1

Diffusion Based Cooperative Molecular Communication in Nano-Networks

arXiv:1710.01882v2 [cs.IT] 15 Oct 2017

Neeraj Varshney, Student Member, IEEE, Adarsh Patel, Student Member, IEEE, and Aditya K.
Jagannatham, Member, IEEE

Abstract—This work presents a novel diffusion based dualphase molecular communication system where the source leverages multiple cooperating nanomachines to improve the end-toend reliability of communication. The Neyman-Pearson Likelihood Ratio Tests are derived for each of the cooperative as
well as the destination nanomachines in the presence of multiuser interference. Further, to characterize the performance of
the aforementioned system, closed form expressions are derived
for the probabilities of detection, false alarm at the individual
cooperative, destination nanomachines, as well as the overall
end-to-end probability of error. Simulation results demonstrate
a significant improvement in the end-to-end performance of the
proposed cooperative framework in comparison to multiple-input
single-output and single-input single-output molecular communication scenarios in the existing literature.
Index Terms—Cooperation, diffusion, Likelihood Ratio Test
(LRT), molecular communication.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Nanoscale molecular communication has gained significant
prominence in recent times due to its ability to provide
novel solutions for various problems arising in biomedical,
industrial, and surveillance scenarios. Efficient drug delivery,
as described in [1], is one such example of its envisaged
potential. Several research efforts [2]–[6] have been devoted
to developing models as well as analyzing the performance
of diffusion based molecular systems. It has been shown in
[7] that the distance between two nanomachines significantly
affects the performance of communication, since the molecular
concentration decays inversely as the cube of this distance.
To overcome this impediment, the work in [8] proposed a
novel multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) molecular communication framework, wherein a noticeable performance improvement has been demonstrated through suitable allocation
of molecules among the transmitting nodes. However, the
work therein focuses exclusively on applications of transmit/
receive diversity and spatial multiplexing in molecular communication, while not exploring cooperative molecular communication that can significantly enhance the communication
range with improvement in the reliability through cooperative
diversity.
Some works in the existing literature [9], [10] and the
references therein have analyzed the performance of relayassisted molecular communication systems in terms of their
error rate, capacity, etc. However, to the best of our knowledge,
none of the works in the existing literature consider dual-phase
multiple half-duplex nanomachine assisted cooperative molecular communication in the presence of multi-user interference
(MUI) and exploit cooperative diversity, which is the key focus
of this work.
Neeraj Varshney, Adarsh Patel, and Aditya K. Jagannatham are with the
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur,
Kanpur UP 208016, India (e-mail:{neerajv,adarsh,adityaj}@iitk.ac.in).

Towards this objective, the optimal Likelihood Ratio Test
(LRT) based decision rule at each cooperating nanomachine
is initially derived, followed by a characterization of its
probabilities of detection and false alarm. Subsequently, the
optimal fusion rule is derived for the destination nanomachine
incorporating also the probabilities of false alarm and detection
at each of the cooperating nanomachines. Thus, the framework
developed is practically applicable, unlike the selective decode
and forward protocol considered in works such as [11], [12]
that assume retransmission only when the symbol is accurately
decoded at the relay. Finally, closed form expressions are
derived for the end-to-end probabilities of detection, false
alarm, and probability of error for the cooperative scenario
under consideration. Simulation results demonstrate the improved performance of the proposed cooperative nanosystem
in comparison to the existing multiple-input single-output
(MISO) and single-input multiple-output (SIMO) systems [8].
Further, while this work employs multiple molecule types
for the source and cooperating nanomachines, it results in a
simplistic linear combining based decision rule and also does
not require a large capacity backhaul that is necessitated in [8].
Due to space limitations, detailed derivations of some results
are given in a supplemental technical report [13].
II. D IFFUSION BASED C OOPERATIVE M OLECULAR
C OMMUNICATION S YSTEM M ODEL
Consider a diffusion based molecular communication system with N cooperating nanomachines R1 , R2 , · · · , RN as
shown schematically in Fig. 1. Further, it can be noted
that the diffusion takes place in 3-dimensional and infinite
space. The N intermediate nanomachines cooperate with the
source nanomachine to relay its information to the destination nanomachine. The transmitter is modeled as a point
source while the the destination node is a perfectly absorbing
surface. Further, the relay nodes during reception act as
perfect absorbing surfaces while during transmission act as
point sources. End-to-end communication between the source
and destination nanomachines occurs in two phases. In first
phase, the source nanomachine emits either Q0 molecules in
the propagation medium for information symbol 1 generated
with a prior probability β or remains silent for information
symbol 0. In the second phase, the intermediate nanomachines
Ri , i = 1, 2, · · · , N that employ decode-and-forwarding protocol, decode the symbol using the concentration received
from the source followed by retransmission to the destination nanomachine using different types of molecules1 . As
described in [14], nanomachines such as eukaryotic cells can
1 The use of different types of molecules at each transmitting nanomachine
allows the cooperative nanomachines to operate either in half or full duplex
modes [10].

where ηei ∼ N (e
µi , σ
ei2 ) represents the MUI at the destination
nanomachine and Qi is the number of molecules emitted
by node Ri corresponding to information symbol 1. Similar
to Q0 hp (di ) in (2), the peak concentration Qi hp (dei ) at the
destination nanomachine corresponding to the emission by Ri
is obtained as
3/2

3
−3
e
e
,
(4)
Qi hp (di ) = Qi (di )
2πe

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a cooperative molecular nano-network

with di and dei denoting distances from source nanomachine to Ri ,
and Ri to destination nanomachine respectively.

be genetically modified to emit different types of molecules.
The molecules released by the transmitter nanomachine are
assumed to diffuse freely through the propagation medium
with Brownian motion and are absorbed by the receiver once
they reach it. Furthermore, similar to [8], this work also
assumes that the inter symbol interference (ISI) and receiver
noise are suppressed and negligible in comparison to the MUI.
The effect of ISI can be ignored by considering the symbol
duration Ts to be significantly larger than tp , where tp is
the time instant when the channel impulse response has a
maximum as can be seen in [15, Fig.3]. Further, since such
nanonetworks are expected to operate in a distributed and
uncoordinated manner, this work focuses on MUI and assumes
ISI, noise effects to be negligible in comparison.
The peak concentration sensed at the ith cooperating
nanomachine Ri corresponding to transmission by the source
nanomachine in the first phase is given as [8]
ci = x0 Q0 hp (di ) + ηi ,

(1)

where x0 ∈ {0, 1} denotes the binary information symbol.
The term ηi represents the MUI at the cooperative node Ri .
Similar to [8], assuming the MUI to arise from a large number
of interfering sources, it can be modeled as a Gaussian random
variable with mean µi and variance σi2 , denoted by N (µi , σi2 ),
as per the central limit theorem (CLT) [16]. The molecular
concentration is given as


d2i
1
−
,
Q0 h(t) = Q0
3 exp
4Dt
(4πDt) 2
where di denotes the distance between the source 2and the ith
d
node Ri . The peak concentration is given at t = 6Di , obtained
by solving dh(t)
dt = 0. The peak concentration is obtained as
3/2

3
−3
.
(2)
Q0 hp (di ) = Qdi
2πe
Each cooperative nanomachine employs the minimum probability of error criterion for decoding the transmitted symbol
followed by retransmission of the decoded symbol x
bi ∈ {0, 1}
to the destination nanomachine. Therefore, the peak concentration sensed at the destination corresponding to the ith
cooperating nanomachine Ri is
ci = x
e
bi Qi hp (dei ) + ηei ,
(3)

where dei is distance of the destination from Ri . The end-to-end
error rate of the cooperative molecular communication system
depends on the detection performance of the individual cooperative nanomachines. The next section begins by determining
the probabilities of detection and false alarm at Ri .
III. D ETECTION AND E RROR R ATE A NALYSIS

WITH

MUI

The problem of sensing the peak concentration at the
cooperative nanomachine Ri in (1) can be formulated as the
binary hypothesis testing problem
H0 : ci = ηi
(5)
H1 : ci = Q0 hp (di ) + ηi ,
where the null and alternative hypotheses H0 , H1 correspond
to the binary symbols 0, 1 respectively. The peak concentration
ci at the ith cooperative nanomachine corresponding to the
individual hypotheses is distributed as
H0 : ci ∼ N (µi , σi2 )
(6)
H1 : ci ∼ N (Q0 hp (di ) + µi , σi2 ).
The optimal detection statistic Λ(ci ) for the cooperating
nanomachine Ri can be obtained employing the NeymanPearson LRT and is given as




p(ci |H1 ) H1
1−β
Λ(ci ) = ln
.
(7)
≷ ln
p(ci |H0 ) H0
β
Substituting PDFs p(ci |H0 ) and p(ci |H1 ) from (6), the logarithm of the LRT above can be evaluated as
Λ(ci )=[−(ci − Q0 hp (di ) − µi )2 + (ci − µi )2 ]/2σi2 .

(8)

On further simplification, the test above reduces to
H1

T (ci ) = α
bi ci ≷ γ,

(9)

H0

Q0 hp (di )
and
σi2
(Q0 hp (di )) +2Q0 hp (di )µi
+
2σi2

where the parameter α
bi is defined as α
bi =
2

the threshold γ is obtained as γ =


. The result below determines the detection perforln 1−β
β
mance of the individual cooperative nanomachines.
(i)
Lemma 1: The probabilities of detection (PD ) and false
(i)
alarm (PF A ) at the ith cooperative nanomachine corresponding to the test statistic T (ci ) in (9) are given as
 ′

γ − Q0 hp (di ) − µi
(i)
PD = Q
,
(10)
σ
 ′
i
γ − µi
(i)
PF A = Q
,
(11)
σi
where γ ′ is defined as γ ′ = γ/b
αi and the function Q(·) is the
tail probability of the standard normal random variable.
Proof: Given in the technical report [13, Appendix A].

The cooperative nanomachines employ different types of
molecules. Therefore, the joint concentration vector e
c =
[e
c1 , e
c2 , · · · , e
cN ]T ∈ RN ×1 at the destination2 corresponding
to the N cooperating nanomachines can be written as
e
e+n
e,
c=x

(12)

N ×1

e ∈ R
where the concatenated vector x
is defined as
e = [b
x
x1 Q1 hp (de1 ), x
b2 Q2 hp (de2 ), · · · , x
bN QN hp (deN )]T . Sime ∈ RN ×1 is given as
ilarly, the concatenated noise vector n
T
e = [e
n
η1 , ηe2 , · · · , ηeN ] . The sensing problem at the destination
nanomachine can be formulated as the binary hypothesis
testing problem
e
H0 : e
c=n
(13)
e+n
e,
H1 : e
c=x

e = [Q1 hp (de1 ), Q2 hp (de2 ), · · · , QN hp (deN )]T . Considwhere x
ering the logarithm of the LRT at the destination nanomachine,
the decision statistic corresponding to the N cooperative
nanomachine transmissions is obtained as
"N
#


Y p(e
ci |H1 )
p(e
c|H1 )
= ln
,
(14)
Λ(e
c) = ln
p(e
c|H0 )
p(e
ci |H0 )
i=1

where (14) follows from the fact that the peak concentrations
at the destination nanomachine are conditionally independent
i.e., corresponding
to the alternative hypothesis H1 the PDF
Q
p(e
c|H1 ) = N
ci |H1 ). The individual PDFs p(e
ci |H0 ) and
i=1 p(e
p(e
ci |H1 ) in (14) corresponding to the two hypotheses H0 and
H1 are Gaussian with
p(e
ci |H0 ) ∼ N (e
µi , σ
ei2 )
(15)
p(e
ci |H1 ) ∼ N (Qi hp (dei ) + µ
ei , σ
e2 ).
i

Result in Lemma 2 below derives the simplified optimal
Neyman-Pearson LRT at the destination nanomachine for the
cooperative nano-network for moderate to high concentration
scenarios with molecules (> 109 ).
Lemma 2: The optimal test statistic T (e
c) and the resulting
test at the destination nanomachine for the binary hypothesis
testing problem in (13), for a scenario in which a moderate to
high number of molecules is emitted, is obtained as
N
X
H1
αi e
ci ≷ γ ′′ ,
(16)
T (e
c) =




i=1

H0

PN
where γ ′′ = ln 1−β
+ i=1 θi . The quantities αi and θi
β
are defined as
h
i
(i)
(i)
(17)
αi = Qi hp (dei )/e
σi2 (PD −PF A ),
#
"
(Qi hp (dei ))2 +2Qi hp (dei )e
µi
(i)
(i)
(18)
(PD −PF A ),
θi =
2e
σi2

with the expressions for the individual probabilities of de(i)
(i)
tection PD and false alarm PF A for the ith cooperative
nanomachine as obtained in (10) and (11) respectively.
Proof: Given in the technical report [13, Appendix B].
2 The destination nanomachine responds independently to each of the
cooperative nanomachines as the various cooperating nanomachines employ
different types of molecules. This is similar to the Multi-Molecule-Type MultiHop Network (MMT-MH) considered in works such as [17] that also employs
multiple molecule types.

Employing the distributions of e
ci for the null and the alternative hypotheses obtained in (15), together with the expression
for the test statistic T (e
c) in (16), its distributions under the
various hypotheses can be determined as

X
XN
N
2 2
α σ
H0 : N
e
αi µ
ei ,
i=1 i i
i=1
 (19)
X
 XN
N
α2i σ
ei2 .
H1 : N
ei ,
αi Qi hp (dei ) + µ
i=1

i=1

The end-to-end probability of error for the cooperative nanonetwork follows as described in the result below.
Theorem 1: The end-to-end probability of error (Pe ) at
the destination nanomachine in the diffusion based cooperative molecular nano-network comprising of N cooperating
nanomachines,
 is given

 as
PN
′′
e
γ
−
α
(Q
h
(
d
)
+
µ
e
)
i p i
i 
i=1 i
qP
Pe =β 1 − Q 
N
2
2
ei
i=1 αi σ


P
N
γ ′′ −
αi µ
ei 
,
(20)
+ (1 − β)Q  qP i=1
N
2
2σ
e
α
i=1 i i

 P
where γ ′′ = ln 1−β
+ N
i=1 θi . The parameters αi and θi
β
are defined in (17) and (18) respectively.
Proof: Given in the technical report [13, Appendix C].
IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
For simulation purposes, a cooperative nanonetwork is considered with diffusion coefficient D = 10−6 cm2 /s. The MUI
at each receiving node is modeled as a Gaussian distributed
RV with mean µi = µ
ei = µI = 4 × 1016 molecules/cm3
that is equivalent to five interfering transmissions, each with
Q = 3 × 109 molecules at a distance of 30 µm. Similar
to [8], the coefficient of variation of the medium is set as
0.3 with σi = σ
ei = 0.3µI . Fig. 2(a) shows the probability
of error Pe versus the number of molecules Q employed at
each node. For simulation, the distances between the source
and cooperative nanomachines, cooperative and destination
nanomachines, and the source and destination nanomachines
are set as di = dsr = 10 µm, dei = drd = 20 µm, i ∈ {1, 2, 3},
and d = 25 µm respectively. It can be observed from Fig.
2(a) that the analytical values obtained using (20) coincide
with those obtained from simulations, thus validating the
derived analytical results. One can also observe that the endto-end performance of the system is significantly enhanced by
cooperation in comparison to the direct source-destination only
communication scenario. Moreover, the end-to-end probability
of error decreases progressively as the number of cooperative
nanomachines N increases.
Figs. 2(b) and 2(c) compare the error rate of the cooperative molecular system with that of the existing multi-input
single-output (MISO) and single-input multi-output (SIMO)
systems proposed in [8] for a fixed number of molecules
and a fixed distance respectively. The number of cooperating
nanomachines is set as N = 2, with two nano-transmission
nodes at the information source for the MISO system, and
two reception nodes at the information sink for the SIMO
system. Further, the distance between each transmitting and

0

0

10

−2

10

N =1

−3

10

d = 25µm

−4

10

−5

10

−6

N =3

N =2

10

(c)

−1

10

di = 2d/3, dei = d/3

−2

10

di = d/3, dei = 2d/3

−3

10

di = dei = d/2

−4

10

Proposed
MISO, 2 Tx
SIMO, 2 Rx, MRC

−5

10

−7

10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Number of Molecules (Q)

1.6

1.8

2
10

x 10

Probability of Error (Pe )

10

10

(b)

Direct Communication
Proposed (Analytical)
Proposed (Simulated)

Probability of Error (Pe )

Probability of Error (Pe )

0

10

(a)
−1

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Distance (d)

1.5

1.6

di = 20µm,
dei = 10µm

−1

10

−2

10

di = 10µm,
dei = 20µm

−3

10

−4

10

−5

Proposed
MISO, 2 Tx
SIMO, 2 Rx, MRC

di = dei = 15µm

10

0.4

1.7
−3

x 10

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Number of Molecules (Q)

1.6

1.8

2
10

x 10

Error rate of the diffusion based cooperative molecular communication system for various scenarios with (a) direct communication
(b) MISO and SIMO systems with fixed number of molecules (c) MISO and SIMO systems with fixed distance.

Fig. 2.

receiving node in the SIMO and MISO systems is considered
to be d and 30 µm in Figs. 2(b) and 2(c) respectively. For a fair
comparison, the total molecules Q are uniformly distributed
among the transmitting nodes, i.e., Q0 = Q1 = Q2 = Q
3 in
the cooperative system, with Q0 = Q for the SIMO system,
and Q0,1 = Q0,2 = Q
2 for the MISO system. One can
observe from Fig. 2(b) that the performance of the molecular
communication systems with Q = 1×109 molecules degrades
as the distance increases. Moreover, it can be seen in Figs.
2(b)-(c) that the cooperative molecular system outperforms
the MISO and the SIMO systems for the scenario when the
distance between the source and cooperative nanomachines is
less than the distance between the cooperative and destination
nanomachines. This is owing to the fact that when di < dei ,
the cooperative nanomachines are able to decode the source
symbol correctly with high probability. Therefore, the endto-end performance under such a scenario is dominated by
the communication distance between the cooperative and the
destination nanomachines. On the other hand, for the scenario
with di > dei , the resulting probability of error at the cooperative nanomachines is relatively higher, leading to erroneous transmissions to the destination nanomachine. Hence,
the performance of the cooperative system is dominated by
the source-cooperative nanomachine distances. In contrast to
the SIMO system with Q0 = Q molecules, the cooperative
scenario uses Q0 = Q
3 molecules at the source. Therefore,
the cooperative system has a higher probability of error in
comparison to the SIMO system. However, the cooperative
system outperforms the MISO system for this scenario as well.
Moreover, a significant improvement in the error performance
is attained for the scenario when the cooperative nanomachines
are at equal distances from both the source and destination
nanomachines. Due to space limitations, additional simulation
results for detection performance at the destination nanomachine are presented in the technical report [13].
V. C ONCLUSION
This work presented a performance analysis for diffusion
based cooperative molecular communication systems wherein
multiple nanomachines cooperate with the source to enhance
the end-to-end reliability in the presence of MUI. Analytical
expressions were derived for the optimal test statistics at
the cooperative, destination nanomachines, together with the
resulting probabilities of detection, false alarm as well as the
end-to-end error rate. Moreover, the proposed system was seen

to yield a performance improvement in comparison to the
existing SIMO and MISO systems.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Singhal, R. K. Mallik, and B. Lall, “Performance analysis of amplitude modulation schemes for diffusion-based molecular communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 5681–5691,
2015.
[2] T. Nakano, Y. Okaie, and J.-Q. Liu, “Channel model and capacity
analysis of molecular communication with Brownian motion,” IEEE
Commun. Lett., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 797–800, 2012.
[3] M. Pierobon and I. F. Akyildiz, “A physical end-to-end model for molecular communication in nanonetworks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,
vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 602–611, 2010.
[4] T. Nakano, T. Suda, Y. Okaie, M. J. Moore, and A. V. Vasilakos,
“Molecular communication among biological nanomachines: A layered
architecture and research issues,” IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci., vol. 13,
no. 3, pp. 169–197, 2014.
[5] I. Llatser, E. Alarcón, and M. Pierobony, “Diffusion-based channel characterization in molecular nanonetworks,” in proc. 2011 IEEE Conference
on Computer Communications Workshops, 2011, pp. 467–472.
[6] I. Llatser, A. Cabellos-Aparicio, and E. Alarcon, “Networking challenges
and principles in diffusion-based molecular communication,” IEEE
Wireless Commun., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 36–41, 2012.
[7] I. Llatser, A. Cabellos-Aparicio, M. Pierobon, and E. Alarcón, “Detection techniques for diffusion-based molecular communication,” IEEE J.
Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 726–734, 2013.
[8] L.-S. Meng, P.-C. Yeh, K.-C. Chen, and I. F. Akyildiz, “MIMO communications based on molecular diffusion,” in proc. 2012 IEEE Global
Communications Conference, 2012, pp. 5380–5385.
[9] X. Wang, M. D. Higgins, and M. S. Leeson, “Relay analysis in molecular
communications with time-dependent concentration,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1977–1980, 2015.
[10] N. Tavakkoli, P. Azmi, and N. Mokari, “Performance evaluation and optimal detection of relay-assisted diffusion-based molecular communication with drift,” IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 34–42,
2017.
[11] A. K. Sadek, W. Su, and K. R. Liu, “Multinode cooperative communications in wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 55,
no. 1, pp. 341–355, 2007.
[12] K. R. Liu, Cooperative communications and networking. Cambridge
University Press, 2009.
[13] N. Varshney, A. Patel, and A. K. Jagannatham, “Technical
Report: Diffusion based cooperative molecular communication
in nano-networks,” IIT Kanpur, Tech. Rep., 2017, [Online]
http://www.iitk.ac.in/mwn/documents/MWNLab_TR_DCoop_2017.pdf
[14] Y. Moritani, S. Hiyama, and T. Suda, “Molecular communication
among nanomachines using vesicles,” in Proc. NSTI nanotechnology
conference, 2006, pp. 705–708.
[15] L.-S. Meng, P.-C. Yeh, K.-C. Chen, and I. F. Akyildiz, “On receiver
design for diffusion-based molecular communication,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 22, pp. 6032–6044, 2014.
[16] A. Papoulis and S. U. Pillai, Probability, random variables, and stochastic processes. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2002.
[17] A. Ahmadzadeh, A. Noel, and R. Schober, “Analysis and design of
multi-hop diffusion-based molecular communication networks,” IEEE
Trans. Mol. Biol. Multi-Scale Commun., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 144–157,
2015.

