and serve as a guideline for its
implementation in next generation networks.

Index Terms
This work was supported by the SEN grant (EPSRC grant number EP/N002350/1) and the grant from China Scholarship
Council (No. 201508060323).
The authors are with the Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, U.K., OX1 3PJ; tel:
+44 (0)1865 283 393, (e-mail: {shuping.dang, gaojie.chen, justin.coon}@eng.ox.ac.uk).

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

2

Device-to-device (D2D) communications, relay selection, full-duplex system, OFDM, outage performance.

I. I NTRODUCTION
With a rapidly increasing demand of communication services in recent years, existing communication technologies relying on infrastructure, e.g. access point (AP) and base station (BS),
will soon be insufficient to meet the requirements of ubiquitous communications in the near
future [1]. As a result, device-to-device (D2D) communication has attracted a considerable
amount of attention in recent years and been regarded as a promising technology for next
generation networks due to its high power efficiency, high spectral efficiency and low transmission
delay [2]–[4]. D2D communication enables the direct wireless transmission between two devices
(a.k.a. D2D user equipments (DUEs)) in proximity, without going through a BS. Such a flexible transmission protocol releases the design requirements of infrastructure and thereby saves
transmission overheads caused by centralized coordination and management [2]. Meanwhile,
D2D communications can be classified in two categories, depending on whether frequency
resources are shared between D2D communications and traditional cellular communications,
which are termed underlay and overlay D2D communications, respectively [2]. It has been
proved that underlay D2D communications would be able to provide a high spectrum efficiency
and suit the spectrum sharing nature in next generation networks [5]–[7]. However, the underlay
D2D transmission will break up the orthogonality between D2D communications and traditional
cellular communications, and the corresponding interference shall be coordinated accordingly.
On the other hand, conventional D2D communications requiring a strong direct link between
DUEs might not always be feasible in practice, as the direct link could be in deep fading and
shadowing due to the existence of physical obstacles. In this scenario, D2D communications
will become impractical or require a huge amount of transmit power, which will result in
severe interference to cellular communications and significantly degrade the overall system
performance [8]. To solve this problem and enhance the applicability of D2D communications,
relay-assisted D2D communication was proposed with decode-and-forward (DF) relays and
amplify-and-forward (AF) relays in [9] and [8], respectively. However, there is no exact analytical
results provided in these two pioneering works. Then, the power control strategy and energyrelated issues for relay-assisted D2D communications were numerically studied in [10] and

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

3

[11]. Moreover, some practical aspects of relay-assisted D2D communication systems, e.g.
transmission capacity and delay performance were investigated in [12] and [13].
To further enhance the performance of relay-assisted D2D systems, recent research also focuses
on the employment of full-duplex relays, as it would double the transmission rate, as long as
the self-interference (SI) can be dealt with appropriately [14]–[16]. In [14], the authors proposed
a novel underlay D2D communication scheme, which dynamically assigns DUE transmitters
as full-duplex relays to assist cellular downlink transmissions. In [15], the coverage probability
is analyzed for the D2D communication scenario, in which CUEs are assisted by full-duplex
relays. A simple case of a pair of DUEs assisted by only one full-duplex relay is discussed in
[16]. However, the aforementioned works have not considered the application of multicarrier
paradigms, which degrades their practicability in next generation networks [17]. At the time of
writing, the only two works incorporating D2D systems and multicarrier paradigms are given
in [18], [19]. However, these works only employ optimization techniques to provide numerical
results without giving much insight into the multicarrier D2D system per se.
Therefore, to fill the gap between relay-assisted D2D communications and multicarrier paradigms
and provide a comprehensive analysis, we propose a full-duplex orthogonal frequency-division
multiplexing (OFDM) D2D system assisted by multiple relays and analyze its outage performance
in this paper. To be specific, DF forwarding protocols with bulk and per-subcarrier relay selections are taken into consideration, which make the proposed system more realistic for practical
scenarios. To summarize, the contributions of this paper are listed infra:
1) We propose a more practical system model combining relay-assisted D2D communications,
OFDM systems, full-duplex transmissions and multicarrier relay selections, which suits the
nature of next generation networks.
2) We analyze the outage performance of the proposed system with multiple DF relays
applying two different relay selection schemes.
3) We derive the exact expressions of outage probabilities for all scenarios as well as the
closed-form expressions for some special cases and numerically verify them.
4) We formulate an optimization problem for the outage performance and propose suboptimal
solutions to efficiently yield a better outage performance.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We present the system model in Section II. Then,
outage performance for different relay selection schemes is analyzed in Section III. After that,
we formulate the outage performance optimization problem and provide suboptimal solutions

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

4

Fig. 1: Network model for the proposed full-duplex relay-assisted D2D system, containing one BS, K CUEs in a
CUE cluster, N relays in a relay cluster, one DUE transmitter (source) and one DUE receiver (destination).

in Section IV. Subsequently, all analysis is numerically verified by Monte Carlo simulations in
Section V. Finally, the paper is concluded in Section VI.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
A. System framework
The framework of the proposed system is presented in Fig. 1, where one BS, a pair of
DUE transmitter and receiver, a cluster of N full-duplex DF relays and a cluster of K cellular
user equipments (CUEs) are considered. Their shorthand notations are B, S, D, Rn and Ck ,
respectively, ∀ n ∈ NR = {1, 2, . . . , N } and ∀ k ∈ NC = {1, 2, . . . , K}. Meanwhile, by
employing OFDM, it is supposed that there exist K independent subcarriers allocated to K CUEs
and used by CUEs and DUEs in an underlay manner. The set of these K subcarriers is denoted
as K = {1, 2, . . . , K}. In other words, there is a unique injective mapping relation between NC
and K, in order to mitigate the interference among CUEs and optimize the multiplexing gain of
the cellular network1 .
1

Here, we omit the subcarrier allocation process for CUEs, and assume it to be a fait accompli as a system configuration in

this paper. Details of OFDM subcarrier allocation for multiuser scenarios can be found at [20]–[22].

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

5

From Fig. 1, it is obvious that the signal and interference transmissions are in an uplink scenario2 . Therefore, the existing interference can be classified into three categories: 1) interference
from active CUEs to DUE receiver and selected relay(s); 2) interference from DUE transmitter
and selected relay(s) to BS; 3) SI at selected relay(s) because of the adoption of the full-duplex
transmission protocol. According to the basic design guidelines of D2D communication networks
[2], the cellular communications should be ensured with priority, and the first interference is
thereby inevitable in the proposed system. In order to deal with the second interference, we
have to make sure that for the kth subcarrier, the received aggregate interference from DUE
transmitter and selected relay(s) are mitigated below a certain level. Therefore, considering an
interference-limited environment [24], a dynamic power control mechanism is applied at the
DUE transmitter and selected relay(s) on the kth subcarrier, which can be written as:

PS (k) = min

αPC GCB (k)
, P̄S
ξGSB (k)


(1)

and

PRn (k) = min


(1 − α)PC GCB (k)
, P̄R ,
ξGRn B (k)

(2)

where PC is the CUE transmit power and assumed to be the same for all CUEs; α ∈ (0, 1)
is a preset power coordination factor, which is used to coordinate the transmit power of DUE
transmitter and relays and is the same among all subcarriers and relays; ξ is a preset outage
threshold for cellular communications; P̄S and P̄R are the maximum allowed transmit power
corresponding to DUE transmitter and relays on each subcarrier; Gij (k) denotes the channel
S
S
gain for the kth subcarrier, given i 6= j and i, j ∈ {B, S, D} NR NC 3 , and obeys the
exponential distribution with the probability density function (PDF) and cumulative distribution
function (CDF) given by
fGij (g) = e−g/µij /µij
2

⇔ FGij (g) = 1 − e−g/µij ,

(3)

Most D2D communication systems are designed to utilize uplink cellular resources, because D2D users can monitor the

received power of downlink control signals to estimate the channel between the DUE transmitter and the BS [2]. Therefore,
this will help maintain the transmit power of the DUE transmitter below a threshold, so that the interference caused by D2D
communication to cellular systems can be mitigated effectively [23]. Following this common design guideline, we also assume
that D2D communication utilizes uplink spectrum resources and the downlink scenario is out of the scope of this paper.
3

In this paper, we assume that all channels are reciprocal and therefore have Gij (k) = Gji (k).

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

6

where µij is the average channel gain4 .
B. Decode-and-forward forwarding protocol
Because of the interference-limited environment, we can neglect the effects of additive noise at
receivers and express the instantaneous signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) from DUE transmitter
to the nth relay (i.e. the first hop) on the kth subcarrier by
ΓSRn (k) =

GSRn (k)PS (k)
,
PC GCRn (k) + ϕn (k)

(4)

where ϕn (k) denotes the residual SI at the nth relay for the kth subcarrier, and we assume that
ϕn (k) obeys the exponential distribution with PDF and CDF written as5
fϕ (g) = e−g/ϕ̄ /ϕ̄ ⇔ Fϕ (g) = 1 − e−g/ϕ̄ ,

(5)

where ϕ̄ is the average residual SI.
Further assuming that there does not exist a direct transmission link between DUE transmitter
and receiver due to deep fading, and the DF forwarding protocol is applied at all relays, we can
express the SIR from the nth relay to the DUE receiver (i.e. the second hop) by
ΓRn D (k) =

GRn D (k)PRn (k)
.
PC GCD (k)

(6)

Subsequently, we can express the equivalent end-to-end instantaneous SIR for full-duplex DF
relay-assisted systems by [28]
ΓSRn D (k) = min {ΓSRn (k), ΓRn D (k)} .
4

(7)

Because of relay and CUE clusters, we can further assume that the sizes of clusters are relatively small compared to the

scale of the network. As a result, we can have the uniform µSR , µRD , µCR , µCD , µRB , µCB for all relays and CUEs [25].
Following this assumption, we can integrate all CUEs using K single subcarriers in the CUE cluster into a logically intact
CUE, termed integrated CUE, which uses multiple subcarriers. Such an equivalent processing will ease the analysis in following
sections.
5

Admittedly, there are also works, in which Ricean distribution is employed to model the residual SI channel, since the channel

can also be regarded as a line-of-sight (LOS) path [26]. However, according to further works on SI channel modeling [27], the
adoption of SI channel model is subject to practical situations and employed interference cancellation techniques. Therefore,
without loss of generality, we choose Rayleigh distribution in this manuscript to model the SI channel and thus the channel gain
is exponentially distributed. By varying the average channel gain ϕ̄, we can easily characterize the SI cancellation capability.

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

7

C. Relay selection schemes
1) Bulk selection: In this paper, we adopt the instantaneous SIR as the performance metric
to perform relay selections. By bulk selection, there will be only one relay selected out of N
relays. The selection criterion can be written as
Nbulk = {ñ} =

[

{ñ(k)} = arg max min {ΓSRn D (k)} ,
n∈NR k∈K

k∈K

(8)

where ñ = ñ(1) = ñ(2) = · · · = ñ(K) is the index of the selected relay forwarding all K
subcarriers, and ñ(k) represents the index of the selected relay forwarding the kth subcarrier,
∀ k ∈ K.
2) Per-subcarrier selection: On the other hand, by per-subcarrier selection, relays are selected
by each individual subcarrier in a per-subcarrier manner and the set of all selected relays can
be determined by
Nps =

[

{ñ(k)} =

k∈K

[ 
k∈K


arg max {ΓSRn D (k)} .
n∈NR

(9)

For clarity, a pictorial illustration and more details of the bulk and per-subcarrier selections
can be found in [28].
D. Outage probability
After relay selection, we can define the outage event of OFDM systems by [29]
Definition 1: An outage occurs when the end-to-end SIR of any subcarrier falls below a preset
outage threshold s.
1) Full-duplex systems: The full-duplex transmission would potentially have an outage performance benefit, if the residual SI can be managed below a certain level by a series of SI
cancellation technologies [30]. Consequently, we adopt the full-duplex transmission protocol in
this paper for relay forwarding. As a result, for full-duplex systems, we can express the outage
probability after relay selection as



Pout (s) = P min ΓSRñ(k) D (k) < s ,
k∈K

(10)

where P {·} denotes the probability of the event enclosed.
2) Half-duplex systems: As an important comparison benchmark of full-duplex systems, we
also give the outage probability for half-duplex systems as follows [16]:


n
o
half
Pout
(s) = P min Γhalf
(k)
<
s(s
+
2)
,
SRñ(k) D
k∈K

(11)

where Γhalf
SRñ(k) D (k) = ΓSRñ(k) D (k)|ϕñ(k) =0 .
August 11, 2017

DRAFT

8

III. O UTAGE P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS
By observing (1), (2) and (7), we can find that GCB (k) is a common term in the first and second
hops and will result in a correlation between two hops. Moreover, GCD (k) and GSB (k) will lead
to correlations among relays when performing relay selections. In order to carry out analysis
without considering these correlation terms, we can temporarily let them be fixed values, say
GCB (k) = ḡ(k), GCD (k) = h̄(k) and GSB (k) = ¯l(k). As a consequence, the SIRs corresponding
to different relays and subcarriers can be regarded as independent. Now we can define the
conditional a priori outage probability, (i.e., the outage probability not conditioned on any form
of relay selection having taken place) for the kth subcarrier forwarded by an arbitrary relay in
the first and second hops as


Ξ1 k|ḡ(k), ¯l(k) = P ΓSRn (k) < s|ḡ(k), ¯l(k) ,

(12)



Ξ2 k|ḡ(k), h̄(k) = P ΓRn D (k) < s|ḡ(k), h̄(k) .

(13)

and

Consequently, due to the bottleneck effect of two-hop DF relay networks (c.f. (7)), the conditional
end-to-end a priori outage probability can be determined by
Ξ(k|ḡ(k), h̄(k), ¯l(k)) = Ξ1 (k|ḡ(k), ¯l(k)) + Ξ2 (k|ḡ(k), h̄(k)) − Ξ1 (k|ḡ(k), ¯l(k))Ξ2 (k|ḡ(k), h̄(k)).

(14)


To carry out further analysis, we should now focus on the derivations of Ξ1 k|ḡ(k), ¯l(k) and

Ξ2 k|ḡ(k), h̄(k) . Because we have temporarily fixed GCB (k) = ḡ(k) and GSB (k) = ¯l(k), PS (k)
can be viewed as a fixed coefficient, instead of a random variable (c.f. (1)). Therefore, to derive
Ξ(k|ḡ(k), h̄(k), ¯l(k)), we first need to determine the distribution of Z(k) = PC GCRn (k) + ϕn (k),
which can be written as
FZ (z) =

 



z
−
−z

ϕ̄ 1−e ϕ̄ −PC µCR 1−e PC µCR


ϕ̄−PC µCR



1 −

z+ϕ̄
ϕ̄ e

z
− ϕ̄

,

, ϕ̄ 6= PC µCR

(15)

ϕ̄ = PC µCR

Consequently, we can determine the PDF of Z(k) by
fZ (z) =

 z
z
−
−

 e ϕ̄ −e PC µCR ,
ϕ̄−PC µCR

dFZ (z)
=

dz


z
− ϕ̄

z
ϕ̄2 e

,

ϕ̄ 6= PC µCR

(16)

ϕ̄ = PC µCR

Denoting W (k) = GSRn (k)/Z(k), we further determine the CDF of W (k) by
FW (w) = 1 −

August 11, 2017

µ2SR
.
(µSR + PC µCR w)(µSR + ϕ̄w)

(17)

DRAFT

9



PC h̄(k)s
Ξ2 (k|ḡ(k), h̄(k)) = P GRn D (k) <
PRn (k)

P

=1−e

h̄(k)s

− P̄C µ

R RD

1 − e

−




=

E

PRn (k)

(1−α)PC ḡ(k)
P̄R µRB ξ


FGRD

PC h̄(k)s
PRn (k)




(1−α)PC ḡ(k)
−
(1 − α)µRD ḡ(k)e P̄R µRB ξ 
+
(1 − α)µRD ḡ(k) + µRB h̄(k)ξs

(19)

Subsequently, by (4) and (17), it is straightforward to obtain
Ξ1 (k|ḡ(k), ¯l(k)) = 1 −

PS2 (k)µ2SR
.
(PS (k)µSR + PC µCR s)(PS (k)µSR + ϕ̄s)

(18)

Then, by (2), (6) and (13), Ξ2 (k|ḡ(k), h̄(k)) can be written and reduced to (19), where E{·}
denotes the expectation of the argument. Subsequently, substituting (18) and (19) into (14) yields
the expression of Ξ(k|ḡ(k), h̄(k), ¯l(k)).
A. Bulk selection
Subsequently, by order statistics and (8), we can obtain the conditional a posteriori outage
probability for bulk selection and reduce it by the binomial theorem to be
"
Pout (s|ḡ, h̄, l̄) = 1 −

K
Y

#N
(1 − Ξ(k|ḡ(k), h̄(k), ¯l(k)))

=

N  
X
N

n

n=0

k=1

K
Y

(−1)n

(1 − Ξ(k|ḡ(k), h̄(k), ¯l(k)))n .

k=1

(20)

where ḡ = {ḡ(1), ḡ(2), . . . , ḡ(K)}, h̄ = {h̄(1), h̄(2), . . . , h̄(K)} and l̄ = {¯l(1), ¯l(2), . . . , ¯l(K)};

·
represents the binomial coefficient. To remove the conditions and obtain the final expression,
·
we have to average Pout (s|ḡ, h̄, l̄) over ḡ, h̄ and l̄, which will result in a 3K-fold integral and
can be written as
ZZZ
Pout (s) =
ḡ,h̄,l̄

N  
X
N
Pout (s|ḡ, h̄, l̄)fḠ (ḡ)fH̄ (h̄)fL̄ (l̄)dḡdh̄dl̄ =
(−1)n
n
n=0

where
fḠ (ḡ) =

K
Y


FGCB (ḡ(k)) =

µCB

k=1

fH̄ (h̄) =

K
Y


FGCD (h̄(k)) =

k=1

and
fL̄ (l̄) =

K
Y

FGSB (¯l(k)) =

k=1

August 11, 2017

K Y
K

1



µCD
1
µSB

!
Φ(k) ,

(21)

k=1

ḡ(k)

e

−µ

CB

,

(22)

,

(23)

k=1

K Y
K

1

K
Y

h̄(k)

e

−µ

CD

k=1

K Y
K

l̄(k)

−µ

e

SB

,

(24)

k=1

DRAFT

10

p
PS2 (k)µ2SR
ϑ(k) =
FGSB (¯l)d¯l
(PS (k)µSR + PC µCR s)(PS (k)µSR + ϕ̄s)
0


p
αP ḡ
P̄S2 µ2SR
− P̄ µC ξ
S
SB
= 1−e
(P̄S µSR + PC µCR s)(P̄S µSR + ϕ̄s)
p

 2


1
αḡµSR αPC ḡµSR
α PC ḡ 2 µ2SR
1
(p)
χ
+
,
,
αP
ḡ
C
µSB
µCR ϕ̄ξ 2 s2
µCR ξs
ϕ̄ξs
µSB
P̄S ξ
Z

∞



(30)

denoting the joint PDFs corresponding to ḡ, h̄ and l̄, respectively; Φ(k) is a triple integral, which
is defined and simplified by the multinomial theorem as follows [31]:
ZZZ
Φ(k) =

(1 − Ξ(k|ḡ, h̄, ¯l))n FGCB (ḡ)FGCD (h̄)FGSB (¯l)dḡdh̄d¯l

ḡ,h̄,l̄

ZZZ X
n!(−1)n2 +n3
=
Ξ1 (k|ḡ, ¯l)n2 +n4 Ξ2 (k|ḡ, h̄)n3 +n4 FGCB (ḡ)FGCD (h̄)FGSB (¯l)dḡdh̄d¯l,
4
Q
C(n,4)
nτ !
ḡ,h̄,l̄

(25)

τ =1

o
n
P
where C(n, T ) = n1 , n2 , . . . , nT | Tτ=1 nτ = n, ∀ 0 ≤ nτ ≤ n , denoting the executive condition of the summation operation; ḡ, h̄ and ¯l are the shorthand notations of variables of integration
ḡ(k), h̄(k) and ¯l(k), as all subcarriers are statistically equivalent. Then, we can utilize the
interchangeability between summation and integration operations and the independence among
ḡ, h̄ and ¯l to further reduce Φ(k) to
X n!(−1)n2 +n3 Z ∞
φ1 (k, n2 + n4 )φ2 (k, n3 + n4 )FGCB (ḡ)dḡ,
Φ(k) =
4
Q
0
C(n,4)
nτ !

(26)

τ =1

where

∞

Z
φ1 (k, n) =

Ξ1 (k|ḡ, ¯l)n FGSB (¯l)d¯l,

(27)

Ξ2 (k|ḡ, h̄)n FGCD (h̄)dh̄.

(28)

0

and
Z

∞

φ2 (k, n) =
0

Now, let us focus on the derivations of φ1 (k, n2 + n4 ) and φ2 (k, n3 + n4 ). For φ1 (k, n2 + n4 ),
we can similarly employ the binomial theorem and obtain
φ1 (k, n2 + n4 ) =

nX
2 +n4
p=0




n2 + n4
(−1)p ϑ(k),
p

(29)

(p)

where ϑ(k) is determined in (30); χu (a, b) is a defined function given by
χ(p)
u (a, b) =

Z

∞

u

e−bx
Q
dx,
(x + ai )p

(31)

a

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

11

∞



−

(1−α)PC ḡ
P̄R µRB ξ

q

 (1 − α)µRD ḡe
 e− P̄R µRD + µCD h̄ dh̄
(1
−
α)µ
ḡ
+
µ
h̄ξs
RD
RB
0

q
(1−α)P ḡ

q−1
− P̄ µ Cξ
R RB
(1
−
α)µ
ḡe
1
pPC s
RD


=
+
µRB ξs
µCD
P̄R µRD



 
pPC s
(1−α)µRD ḡ
pPC s
(1 − α)µRD ḡ
1
+µ 1
µRB ξs
P̄R µRD
CD
Γ 1 − q,
+
×e
µRB ξs
µCD
P̄R µRD
Z

θ(k) =



pPC s

1



(35)

where a = {a1 , a2 , . . . , aNa } denotes a set of Na positive numbers; b and u are positive numbers;
p is a nonnegative integer. When p = 0, we can easily obtain
−bu
χ(0)
/b.
u (a, b) = e

(32)

When p > 0, by partial fraction decomposition [32], we can determine the closed-form expression
(p)

of χu (a, b) by
χ(p)
u (a, b) =

Z

∞

u

=


p X
Na 
X
A(q, i)
e−bx dx
q
(x
+
a
)
i
q=1 i=1

p X
Na
X

Z

∞

A(q, i)
u

q=1 i=1

(33)

p X
Na
X
e−bx
dx
=
A(q, i)eai b Γ (1 − q, b(ai + u)) ,
(x + ai )q
q=1 i=1

where {A(q, i)} is a unique and real constant set, which can be derived by a recursive algorithm
R∞
for any given a and p [33]; Γ(a, x) = x ta−1 e−t dt is the incomplete gamma function.
For φ2 (k, n3 +n4 ), we can derive its closed-form expression by applying the binomial theorem
twice and exchanging the order of summation and integration, and obtain
φ2 (k, n3 + n4 ) =

nX
3 +n4

 
p 
X
n3 + n4
p

p=0 q=0

p

q



(1−α)P ḡ p−q
− P̄ µ Cξ
θ(k),
(−1) 1 − e R RB
p

(34)

where θ(k) is defined and reduced to (35). Consequently, by substituting the single integral
expression of Φ(k) into (21), we can reduce Pout (s) from a 3K-fold integral to a summation
of multiplications of a series of single integrals, which can be easily evaluated by standard
numerical approaches. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a
closed-form expression of Pout (s) when the dynamic power control mechanism is applied.
In addition, because of the demanding estimation of instantaneous CSI, the BS might not
always be able to get access to ḡ, and therefore a static power control mechanism will be
applied in this scenario. Specifically, the static power control mechanism will not take ḡ into

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

12






N
K
X
Y

 X  n!(−1)n2 +n3
N



φ1 (k, n2 + n4 )|ḡ=κ φ2 (k, n3 + n4 )|ḡ=κ 
Pout (s) =
(−1)n



4
Q
n
n=0
k=1 C(n,4)
nτ !

(36)

τ =1

account, but replace it with a preset static power control factor6 κ, which is determined by the
statistical features of the network [34]. Then, we can derive the closed-form expression of outage
probability in (36) for bulk selection.
B. Per-subcarrier selection
Similarly, by (9), we can derive the conditional a posteriori outage probability for persubcarrier selection to be
Pout (s|ḡ, h̄, l̄) = 1 −

K h
Y

1 − Ξ(k|ḡ, h̄, ¯l)

N i

.

(37)

k=1

In a similar manner as bulk selection, we remove the conditions by averaging Pout (s|ḡ, h̄, l̄) over
ḡ, h̄ and l̄, which leads to a 3K-fold integral and can be expressed as
ZZZ
Pout (s|ḡ, h̄, l̄)fḠ (ḡ)fH̄ (h̄)fL̄ (l̄)dḡdh̄dl̄ = 1 −

Pout (s) =

K
Y

(1 − Ψ(k)) ,

(38)

k=1

ḡ,h̄,l̄

where Ψ(k) is defined and can be simplified by the multinomial theorem as follows [31]:
ZZZ
Ψ(k) =

(Ξ(k|ḡ, h̄, ¯l))N FGCB (ḡ)FGCD (h̄)FGSB (¯l)dḡdh̄d¯l

ḡ,h̄,l̄

ZZZ
=
ḡ,h̄,l̄

X N !(−1)n3
Ξ1 (k|ḡ, ¯l)n1 +n3 Ξ2 (k|ḡ, h̄)n2 +n3 FGCB (ḡ)FGCD (h̄)FGSB (¯l)dḡdh̄d¯l.
3
Q
C(N,3)
nτ !

(39)

τ =3

Because of the interchangeability between summation and integration operations and the independence among ḡ, h̄ and ¯l, we can simplify the triple integral in Ψ(k) to a summation of a
series of single integrals as
Ψ(k) =

X N !(−1)n3 Z ∞
φ1 (k, n1 + n3 )φ2 (k, n2 + n3 )FGCB (ḡ)dḡ.
3
Q
0
C(N,3)
nτ !

(40)

τ =1

6

One should note that the static power control mechanism cannot always eliminate the deleterious effects of the interference

from D2D communications to cellular communications. Although it could bring a better outage performance to D2D
communications by releasing power control, this performance gain at the D2D side is at the price of the performance loss
of cellular communications. As a consequence, the higher κ is, the better the outage performance in D2D communications
will be, and vice versa. In other words, this provides a performance trade-off between cellular communications and D2D
communications, when both coexist in an underlay manner.

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

13


Pout (s) = 1 −





K
X  N !(−1)n3
Y




1 −
φ1 (k, n1 + n3 )|ḡ=κ φ2 (k, n2 + n3 )|ḡ=κ 
 Q


3
k=1
C(N,3)
nτ !

(41)

τ =1

Finally, substituting (40) into (38) yields the single integral expression of the outage probability
for per-subcarrier selection when the dynamic power control mechanism is applied. Again, if
the static power control mechanism is applied, we can express the closed-form expression of
outage probability for per-subcarrier selection in (41).
IV. O UTAGE P ERFORMANCE O PTIMIZATION
Because of the joint power control mechanism at DUE transmitter and relays, there exists
a trade-off of α in the outage performance of relay-assisted D2D communications, which is
associated with channel statistics. That is to say, there exists an optimal α∗ ∈ (0, 1), which is
capable of minimizing the outage probability. Following this thought, we can then formulate an
outage performance optimization problem infra
min{Pout (s)}
α

(42)

s.t. 0 < α < 1.

Because all subcarriers are statistically equivalent, this formulated optimization problem can be
equivalently transfered to an optimization problem of maximizing the average end-to-end SIR
regarding an individual subcarrier, written as
max{E{ΓSRn D (k)}}
α

(43)

s.t. 0 < α < 1.

The equivalence of these two optimization problems can be proved in a general manner in
Appendix A.
A. Dynamic power control mechanism
Because E{ΓSRn D (k)} is mathematically intractable, we must find another alternative objective
function to approximate E{ΓSRn D (k)} and provide a suboptimal solution instead. Therefore, for
the dynamic power control mechanism, we formulate an alternative optimization problem to
approximate the original problem formulated in (43) by
max{Ω(α)}
α

(44)

s.t. 0 < α < 1,

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

14

o
o  
n
n

C ḡ(k)
 µSR min αPξµC ḡ(k) , P̄S µRD min (1−α)P
ω1 (α),
, P̄R  
ξµRB
SB
Ω(α) = E min
,
=

 
PC µCR + ϕ̄
PC µCD
ḡ(k) 
ω2 (α),



P̄S µSR
PC µCR +ϕ̄

>

P̄R µRD
PC µCD

P̄S µSR
PC µCR +ϕ̄

≤

P̄R µRD
PC µCD

(45a)







ξP̄ µ
µRD (PC µCR +ϕ̄)
− R SB
αP 2 µSR µCB µCD
C
1−e
,


ω1 (α) =
P̄R ξµRB

−
C µRD µCB

 (1−α)P
1 − e (1−α)PC µCB ,
PC ξµRB µCD





αPC µSR µCB
ξµSB (PC µCR +ϕ̄)



P̄ ξµ
− αPS µSB
C
CB
1−e
,


ω2 (α) =
P̄S PC ξµSR µRB µCD

− (1−α)P µ
(1−α)PC µRD µCB

µCB (PC µCR +ϕ̄)
C
RD
 PC ξµRB µCD
1−e
,
αPC µSR µCB
ξµSB (PC µCR +ϕ̄)

%=

µSB µRD (PC µCR + ϕ̄)
PC µSR µRB µCD + µSB µRD (PC µCR + ϕ̄)

0<α<%
(45b)
%≤α<1
0<α<%
(45c)
%≤α<1
(45d)

where Ω(α) is constructed by replacing all instantaneous channel gains by their averages in
ΓSRn D (k) except for ḡ(k), and averaging over ḡ(k); Ω(α) can be explicitly expressed in (45).
Then, we prove the quasi-concavity of the formulated problem in Appendix B, which enables it
to be efficiently solved by standard optimization techniques (e.g. CVX in MATLAB [35]), and
a suboptimal α& can be yielded to improve the outage performance when the dynamic power
control mechanism is applied.
B. Static power control mechanism
Again, because it is difficult to analyze E{ΓSRn D (k)} directly, we propose an alternative
optimization problem for the static power control case. This new optimization problem can be
written as
max{γ(α)}
α

(46)

s.t. 0 < α < 1,

where γ(α) = min{γ1 (α), γ2 (α)}; γ1 (α) and γ2 (α) are given below:
µSR min
γ1 (α) =

µRD min

August 11, 2017

αPC κ
ξµSB , P̄S

PC µCR + ϕ̄

and
γ2 (α) =

n

n

o
,

(1−α)PC κ
, P̄R
ξµRB

PC µCD

(47)

o
,

(48)

DRAFT

15

0

0

10

10
Dynamic: Num. K=4,N=4
Dynamic: Num. K=8,N=4
Dynamic: Num. K=4,N=8
Static: Num. K=4,N=4
Static: Num. K=8,N=4
Static: Num. K=4,N=8
Dynamic: Analy.
Static: Analy.

−1

−1

10

Outage probability

Outage probability

10

−2

10

−3

10

−4

−2

10

−3

10

−4

10

10

−5

10
−20

Dynamic: Num. K=4,N=4
Dynamic: Num. K=8,N=4
Dynamic: Num. K=4,N=8
Static: Num. K=4,N=4
Static: Num. K=8,N=4
Static: Num. K=4,N=8
Dynamic: Analy.
Static: Analy.

−5

−15

−10

−5

0
P̄S (dB)

5

10

15

20

(a) Bulk selection scheme

10
−20

−15

−10

−5

0
P̄S (dB)

5

10

15

20

(b) Per-subcarrier selection scheme

Fig. 2: Outage probability of D2D communications vs. P̄S for bulk and per-subcarrier selection schemes, given
P̄R = P̄S .

which are produced by replacing all instantaneous channel gains in ΓSRn D (k) by their averages. Subsequently, we can prove this alternative optimization problem to be quasi-concave in
Appendix C. As a result, this optimization problem can be efficiently solved by using standard
optimization techniques, and a suboptimal α& can be yielded to improve the outage performance
when the static power control mechanism is applied.
V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
A. Verifications of analytical results
To verify the analysis presented in Section III for different relay selection schemes and power
control mechanisms, we carried out Monte Carlo simulations in this section. First, we set µSR =
µRD = 30 dB, µSB = µRB = 10 dB, µCR = µCD = 2 dB, µCB = 20 dB and ϕ̄ = 5 dB; also,
we normalize s = ξ = PC = 1 and let α = 0.5 (without considering power coordination for
the time being) and κ = 4 for implementing the static power control mechanism. We further
suppose P̄R = P̄S and vary this transmit power limit to substantiate (21), (36), (38) and (41).
The simulation results are shown in Fig. 2 for bulk and per-subcarrier selection schemes with
different numbers of subcarriers and relays.
From Fig. 2, we can see that the theoretical results perfectly match the numerical results,
which validate the correctness of our analysis given in Section III. In addition, the per-subcarrier

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

16

selection scheme outperforms the bulk selection scheme in terms of outage probability when P̄S
and P̄R are small. However, with the increase of P̄S and P̄R , outage probabilities corresponding
to both selection schemes get close when dynamic power control mechanism is applied, which
indicates that the dynamic power control mechanism dominates the outage performance as long
as P̄S and P̄R are sufficiently large, instead of relay selections. On the contrary, this is not the
case for the static power control mechanism, as the correlation term ḡ(k) is out of consideration,
which will result in a significant performance improvement by using per-subcarrier selection.
Meanwhile, some important features of the proposed full-duplex relay-assisted OFDM D2D
system can also be shown in Fig. 2. First, the power control mechanisms constraint the improvement of outage performance by increasing P̄S and P̄R , as it is dominated by the interference
to cellular communications when P̄S and P̄R are large. Second, both dynamic and static power
control mechanisms share a similar outage performance when P̄S and P̄R are small, but will
have a performance gap when P̄S and P̄R increase. The performance gap is mainly determined
by the static power control factor κ. Besides, increasing the number of subcarriers K will
lead to a worse outage performance, as all subcarriers have to be ensured not in outage (c.f.
Definition 1). On the other hand, increasing the number of relays N will yield a better outage
performance, because the DUE transmitter can have more options when performing multicarrier
relay selections. Moreover, the positive effect on outage performance by increasing N for the
static power control mechanism is much more obvious than that for the dynamic power control
mechanism, since there is one less correlation term when the static power control mechanism is
applied. These results provide guidelines for the design of OFDM D2D systems, when coexisting
with traditional cellular systems in an underlay manner.
B. Performance benefits by relay selections and comparisons
1) Effects of µSR and µRD : In order to study the effects of the D2D transmission links, we
focus on µSR and µRD in this subsection, which are directly related to the quality of relayassisted D2D communications. To simulate, we normalize P̄S = P̄R = 1, set N = K = 4, and
maintain other settings as the same in the last subsection. Then, we assume µRD = µSR , and vary
them to obtain the relation between the outage probability and the quality of D2D transmission
links. Meanwhile, to illustrate the performance benefits brought by relay selections, we also take
random relay selection as a comparison benchmark in our simulations. The numerical results are
illustrated in Fig. 3. By these numerical results, it is clear that the outage performance yielded

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

17

0

10

−1

Outage probability

10

−2

10

−3

10

−4

10

−5

10

Dynamic: bulk
Dynamic: per−subcarrier
Dynamic: random
Static: bulk
Static: per−subcarrier
Static: random

10

15

20
µSR (dB)

25

30

Fig. 3: Numerical results: outage probability of D2D communications vs. the average channel gain µSR , given
µRD = µSR and N = K = 4.

by bulk and per-subcarrier selections will get close with increasing µSR and µRD when the
dynamic power control mechanism is applied, while this does not happen for the case of static
power control mechanism. Furthermore, compared to the random selection scheme, both bulk
and subcarrier selection schemes own outage performance gains, which validate the effectiveness
of multicarrier relay selections in full-duplex relay-assisted OFDM D2D systems.
2) Effects of µSB and µRB : The channels between BS and DUE transmitter as well as relays
are important, as they are related to the power control mechanisms. Here, we also investigate
them via µSB and µRB . By taking a similar simulation configurations as above, and fixing
µSR = µRD = 30 dB, we assume µRB = µSB , and vary them to illustrate how the qualities of
these channels affect the outage performance of D2D communications. The numerical results
are given in Fig. 4. We can find from this figure that increasing µSB and µRB will yield a
significantly negative impact on the outage performance, because on average, less transmit power
will be allowed for D2D communications when µSB and µRB go large. Meanwhile, because of
the correlation term ¯l(k), bulk and per-subcarrier selections have a similar outage performance
when µSR and µRD are large.

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

18

0

10

−1

Outage probability

10

−2

10

−3

10

Dynamic: bulk
Dynamic: per−subcarrier
Dynamic: random
Static: bulk
Static: per−subcarrier
Static: random

−4

10

−5

10
−10

−5

0

5
µSB (dB)

10

15

20

Fig. 4: Numerical results: outage probability of D2D communications vs. the average channel gain µSB , given
µRB = µSB and N = K = 4.

3) Effects of µCR and µCD : Additionally, the channels between CUE and relay as well as
DUE receiver determine the quality of signal reception, as the transmitted signals from CUEs
are regarded as interference to relays and the DUE receiver. Here, we let µCD = µCR , and
change them to observe their impacts on the D2D signal reception. The numerical results are
shown in Fig. 5. The numerical results demonstrated in Fig. 5 are aligned with our expectation
that increasing µCR and µCD will produce a destructive effect on outage performance, as a large
interference from cellular communications will exist at relays and the DUE receiver. Meanwhile,
because of the correlation term h̄(k), with decreasing µCR and µCD , the performance curves of
bulk and per-subcarrier selections get close.
C. Comparison between dynamic and static power control mechanisms
The performance difference between dynamic and static power control mechanisms mainly
depends on µCB and κ. In this subsection, we study the relation between µCB and outage
performance with different κ. To provide a comprehensive analysis of the effects of µCB on
both D2D and cellular communications, we should take the outage probabilities from both

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

19

0

10

−1

Outage probability

10

−2

10

−3

10

Dynamic: bulk
Dynamic: per−subcarrier
Dynamic: random
Static: bulk
Static: per−subcarrier
Static: random

−4

10

−5

10
−10

−5

0

5
µCR (dB)

10

15

20

Fig. 5: Numerical results: outage probability of D2D communications vs. the average channel gain µCR , given
µCD = µCR and N = K = 4.

0

0

10

10
Dynamic: bulk
Dynamic: per−subcarrier
Static: bulk κ=4
Static: per−subcarrier κ=4
Static: bulk κ=3
Static: per−subcarrier κ=3
Static: bulk κ=2
Static: per−subcarrier κ=2

Outage probability

−2

10

−1

10

Outage probability

−1

10

−3

10

10

−5

−5

10

−3

10

−4

−4

10

10

−2

10

Dynamic: bulk
Dynamic: per−subcarrier
Static: bulk κ=4
Static: per−subcarrier κ=4
Static: bulk κ=3
Static: per−subcarrier κ=3
Static: bulk κ=2
Static: per−subcarrier κ=2

10
15

20
µCB (dB)

(a) D2D communications

25

30

15

20

25

30

µCB (dB)

(b) Cellular communications

Fig. 6: Numerical results: outage probability vs. µCB for D2D and cellular communications, given N = K = 4.

sides into consideration. Taking the same simulation configurations specified in Section V-A and
normalizing P̄S = P̄R = 1, we carry out the numerical simulations and present the numerical

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

20

0

0

10

Outage probability

Dynamic: full−duplex
Dynamic: half−duplex
Dynamic: ideal
Static: full−duplex
Static: half−duplex
Static: ideal

−1

10

−2

Outage probability

−1

10

10
Dynamic: full−duplex
Dynamic: half−duplex
Dynamic: ideal
Static: full−duplex
Static: half−duplex
Static: ideal

−2

10

−3

10

10

−3

10

−4

10

−4

10

−5

10

−5

10
−10

−6

−5

0

5
ϕ̄ (dB)

10

(a) Bulk selection scheme

15

20

10
−10

−5

0

5
ϕ̄ (dB)

10

15

20

(b) Per-subcarrier selection scheme

Fig. 7: Numerical results: outage probability of D2D communications vs. ϕ̄ for bulk and per-subcarrier selection
schemes, given N = K = 4.

results in Fig. 6 for both D2D and cellular communications.
From Fig. 6 (a), we can observe that the outage probabilities regarding bulk and per-subcarrier
selections get close at high µCB , which indicates that the correlation term ḡ(k) plays a dominant
role in the relay selection process, and produces a deleterious impact on the performance
gain. This sub-figure also provides a hint to choose appropriate power control mechanisms.
Meanwhile, when the static power control mechanism is applied, a lower κ will lead to a
better outage performance, and the performance is independent from µCB , as ḡ(k) is not taken
into consideration for static power control. On the other hand, by observing Fig. 6 (b), the
numerical results verify our analysis that the potential performance gain in D2D communications
brought by the static power control mechanism is at the price of the performance loss in cellular
communications. Besides, as we can also see, the relay selection schemes adopted by DUEs does
not matter to the cellular communications, because on average, all relays are viewed equivalently
to the BS, and so is their interference.
D. Comparison between full-duplex and half-duplex transmissions
As it is well known that full-duplex transmission does not always outperform half-duplex
transmission [36], the performance difference between them is mainly dependent on the mean
of the residual SI term, i.e. ϕ̄. Therefore, we study ϕ̄ in this subsection and compare the

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

21

0

0

10

10

−1

−1

10

Outage probability

Outage probability

10

−2

10

−3

10

Dynamic
Static

−4

10

−2

10

−3

10

Dynamic
Static

−4

10

Optimal a*
−5

10

Optimal a*

Suboptimal a&
0

0.2

Suboptimal a&

−5

0.4

0.6

0.8

10

1

0

0.2

α

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

α

(a) Bulk selection scheme

(b) Per-subcarrier selection scheme

Fig. 8: Outage probability of D2D communications vs. α for bulk and per-subcarrier selection schemes, given
N = K = 4.

outage performance provided by full-duplex and half-duplex transmissions (c.f. (10) and (11)).
Meanwhile, we also provide an ideal case that the residual SI can be mitigated to a noise level
and is thus negligible to show the ideal scenario of full-duplex transmission for comparison
purposes. This ideal case can be produced by
ideal
Pout
(s) = lim Pout (s).
ϕ̄→0

(49)

Taking the same simulation configurations given in Section V-A and normalizing P̄S = P̄R = 1,
we carry out the numerical simulations and all simulation results are shown in Fig. 7. From
this figure, it is obvious that the priority of transmission protocols depends on ϕ̄, and fullduplex transmission does have the potential to provide a better outage performance, as long
as a satisfactory SI elimination technology can be utilized to reduce ϕ̄ below a certain level.
The analytical derivation of the critical value of ϕ̄ below which the full-duplex transmission
outperforms the half-duplex transmission (i.e. the cross point of two outage probability curves)
would be worth investigating as a future work.
E. Verifications of outage performance optimization strategies
To verify the effectiveness of the suboptimal solutions to the original optimization problem
formulated in (42), we carry out simulations to investigate the relation between α and outage

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

22

probability in this subsection. Here we adopt the same simulation configurations as set in Section
V-A and normalize P̄S = P̄R = 1. Simulation results are shown in Fig. 8. Compared with the
optimal and suboptimal power coordination factors α∗ and α& (highlighted by red circles and blue
squares), our proposed suboptimal solutions are close to the optimal solutions, which validate
the feasibility of our proposed suboptimal algorithms for both dynamic and static power control
cases. Therefore, we can employ these algorithms to efficiently coordinate transmit power among
DUE transmitter and relays to yield a better outage performance.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we proposed an underlay OFDM D2D system, which is assisted by multiple
full-duplex DF relays, and considered applying multicarrier relay selections in this system.
Meanwhile, power control mechanisms and performance optimizations were also taken into
consideration in order to efficiently mitigate the interference from D2D communications to
cellular communications. Then, we analyzed the outage performance of the proposed system.
We obtained the single integral expressions of the outage probabilities when the dynamic power
control mechanism was applied, and these expressions can be further simplified to closed forms
when the static power control mechanism was utilized. After that, we studied the outage performance optimization problem by coordinating transmit power among DUE transmitter and relays.
Due to the mathematical intractability of the original optimization problem, we proposed two
alternative optimization problems, which are capable of providing suboptimal solutions for both
dynamic and static power control cases. By the analytical and numerical results provided in this
paper, we can have an insight into the relay-assisted OFDM D2D system, and understand its
characteristics in most aspects thoroughly. Moreover, as a number of comparisons are given,
this paper can also provide a guideline for implementing D2D communications and the relevant
technologies in next generation networks.
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF E QUIVALENCE OF O PTIMIZATION P ROBLEMS F ORMULATED IN (42) AND (43)
According to the theorem of Lebesgue-Stieltjes integration, for an arbitrary random variable
X with CDF FX (x), we can derive its expectation as follows [37]:
Z

Z

0

(1 − FX (x))dx −

E{X} =
0

August 11, 2017

∞

FX (x)dx.

(50)

−∞

DRAFT

23

In our case, because X is the end-to-end SIR and FX (x) is the outage probability, it is obvious
that FX (x) = 0 for x < 0, and thus (50) can be simplified to
Z

∞

(1 − FX (x))dx.

E{X} =

(51)

0

Considering FX (x) is a monotone increasing function of x, the relation given in (51) validates
the equivalence between min{Pout (s)} and max{E{ΓSRn D (k)}}, for 0 < α < 1.
α

α

A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF Q UASI -C ONCAVITY OF THE O PTIMIZATION P ROBLEM F ORMULATED IN (44)
To prove the quasi-concavity of the formulated problem in (44), we first propose a lemma as
follows:
Lemma 1: Given a bounded, continuous and real piecewise function
f (x) =



f1 (x),

x ∈ (xmin , xc )


f2 (x),

x ∈ [xc , xmax )

,

(52)

if f1 (x) is a monotone increasing function of x, and f2 (x) is a monotone decreasing function
of x, f (x) is a quasi-concave function of x and the maximum f (x) is achieved when x = xc .
Proof: This lemma is straightforward to prove by elementary algebraic derivations and the
definition of a quasi-concave function. Therefore, we omit a detailed proof here, and comprehensive analysis of the relation between quasi-concavity and monotonicity can be found in [38].

As a result of Lemma 1, we can transfer the exploration of quasi-concavity to the explorations
of continuity and monotonicity. It is obvious from (45b) and (45c) that ω1 (α) and ω2 (α) are
continuous over α ∈ (0, %) and α ∈ [%, 1). Now, we can examine the continuity of both ω1 (α)
and ω2 (α) at the boundary point α = % by
lim ωi (α) = lim ωi (α),

α→%−

α→%+

(53)

where i ∈ {1, 2}. This relation indicates that both ω1 (α) and ω2 (α) are continuous at the
boundary point α = %. Therefore, both ω1 (α) and ω2 (α) are continuous over the entire domain
of definition α ∈ (0, 1).
To investigate the monotonicity of ω1 (α) and ω2 (α), we propose another two lemmas as
follows:


−B
x

Lemma 2: f (x) = Ax 1 − e



, where A and B are bounded and positive constants, is a

monotone increasing function of x, ∀ x ∈ (0, 1).

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

24

Proof: We derive the first and second order derivatives of f (x) with respect to x as follows:
f 0 (x) =



df (x)
B + x −B
=A 1−
e x
dx
x

(54)

AB 2 − B
d2 f (x)
=
−
e x < 0.
dx2
x3

(55)

and
f 00 (x) =

From (55), we know that f 0 (x) is a monotone decreasing function of x and therefore

min{f 0 (x)} > lim f 0 (x) = Ae−B eB − B − 1 > 0.
x

x→1

(56)

Because the first order derivative f 0 (x) > 0, ∀ x ∈ (0, 1), f (x) is a monotone increasing function
of x.


B
Lemma 3: t(x) = A(1 − x) 1 − e− 1−x , where A and B are bounded and positive constants,
is a monotone decreasing function of x, ∀ x ∈ (0, 1).
Proof: We can express t(x) = f (1 − x). By Lemma 2, f (x) is a monotone increasing
function of x, and f 0 (x) > 0, ∀ x ∈ (0, 1). Then, we can obtain the first order derivative of t(x)
with respect to x by
t0 (x) =

df (1 − x)
dt(x)
=
= −f 0 (x) < 0,
dx
dx

(57)

and therefore t(x) = f (1 − x) is a monotone decreasing function of x, ∀ x ∈ (0, 1).
According to Lemma 2 and Lemma 3, we can easily see that ω1 (α) and ω2 (α) are monotone
increasing functions of α when 0 < α < % and monotone decreasing functions of α when
% ≤ α < 1. As a result of Lemma 1, we prove that ω1 (α) and ω2 (α) are quasi-concave functions
of x, ∀ x ∈ (0, 1), and so as the quasi-concavity of the formulated problem in (44).
A PPENDIX C
P ROOF OF Q UASI -C ONCAVITY OF THE O PTIMIZATION P ROBLEM F ORMULATED IN (46)
It can be easily seen that γ1 (α) is a bounded, continuous and monotone increasing function of
α, while γ2 (α) is a bounded, continuous and monotone decreasing function of α. To prove γ(α)
to be a quasi-concave function of α, we first divide the formulated problem into three cases:
1) Case 1: γ1 (α) > γ2 (α), ∀ α ∈ (0, 1).
2) Case 2: γ1 (α) < γ2 (α), ∀ α ∈ (0, 1).
3) Case 3: γ1 (α) < γ2 (α), for α ∈ (0, ), and γ1 (α) > γ2 (α), ∀ α ∈ (, 1), where  is a
critical point in which γ1 () = γ2 ().

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

25

For Case 1 and Case 2, it is straightforward that γ(α) = γ1 (α) and γ(α) = γ2 (α). Because of
the monotonicity of γ1 (α) and γ2 (α), it is easy to derive the relation infra for both cases
∀ α1 , α2 ∈ (0, 1) and λ ∈ (0, 1),
(58)
∃ γ(λα1 + (1 − λ)γ2 ) ≥ min {γ(α1 ), γ(γ2 )} .

Hence, according to the definition of a quasi-concave function [39], we have proved γ(α) to be
quasi-concave for Case 1 and Case 2. For Case 3, we suppose 0 < α1 < α2 < 1 without losing
generality and further divide Case 3 into another three sub-cases as follows:
1) Case 3-1: 0 < α1 < α2 < 
2) Case 3-2:  < α1 < α2 < 1
3) Case 3-3: 0 < α1 <  < α2 < 1
Case 3-1 and Case 3-2 are simply special cases of Case 2 and Case 1, respectively. Therefore,
the quasi-concavity of Case 3-1 and Case 3-2 can be proved in a similar manner as above. For




α2 −
α2 −
Case 3-3, we need to discuss λ in the range of 0, α2 −α1 and α2 −α1 , 1 , respectively. When


−
λ ∈ 0, αα22−α
, we can derive
1
γ(λα1 + (1 − λ)α2 ) = γ1 (λα1 + (1 − λ)α2 ) ≥ γ1 (α1 ) = γ(α1 ) ≥ min{γ(α1 ), γ(α2 )}.

Similarly, when λ ∈





α2 −
,1
α2 −α1

(59)

, we can derive

γ(λα1 + (1 − λ)α2 ) = γ2 (λα1 + (1 − λ)α2 ) ≥ γ2 (α2 ) = γ(α2 ) ≥ min{γ(α1 ), γ(α2 )}.

(60)

By (59) and (60), we have proved γ(α) to be a quasi-concave function of α for Case 3. Now, we
have proved γ(α) to be a quasi-concave function of α for all cases and thus the quasi-concavity
of the formulated optimization problem.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. N. Tehrani, M. Uysal, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Device-to-device communication in 5G cellular networks: challenges,
solutions, and future directions,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 86–92, May 2014.
[2] A. Asadi, Q. Wang, and V. Mancuso, “A survey on device-to-device communication in cellular networks,” IEEE Commun.
Surveys Tutorials, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1801–1819, 2014.
[3] M. Sheng, Y. Li, X. Wang, J. Li, and Y. Shi, “Energy efficiency and delay tradeoff in device-to-device communications
underlaying cellular networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 92–106, Jan. 2016.
[4] H. A. U. Mustafa, M. A. Imran, M. Z. Shakir, A. Imran, and R. Tafazolli, “Separation framework: an enabler for cooperative
and D2D communication for future 5G networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 419–445,
2016.

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

26

[5] X. Lin, J. G. Andrews, and A. Ghosh, “Spectrum sharing for device-to-device communication in cellular networks,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 6727–6740, Dec. 2014.
[6] Z. Zhang, Z. Ma, M. Xiao, Z. Ding, and P. Fan, “Full-duplex device-to-device-aided cooperative nonorthogonal multiple
access,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 4467–4471, May 2017.
[7] J. Zhao, Y. Liu, K. K. Chai, Y. Chen, M. Elkashlan, and J. Alonso-Zarate, “NOMA-based D2D communications: towards
5G,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Washington, DC, USA, Dec. 2016.
[8] Y. Ni, X. Wang, S. Jin, K. K. Wong, H. Zhu, and N. Zhang, “Outage probability of device-to-device communication
assisted by one-way amplify-and-forward relaying,” IET Communications, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 271–282, 2015.
[9] X. Ma, R. Yin, G. Yu, and Z. Zhang, “A distributed relay selection method for relay assisted device-to-device communication
system,” in Proc. IEEE PIMRC, Sydney, NSW, Australia, Sept. 2012.
[10] J. F. Shi, L. Tao, M. Chen, and Z. H. Yang, “Power control for relay-assisted device-to-device communication underlaying
cellular networks,” in Proc. IEEE WCSP, Nanjing, China, Oct. 2015.
[11] A. Al-Hourani, S. Kandeepan, and E. Hossain, “Relay-assisted device-to-device communication: a stochastic analysis of
energy saving,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 3129–3141, Dec. 2016.
[12] Y. Yang, Y. Zhang, L. Dai, J. Li, S. Mumtaz, and J. Rodriguez, “Transmission capacity analysis of relay-assisted device-todevice overlay/underlay communication,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 380–389, Feb.
2017.
[13] R. Ma, Y. J. Chang, H. H. Chen, and C. Y. Chiu, “On relay selection schemes for relay-assisted D2D communications in
LTE-A systems,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2017.
[14] G. Zhang, K. Yang, P. Liu, and J. Wei, “Power allocation for full-duplex relaying-based D2D communication underlaying
cellular networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 4911–4916, Oct. 2015.
[15] B. Zhong, J. Zhang, Q. Zeng, and X. Dai, “Coverage probability analysis for full-duplex relay aided device-to-device
communications networks,” China Communications, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 60–67, Nov. 2016.
[16] S. Dang, G. Chen, and J. P. Coon, “Outage performance analysis of full-duplex relay-assisted device-to-device systems in
uplink cellular networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 4506–4510, May 2017.
[17] 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
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014.
[18] P. Wu, P. C. Cosman, and L. B. Milstein, “Resource allocation for multicarrier device-to-device video transmission: symbol
error rate analysis and algorithm design,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, 2017.
[19] S. Dang, J. P. Coon, and G. Chen, “Resource allocation for full-duplex relay-assisted device-to-device multicarrier systems,”
IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 166–169, Apr. 2017.
[20] C. Y. Wong, R. S. Cheng, K. B. Lataief, and R. D. Murch, “Multiuser OFDM with adaptive subcarrier, bit, and power
allocation,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1747–1758, Oct. 1999.
[21] S. Yin and Z. Qu, “Resource allocation in multiuser OFDM systems with wireless information and power transfer,” IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 594–597, Mar. 2016.
[22] G. Chen, D. Liang, M. Ghoraishi, P. Xiao, and R. Tafazolli, “Optimum user selection for hybrid-duplex device-to-device
in cellular networks,” in Proc. IEEE ISWCS, Brussels, Belgium, Aug. 2015.
[23] B. Kaufman and B. Aazhang, “Cellular networks with an overlaid device-to-device network,” in Proc. IEEE ACSSC, Pacific
Grove, CA, Oct. 2008.
[24] G. Chen, Y. Gong, P. Xiao, and J. A. Chambers, “Dual antenna selection in secure cognitive radio networks,” IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 7993–8002, Oct. 2016.

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

27

[25] I. Krikidis, “Relay selection for two-way relay channels with MABC DF: a diversity perspective,” IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4620–4628, Nov. 2010.
[26] X. Wu, Y. Shen, and Y. Tang, “Propagation characteristics of the full-duplex self-interference channel for the indoor
environment at 2.6 GHz,” in Proc. IEEE APSURSI, Jul. 2014.
[27] M. Duarte, C. Dick, and A. Sabharwal, “Experiment-driven characterization of full-duplex wireless systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 4296–4307, Dec. 2012.
[28] S. Dang, J. P. Coon, and G. Chen, “An equivalence principle for OFDM-based combined bulk/per-subcarrier relay selection
over equally spatially correlated channels,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 122–133, Jan.
2017.
[29] W. Yang and Y. Cai, “On the performance of the block-based selective OFDM decode-and-forward relaying scheme for
4G mobile communication systems,” Journal of Communications and Networks, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 56–62, Feb. 2011.
[30] Z. Zhang, K. Long, A. V. Vasilakos, and L. Hanzo, “Full-duplex wireless communications: challenges, solutions, and future
research directions,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 104, no. 7, pp. 1369–1409, Jul. 2016.
[31] R. Merris, Combinatorics, ser. Wiley Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization.

Wiley, 2003.

[32] F.-C. Chang, “Recursive formulas for the partial fraction expansion of a rational function with multiple poles,” Proceedings
of the IEEE, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 1139–1140, Aug. 1973.
[33] H. Kung and D. Tong, “Fast algorithms for partial fraction decomposition,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 6, no. 3,
pp. 582–593, 1977.
[34] P. Sun, K. G. Shin, H. Zhang, and L. He, “Transmit power control for D2D-underlaid cellular networks based on statistical
features,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 4110–4119, May 2017.
[35] M. Grant, S. Boyd, and Y. Ye, “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming,” 2008.
[36] T. K. Baranwal, D. S. Michalopoulos, and R. Schober, “Outage analysis of multihop full duplex relaying,” IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 63–66, Jan. 2013.
[37] B. Hajek, “Notes for ECE 534 an exploration of random processes for engineers,” Univ. of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
2009.
[38] A. Guerraggio and E. Molho, “The origins of quasi-concavity: a development between mathematics and economics,”
Historia Mathematica, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 62–75, 2004.
[39] A. C. E. Kenneth J. Arrow, “Quasi-concave programming,” Econometrica, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 779–800, 1961.

August 11, 2017

DRAFT

