SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

1

Beam Design and User Scheduling for Non-Orthogonal
Multiple Access with Multiple Antennas Based on
Pareto-Optimality

arXiv:1705.06959v1 [cs.IT] 19 May 2017

Junyeong Seo, Student Member, IEEE, Youngchul Sung† , Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract
In this paper, an efficient transmit beam design and user scheduling method is proposed for multi-user
(MU) multiple-input single-output (MISO) non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) downlink, based on
Pareto-optimality. The proposed beam design and user scheduling method groups simultaneously-served
users into multiple clusters with practical two users in each cluster, and then applies spatical zeroforcing (ZF) across clusters to control inter-cluster interference (ICI) and Pareto-optimal beam design
with successive interference cancellation (SIC) to two users in each cluster to remove interference to
strong users and leverage signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios (SINRs) of interference-experiencing
weak users. The proposed method has flexibility to control the rates of strong and weak users and
numerical results show that the proposed method yields good performance.
Index Terms
Non-orthogonal multiple access, multi-user MIMO, scheduling, Pareto-optimal design, SIC

I. I NTRODUCTION
NOMA is a promising technology for 5G wireless networks to increase the spectral efficiency [1].
Unlike conventional orthogonal multiple access (OMA) which serves multiple users based on time,
frequency and/or spatial domains, NOMA exploits the power domain that results from unequal channel
conditions under which users with strong channels are basically limited by degree-of-freedom (DoF) such
as bandwidth not by noise but users with weak channels are limited by additive noise [2, P. 239]. In
†

Corresponding author

The authors are with Dept. of Electrical Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon 305-701, South Korea. E-mail:jyseo@kaist.ac.kr,
ysung@ee.kaist.ac.kr.

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

2

NOMA with such channel conditions, the base station (BS) uses superposition coding and allocates less
power to strong-channel users and more power to weak-channel users. Here, less power to strong users
is not so detrimental since strong users are in the DoF-limited regime, but more power to weak users
leverages received SINRs of weak users. The strong interference caused from more power assigned to
weak users through good channels to strong users is eliminated by SIC to maintain high quality channels
for strong users.
Initially, NOMA with a single antenna in both the BS and users was studied [1], [3]–[8]. Recently,
there have been efforts to extend NOMA to multiple-antenna systems. Unlike conventional MU multipleantenna downlink systems which serve as many users as the number of antennas, more users can be
served in multiple-antenna NOMA systems. Although the possibility that multiple-antenna NOMA can
outperform conventional multiple-antenna OMA was shown [9], [10], many important problems need to
be investigated further for multiple-antenna NOMA. In multiple-antenna NOMA systems, typically user
grouping is done first by forming clusters as many as the number of transmit antennas and assigning
multiple users to each cluster, and then multiple users in each cluster share the spatial dimension and are
served in the power domain. Since the performance of multiple-antenna NOMA significantly depends
on the channel conditions of users across clusters and within each cluster, effective scheduling and
user grouping methods should be devised in order to achieve both MU diversity and the NOMA gain
from unequal channel conditions. In addition, the problem of optimal beam design and power allocation
compatible to user scheduling should be solved to maximize the performance.
A. Related Works
There have been several studies on multiple-antenna NOMA for cellular downlink especially for MUMISO downlink which is the main focus of this paper. In [11], the downlink beam design for sum-rate
maximization was considered for one given cluster based on minorization-maximization. In [12]–[14],
user scheduling and clustering is considered with the assumption that two users are assigned to each
cluster. In [12], highly correlated users are chosen as candidates to be clustered, and two users having
the largest channel gain difference are assigned to the same cluster. In [13], strong users are selected
by the semi-orthogonal user selection (SUS) algorithm [15], and then weak users are selected using the
matching user selection algorithm by considering inter-cluster interference. In [14], a fairness-oriented
user selection algorithms was proposed by selecting two paired users based on their NOMA data rate. In
all the works of [12]–[14], the beam design problem for MU-MISO NOMA was simplified by designing
zero-forcing (ZF) beams based on strong users’ channels and allocating the same beam to the weak user
May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

3

as the beam of the strong user in each cluster. There also exists some study on multiple-input multipleoutput (MIMO) NOMA. For example, in [16] the impact of user paring is analyzed with fixed power
allocation under the assumption that inter-cluster interference is removed by multiple receive antennas.
Some part of this work was included in [17].

B. Contributions
In this paper, we consider MU-MISO NOMA downlink with practical two users in each cluster and
solve the aforementioned problem for MU-MISO NOMA downlink. The contributions of this paper are
summarized in the below:
• First, we solved the Pareto-optimal beam design and power allocation problem for two-user MISO

broadcast channels (BCs) in which superposition coding is used at the transmitter and the interference
at the strong user is eliminated by SIC while the interference at the weak user is treated as noise. This
work is the basis for successive development in this paper and is valuable as an independent item.
• We proposed an effective user scheduling, beam design and power allocation method for MU-

MISO NOMA downlink based on the above two-user Pareto-optimal design result by exploiting both the
spatial domain provided by multiple transmit antennas and the power domain provided by SIC. The key
advantages of the proposed method compared to the previous methods are that 1) the rates of strong users
and weak users can be controlled arbitrarily under Pareto-optimality, which provides great operational
flexibility to NOMA networks, and 2) beam design of the proposed method is generalized to include
multi-dimensional subspace if available and to yield performance improvement, whereas the same onedimensional beam is always used by both strong and weak users in the same cluster in the previous
methods [12]–[14].
Notations: Vectors and matrices are written in boldface with matrices in capitals. All vectors are
column vectors. For a matrix A, A∗ , AH and AT indicate the complex conjugate, conjugate transpose,
and transpose of A, respectively, and L(A) and L⊥ (A) denotes the linear space spanned by the columns
of A and its orthogonal complement, respectively. ΠA and Π⊥
A are the projection matrices to L(A) and

L⊥ (A), respectively. ||x|| represents the 2-norm of vector x. I denotes the identity matrix. y ∼ CN (µ, Σ)

mean that random vector y is circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian distributed with mean vector µ
and covariance matrix Σ.

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

4

II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a single-cell MU-MISO NOMA downlink system with a BS equipped with Nt transmit
antennas and K single-antenna users. We assume that the K users in the cell are divided into the set
K1 of K/2 strong-channel users and the set K2 of K/2 weak-channel users. We assume that out of the
K users in the cell, 2Kc users are selected and simultaneously served for each scheduling interval with
Kc ≤ Nt (thus 2Nt users can be served simultaneously) and this simultaneous service to 2Kc users is

done by forming Kc clusters with two paired users in each cluster composed of one from the strong
user set K1 and the other from the weak user set K2 . We assume that the BS uses linear precoding and
NOMA is applied to two paired users in each cluster. Under these assumptions, the transmit signal of
the BS for one scheduling interval is given by

q
Kc q
X
(k) (k) (k)
(k) (k) (k)
x =
p1 w̃1 s1 + p2 w̃2 s2
,

(1)

k=1

where

(k)
si

(k)

is the transmit symbol for user i in cluster k from CN (0, 1), w̃i

is the Nt × 1 beamforming

vector for user i in cluster k out of the feasible beamforming vector set W := {w̃ | kw̃k2 ≤ 1}, and
(k)

pi

is the power assigned to user i in cluster k. The total BS transmit power PT is equally divided into

PT /Kc = P for each cluster. Then, the received signals of the two users in cluster k are given by

q
q
(k) (k) (k)
(k) (k) (k)
(k)
(k)H
p1 w̃1 s1 + p2 w̃2 s2
y1 = h̃1
(k)H

+ h̃1

(2)


q
Kc q
X
(k ′ ) (k ′ ) (k ′ )
(k ′ ) (k ′ ) (k ′ )
(k)
+ w1 ,
p1 w̃1 s1 + p2 w̃2 s2

k ′ 6=k
(k)
y2

+

=

(k)H
h̃2

(k)H
h̃2

q

q
(k) (k) (j)
(k) (k) (k)
p1 w̃1 s1 + p2 w̃2 s2

(3)


q
Kc q
X
(k ′ ) (k ′ ) (k ′ )
(k ′ ) (k ′ ) (k ′ )
(k)
p1 w̃1 s1 + p2 w̃2 s2
+ w2 ,

k ′ 6=k
(k)

where h̃i

denotes the actual Nt × 1 (conjugated) channel vector between the BS and user i in cluster

(k)

k, and wi

is the zero-mean additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at user i in cluster k from

(k)

CN (0, [ǫi ]2 ).

In the MU-MISO-NOMA system, we have both the spatial domain and the power domain. We consider
the design approach in which two users in each cluster are served in the power domain with SIC while
multiple clusters are served based on the spatial domain. Note that the last two terms in each of the
right-hand sides (RHSs) of (2) and (3) are the ICI and AWGN. In order to control ICI, we apply spatial
ZF across clusters. However, due to lack of spatial dimensions, we cannot remove ICI completely for all
May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

5

users. Hence, we remove ICI for the strong users with spatial ZF to keep the strong users not interference(k)

limited. With this approach, the beam vector w̃i
(k)

w̃i

can be expressed as
(k)

wi , i = 1, 2,
= Π⊥
H̃

(4)

k

(k)

for some vector wi , where
(1)

(2)

(k−1)

H̃k := [h̃1 , h̃1 , · · · , h̃1

(k+1)

, h̃1

(Kc )

, · · · , h̃1

].

(5)

Once the ICI is controlled and given, the model (2) - (3) is a two-user MISO BC. Thus, our approach
to the overall design is to first investigate the optimal beam design and power allocation for a two-user
MISO BC with SIC at the strong user’s receiver in Section III, to derive certain performance properties
relevant to selection of two users in a cluster in Section IV, and then to develop an overall user selection
and beam design method for all clusters with controlling ICI in Section V.
III. T WO - USER MISO

BROADCAST CHANNEL WITH

SIC: PARETO - OPTIMAL

DESIGN

In this section, we focus on optimal beam vector design and power allocation for a two-user MISO BC
with SIC at the strong user’s receiver from the perspective of Pareto-optimality. With the cluster index
(k) omitted, the two-user model (2) - (3) for cluster k is given by
√
√
y i = hH
i ( pi w i s i + pj w j s j ) + n i

i, j ∈ {1, 2}, j 6= i,

(6)

where p1 + p2 ≤ P with the total power P allocated to the cluster; ni ∼ CN (0, σi2 ) is the sum of ICI
(k)

h̃ , i = 1, 2
and AWGN; and hi is the effective channel for user i (in cluster k) given by hi = Π⊥
H̃ i
k

H
H
⊥ H
H ⊥
from (2), (3) and (4) since h̃H
i w̃i = h̃i ΠH̃ wi = h̃i [ΠH̃ ] wi = hi wi . The feasible set for wi is
k

k

given by W = {w |

kwk2

≤ 1} since the Pareto-optimal beam wi under the model (6) lies in the linear
(k)

h̃
space spanned by h1 = Π⊥
H̃ 1
k

(k)

h̃
and h2 = Π⊥
H̃ 2
k

(k)

(k)

(k)

wi k = kw̃i k
[18], and hence kwi k = kΠ⊥
H̃
k

for Pareto-optimal beams.
Under the NOMA framework, we assume that user 1 is the strong user and user 2 is the weak user,
i.e., kh1 k2 /σ12 > kh2 k2 /σ22 and that user 1 decodes the interference from user 2 and subtracts it before
decoding its own data while user 2 treats the interference as noise. With this assumption, the rates of the
two users are given by


s1 (w1 , p1 )
R1 (w1 , p1 ) = log2 1 +
σ12

R2 (w1 , w2 , p1 , p2 )


= log2 1 + min
May 22, 2017

s2 (w2 , p2 )
r1 (w2 , p2 )
,
2
s1 (w1 , p1 ) + σ1 r2 (w1 , p1 ) + σ22

(7)


,
DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

6

where the signal power and the interference power are respectively given by
2
si (wi , pi ) := pi |hH
i wi |

2
and ri (wj , pj ) := pj |hH
i wj | .

(8)

Note in (7) that for the rate of user 1, the interference from user 2 is not incorporated due to SIC and
the rate of user 2 is bounded by not only the SINR of user 2 but also the required ’SINR’ for user 1
to decode the message of user 2 for SIC before decoding its own data. Then, for the given (effective)
channel vectors (h1 , h2 ), the achievable rate region R of the two-user MISO-NOMA BC is defined as
the union of the rate-tuples that can be achieved by all feasible beam vectors and power allocation:
R :=

[

(R1 (w1 , p1 ), R2 (w1 , w2 , p1 , p2 )).

(9)

2

(w1 ,w2 )∈W
p1 ,p2 : p1 ,p2 ≥0,
p1 +p2 =P

The Pareto boundary of the rate region R is the outer boundary of R for which the rate of any one
user cannot be increased without decreasing the rate of the other user and Pareto-optimality has been
used widely as a general optimal beam design criterion for MU-MISO networks with linear precoding
[20]. A pair of beam vectors (w1 , w2 ) not achieving a Pareto-boundary point is not optimal since both
users’ rates can be increased by a better designed beam pair. Note that the sum-rate optimal point is
the point on the Pareto-boundary where the Pareto-boundary and the minus 45o degree line touch in the
(R1 , R2 ) plane, and the Pareto-optimality provides a general optimality criterion because we can change

the rate operating point arbitrarily and optimally. It is known that the Pareto-boundary can be found by
maximizing R2 for each given feasible R1∗ [20], i.e.,
max

(w1 ,w2 )∈W 2
p1 ,p2 : p1 ,p2 ≥0, p1 +p2 =P

subject to

R2 (w1 , w2 , p1 , p2 )
R1 (w1 , pi ) = R1∗ .

(10)

By exploiting the relationship between the rates and the SINRs in (7), the problem (10) can be rewritten
in terms of SINR as
max

(w1 ,w2 )∈W 2
p1 ,p2 : p1 ,p2 ≥0,
p1 +p2 =P

subject to

γ2 := min



s2 (w2 , p2 )
r1 (w2 , p2 )
,
2
s1 (w1 , p1 ) + σ1 r2 (w1 , p1 ) + σ22

s1 (w1 , p1 )
= γ1∗ ,
σ12


(11)

where γ1∗ is a given feasible target SINR for user 1. An efficient solution to the problem (11) exploits an
efficient parameterization of the beam vectors w1 and w2 . Note that the number of design variables in
w1 and w2 is 2Nt complex numbers. However, one can realize that it is sufficient that both beam vectors
May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

7

are linear combinations of h1 and h2 (equivalently, Πh2 h1 and Π⊥
h2 h1 ). A component in the beam vector
not in the span of h1 and h2 does not affect either the signal power or the interference power and thus
does not affect either R1 or R2 [19]. Thus, it is known from [18] that the Pareto-optimal beam vectors
for the problem (11) can be parameterized as [18], [21]
Π⊥
Πh2 h1
h2 h1
+ β1 ⊥
,
kΠh2 h1 k
kΠh2 h1 k
q
Π⊥
Πh1 h2
h1 h2
,
w2 (α2 ) = α2
+ 1 − α22 ⊥
kΠh1 h2 k
kΠh1 h2 k

w1 (α1 , β1 ) = α1

(12)
(13)

where (α1 , β1 ) ∈ F := {(α, β), α, β ≥ 0, α2 + β 2 ≤ 1} and α2 ∈ [0, 1]. Unlike the conventional
parametrization without SIC in which both users use full power [20], [22], in the parameterization (12)
- (13) user 1 may not use full power whereas user 2 uses full power. This is because full power use of
user 2 helps both SIC at user 1 and its own SINR at user 2, but full power use of user 1 is beneficial for
its own rate but detrimental to user 2’s rate since user 2 treats interference as noise. Substituting (12) (13) into (8), we have

2
h
k
s1 (w1 ) = p1 α1 kΠh2 h1 k + β1 kΠ⊥
h2 1
√
√
= p1 kh1 k2 ( θα1 + 1 − θβ1 )2
|hH h1 |2
p1 α21 2
kΠh2 h1 k2

= p1 kh2 k2 α21
q
√
√
s2 (w2 ) = p2 kh2 k2 ( θα2 + 1 − θ 1 − α22 )2
r2 (w1 ) =

r1 (w2 ) = p2 α22

2
|hH
2 h1 |
= p2 kh1 k2 α22 ,
kΠh1 h2 k2

(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)

where the angle parameter θ between two effective channel vectors h1 and h2 is defined as
θ :=

2
|hH
1 h2 |
kh1 k2 kh2 k2

∈ [0, 1].

(18)

Substituting (14) - (17) into the problem (11) and taking square-root operation yield

max

(α1 ,β1 )∈F
α2 ∈[0,1]
0≤p1 ≤P

subject to

γ2 = min

√

(√

P − p1 kh1 kα2
p
,
σ12 (1 + γ1∗ )

)
p
√
√
√
P − p1 kh2 k( θα2 + 1 − θ 1 − α22 )
p
p1 kh2 k2 α21 + σ22

q
√
√
p1 kh1 k( θα1 + 1 − θβ1 ) = γ1∗ σ12 .

(19)

(20)

For later use, we define the following channel quality factor λi and the normalized target SINR value
for user 1, Γ:
λi :=
May 22, 2017

||hi ||2
, i = 1, 2, and Γ := γ1∗ /λ1 .
σi2

(21)
DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

8

Here, λi indicates the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) quality of user i’s channel, whereas θ in (18) is a
measure of the angle between the two users’ channels. Note that the actual target SINR for user 1 γ1∗
is given by γ1∗ = Γλ1 and the feasible range for Γ is Γ ∈ [0, P ], where the maximum P occurs when
2
2
w1 = h1 /||h1 || and p1 = P since γ1 = s1 (w1 , p1 )/σ12 = p1 |hH
1 w1 | /σ1 .

The optimization problem (19) - (20) with fixed power allocation p1 = p2 = 1 was solved in [21]
under the framework of a two-user MISO interference channel. In the MISO interference channel case,
two transmitters in the network neither cooperate nor share transmit power and hence the two transmit
power values p1 and p2 are fixed. On the other hand, in the MISO-BC case the two power values p1
and p2 can be designed at the BS under the constraints p1 , p2 ≥ 0 and p1 + p2 = P to maximize the
performance. Since our solution to the two-user MISO-NOMA-BC case is based on the result from [21],
we briefly introduce the relevant result in [21] for further development in later sections.
A. Background: The fixed power allocation case [21]
In this subsection, we fix p1 = p2 = 1 and follow [21]. First, note that α1 appears only in the constraint
(20) and the denominator in the second term in the RHS of (19). Thus, optimal α1 can be found by
solving the following problem [21]:
min

(α1 ,β1 )∈F

subject to

α1

(22)

q
√
√
kh1 k( θα1 + 1 − θβ1 ) = γ1∗ σ12 ,

(23)

This is because the second term in the RHS of (19) decreases monotonically with respect to α1 and
hence maximizing the second term in the RHS of (19) is equivalent to minimizing α1 . The problem (22)
- (23) can easily be solved based on the relationship between a line segment (23) and the unit-radius ball
F and the solution is given by [21]


0
α∗1 =
p
√
 θΓ − (1 − θ)(1 − Γ)

if

Γ≤1−θ

if

Γ > 1 − θ,

(24)

where Γ is defined in (21) and Γ ∈ [0, 1] for p1 = 1. With the optimal α∗1 in (24), the corresponding
optimal β1∗ can be found by the constraint (20), and substituting the optimal α∗1 into the problem (19) (20) yields [21]

kh1 k
,
σ12 (1+γ1∗ )

where a := √

May 22, 2017




q
2
max γ2 = min aα2 , bα2 + c 1 − α2

b :=

α2 ∈[0,1]
√
√ kh22 k ∗ θ2 2 ,
kh2 k (α1 ) +σ2

(25)

√
kh2 k 1−θ
.
kh2 k2 (α∗1 )2 +σ22

and c := √

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

bα2 + c

p
1 − α22

9

aα2
case 3
aα2
case 2
aα2
case 1

α′2

1

α2

p
Fig. 1: aα2 and bα2 + c 1 − α22 (figure adapted from Fig. 1 in [21])
Note that the graph (α2 , aα2 ) of the first term aα2 in the minimum in (25) is a straight line and the graph
p
p
(α2 , bα2 +c 1 − α22 ) of the second term bα2 +c 1 − α22 in the minimum in (25) is a straight line plus a
p
√
quarter circle, as shown in Fig. 1. Note also that bα2 + c 1 − α22 is maximized at α′2 = b/ b2 + c2 with
p
p
√
maximum b2 + c2 , and the intersection of aα2 and bα2 + c 1 − α22 occurs at α′′2 = c/ c2 + (a − b)2 .

There exist three different cases for the solution to (25) depending on the relationship between the two
p
graphs, as shown in Fig. 1. In the first case of a ≤ b, aα2 is below bα2 + c 1 − α22 , the minimum of
p
the two is aα2 , and thus optimal α∗2 is 1. In the second case that aα2 and bα2 + c 1 − α22 intersect
p
between α′2 and 1, i.e., α′2 ≤ α′′2 , the solution to (25) occurs at α∗2 = α′′2 = c/ c2 + (a − b)2 . Finally,
p
in the third case that aα2 and bα2 + c 1 − α22 intersect between 0 and α′2 , i.e., α′2 > α′′2 , the solution
√
to (25) occurs at α∗2 = α′2 = b/ b2 + c2 . Since the condition α′2 ≤ α′′2 can be rewritten as [21]
√

b2

b
c
≤p
⇐⇒ a ≤ b + c2 /b,
2
2
+c
c + (a − b)2

the optimal solution α∗2 to the problem (25) is summarized as [21]


1
if a ≤ b (case 1),



√2 c
if b < a ≤ b + c2 /b (case 2),
α∗2 =
c +(a−b)2


√

 √ b
θ
if a > b + c2 /b (case 3),
=
2
2
b +c

and the corresponding optimal value γ2∗ is given by [21]

∗(1)
kh1 k2
2


 γ2 = a = σ12 (1+γ1∗ ) ,

2
∗(2)
1k
∗ 2
γ2∗ =
γ2 = a2 (α∗2 )2 = σ2kh
∗ (α2 ) ,
1 (1+γ1 )



kh2 k2
 γ ∗(3) = b2 + c2 =
,
2

May 22, 2017

kh2 k2 (α∗1 )2 +σ22

(26)

(27)

case 1,
case 2,

(28)

case 3.

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

10

B. Pareto-optimal design in two-user MISO BC with SIC with power allocation
Now consider the actual problem (19) - (20) of Pareto-optimal beam design and power allocation
for the two-user MISO-NOMA BC. We obtain the solution to this problem by exploiting the result in
Section III-A. Note that once the power allocation values p1 and p2 are fixed, the corresponding optimal
solution can be obtained from the result in Section III-A. Therefore, we represent the optimal solution as
a function of power allocation and then optimize the power allocation. For given p1 ∈ [0, P ], the problem
(22) - (23) changes to
min

α1

subject to

√

(α1 ,β1 )∈F

(29)

q
√
√
p1 kh1 k( θα1 + 1 − θβ1 ) = γ1∗ σ12 ,

and the corresponding solution is given by α∗1 (p1 ) =


0
p
p
 θΓ/p − (1 − θ)(1 − Γ/p )
1
1

if

Γ ≤ p1 (1 − θ),

if

Γ > p1 (1 − θ).

(30)

Furthermore, the coefficients a, b, and c defined in (25) are changed to
p

kh1 k
P − p1 p 2
,
σ1 (1 + γ1∗ )
√
p
kh2 k θ
,
P − p1 p
b(p1 ) :=
p1 kh2 k2 (α∗1 (p1 ))2 + σ22
√
p
kh2 k 1 − θ
c(p1 ) :=
P − p1 p
.
p1 kh2 k2 (α∗1 (p1 ))2 + σ22

a(p1 ) :=

(31)
(32)
(33)

Then, the optimal solution to (19) - (20) can be represented as a function of p1 :



1
if p1 ∈ P1 ,



c(p1 )
√2
if p1 ∈ P2 ,
α∗2 (p1 ) =
c (p1 )+[a(p1 )−b(p1 )]2


√


 √ 2 b(p1 ) 2
if p1 ∈ P3 ,
= θ

(34)

{p1 |a(p1 ) > b(p1 ) + c2 (p1 )/b(p1 )}, and the corresponding SINR for

2
∗(1)
1k


γ2 (p1 ) = (P − p1 ) σ2kh
∗

(1+γ
1
1)

∗(2)
kh1 k2
γ2 (p1 ) = (P − p1 ) σ2 (1+γ ∗ ) [α∗2 (p1 )]2
1
1



kh2 k2
 γ ∗(3) (p ) = (P − p )
∗
2

(35)

b (p1 )+c (p1 )

where P1 := {p1 |a(p1 ) ≤ b(p1 )}, P2 := {p1 |b(p1 ) < a(p1 ) ≤ b(p1 ) + c2 (p1 )/b(p1 )}, and P3 :=

2

1

1 kh2 k2 p1 [α (p1 )]2 +σ
1
2

user 2 γ2∗ (p1 ) is given by γ2∗ (p1 ) =
if p1 ∈ P1 ,
if p1 ∈ P2 ,
if p1 ∈ P3 .

Finally, the original problem (19) - (20) reduces to

max γ2∗ (p1 ),

0≤p1 ≤P
May 22, 2017

(36)
DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017
∗(i)

where γ2∗ (p1 ) is given by (35). Note that if we knew which γ2

11

in (35) to use for optimization by

directly computing a(p1 ), b(p1 ), c(p1 ) and their relationship, it would be easy to solve the problem (36).
∗(i)

However, the parameters a(p1 ), b(p1 ) and c(p1 ) to determine γ2

to use are functions of the design

variable p1 . Nevertheless, this is possible and the result is given in the following proposition.
Proposition 1: For given h1 , h2 , σ12 , σ22 , P and γ1∗ , we have the following regarding the optimal solution

√
√ √
1
1√
,
popt
to
the
problem
(36).
If
θΓ
<
τ
or
if
θΓ
≥
τ
≥
0
and
P
≥
Γ
+
θΓ
−
τ
)
θΓ
+
(
1
1−θ
λ2 τ

opt
−1 λ−1 + Γ − λ−1 , and Γ and λ are defined in
then popt
i
1 ∈ P2 . Otherwise, p1 ∈ P3 . Here, τ := θ
1
2
(21).

Proof:

See Appendix.

Due to Proposition 1 we know which of the three cases in (35) is applicable to the given combination
opt
of h1 , h2 , σ12 , σ22 , P , and γ1∗ . Once the set Pi to which popt
1 belongs is determined, optimal p1 can be
∗(i)

found by maximizing the corresponding γ2 (p1 ) in (35) with respect to p1 . A closed-form solution from
solving

dγ2∗(i) (p1 )
dp1

= 0 seems complicated but the solution can easily be found by a numerical method. The

proposed algorithm to design Pareto-optimal beam vectors and power allocation is summarized in Table
I. The Pareto-boundary of a two-user MISO-NOMA BC can be computed by sweeping R1∗ = log(1 + γ1∗ )
and computing the corresponding maximum R2∗ = log(1 + γ2∗ ). An example is shown in Fig. 2. It is seen
that power allocation significantly enlarges the achievable rate region over the fixed-power beam-only
design and optimal power allocation is crucial for MISO-NOMA BC.

3
Pareto-boundary with power allocation
Pareto-boundary with P1 =0.5 , P 2 = 1.5
Pareto-boundary with P =1.0 , P = 1.0

2.5

1

2

Pareto-boundary with P =1.5 , P = 0.5
1

2

R2

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

R1

Fig. 2: Pareto-boundary: fixed power versus power allocation (kh1 k2 /σ12 = 20, kh2 k2 /σ22 = 3, θ = 0.5
and P = 2)

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

12

TABLE I
Pareto-optimal design for 2-user MISO-BC with SIC
√
√
[ p1 w1 , p2 w2 ] = D(h1 , h2 , σ12 , σ22 , γ1∗ , P )
Input: channel vectors h1 , h2 , noise power σ12 , σ22 , target SINR of user 1 γ1∗ , and cluster total power P .

|hH h2 |2
−1
∗
−1
λ−1
Initialization: λ1 = kh1 k2 /σ12 , λ2 = kh2 k2 /σ22 , θ = kh1 k12 kh
2 , Γ = γ1 /λ1 , and τ = θ
1 + Γ − λ2
2k
if θΓ < τ
∗(2)

obtain popt
maximizing γ2
1
elseif τ ≥ 0 and
P ≥Γ+

1
(
1−θ

√

θΓ −

√

τ)

√

θΓ +

1√
λ2 τ



∗(2)

obtain popt
maximizing γ2
1
else

∗(3)

obtain popt
maximizing γ2
1
endif

Obtain α∗1 , β1∗ and α∗2 using (30), (20) and (34) with p1 = popt
1 , and obtain w1 and w2 from (12) and (13) with
α∗1 , β1∗ and α∗2 .
q
q
Output: popt
P − popt
w
and
1
1
1 w2

IV. T WO - USER MISO

BROADCAST CHANNEL WITH

SIC: P ERFORMANCE S TUDY

In the previous section, we developed a Pareto-optimal beam design and power allocation algorithm
for given channel vectors h1 and h2 . The performance of the Pareto-optimal design is a function of the
two (effective) channel vectors h1 and h2 . In the conventional ZF downlink beamforming with no SIC at
the receivers, two users with orthogonal channel vectors are preferred since non-orthogonality between
the two channel vectors reduces the effective SINR of ZF beamforming [15]. However, in the considered
MISO-NOMA framework in which user 1 intends to decode the interference from user 2 and subtracts
it before decoding its own data whereas user 2 treats the interference from user 1 as noise, orthogonality
between h1 and h2 , i.e., θ ≈ 0, and corresponding orthogonal beam vectors w1 and w2 (see (12) and
(13) with h1 ⊥ h2 ) do not necessarily imply high performance. Intuitively, if θ is small, user 2 receives
less interference from user 1, but user 1 has difficulty in decoding the message of user 2 for SIC under
the NOMA framework. In this section, we investigate more on the two-user MISO-NOMA BC before
proceeding to overall user scheduling in the next section.
To gain some insight into good channel conditions for two-user MISO-NOMA BCs, let us first consider
the fixed power allocation case with p1 = p2 = 1 as described in Section III-A and investigate the impact
May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

13

of the angle θ between the two channel vectors when the magnitudes are given. For given ||h1 ||, ||h2 ||
and γ1∗ , the SINR of user 2 γ2∗ in (28) can be rewritten as a function of θ as

∗(1)
λ1


for case 1,
 γ2 (= 1+Γλ1 )

∗
∗(2)
λ1
γ2 (θ) =
[α∗2 (θ)]2 )
for case 2,
γ2 (θ) (= 1+Γλ
1



∗(3)
λ2
 γ (θ) (=
)
for case 3,
2

where

α∗1 (θ) =

and

(37)

λ2 [α∗1 (θ)]2 +1




0
√
p
 θΓ − (1 − θ)(1 − Γ)



1



√ 2 c(θ)
α∗2 (θ) =
c (θ)+(a−b(θ))2


√


θ

if

Γ≤1−θ

if

Γ>1−θ

(38)

for case 1
for case 2

(39)

for case 3.

Regarding optimal θ that maximizes γ2∗ (θ) in (37), we have the following proposition:
Proposition 2: Let λ1 , λ2 and Γ be given. If Γ ∈ [Γ1 , Γ2 ], where

1
−1
Γ1 =
1 + λ−1
−
2 − λ1
2

1
−1
1 + λ−1
+
Γ2 =
2 − λ1
2

q
1
−1 2
−1
−1
(1 + λ−1
1 + λ2 ) − 4λ2 (1 + λ2 )
2
q
1
−1 2
−1
−1
(1 + λ−1
1 + λ2 ) − 4λ2 (1 + λ2 ),
2

(40)

then optimal θ that maximizes γ2∗ (θ) in (37) is given by the region
(

θ|θ0 ≤ θ ≤

z1 z2 + 2Γ(1 − Γ) +

p

4Γ(1 − Γ)[Γ(1 − Γ) + z1 z2 − z22 ]
2
z1 + 4Γ(1 − Γ)

−1
where z1 = λ−1
1 + 1 − Γ, z2 = λ2 + 1 − Γ, and

 λ1 1 ,
λ2 1+Γλ1
√
θ0 =
 z1 z2 +2Γ(1−Γ)− 4Γ(1−Γ)[Γ(1−Γ)+z1 z2 −z22 ] ,
z12 +4Γ(1−Γ)

if

λ1
1
λ2 1+Γλ1

)

≤ 1 − Γ,

(41)

(42)

otherwise.

If Γ ∈
/ [Γ1 , Γ2 ], optimal θ is given by the region

Proof:

λ2
λ1 (1 + Γλ1 )
(2)
{θ | ∂γ2∂θ(θ) =

{θ |

≤ θ ≤ 1 − Γ}

if Γ ≤

or

0}

if Γ >

−1
λ−1
2 −λ1
1+λ−1
2
−1
λ−1
2 −λ1
1+λ−1
2

and Γ ∈
/ [Γ1 , Γ2 ],

(43)

and Γ ∈
/ [Γ1 , Γ2 ].

See Appendix.

From Proposition 2 we obtain a more insightful corollary as follows:

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

14

Corollary 1: Let λ1 , λ2 and Γ be given. When λ1 = λ2 , optimal θ for the 2-user MISO BC with SIC
is given by the set {θ | θ0 ≤ θ ≤ 1} with θ0 reduced to

1

if
1+Γλ1
θ0 =
2
 2 z1
if
z +4Γ(1−Γ)
1

Proof:

1
1+Γλ1
1
1+Γλ1

≤1−Γ

.

(44)

>1−Γ

See Appendix.

Corollary 1 states that in two-user MISO BCs with SIC with the same channel magnitudes λ1 = λ2 and
the same power p1 = p2 = 1, two aligned channel vectors are preferred to two orthogonal channels and
channel alignment beyond a certain angle is all optimal.
Although Proposition 2 and Corollary 1 provide some insight into good channel conditions in the
SIC BC case, the assumptions for Proposition 2 and Corollary 1 are not valid in the actual NOMA
situation in which power allocation is applied. Unfortunately, the optimal power popt
1 was not obtained
in closed form in the previous section and this puts difficulty on analysis of the impact of channel
angle on the performance. Hence, in the actual case, to enable analysis we derive the SINR γ2∗ for user
2 as a function of θ by assuming the simple power allocation method that assigns minimum power
p1,min (= γ1∗ /λ1 = Γ) to achieve the target SINR γ1∗ to user 1 and assigns the rest of power P to user
2. The simple power allocation strategy is based on the assumption that user 1 has a strong channel and

is limited by channel’s DoF such as bandwidth, whereas user 2 with a weak channel is limited by noise
and needs to receive more power. For this simple power allocation method, the optimal γ2∗ is obtained
by substituting p1 = p1,min = Γ into (35) and given after some manipulation in closed form as

γ2∗ =









P −Γ
1
−1 +1
Γ λ−1
1 Γ

"

1
P −Γ
,
−1
Γ θ+λ−1
2 Γ

1+

θ
1−θ

r

−1 θ −1
1+λ−1
2 Γ
−1
1+λ−1
1 Γ

2 #−1
−1
,

if θ ≤ θ1

(45)

if θ > θ1 ,



q
−1 −1
−2 −2
−1 −1
1
where θ1 := 2 −λ2 Γ + λ2 Γ + 4(λ1 Γ + 1) .

Examples of γ2∗ in (45) as a function of θ are shown in Fig. 3 together with the optimal γ2∗ obtained

by running the algorithm in Table I. It is seen that the γ2∗ behavior depends on the relative magnitude of
λ1 and λ2 through the two performance limiting factors: the SIC processing at user 1 and the SINR of

user 2, as seen in (11). In the case of λ1 = λ2 ≫ 0, the performance of user 2 is not limited by noise at
user 2 but is limited by signal-to-interference ratio (SIR). Thus, in this case it is preferred that channel
vectors are aligned and more power is allocated to user 2 under the constraint that the required SINR
for user 1 is satisfied. By doing so, SIC at user 1 is easy and SIR at user 2 is high. This behavior is

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

3.9

4

3.8

3.5

15

1
0.8

γ*2

γ*2

γ*2

0.6
3.7

3

0.4
2.5

3.6

0.2

3.5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

The optimal power allocation
The simple power allocation

The optimal power allocation
The simple power allocation

The optimal power allocation
The simple power allocation

0.8

1

2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

θ

θ

θ

(a)

(b)

(c)

0.8

1

Fig. 3: γ2∗ in (45) as a function of θ : (a) λ1 = 10, λ2 = 10, Γ = 2, P = 10 , (b) λ1 = 10, λ2 = 1, Γ = 2,
P = 10, and (c) λ1 = 10, λ2 = 0.1, Γ = 2, P = 10.

evident in Fig. 3(a). It is seen that the optimal power control and the simple power allocation strategy
yield similar performance in Fig. 3(a). (The behavior for λ1 = λ2 with power control seems similar to
that stated in Corollary 1.) However, in the medium asymmetric case of λ1 > λ2 as in Fig. 3(b), there
is a trade-off between the two performance limiting factors. When two channels are orthogonal, SIC at
user 1 is difficult. On the other hand, when two channels are aligned, interference from user 1 to user 2
at user 2 is high. Hence, the performance is good when the two user channels are neither too orthogonal
nor too aligned. This behavior is evident in Fig. 3(b). Note that in this case, there is a large gap between
the optimal power control and the simple power allocation.
In addition to the above simple power allocation result, we have another result exploiting the fact
λ1 ≫ λ2 in actual NOMA, given by the following proposition:

→
Proposition 3: For given λ1 and γ1∗ , if θ 6= 0, as λ2 → 0, the optimal power coefficient popt
1

1
p1,min = Γ; the corresponding γ2∗ converges to γ2∗ = P Γ−Γ θ+λ−1
; and the beam vectors converge to
−1
2 Γ
√
√
√
√
p1 w1 = Γ khh11 k and p2 w2 = P − Γ khh22 k . That is, both users use matched-filtering beams.

Proof:

See Appendix.

Note that γ2∗ in Proposition 3 coincides with the second formula in (45). This is because θ1 in (45)
converges to 0+ as λ2 → 0 for given λ1 and Γ, and the second formula in (45) is valid in this case. By
Proposition 3, if λ2 is sufficiently small compared to λ1 , matched filtering beams for both users with
minimum power to user 1 satisfying the target SINR are optimal regardless of the angle between the two
channel vectors. This is because if λ1 ≫ λ2 , the limitation for γ2∗ results from the SINR of user 2 at user
2. Hence, maximum power should be delivered to user 2 with matched filtering beam w2 by assigning

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

16
(2)

(2)

h̃1

h̃1

(3)

h̃1

(1)
h̃1

(2)

(1)

h̃2

(1)
h̃2
Π⊥ (2)
[h̃1

(2)
(3) h̃1
,h̃1 ]
(1)
Π⊥ (2) (3) h̃1
[h̃
,h̃
]
1
1

(2)

(a)

L⊥ (h̃1 )

(1)

h̃1

(2)

Π⊥(2) h̃1

(1)

Π⊥(2) h̃1
h̃1

h̃

(1)

w1

1

(1)

w2

(3)

L⊥ ([h̃1 , h̃1 ])

(b)

Fig. 4: Beam design in the example of Nt = 3: (a) Kc = Nt and (b) Kc = Nt − 1

minimum power to user 1 with matched filtering beam w1 . This behavior is evident in Fig. 3(c). It is
seen in Fig. 3(c) that the simple power allocation method almost achieves the optimal performance for
all θ .
V. T HE P ROPOSED S CHEDULING M ETHOD

FOR

K -U SER MISO-NOMA D OWNLINK

Now, we propose our overall user scheduling/pairing and beam design method for the K -user MISONOMA downlink with Nt BS antennas based on the results in the previous sections. In MISO-NOMA
downlink scheduling and beam design, two major aspects should be taken into account simultaneously
to guarantee good system performance: One is controlling ICI to reduce interference from other clusters
and the other is pairing and beam design for the paired users in each cluster for maximum performance.
Recall that the gain of NOMA lies in the case that strong users are in the DoF(such as bandwidth)-limited
regime and weak users are limited by noise [2, P. 239]. In MU-MISO NOMA, the beneficial situation
for NOMA should be maintained, i.e., the high channel quality for strong users should be maintained
by SIC and proper interference control, and low SINRs of weak users should be leveraged by assigning
more power to weak users. To be consistent with this design principle, ICI should be eliminated for
strong users by proper measures. With these considerations, we propose the following user scheduling,
pairing and beam design method for K -user MISO-NOMA downlink composed of two steps under the
assumption that all channel vector information is available at the BS and the thermal noise variance is
known.
Algorithm 1: Overall User Scheduling and Beam Design

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

17

Step 1: In the first step, we run the semi-orthogonal user selection (SUS) algorithm [15] targeting
selection of Nt users from the strong user set K1 . Then, the SUS algorithm returns Kc (≤ Nt ) users
with roughly orthogonal channel vectors out of the K/2 users in K1 . (Depending on the size |K1 | and
the semi-orthogonality parameter, the SUS algorithm may return users less than Nt especially for large
Nt although we target selecting Nt users [15].) We set these Kc users returned by the SUS algorithm

as the Kc strong users in Kc clusters (one user for each cluster). Let their actual channel vectors be
(1)

(Kc )

h̃1 , · · · , h̃1

.

Step 2: Weak user selection and overall beam design
Initialization: Γ is given.
K2 = {1, . . . , K/2} (the original weak user set),

(46)

S1 : the set of selected strong users from step 1,

(47)

S2 ← φ (the set of selected weak users),


(1)
⊥ h̃(Kc )
Π
h̃
Π⊥
1
H̃Kc
H̃1 1
c =
,
W
,··· ,
(Kc )
(1)
⊥
||ΠH̃ h̃1 ||
||Π⊥
h̃
||
1
H̃

(48)

1

f1 = [ ]
W
k = 1.

(49)

Kc

f 2 = [ ],
and W

(50)
(51)

Iteration:
while k ≤ Kc do
S.1: For each user u ∈ K2 , estimate ICI plus AWGN:
σ̂u2 =

X
l<k

f 1 (l)|2 + |g̃uH W
f 2 (l)|2 ) +
(|g̃uH W

X
l>k

c 2 + ǫ2u ,
P |g̃uH W(l)|

(52)

c
f 1 (l) and W
f 2 (l) are the l-th columns of W,
c W
f 1 and W
f 2 respectively, and g̃u is
where W(l),
W

the actual channel vector of user u in K2 . With obtained σ̂u2 and given Γ, compute the maximum
(k)

SINR γ2∗ (u) of user u when user u is paired with the channel h̃1
described in Section III-B or Section IV by setting λ1 =
2

θ=

May 22, 2017

g̃ )
h̃(k) )H (Π⊥
(Π⊥
H̃k u
H̃k 1
(k) 2
⊥
g̃
k2
h̃
k
kΠ
kΠ⊥
H̃k u
H̃k 1

of user 1 of cluster k, as

h̃(k) k2
kΠ⊥
H̃k 1
σ12

, λ2 =

g̃u k2
kΠ⊥
H̃
k

σ̂u2

, and

.

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

18

S.2: Select the weak user of cluster k as follows:
u∗ = arg max γ2∗ (u)

(53)

S2 ← S2 ∪ {u∗ }

(54)

u∈K2

(k)

h̃2 = g̃u∗

(55)

√
(k)
(k)
(k) √
(k)
h̃ , σ12 , σ̂u2 ∗ , λ1 Γ, P ) by using the twoand design [ p1 w̃1 , p2 w̃2 ] = D(Π⊥
h̃ , Π⊥
H̃ 2
H̃ 1
k

k

user Pareto-optimal design algorithm in Table. I.
S.3: Store the designed beams, remove u∗ in K2 , and repeat until k = Kc :
f 1 ← [W
f 1 , √p1 w̃(k) ], W
f 2 ← [W
f 2 , √p2 w̃(k) ]
W
1
2
K2 ← K2 \ {u∗ }
k ←k+1

end while
Remark 1: Note that the computation of γ2∗ (u) and the Pareto-optimal beam design for two users in
each cluster in steps S.1 and S.2 in the while loop of Step 2 of Algorithm 1 is based on the projected
(k)

(k)

h̃ lie in L⊥ (H̃k ). Thus,
h̃ and Π⊥
effective channels. Note that the projected effective channels Π⊥
H̃ 2
H̃ 1
k

k

(k)

the corresponding Pareto-optimal beams w1

(k)

beams (see (12) and (13)) [19], and hence wi

(k)

and w2

lie in L⊥ (H̃k ) by the property of Pareto-optimal
(k)

wi
= Π⊥
H̃
k

(k)

= w̃i , i = 1, 2 for (4). Hence, there exists

no ICI to all strong users with the proposed beam design.
(k)

h̃
Remark 2: If Kc = Nt , then H̃k has nullity of one, and Π⊥
H̃ 1
k

(k)

h̃ are aligned, as shown
and Π⊥
H̃ 2
k

in Fig. 4(a). In this case, only Pareto-optimal power control is applied for each cluster by the proposed
design method. (Note that the algorithm in Table I is still applicable in case of two aligned input channel
vectors.) On the other hand, if the number Kc of the returned users by the SUS algorithm in Step 1 is
less than Nt (which is often true for large Nt with small K [15]), then H̃k has nullity larger than or
(k)

h̃
equal to two. In this case, the projected effective channels Π⊥
H̃ 1
k

(k)

h̃
and Π⊥
H̃ 2

span a 2-dimensional

k

(2-D) space and the full 2-D Pareto-optimal beam design is applicable for each cluster, as shown in Fig.
4(b). This is another advantage of the proposed method over the previous methods [12]–[14] based on
simple spatial ZF beam design ignoring the case of Kc < Nt .
Remark 3: In the step (52) of computation of ICI and AWGN for each candidate weak user for cluster k,
√
Π⊥ h̃1(k+1)
already designed beam vectors are used up to cluster k−1 and the beam estimates P ⊥H̃1 (k+1) , · · · ,
√

P

Π⊥
H̃

Kc

||Π⊥
H̃

May 22, 2017

Kc

c)
h̃(K
1
c)
h̃(K
||
1

||ΠH̃

k+1

h̃1

||

are used for undesigned clusters k + 1, · · · , Kc .
DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

19
(k)

Remark 4: Note that there is length reduction from the actual channel h̃1
(k)
ΠH̃k h̃1

to the effective channel

of each strong user. This reduction is the typical effective gain loss associated ZF, but the loss
(1)

(Kc )

is not significant because the strong channels h̃1 , · · · , h̃1

are semi-orthogonal by the SUS algorithm

[15]. Only the weak users experience ICI whereas ICI to the strong users is completely removed in the
proposed method to be consistent with the NOMA design principle. However, the weak users are selected
by considering all the factors, i.e., the ICI, projection onto L⊥ (H̃k ) and the friendliness with the strong
users to yield good performance.
VI. N UMERICAL

RESULTS

In this section, we provide some numerical results to evaluate the performance of the proposed
scheduling, beam design and power allocation method described in Section V for MU-MISO-NOMA
downlink.
First, we evaluated the gain of the proposed method over conventional SUS-based MU-MISO scheduling [15] and the results are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The simulation setup for Figs. 5 and 6 is as follows.
The AWGN variance was one for all users. The numbers of transmit antennas were two and four for Fig.
5 and Fig. 6, respectively. Each element of each channel vector in the strong user set K1 with K/2 users

2 ) with σ 2 = 1 and each element of each
was randomly and independently generated from CN (0, σh,1
h,1

channel vector in the weak user set K2 with K/2 users was randomly and independently generated from

2 ) with σ 2 = 0.01. (Hence, we have λ /λ = 100 = 20 dB.) For the conventional SUS-based
CN (0, σh,2
1
2
h,2

MU-MISO scheduling we considered two scheduling intervals. At the first interval, user scheduling out
of K1 was performed by running the SUS algorithm for MU-MISO with Nt transmit antennas and the
scheduled users were served by ZF downlink beamforming [15]. At the second interval, user scheduling
out of K2 was performed by running the SUS algorithm for MU-MISO with Nt transmit antennas and the
scheduled users were served by ZF downlink beamforming. The average sum rates for K1 and K2 were
obtained by averaging the rates of 1000 independent channel realizations. For the overall sum rate of the
conventional SUS method, the two rates of K1 and K2 were averaged. For the proposed NOMA method,
the same 1000 channel realizations used for the conventional method were used but the proposed NOMA
scheduling was performed over the overall user set K1 ∪ K2 in a single scheduling interval. For the SUS
algorithm applied separately to K1 and K2 and to Step 1 of the proposed method, the semi-orthogonality
parameter δ should be chosen [15] and we used optimal δ for each K/2 provided from Fig. 2 of [15].
In addition, for the proposed method, Γ should be chosen and we set Γ appropriately to balance the
rates from the two groups K1 and K2 . It is seen in Figs. 5 and 6 that the proposed MU-MISO NOMA
May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

18

18
The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=10000
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=10000
The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=2000
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=2000
The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=200
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=200

14
12
10
8
6

14
12
10

users scheduled from K1
8
6

4

4

2

2

0

5

10

The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=10000
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=10000
The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=2000
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=2000
The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=200
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=200

16

Sum rate [bits / channel use]

Sum rate [bits / channel use]

16

0

20

15

0

20

users scheduled from K2

0

5

PT (dB)

10

15

20

PT (dB)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5: Sum rate (Nt = 2) : (a) total sum rate and (b) separate sum rates from K1 and from K2

30

30
The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=10000
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=10000
The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=2000
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=2000
The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=200
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=200

25

Sum rate [bits / channel use]

Sum rate [bits / channel use]

25

20

15

10

20

users scheduled from K1

15

10

users scheduled from K2
5

5

0

The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=10000
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=10000
The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=2000
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=2000
The proposed alogirhtm with NOMA, K=200
SUS algorithm with linear precoding, K=200

0

5

10

15

PT (dB)

(a)

20

0

0

5

10

15

20

PT (dB)

(b)

Fig. 6: Sum rate (Nt = 4) : (a) total sum rate and (b) separate sum rates from K1 and from K2

method outperforms the conventional MU-MISO downlink based on the SUS user scheduling. Note that
the sum rates for both groups K1 and K2 are better than the conventional scheme. It is also seen that
the performance improvement by NOMA reduces as Nt increases from two to four, but there exists
non-trivial gain for NOMA for large K .
Next, we compared the proposed algorithm with an existing algorithm proposed for MU-MISO NOMA
May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

21

45
The propoposed algorithm
NOMA-FOUS algorithm

Sum rate [bits / channel use]

40

35

Nt = 8

30

Nt = 4

25

20
Nt = 2

15

10
40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Number of users (K)

Fig. 7: Sum rate (Nt = 2, 4, 8, K = 2000 and PT = 15dB)

downlink. For the comparison baseline we considered the NOMA-FOUS algorithm in [14] of which
superiority over other methods [12], [13] is shown in [14]. Since the simulation setting is different from
that in [14], we slightly modified the NOMA-FOUS algorithm so that the strong user is selected from
K1 and the weak user is selected from K2 , although the original NOMA-FOUS algorithm considers only
2 = 1 and σ 2 = 0.04, and set Γ to make the sum rate of the
one set of users. For comparison, we set σh,1
h,2

weak users of the proposed algorithm larger than the sum rate of the weak users of the NOMA-FOUS
algorithm. Fig. 7 shows the sum rate performance of the two algorithms. It is seen that the proposed
algorithm outperforms the NOMA-FOUS algorithm.
The key feature of our Pareto-optimality-based design is that we have control over the rate operating
point. Hence, we finally investigated the rate balancing property between the two groups K1 and K2
by controlling the strong-user-target-SINR parameter Γ defined in (21) (larger Γ means larger rates for
strong users), and the result is shown in Fig. 8. The simulation parameters are the same as those for
Fig. 6. For reference, the rates of K1 and K2 separately obtained by the conventional MU-MISO SUS
algorithm are shown. It is seen that by abandoning the improvement for weak users but maintaining the
weak-user performance at the level of the conventional SUS method, significant rate gain can be attained
for strong users.

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

22

25

Sum rate [bits / channel use]

20

15

The proposed algorithm : strong users
The proposed algorithm : weak users
SUS algorithm : strong users
SUS algorithm : weak users

10

5

0

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Γ

Fig. 8: Sum rate versus Γ (Nt = 4, K = 2000 and PT = 20 dB)

VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have considered the problem of transmit beam design and user scheduling for MUMISO NOMA downlink and proposed an effective beam design and user scheduling method based
on Pareto-optimality by exploiting both the spatial and power domains available in MU-MISO NOMA
downlink. The proposed method with the ability of rate control between strong and weak users provides
great flexibility to NOMA network operation.
A PPENDIX
Proof of Proposition 1:

The set Pi to which popt
belongs is dependent on the relationship among
1

a(p1 ), b(p1 ) and d(p1 ) := b(p1 ) + c2 (p1 )/b(p1 ), given in terms of Γ, θ and λi by
s
r
p
kh1 k2
λ1
a(p1 ) = P − p1
= (P − p1 )
2
∗
1 + Γλ1
σ1 (1 + γ1 )
s
p
kh2 k2 θ
b(p1 ) = P − p1
kh2 k2 p1 [α∗1 (p1 )]2 + σ22
s
λ2 θ
= (P − p1 )
λ2 p1 [α∗1 (p1 )]2 + 1
s
p
kh2 k2 /θ
d(p1 ) = P − p1
kh2 k2 p1 [α21 (p1 )]2 + σ22
s
λ2 /θ
= (P − p1 )
.
λ2 p1 [α∗1 (p1 )]2 + 1
May 22, 2017

(56)

(57)

(58)

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

23

The three sets P1 , P2 and P3 can be rewritten by squaring a(p1 ), b(p1 ) and d(p1 ) and dropping the

¯ 1 )}, and P3 = {p1 |ā >
common factor (P − p1 ) as P1 = {p1 |ā ≤ b̄(p1 )}, P2 = {p1 |b̄(p1 ) < ā ≤ d(p
¯ 1 )}, where
d(p

λ1
λ2 θ
, b̄(p1 ) =
, and
∗
1 + Γλ1
λ2 p1 [α1 (p1 )]2 + 1
λ2 /θ
¯ 1) =
d(p
.
λ2 p1 [α∗1 (p1 )]2 + 1
ā =

(59)
(60)

First, we show popt
/ P1 . Let p1,min denote the minimum p1 to achieve γ1∗ with w1 = h1 /||h1 ||. Then,
1 ∈

p1,min = γ1∗ /λ1 = Γ. Hence, the second condition in (30), i.e., Γ > p1,min (1 − θ) or Γ = p1,min (1 − θ)
√
is satisfied since 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1, and α∗1 (p1,min ) = θ from (30). Hence, we have
ā =
b̄(p1,min ) =

By the NOMA condition λ1 > λ2 , we have

1
λ1

λ1
=
1 + Γλ1
λ2 θ
=
λ2 Γθ + 1
<

1
θλ2

1
λ1

1
+Γ

1
θλ2

(61)

1
.
+Γ

(62)

since 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1 and thus ā > b̄(p1,min ). In case

of Γ = p1,min (1 − θ), we have θ = 0 and thus b̄(p1,min ) = 0 and ā > b̄(p1,min ). Hence, p1,min ∈
/ P1 .

Note that ā is constant over p1 . It can be shown from (30) that the term p1 [α∗1 (p1 )]2 in the denominator
of b̄(p1 ) in (59) is monotone decreasing with respect to p1 , and hence b̄(p1 ) is monotone increasing with
respect to p1 . If ā > b̄(p1 ) for all p1 , P1 is empty. Otherwise, there exists p1 , denoted as p1,a , such that

ā = b̄(p1 ), as p1 increases, given by
p1,a

= {p1 |ā = b̄(p1 )}

λ2 θ
λ1
=
}
1 + Γλ1
λ2 p1 [α∗1 (p1 )]2 + 1
2

q
√
1
−1
= Γ+
.
θΓ − θΓ + λ−1
θ
−
λ
1
2
1−θ

= {p1 |

∗(2)

At p1 = p1,a , we have γ2

∗(1)

= γ2

(63)

from (35) since α∗2 (p1 ) = 1 at the boundary of P1 (p1 ≥ p1,a

∂γ2∗(2) (p1 )
= −1
∂p1
c1 ,
p1 →p−
1,a
∗(2)
P2 such that γ2 (p1 ) >

side) and P2 (p1 < p1,a side), i.e., ā = b̄(p1 ). Furthermore, it can be shown that
where c1 is a non-negative constant with respect to p1 . Hence, there exists p1 ∈
∗(2)

γ2

∗(1)

(p1,a ) = γ2

∗(1)

(p1,a ). Since γ2

is a monotone decreasing function of p1 as seen in (35), optimal

γ2∗ does not occur in P1 , i.e., popt
/ P1 .
1 ∈

¯ 1)
Next, we check the condition that P3 is empty. Since the term p1 [α∗1 (p1 )]2 in the denominator of d(p

¯ 1 ) is monotone increasing with respect
in (60) is monotone decreasing with respect to p1 , and thus d(p
√
¯ 1,min ), then P3 is empty. Since α∗ (p1,min ) = θ from (30) and p1,min = Γ,
to p1 . Therefore, if ā < d(p
1

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

24

the condition is rewritten from (59) and (60) as
λ1
λ2 /θ
<
1 + Γλ1
λ2 Γθ + 1


1 1
1
⇔ θΓ <
+Γ −
=: τ.
θ λ1
λ2

¯ 1,min ) ⇔
ā < d(p

(64)
(65)

opt
In this case, P3 = ∅ and popt
/ P1 .
1 ∈ P2 since p1 ∈

Now assume θΓ ≥ τ . Then, P3 is not empty. Furthermore, we have a sufficient condition for ∀ p1 ∈ P3
as follows:
¯ 1 ) < ā,
d(p

λ1
∀p1 ⇐ λ2 /θ <
1 + Γλ1


1 1
1
⇔
+Γ −
<0
θ α1
λ2

(66)
(67)

⇔ τ < 0,

(68)

¯ 1 ) (see (60)). In this case, popt ∈ P3 .
because λ2 /θ is an upper bound of d(p
1

¯ 1 ), given by
Finally, if θΓ ≥ τ and τ ≥ 0, compute p1 , denoted by p1,b , such that ā = d(p
¯ 1 )}
p1,b = {p1 |ā = d(p

(69)

λ2 /θ
λ1
=
}
1 + Γλ1
λ2 p1 [α∗1 (p1 )]2 + 1
√ 2
1 √
θΓ − τ .
= Γ+
1−θ
= {p1 |

If

(70)
(71)

P < p1,b ,

(72)

¯ 1 ) for p1 ≤ P since d(p
¯ 1 ) is a monotone increasing function of p1 . Hence, in this case,
then ā > d(p

∀p1 ∈ P3 and popt
1 ∈ P3 . On the other hand, if p1,b ≤ P , we have both nonempty P2 = {p1 ≥ p1,b } and
∗(2)

P3 = {p1 < p1,b }. In this case, we compute the derivatives of γ2

∗(3)

and γ2

at point p1,b , which are

given by
∗(2)

∂γ2
∂p1

p1 =p+
1,b

∗(3)

∂γ2
∂p1

p1 =p−
1,b





√
√ √
√
1−θ
1−θ
P − λ2 τ √
= c2 λ2 τ √
√
√ · Γ + λ2 τ · θΓ + 1
θΓ − τ
θΓ − τ





√
√ √
√
1−θ
1−θ
P − λ2 τ √
= c3 λ2 τ √
√
√ · Γ + λ2 τ · θΓ + 1 ,
θΓ − τ
θΓ − τ

(73)

(74)

where c2 and c3 are non-negative constants. The two derivatives have the same sign. If the two derivatives
are positive, then γ2∗ increases as p1 crosses p1,b from the left to the right and hence popt
1 ∈ P2 . Otherwise,
May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

25

γ2∗ increases as p1 crosses p1,b from the right to the left and hence popt
1 ∈ P3 . Equivalently, we have

√ √
1 √
1
( θΓ − τ )( θΓ + √ )
(75)
1−θ
λ2 τ
√ √
1
1 √
(
(76)
θΓ
−
τ )( θΓ + √ ).
popt
∈
P
if
P
<
Γ
+
3
1
1−θ
λ2 τ
√
√
√ 2
√ √
1
1
θΓ − τ < Γ + 1−θ
Since p1,b = Γ + 1−θ
( θΓ− τ )( θΓ+ λ21√τ ), the set {P < p1,b } mentioned
√
√ √
1
in (72) is a subset of the set {P < Γ + 1−θ
( θΓ − τ )( θΓ + λ21√τ )}. Thus, the case of P < p1,b
popt
1 ∈ P2 if P ≥ Γ +

is covered by (76). The only two cases for popt
∈ P2 are [θΓ < τ ] or [θΓ ≥ τ ≥ 0 and P ≥
1
√
√ √
1
1√

Γ + 1−θ ( θΓ − τ )( θΓ + λ2 τ )]. Hence, the claim follows.
To prove Proposition 2, we introduce the following lemma.
Lemma 1: Define
N1 := {θ | a ≤ b(θ)}

(77)

N2 := {θ | b(θ) < a ≤ b(θ) + c2 (θ)/b(θ)}

(78)

N3 := {θ | a > b(θ) + c2 (θ)/b(θ)},

(79)

where a, b(θ) and c(θ) are defined just below (25). Then, for given λ1 , λ2 and Γ, every θ in N1 achieves
the same optimal γ2∗ (θ) in (37), if N1 is not empty.
Proof:
fact that
∗(2)

γ2

(θ)

∗(1)

Let us assume that N1 is not empty. For every θ ∈ N1 , γ2∗ (θ) = γ2

∗(1)
λ1
γ2 = 1+λ
1Γ
∗(1)
< γ2 for all

and

∗(2)
γ2 (θ)

=

λ1
∗
2
1+λ1 Γ [α2 (θ)] ,

==

λ1
1+λ1 Γ .

From the

and 0 ≤ α∗2 (θ) < 1 for θ ∈ N2 , it is obvious that

θ ∈ N2 . Hence, γ2∗ (θ) for θ ∈ N2 is less than γ2∗ (θ) for θ ∈ N1 . Furthermore,
∗(3)

for any θ ∈ N3 , we have γ2

(a)

(θ) =

λ2
λ2 [α∗1 (θ)]2 +1

(b)

≤

(c)
λ2 /θ
λ2 [α∗1 (θ)]2 +1 =

(d)

(e)

∗(1)

[b(θ) + c2 (θ)/b(θ)]2 < a2 = γ2

.

Here, step (a) is by (28), step (b) holds because θ ∈ [0, 1], step (c) is by direction computation based on
b(θ) and c(θ), step (d) holds because θ ∈ N3 , and step (e) is by (28). Consequently, we have the claim.


Proof of Proposition 2: The necessary and sufficient condition for N1 defined in (77) being non-empty
is given by
a2 ≤ max b2 (θ),
0≤θ≤1

(80)

where
a2 =

λ1
λ2 θ
λ2 (1 − θ)
, b2 (θ) =
c2 (θ) =
.
∗
2
1 + Γλ1
λ2 [α1 (θ)] + 1
λ2 [α∗1 (θ)]2 + 1

Since b(θ) is maximized at θ =
max0≤θ≤1 b2 (θ) = λ2 (1 +
May 22, 2017

λ2 Γ
λ2 +1 ),

[λ2 (1−Γ)+1]2
λ22 Γ(1−Γ)+[λ2 (1−Γ)+1]2

(81)

and the corresponding maximum value is

the condition (80) becomes
DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

26

λ1
λ2 Γ
≤ λ2 (1 +
)
1 + λ1 Γ
λ2 + 1
 1q
1
−1 2
−1
−1
−1
−1
(1 + λ−1
1 + λ2 − λ1 −
⇔ Γ1 :=
1 + λ2 ) − 4λ2 (1 + λ2 ) ≤ Γ
2
2
 1q
1
−1 2
−1
−1
−1
−1
≤
(1 + λ−1
1 + λ2 − λ1 +
1 + λ2 ) − 4λ2 (1 + λ2 ) =: Γ2 .
2
2

In the case of non-empty N1 , by substituting α∗1 (θ) in (24) or (85) into b2 (θ), b2 (θ) is given by


λ2 θ
if θ ≤ 1 − Γ
(82)
b2 (θ) =
λ
θ

√ 2
√
if
θ
>
1
−
Γ
2
λ2 [ θΓ−

(1−θ)(1−Γ)] +1

When θ ≤ 1 − Γ, b2 (θ) is linear and it can be shown that b2 (θ) is quasi-concave function when θ > 1 − Γ

∗.

If a2 > λ2 (1 − Γ), there doesn’t exists θ satisfying a2 ≤ λ2 θ (for θ ≤ 1 − Γ) and hence the set

N1 = {θ | a2 ≤ b2 (θ)} is given by

p

z1 z2 + 2Γ(1 − Γ) − 4Γ(1 − Γ)[Γ(1 − Γ) + z1 z2 − z22 ]
θ|
z12 + 4Γ(1 − Γ)
p

z1 z2 + 2Γ(1 − Γ) + 4Γ(1 − Γ)[Γ(1 − Γ) + z1 z2 − z22 ]
≤θ≤
z12 + 4Γ(1 − Γ)

(83)

Otherwise, the minimum of θ satisfying a2 ≤ b2 (θ) is the point such that a2 = λ2 θ and N1 becomes
(

)
p
λ1
1
z1 z2 + 2Γ(1 − Γ) + 4Γ(1 − Γ)[Γ(1 − Γ) + z1 z2 − z22 ]
,
θ|
≤θ≤
λ2 1 + λ1 Γ
z12 + 4Γ(1 − Γ)

−1
where z1 = λ−1
1 +1−Γ and z2 = λ2 +1−Γ. ((83) is obtained by solving

λ1
1+Γλ1

≤

√ λ2 θ
√
λ2 [ θΓ− (1−θ)(1−Γ)]2 +1

reducing to a quadratic inequality). In the case of non-empty N1 , by Lemma 1, N1 is optimal and we
obtain (41).
Next, consider the case that N1 is empty. At θ = 1, we have a(1) =

q

1
Γ+ λ1

1

>

q

1
Γ+ λ1

= b(1) +

2

c2 (1)/b(1) by the NOMA assumption λ1 > λ2 and hence θ = 1 ∈ N3 by the definition of N3 in (79).

We also have
lim b(θ) + c2 (θ)/b(θ) = lim

θ→0

∗

θ→0

s

λ2 θ −1
= ∞,
λ2 [α∗1 (θ)]2 + 1

When θ > 1 − Γ, b2 (θ) can be written as f 2 (θ)/g(θ), where f (θ) =

√

(84)

p
√
λ2 θ and g(θ) = λ2 [ θΓ − (1 − θ)(1 − Γ)]2 + 1.

Since f (θ) is the concave function and g(θ) is the convex function (it can be proved easily by taking secondary derivative), we
can conclude that f 2 (θ)/g(θ) is quasi concave [23].

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

27

√
which can easily be seen from α∗1 (0) = 1 − Γ. Thus, θ = 0 ∈ N2 . Furthermore, b(θ) + c2 (θ)/b(θ) =
q
λ2 θ −1
λ2 [α∗ (θ)]2 +1 is a monotone decreasing function of θ since
1

α∗1 (θ) =




0
 √θΓ − p(1 − θ)(1 − Γ)

if

θ ≤ θI := 1 − Γ

if

θ > θI

(85)

is a monotone increasing function of θ . Hence, there exists θa such that a(θa ) = b(θa ) + c2 (θa )/b(θa )
to yield N2 = {θ|θ ≤ θa } and N3 = {θ|θ > θa }.
Now recall that
∗(1)

γ2

=

λ1
λ2
λ1
∗(2)
∗(3)
, γ2 (θ) =
[α∗2 (θ)]2 , and γ2 (θ) =
.
∗
1 + λ1 Γ
1 + λ1 Γ
λ2 [α1 (θ)]2 + 1

(86)

If θa ≤ θI , then the optimal θ set for maximizing γ2∗ is given by {θ|θa ≤ θ ≤ θI }. This is because
∗(2)

γ2

∗(3)

(θa ) = γ2

∗(3)

(θa ), because γ2

(θ) is monotone decreasing with respect to θ as seen in (86) since
∗(2)

α∗1 (θ) is a monotone increasing function of θ , and because γ2

(θ) is monotone increasing with respect

to θ for θ ≤ θa since α∗2 (θ) is a monotone increasing function of θ for θ ≤ min{θa , θI } = θa (this can
be shown by substituting α∗1 = 0 for θ ≤ θI into α∗2 (θ) and taking derivative of α∗2 (θ) with respect to θ

and showing the derivative is positive for θ ≤ θa ). Hence, in this case the optimal γ2∗ occurs at θa but
∗(3)

for all θ in {θ|θa ≤ θ ≤ θI }, α∗1 (θ) = 0 and the corresponding optimal γ2∗ = γ2

= λ2 from (86). In

this case, from the assumption θa ≤ θI , θa is computed based on (81) with α∗1 (θ) = 0 as
θa = θ s.t. a = b(θ) + c2 (θ)/b(θ)
= θ s.t.
=

λ1
λ2
=
1 + λ1 Γ
θ

(87)
(88)

λ2
(1 + λ1 Γ)
λ1

(89)

and the condition θa ≤ θI reduces to

λ2
λ2 −1 − λ1 −1
.
(1 + λ1 Γ) ≤ 1 − Γ ⇐⇒ Γ ≤
λ1
1 + λ2 −1

On the other hand, if θa > θI , i.e., Γ >
∗(2)
γ2

λ2 −1 −λ1 −1
,
1+λ2 −1

(90)

then optimal θ exists between θI and θa because
∗(3)

is an increasing function for θ < min{θa , θI } = θI and γ3

is a decreasing function for θ > θa .

Since optimal θ lies in N2 in this case, it is obtained by solving
∗(2)

∂γ2 (θ)
= 0.
∂θ

Therefore, the claim follows.
Proof of Corollary 1:

(91)


With the assumption of λ1 = λ2 , we have Γ1 = 0 and Γ2 = 1 from

(40) and hence the condition Γ ∈ [Γ1 , Γ2 ] reduces to Γ ∈ [0, 1] which is always valid for p1 =
May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

28

p2 = 1 (see the definition of Γ in (21)). Furthermore, with the assumption, we have z1 = z2 and
p
4Γ(1 − Γ)[Γ(1 − Γ) + z1 z2 − z22 ] in (41) is given by 2Γ(1 − Γ). From (41), the optimal θ set is given

by {θ | θ0 ≤ θ ≤ 1}, where

θ0 =





1
1+Γλ1
z12
z12 +4Γ(1−Γ)

if
if

1
1+Γλ1
1
1+Γλ1

≤1−Γ

(92)

>1−Γ



Proof of Proposition 3: As λ2 → 0. the threshold τ in Proposition 1 converges to −∞ and thus neither

opt
of the two conditions for popt
1 ∈ P2 in Proposition 1 is satisfied. Hence, by Proposition 1, p1 ∈ P3 .
∗(3)

opt
Since popt
(p1 ) in (35) and is given by
1 ∈ P3 , p1 can be obtained in closed form by maximizing γ2
q
−2
ψ12 − ψ1 ψ22 + 2λ−1
2 ψ1 + λ2
opt
p̄1 = −P + 2Γ +
(93)
2θ(1 − θ)Γ

where ψ1 := θΓ + (1 − θ)(P − Γ) + λ−1
2 and ψ2 := θΓ − (1 − θ)(P − Γ). Using L’Hospital’s rule, we
√
opt
can show that limλ2 →0 p̄1 = Γ(= p1,min ). With p1 = Γ, we have α∗1 = θ from (30) and consequently
√
√
β1∗ = 1 − θ from the the constraint eq. in (29), and α∗2 = θ from (34), and by substituting these
√ h
√
∗(3)
1
values into γ2 (p1 ) in (35) and (12) and (13), we have γ2∗ = P Γ−Γ θ+λ−1
,
p
w
=
Γ kh11 k and
1
1
−1
2 Γ
√
√

p2 w2 = P − Γ khh22 k .
R EFERENCES
[1] Y. Saito, Y. Kishiyama, A. Benjebbour, T. Nakamura, A. Li, and K. Higuchi, “Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA)
for cellular future radio access,” in Proc. IEEE VTC, pp. 15, Jun. 2013.

[2] D. Tse and P. Viswanath, Fundamentals of Wireless Communication. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[3] Z. Ding, Z. Yang, P. Fan, and H. V. Poor, “On the performance of non-orthogonal multiple access in 5G systems with
randomly deployed users,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 21, pp. 15011505, Jul. 2014.
[4] S. Timotheou and I. Krikidis, “Fairness for non-orthogonal multiple access in 5G systems,” it IEEE Signal Process. Lett.,
vol. 22, pp. 16471651, Mar. 2015.
[5] F. Liu, P. Mahonen, and M. Petrova, “Proportional fairness-based user pairing and power allocation for non-orthogonal
multiple access,” in Proc. IEEE PIMRC, pp. 11271131, Aug. 2015.
[6] J. Choi, “Non-orthogonal multiple access in downlink coordinated two-point systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 18, pp.
313316, Jan. 2014.
[7] M. Al-Imari, P. Xiao, M. A. Imran, and R. Tafazolli, “Uplink non-orthogonal multiple access for 5G wireless networks,” in
Proc. IEEE ISWCS, pp. 781785, 2014.
[8] J. So and Y. Sung, “Improving non-orthogonal multiple access by forming relaying broadcast channels,” EEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 20, pp. 18161819, Jul. 2016.
[9] Y. Lan, A. Benjebboiu, X. Chen, A. Li, and H. Jiang, “Considerations on downlink non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA)
combined with closed-loop SU-MIMO,” in Proc. IEEE ICSPC, pp. 15, 2014.

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, MAY 22, 2017

29

[10] X. Chen, A. Benjebbour, Y. Lan, A. Li, and H. Jiang, “Impact of rank optimization on downlink non-orthogonal multiple
access (NOMA) with SU-MIMO,” in Proc. IEEE ICCS, pp. 233237, 2014.
[11] M. F. Hanif, Z. Ding, T. Ratnarajah, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “A minorization-maximization method for optimizing sum
rate in the downlink of non-orthogonal multiple access systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 7688, 2016.
[12] B. Kim, S. Lim, H. Kim, S. Suh, J. Kwun, S. Choi, C. Lee, S. Lee, and D. Hong, “Non-orthogonal multiple access in a
downlink multiuser beamforming system,” in Proc. MILCOM, pp. 12781283, 2013.
[13] S. Liu, C. Zhang, and G. Lyu, “User selection and power schedule for downlink non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA)
system,” in Proc. IEEE ICCW, pp. 25612565, 2015.
[14] A. Sayed-Ahmed and M. Elsabrouty, “User selection and power allocation for guaranteed SIC detection in downlink
beamforming Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access,” in IEEE Wireless Days, 2017, pp. 188193, 2017.
[15] T. Yoo and A. Goldsmith, “On the optimality of multiantenna broadcast scheduling using zero-forcing beamforming,” IEEE
J. Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 24, pp. 528541, Mar. 2006.
[16] Z. Ding, F. Adachi, and H. V. Poor, “The application of MIMO to non-orthogonal multiple access,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 15, pp. 537552, Sept. 2016.
[17] J. Seo and Y. Sung, “A new transceiver architecture for multi-user mimo communication based on mixture of linear and
non-linear reception,” in Proc. SPAWC, (Sapporo, Japan), Jun. 2017.
[18] K. Ho, D. Gesbert, E. Jorswieck, and R. Mochaourab, “Beamforming on the MISO interference channel with multi-user
decoding capability,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.0416, 2011.
[19] E. A. Jorswieck, E. G. Larsson, and D. Danev, “Complete characterization of the Pareto boundary for the MISO interference
channel,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 56, pp. 52925296, Jul. 2008.
[20] E. A. Jorswieck and E. G. Larsson, “Linear precoding in multiple antenna broadcast channels: Efficient computation of
the achievable rate region,” in Proc. WSA, pp. 2128, Feb. 2008.
[21] J. Lindblom, E. Karipidis, and E. G. Larsson, “Efficient computation of pareto optimal beamforming vectors for the MISO
interference channel with successive interference cancellation,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61, pp. 47824795, Jul. 2013.
[22] J. Lindblom, E. Karipidis, and E. G. Larsson, “Closed-form parameterization of the Pareto boundary for the two-user
MISO interference channel,” in Proc. IEEE ICASSP, pp. 33723375, 2011.
[23] C. Bector, “Programming problems with convex fractional functions,” Operations Research, vol. 16, pp. 383391, Apr.
1968.

May 22, 2017

DRAFT

