A Two-Phase Power Allocation Scheme for CRNs
Employing NOMA
Ming Zeng, Georgios I. Tsiropoulos∗ , Animesh Yadav, Octavia A. Dobre, and Mohamed H. Ahmed
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University, St. John, Canada
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Email: {mzeng, animeshy, odobre, mhahmed}@mun.ca, gitsirop@mail.ntua.gr

arXiv:1709.05304v1 [cs.IT] 15 Sep 2017

∗ School

Abstract—In this paper, we consider the power allocation (PA)
problem in cognitive radio networks (CRNs) employing nonorthogonal multiple access (NOMA) technique. Specifically, we
aim to maximize the number of admitted secondary users (SUs)
and their throughput, without violating the interference tolerance
threshold of the primary users (PUs). This problem is divided
into a two-phase PA process: a) maximizing the number of
admitted SUs; b) maximizing the minimum throughput among
the admitted SUs. To address the first phase, we apply a
sequential and iterative PA algorithm, which fully exploits the
characteristics of the NOMA-based system. Following this, the
second phase is shown to be quasiconvex and is optimally solved
via the bisection method. Furthermore, we prove the existence
of a unique solution for the second phase and propose another
PA algorithm, which is also optimal and significantly reduces
the complexity in contrast with the bisection method. Simulation
results verify the effectiveness of the proposed two-phase PA
scheme.

I. I NTRODUCTION
With the proliferation of smart mobile devices, such as smart
phones, M2M, and emerging wearables, global mobile data
traffic is expected to grow to 30.6 EB per month by 2020
[1]. In order to meet the mobile data traffic requirement, a
10 Gbps peak data rate and 1 Gbps user experienced data
rate are proposed to be supported by 5G [2]. Hence, with
limited spectrum availability, enhancing spectral efficiency is
of significant importance for 5G, becoming one of its main
design requirements.
A prevailing way to address spectrum scarcity is to apply dynamic and efficient spectrum accessing techniques,
such as cognitive radio (CR) [3]–[6]. CR networks (CRNs)
are envisioned to provide more bandwidth to mobile users
through heterogeneous architectures and dynamic spectrum
access techniques. Therefore, network users are divided into
two main groups: licensed/primary users (PUs) and unlicensed/secondary users (SUs). Correspondingly, two requirements have to be satisfied in CRNs: a) the interference
introduced by the operation of SUs towards PUs should be
kept under a certain threshold, and b) the admitted SUs should
meet their minimum data rate requirement. Particularly, for
spectrum sharing, spectrum underlay or overlay techniques can
be used for designing CRNs [3], [4].
Another way is to employ non-orthogonal multiple access
(NOMA) [7]–[10], which has attracted considerable attention
recently owing to its potential to achieve superior spectral
efficiency. Unlike conventional orthogonal multiple access

(OMA), NOMA multiplexes users in the power-domain at
the transmitter side, and conducts multi-user signal separation
using successive interference cancellation (SIC) at the receiver
side. Thus, in NOMA-based systems, power allocation (PA)
is of great importance, since it not only impacts the users’
achievable data rates, but also determines their channel access.
A variety of PA strategies have been proposed so far, targeting
different aspects of PA in NOMA [11]–[14]. CR-inspired PA is
adopted in [13], where NOMA is considered as a special case
of CRNs and the user with poor channel condition (poor user)
is viewed as a PU. This way, the quality of service (QoS)
for the poor user can be strictly guaranteed. However, the
performance of the user with better channel condition may be
sacrificed since this user is served only after the poor user’s
QoS is met. To offer more flexibility in the tradeoffs between
the user fairness and system throughput, a dynamic PA scheme
is proposed in [14], which strictly guarantees the performance
gain of NOMA over OMA for both poor user and user with
better channel conditions.
In this paper, we study the two concepts of NOMA and
CRN, i.e., a CRN employing NOMA for its SUs, leading to a
further increase in spectral efficiency. In such a NOMA-based
CRN, PA for SUs not only determines the channel access of
SUs, but also affects the performance of PUs. Consequently,
the performance of the adopted PA scheme is vital, and a
full exploitation of the power domain should be achieved.
Motivated by this, our contributions can be summarized as
follows:
1) we propose a two-phase PA scheme to maximize the
number of admitted SUs and their throughput;
2) the first phase maximizes the number of admitted SUs.
NOMA has been well studied in terms of network
throughput, link quality, outage probability estimation
etc. However, the system capacity in terms of number of
admitted users has not been studied so far. The analysis
in this paper provides useful insights;
3) the second phase aims to maximize the minimum data
rate among the admitted SUs. It is worth noting that the
max-min problems are investigated in [15], [16]. [15]
considers the max-min fairness criterion under statistical
channel state information (CSI), and aims to achive
outage balancing among the users, which is different
from the user admission problem considered in this

paper. In [16], there is no QoS requirement for the
users, and thus, sum rate maximization is pursued, which
differs from our system model, in which each SU has a
minimum data rate requirement;
4) numerical simulations are conducted to verify the effectiveness of the proposed two-phase PA scheme.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The system
model and problem formulation are presented in Section II.
The proposed two-phase PA process is introduced in Section
III. Performance evaluation results are illustrated in Section
IV and conclusions are drawn in Section V.
Fig. 1. Spectrum sharing scheme.

II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
A. System Model
A hierarchical spectrum sharing CRN is considered, where
spectrum underlay is employed. NOMA is adopted to reduce
the interference among SUs so as to further improve the
spectrum efficiency.
Fig. 1 shows the structure of the considered NOMA-based
CRN. The PUs are served by the base station (BS) in the
downlink. Meanwhile, the BS can serve the SUs simultaneously obeying the access rules (i.e., the interference from the
SUs towards each PU should be less than a certain interference
threshold). On the other hand, the admitted SUs should meet
their minimum data rate requirement, which is characterized
by the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR); an SU is
admitted if its SINR requirement is met.
The system model and transmission settings follow the ones
in [17], and are defined as follows. We assume that there exist
M PUs and N SUs in the network. The channel gain between
the BS and the nth SU is denoted as Gn , n ∈ {1, · · · , N },
which strongly depends on the distance between them. Likewise, we denote the channel gain from the BS to the mth PU
as gm , m ∈ {1, · · · , M }. We consider that the channel gains
are known at the BS. Without loss of generality, we arrange
the SUs in a descending order as follows:
G1 ≥ . . . ≥ Gn . . . ≥ GN .

(1)

The aggregate noise and interference from all PUs towards
the nth SU are denoted as Nn . As NOMA is employed among
SUs, SUs with better channel gains can cancel the interference
from users with lower channel gains through SIC. As a result,
the SINR of SUs can be calculated as [10], [18], [19]
γn = Pn−1
j=1

Pn Gn
Pj Gn + Nn

N
X

Pn gm ≤ Im .

(2)

Equation (4) can be further rewritten as
Ps ≤

Im
,
gm

(5)

PN
where Ps = n=1 Pn corresponds to the overall power for
all SUs. This is fulfilled if
Ps ≤ P M ,
Im
gm

(6)



where PM = min
, m ∈ {1, . . . , M }. As Ps should also
be constrained to a maximum power Pmax , i.e., Ps ≤ Pmax ,
it yields
Ps = min (PM , Pmax ).
(7)
In the following sections, Ps is assumed to be known and
directly used as the overall power constraint for SUs.
B. Problem Formulation
The problem of maximizing the number of admitted SUs
and their throughput is investigated. This problem consists of
two phases: 1) maximizing the number of admitted SUs under
the PUs’ QoS requirement and SUs’ minimum data requirement; and 2) maximizing the minimum SINR among the admitted SUs via the allocation of the remaining power. Denote
the total number of admitted SUs as L, L ∈ {0, . . . , N }, and
the corresponding SUs as a1 , a2 , . . . , aL . On this basis, the
problem in the first phase is formulated as
~
P

s.t.

(3)

(4)

n=1

max L
,

where γn and Pn denote the SINR and allocated power of the
nth SU, respectively.
Further, if the SINR threshold of the nth SU is Γn , γn needs
to satisfy
γn ≥ Γn .

In terms of the QoS requirement for PUs, denote the
maximum interference level tolerable by the mth PU by Im ,
the corresponding interference constraint can be formulated as

γn ≥ Γn , n ∈ {a1 , a2 , . . . , aL },
aL
X
Pn ≤ P s .

(8a)
(8b)
(8c)

n=a1

where P~ = [P1 . . . PN ] is the overall PA vector.
After the PA process of the first phase, SUs admission is
ascertained. We use L? and a1 , a2 , . . . , aL? to denote the

maximum number of admitted SUs and the corresponding
SUs. On this basis, the problem in the second phase is to
further increase the SINR among the L? admitted SUs to
increase system throughput, which is formulated as

Similarly, the power for the nth SU is given by

Pn = Γn

n−1
X

Pj +

j=1

max min(~γ )
γn ≥ Γn , n ∈ {a1 , a2 , . . . , aL? },
aL?
X
Pn ≤ Ps ,

(9b)
(9c)

n=a1

where P~L? = [Pa1 . . . PaL? ] and ~γ = [γa1 . . . γaL? ] are the PA
vector and the SINR of the L? admitted SUs, respectively.
We can consider the second phase from two perspectives:
a) from the angle of exploiting the remaining power after
the PA process of the first phase, with the goal of allocating
the remaining power appropriately to maximize the minimum
SINR among the L? admitted SUs; b) consider itself as
an independent problem without taking into account the PA
process of the first phase and its remaining power. In this
case, (9) can be viewed as a problem of allocating the overall
power of all SUs among the L? admitted SUs, subjecting to
each admitted SU satisfying its SINR requirement.
III. P ROPOSED T WO -P HASE PA S CHEME
In this section, the proposed two-phase PA scheme is
presented. First, we address the first phase and give a detailed
description of the corresponding PA algorithm. Following this,
the second phase is resolved.
A. SUs Admission and Initial PA Algorithm
In order to maximize the number of admitted SUs, we
employ the sequential and iterative PA scheme, which makes
full use of the characteristics of NOMA-based CRN and
allocates power to SUs in a descending order according to
their channel gains.
According to the SINR requirements. i.e., (2) and (3), we
have the following equations
Pn > Γ n

n−1
X
j=1

Pj +

(13)

(9a)

~L?
P

s.t.

Γn Nn
.
Gn

Γn Nn
, n = 1, . . . , N,
Gn

γ1 N1
.
G1

(11)

Sequentially and iteratively, since the power of the 1st SU
is known, it is used for the PA of the 2nd SU. We attain the
following equation according to (10)
P2 = Γ2 P1 +

Γ 2 N2
.
G2

Pn = min (Γn

n−1
X
j=1

Pj + Γ n

n−1
X
Nn
, Ps −
Pj ).
Gn
j=1

(14)

during each allocation, whenever Ps −
PFurthermore,
P
n−1
n−1
Nn
j=1 Pj < Γn
j=1 Pj + Γn Gn , it indicates there is not
enough power left for the nth SU to meet its SINR requirement. Consequently, the PA process terminates and the nth
SU to the N th SU receives no power to ensure that the QoS
requirements for PUs are not violated. The admitted SUs are
1st SU, . . . , (n − 1)th SU, with the allocated power given
by (13). After the PA process,
note that there exists some
Pn−1
remaining power, i.e., Ps − j=1 Pj . While this power is
not large enough to admit an extra SU, it can be further
allocated to the admitted SUs to increase their SINR, and thus,
to enhance the throughput. Particularly, according to (13), the
power required for the admission of the nth SU is even larger
than the sum of the power for all the former n − 1 SUs,
in case of Γn ≥ 1. Therefore, the remaining power indeed
randomly lies in the boundary [0, Pn ], which may help enhance
the throughput of the former n − 1 SUs significantly.
In [17], we have proven that when the SINR requirement
of each SU is the same, the above PA algorithm is optimal.
Moreover, the computational complexity is only O(N ).
B. Maximize the Minimum SINR among the Admitted SUs

(10)

Pn−1
where the only variable is j=1 Pj , since other parameters,
i.e., Γn , Nn and Gn are known to the BS. Therefore, if we
assign the power among SUs following the ascending order,
i.e., from the 1st SU to the N th SU sequentially,
Pn−1 the power
for the nth SU can be obtained easily, as j=1 Pj is already
known. Specifically, the power for the 1st SU is calculated as
P1 =

Obviously, (13) can be used for the PA of all SUs. On the
other hand, note that Ps has not been considered during the
above PA process. Therefore, during the PA for the nth SU,
we also
Pnneed to guarantee that the total power assigned to
SUs, j=1 Pj , does not exceed Ps . This is achieved by

(12)

1) Analysis via Convex Optimization: After the initial PA
process, the SUs admission is done. On this basis, the second
phase aims to maximize the minimum SINR among the
admitted SUs.
Indeed, the second phase is quasiconvex. Note that the
variables in (9) are the power values of the admitted SUs.
Accordingly, the SINR of each SU is in the form of linear
fractional function, which is a quasiconcave function. Following this, the operation of selecting the minimum value
from a set of quasiconcave function will not change its quasiconcavity. Moreover, maximizing a quasiconcave function is
equivalent to minimizing a quasiconvex function. In addition,
the constraint functions are all convex. Consequently, the objective function is a quasiconvex function. According to [20],
a general approach to quasiconvex optimization relies on the
representation of the sublevel sets of a quasiconvex function

via a family of convex inequalities. Now by introducing an
axillary variable t, (9) can be equivalently represented as
find
s.t.

P~L?

(15a)
?

γn ≥ t, n ∈ {1, . . . , L }

(15b)

γn ≥ Γn , n ∈ {1, . . . , L? }
L?
X
Pn ≤ Ps .

(15c)
(15d)

n=1

If we substitute (2) into (15), (15-b) and (15-c) can be
written respectively as
Pn Gn − t

n−1
X

Pj Gn + tNn ≥ 0,

(16)

Pj Gn + Γn Nn ≥ 0.

(17)

j=1

and
Pn Gn − Γn

n−1
X
j=1

Further, we combine (16) and (17) through λn = max(t, Γn ),
which yields
Pn Gn − λn

n−1
X

Pj Gn + λn Nn ≥ 0.

(18)

j=1

Then, (15) can be reformulated as
find P~L?
s.t.

Pn Gn − λn

(19a)
n−1
X

Pj Gn + λn Nn ≥ 0,

(19b)

j=1
?

n ∈ {1, . . . , L }
L?
X
Pn ≤ Ps .

(19c)

n=1

For any given value of t, λn has a specific value. Thus, (19)
is a convex feasibility problem, since the inequality constraint
functions are all linear. Let θ? denote the optimal value of the
quasiconvex optimization problem (10). If (19) is feasible, i.e.,
there exists P~L? satisfying (19), we have θ? ≥ t. Otherwise,
we can conclude θ? ≤ t. Therefore, we can check whether
the optimal value θ? of a quasiconvex optimization problem is
over or below a given value t by solving the convex feasibility
problem (19).
The observation above can be used as the basis of a simple
algorithm for solving the quasiconvex optimization problem
(19) via bisection, i.e., solving a convex feasibility problem
at each step. Firstly, the problem is set to be feasible, e.g.,
we start with an interval [l, u] known to contain the optimal
value θ? . Then, the convex feasibility problem is solved at
its midpoint t = (l + u)/2, to determine whether the optimal
value is in the lower or upper half of the interval, and update
the interval accordingly. This produces a new interval, which
also contains the optimal value, but has half the width of the
initial interval. The progress is repeated until the width of the
interval is small enough.

Algorithm 1 Optimal Method for Quasiconvex Optimization
1: Initialize parameters.
2:
Given l ≤ θ? , u ≥ θ? , tolerance  ≥ 0, where
3:
l = min(Γn ), u = max(Ps /Nn ), n ∈ {1, . . . , L? };
4: repeat:
5:
t = (l + u)/2;
6:
Solve the convex problem (19);
7:
If (19) is feasible, u = t; else l = t;
8: Until u − l ≤ 

The interval [l, u] is guaranteed to contain θ? , i.e., we have
l ≤ θ? ≤ u at each step. It is obvious that l = min(Γn ), n ∈
{1, . . . , L? } can be used as the lower boundary, according to
the SINR requirement. In terms of the upper boundary, the
highest SINR the system can achieve should not exceed the
value when all the power is allocated to a single SU. In each
iteration, the interval is divided in two, i.e., bisected. Thus, the
length of the interval after k iterations is 2−k (u − l), where
u − l is the length of the initial interval. It follows that exactly
dlog2 ((u − l)/)eiterations are required before the algorithm
terminates. Each step involves solving the convex feasibility
problem (19).
2) An Analytical Solution Based on the Water-filling
Scheme: The second problem can be solved using the optimal
method for quasiconvex optimization. However, although the
number of iterations is fixed for a given threshold, it is still
computationally complex since each step requires solving the
convex feasibility problem. In this section, we firstly prove
the existence of a unique solution for this problem, and then
propose a PA algorithm based on the water-filling scheme to
obtain the optimal solution.
a) Existence of a unique solution: We assume that the
maximized minimum SINR among the admitted SUs via the
full exploitation of the remaining power is θ? . Accordingly,
it is proven by contradiction in the following paragraph that
γn = max(θ? , Γn ), n = {1, . . . , L? }, i.e., when Γn ≤
θ? , γn = θ? ; otherwise γn = Γn . Hence, once θ? is certain,
the SINR for each admitted SU is updated accordingly from
its targeted SINR. Then, based on (13), the power allocated
to the
SUs can be obtained, and their sum should satisfy
PL?
P
n=1 n = Ps . This equation only has one variable, i.e.,
θ? . Furthermore, Ps monotonically increases with θ? . Since
Ps is fixed, θ? has a unique value.
Proof: Let us assume that for the nth SU, Γn ≤ θ? , γn >
?
θ . Then, we can simply improve θ? by transferring some
power from the nth SU to other SUs whose SINR equal to
θ? . This contradicts our premise that θ? is the maximized
minimum SINR. Likewise, we can easily prove that for the
nth SU with Γn > θ? , γn should equal Γn .
b) Proposed PA algorithm based on the water-filling
scheme: The above analysis shows the existence of a unique
solution for the second problem. However, due to the operation
of comparison between the targeted SINR and the maximized
minimum SINR, i.e., max(θ? , Γn ), the function between the
overall power Ps and θ? is piecewise. Indeed, this piecewise

14

30
Number of Requesting SUs=5
Number of Requesting SUs=10
Number of Requesting SUs=15

12

Number of Requesting SUs=5
Number of Requesting SUs=10
Number of Requesting SUs=15
Target SINR

10

Achieved SINR [dB]

Number of Admitted SUs

25

8

6

20

15

10

4

2
5

10

15

20

25

Target SINR [dB]

5
5

10

15

20

25

Target SINR [dB]

Fig. 2. Number of admitted SUs vs. targeted SINR.

Fig. 3. Achieved SINR vs. targeted SINR.

function can be calculated using the water-filling scheme.
Procedure: After employing the initial PA algorithm,
the SINR of each admitted SU is satisfied. There is some
remaining power, which could be allocated to the admitted
SUs. We first allocate the remaining power to the SU with
lowest SINR. If the remaining power is large enough, the SINR
of the SU with lowest SINR would reach the value of the one
with the second lowest SINR. Then, power is assigned to the
above two SUs so that their SINRs are equivalent to the SU
with the third lowest SINR. The process repeats until there is
no power left. Note that the bisection method may be required
to obtain the value of θ? , when it lies in the middle of two
SINR thresholds of the admitted SUs.
Optimality analysis: According to the PA process, we can
conclude that the SINR of the SUs with extra power allocated
should be equal. Moreover, the method is optimal. Assuming
this is not optimal, then the optimal solution should provide
the SINR of the SUs with extra power allocated is not equal,
i.e., at least the SINR of one SU is larger than another one.
Since our objective is to maximize the minimum SINR of all
admitted SUs, we can simply reallocate some power from the
larger one to the smaller one to improve it. This conflicts with
our hypothesis, and proves the optimality of the proposed PA
scheme.

represent the lognormal shadowing, which are random Gaussian variables with zero mean and standard deviation equal to
6 dB. Additionally, system and transmission parameters e.g.,
antenna gain, carrier frequency, etc., are included in K = 103 .
Moreover, we set Ns = −120 dBm, Im = −90 dBm and
Pmax = 20 dBm, where Ns denotes the total noise and
interference from all PUs for each SU.
The performance of the proposed two-phase PA scheme is
investigated from two perspectives. First, the effectiveness of
the initial PA process is studied. Fig. 2 shows the mean number
of admitted SUs versus the targeted SINR, when the number of
requesting SUs varies, i.e., N = 5, 10 or 15. As the targeted
SINR increases, the number of admitted SUs decreases for all
three cases. However, the number of admitted SUs is quite high
for all targeted SINRs. Particularly, when the targeted SINR
is 5 dB, almost all requesting SUs are admitted for the three
cases, which proves the effectiveness of the initial PA process.
In addition, for any given targeted SINR, by comparing the
three cases, one can observe that as the number of requesting
SUs increases, the number of admitted SUs grows as well. This
can be explained by the fact that as the number of requesting
SUs increases, it is likely that more users will have better
channel gains. According to (14), the increase in channel gains
yields lower power consumption, and thus more users can be
admitted. Even when the targeted SINR reaches 25 dB, about
4.5 users are admitted when N = 15.
Following this, Fig. 3 compares the achieved SINR versus
targeted SINR, when the targeted SINRs for all users are
the same. For the case of N = 5, about 1.5 dB increment
is achieved for any given targeted SINR, which verifies the
usefulness of the second PA process. As the number of
requesting SUs grows, the growth in SINR declines in general.
This is because the remaining power is divided by more
admitted SUs. Particularly, when the targeted SINR is 5 and

IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
Simulations are run for a NOMA-based CRN shown in
Fig. 1, with the cell radius of 500 m, and the BS located at the
centre. The numerical results are obtained through averaging
over 104 simulation runs. During each simulation, SUs and
PUs are randomly distributed in the area following uniform
distribution. More exactly, their channel gains are modelled
Hn
hm
as Gn = K · 10 10 Dn−4 , gm = K · 10 10 d−4
m , where Dn
and dm are the corresponding distances, while Hn and hm

R EFERENCES

10
Targeted SINR

9

Achieved SINR

8

SINR [dB]

7
6
5
4

3
2

1
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Different admitted SUs

Fig. 4. Snapshot when the targeted SINR of each SU varies.

10, the SINR increment for N = 10 and 15 is less than 1.
This matches with Fig. 2, since for these two targeted SINR
values, the admitted number of SUs are much larger than that
of N = 5. However, for the remaining three targeted SINR
values, as the number of admitted SUs is almost the same
for the three cases, a similar increase is obtained. In all, an
average of 1 dB increment is obtained for the three cases,
which validates the effectiveness of the proposed second PA
process, when the targeted SINRs for all users are the same.
Lastly, we compare the achieved SINR versus the targeted
SINR in Fig. 4, when the targeted SINR of each SU varies.
Note that the requesting number of users is set to 15. Here,
we cannot average the results, as the targeted SINR of each
SU is different. Instead, a snapshot is given. Specifically, in
Fig. 4, 8 SUs are admitted, among which the SINR values
of 5 SUs are further increased, and for the other 3 SUs, they
remain unchanged. On average, there is 1 dB increment.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, PA for CRNs employing NOMA is considered.
A two-phase PA scheme is proposed to maximize the number
of admitted SUs and the throughput. Specifically, in the first
phase, we apply the sequential and iterative PA algorithm
to obtain the maximum number of admitted SUs. Following
this, the second PA algorithm maximizes the minimum SINR
among the admitted SUs. Simulation results show that the
number of admitted SUs is large under different number of
requesting SUs; and there is over 1 dB increment on average in
the SINR of the admitted SUs, which verifies the effectiveness
of the proposed two-phase PA scheme.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work has been supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC),
through its Discovery program.

[1] C. V. N. Index, “Global mobile data traffic forecast update, 2012-2017,”
Cisco white paper, 2015.
[2] N. Alliance, “5G white paper,” Next Generation Mobile Networks, White
paper, 2015.
[3] I. F. Akyildiz, W.-Y. Lee, M. C. Vuran, and S. Mohanty, “A survey
on spectrum management in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 40–48, Apr. 2008.
[4] G. I. Tsiropoulos, O. A. Dobre, M. H. Ahmed, and K. E. Baddour,
“Radio resource allocation techniques for efficient spectrum access in
cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tuts., no. 99, pp. 82–95,
Jan. 2016.
[5] G. I. Tsiropoulos, Z. Ming, O. A. Dobre, and M. H. Ahmed, “A loadbalancing semi-matching approach for resource allocation in cognitive
radio networks,” in Proc. IEEE ICC, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[6] G. I. Tsiropoulos, A. Yadav, M. Zeng, and O. A. Dobre, “Cooperation in
5G heterogeneous networks: Advanced spectrum access and d2d assisted
communications,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag., vol. PP, no. 99, pp.
1–1, Jun. 2017.
[7] S. M. R. Islam, M. Zeng, and O. A. Dobre, “NOMA in 5G systems: Exciting possibilities for enhancing spectral efficiency,” IEEE
5G Tech. Focus, vol. 1, no. 2, May 2017. [Online]. Available: 307
http://5g.ieee.org/tech-focus.
[8] M. Zeng, A. Yadav, O. A. Dobre, G. I. Tsiropoulos, and H. V. Poor,
“Capacity comparison between MIMO-NOMA and MIMO-OMA with
multiple users in a cluster,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. PP,
no. 99, pp. 1–1, Jun. 2017.
[9] ——, “On the sum rate of MIMO-NOMA and MIMO-OMA systems,”
IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, Jun. 2017.
[10] S. M. R. Islam, N. Avazov, O. A. Dobre, and K. S. Kwak, “Powerdomain non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) in 5G systems: Potentials and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tuts.,, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.
721–742, May 2017.
[11] A. Li, A. Harada, and H. Kayama, “A novel low computational complexity power assignment method for non-orthogonal multiple access
systems,” IEICE Trans. Fundamentals, vol. E97.A, no. 1, pp. 57–68,
2014.
[12] N. Otao, Y. Kishiyama, and K. Higuchi, “Performance of non-orthogonal
access with SIC in cellular downlink using proportional fair-based
resource allocation,” in Proc. IEEE ISWCS, 2012, pp. 476–480.
[13] Z. Ding, R. Schober, and H. V. Poor, “A general MIMO framework for
NOMA downlink and uplink transmission based on signal alignment,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 4438–4454, Jun.
2016.
[14] Z. Yang, Z. Ding, P. Fan, and N. Al-Dhahir, “A general power allocation
scheme to guarantee quality of service in downlink and uplink NOMA
systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 7244–
7257, Nov. 2016.
[15] J. Cui, Z. Ding, and P. Fan, “A novel power allocation scheme under
outage constraints in noma systems,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 23,
no. 9, pp. 1226–1230, Sep. 2016.
[16] S. Timotheou and I. Krikidis, “Fairness for non-orthogonal multiple
access in 5G systems,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 22, no. 10, pp.
1647–1651, Oct. 2015.
[17] Z. Ming, G. I. Tsiropoulos, O. A. Dobre, and M. H. Ahmed, “Power
allocation for cognitive radio networks employing non-orthogonal multiple access,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom, pp. 1–5, 2016.
[18] L. Dai, B. Wang, Y. Yuan, S. Han, C. l. I, and Z. Wang, “Non-orthogonal
multiple access for 5G: Solutions, challenges, opportunities, and future
research trends,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 74–81, Sep.
2015.
[19] Z. Ding, Y. Liu, J. Choi, Q. Sun, M. Elkashlan, and H. V. Poor, “Application of non-orthogonal multiple access in LTE and 5G networks,”
IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 185–191, Feb. 2017.
[20] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization.
Cambridge
University Press, 2004.

