A D2D-based Protocol for Ultra-Reliable
Wireless Communications for Industrial

arXiv:1710.01265v2 [cs.IT] 16 Oct 2017

Automation
Liang Liu and Wei Yu

Abstract
As one indispensable use case for the 5G wireless systems on the roadmap, ultra-reliable and low
latency communications (URLLC) is a crucial requirement for the coming era of wireless industrial
automation. The key performance indicators for URLLC are in sharp contrast to the current broadband
communications, since latency and reliability are paramount but high data rates are often not required.
This paper aims to develop communication techniques for making such a paradigm shift from the
conventional human-type broadband communications to the emerging machine-type URLLC. One fundamental task for URLLC is to deliver a short command from the controller to each actuator within the
stringent delay requirement and also with high-reliability in the downlink. Motivated by the geographic
feature in industrial automation that in the factories many tasks are assigned to different groups of
devices who work in close proximity to each other and thus can form clusters of reliable device-todevice (D2D) networks, this paper proposes a novel two-phase transmission protocol for achieving the
above goal. Specifically, in the first phase within the latency requirement, the multi-antenna base station
(BS) combines the messages of each group together and multicasts them to the corresponding groups;
while in the second phase, the devices that have decoded the messages successfully, who are defined
as the leaders, help relay the messages to the other devices in their groups. Under this protocol, we
further design an innovative leader selection based beamforming strategy at the BS by utilizing the
sparse optimization technique, which leads to the desired sparsity pattern in user activity, i.e., at least
one leader exists in each group, in the first phase, thus making full utilization of the reliable D2D
networks in the second phase. Simulation results are provided to show that the proposed two-phase
Manuscript submitted to the IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications on October 3, 2017. This work is supported
by Nokia Bell Labs, NJ, USA, and by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada via a
Steacie Memorial Fellowship and the Canada Research Chairs program. The authors are with The Edward S. Rogers
Sr. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S3G4, (emails:lianguot.liu@utoronto.ca; weiyu@comm.utoronto.ca).

2

transmission protocol considerably improves the reliability of the whole system within the stringent
latency requirement as compared to other existing schemes for URLLC such as Occupy CoW.

Index Terms
Ultra-reliable communications, low latency, 5G, industrial automation, device-to-device (D2D) communications, machine-type communications, multicasting, beamforming, sparse optimization.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), massive machine type communications (mMTC), as
well as ultra-reliable and low latency communications (URLLC) are the three main use cases
that the 5G technology must support [1]. Addressing the above requirements in 5G calls for
new methods and ideas at both the component and architectural levels, which include massive
multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) [2], [3], millimeter wave (mmWave) communications
[4], and cloud radio access network (C-RAN) [5] for eMBB, as well as fast yet precise user
access schemes to support a massive number of devices for mMTC [6] – [8]. This paper, on the
other hand, aims to tackle the latency and reliability issues for URLLC inspired by the urgent
demand from industrial automation [9] – [13].
In a typical closed loop industrial control scenario, sensors and actuators are deployed in the
area of concern in a desired topology. Periodically or based on the events, the sensors send
their measurements to the central controller, which then makes decisions and sends them to
the actuators for implementation. Although currently sensors and actuators are connected to
the central controller via a wired configuration in most of the factories, the fourth industrial
revolution on the roadmap, known as Industry 4.0, calls for a migration of the communication
networks from wired to wireless for the purpose of increasing the flexibility and freedom in
moving machinery and also reducing the expenditure for the infrastructure [9] – [13]. Such a
transition, however, imposes challenging requirements in terms of latency as well as reliability
for the wireless technologies since the factorial automation systems are highly sensitive to any
signal delays or distortions. Current 4G roundtrip latencies are on the order of 15ms, and are
based on the 1ms subframe time with necessary overheads for resource allocation and access.
For mission-critical applications in industrial automation, the latency requirements on the control
loop are in the tens of milliseconds. This pushes the latency requirement of 5G physical layer

3

M antennas

successful users in Phase I (leaders)
unsuccessful users in Phase I
D2D network in Phase II
package of one user
entire package of one group

Fig. 1. Illustration of the two-phase transmission protocol: in the first phase, BS combines each group’s messages together and
multicasts them to the leaders in the corresponding groups; in the second phase, each leader helps relay the messages to the
unsuccessful users in its group via the D2D network.

down to the order of 1ms, an order of magnitude faster than 4G, while demanding very highreliability, e.g., 99.999% or even higher, in order to support future wireless factorial automation.
To address such a challenge, this paper mainly focuses on the downlink URLLC in one cell
(factory) of a cellular system, where the multi-antenna base station (BS) (the central controller)
needs to send a small amount of information bits (command) to each user (actuator) within the
latency requirement (1ms). The core question this paper tries to answer is how to achieve the
above goal with ultra-reliability in the sense that all the users can decode their messages with a
very high probability.
Achieving URLLC with the conventional broadcasting strategy is difficult due to the recent
trend of massive connectivity [6]. Specifically, in a massive connectivity scenario where the
number of devices is larger than that of antennas at the BS, it can be difficult to transmit at
an appreciable data rate to each user reliably, especially for the cell-edge users that suffer from
strong inter-cell interference. Moreover, time-division multiple-access (TDMA) may not be a
feasible strategy since the required signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is extremely high when each user
is only allocated to a fraction of the total transmission time for its transmission.
One key observation we make in this paper is that in practice, each task in the factory is
in general assigned to a group of devices, e.g., robots or 3D printers, who work in close
proximity to each other and thus can potentially form a device-to-device (D2D) network for
pear-to-pear communications. It is envisioned that the communication within each D2D network
is significantly more reliable than that from the BS to the users due to the much stronger channels

4

between the users in the same group. To exploit the reliable D2D networks, this paper proposes
a novel D2D-based two-phase transmission protocol as shown in Fig. 1, in which the BS sends
the messages to the users in the first phase, while in the second phase, the users who have
already decoded the messages successfully (defined as the leaders of the groups) help relay the
information to the other users in the same groups that fail to receive their messages previously.
Note that the reliability of the overall system highly depends on the reliability of the cell-edge
users. Our proposed protocol can opportunistically activate the cell-edge users that do not suffer
from strong inter-cell interference thanks to the channel fading and let these leaders help the
other cell-edge users with low signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) to achieve high
reliability in the second phase.
To enable the proposed relay strategy to work, the leaders of each group need to receive the
entire messages for all the users in their group. This paper devises a multi-group multicasting
technique in the first phase [14], in which user messages in each group are combined together
as a single message and multicast to the leaders in the corresponding group. Such a message
combination strategy typically results in a manageable multicasting rate, since in most URLLC
scenarios each device only requires a very small amount of information bits within the latency
requirement such that the summation of rates for all users in the same group is still reasonably
small. Moreover, a substantially smaller number of users need to be activated in Phase I as
compared to the broadcasting scenario since one group only needs one leader.
Since the users in the same group usually belong to the same factory, the incentive mechanism
and security issue, which are quite challenging in practical D2D networks [15], are no longer key
considerations in our investigated setup. Instead, leader selection in the first phase becomes the
deciding factor of our protocol, since the groups without leaders cannot utilize the reliable D2D
networks in the second phase. This paper aims to propose a dynamic leader selection based
beamforming solution merely based on the instantaneous downlink channel state information
(CSI) (without CSI of the D2D networks) such that after the first phase each group has at least
one leader with a high probability.
A. Prior Work
The wireless inter-connection of the traditional manufacturing industries is a crucial goal
for future wireless standards [9] – [13]. The current wireless techniques are not designed
for the stringent reliability and latency requirements of the mission-critical applications. As

5

a result, designing new techniques for URLLC is considered as an increasingly important
goal for 5G [16], [17], with some initial efforts already being developed to deal with the
latency and reliability issues for wireless technologies. For example, [18] provides a high-level
discussion about the potential to utilize diversity, e.g., MIMO, convolutional codes, and hybrid
automatic repeat request (HARQ) scheme [19] to achieve URLLC. Moreover, coordinated multipoint (CoMP) [20], deployment strategies such as the cell size [21], adaptive modulation and
coding (AMC) [22], as well as reduced transmission time intervals and shorter symbol durations
in orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) systems [23] are also investigated to
improve the reliability of wireless communications. However, these works in general are built
on the traditional wireless techniques that are mainly driven by the broadband communications
and are often inefficient for URLLC. There is general consensus that some fundamental change in
the transmission protocols is necessary to satisfy the stringent latency and reliability requirements
imposed by the future wireless industrial automation [17].
A recent work [24] presents an interesting two-phase transmission protocol, namely Occupy
CoW, for both the uplink and downlink URLLC, that makes use of cooperative relaying to reach
very high levels of reliability, while maintaining a fixed cycle time of 2ms in a network of 30
nodes. For the downlink communication, specifically, the BS combines all the users’ messages
together and multicasts them to the users in the first phase, while the users that can decode
the messages help relay them to the other users in the second phase. However, if there are too
many users in the system, such a combination of all users’ messages may lead to a very high
multicasting rate, resulting in too few leaders in the first phase. Our work builds upon the Occupy
CoW protocol but differs in the sense that the geographic information of the users is utilized to
divide them into groups: only the messages of each group is sent to the corresponding leaders,
as each leader can subsequently help its neighbors. One obvious advantage of such a grouping
strategy is a reasonable multicasting rate for each group, instead of a high multicasting rate for
all the users.
It is also worth noting that the conventional approach for sending individual messages to users
in the downlink is information broadcasting. In the case of a single-antenna BS, the joint power
and admission control problem for such a setting is investigated in [25], [26], in which the
number of users achieving their SINR targets is maximized in the event that not all of them can
achieve their SINR targets (e.g., when the SINR feasibility condition for power control defined
in [27] does not hold). However, the goal for URLLC is to provide reliable services to all the

6

devices, rather than a portion of devices. As a result, our work can be interpreted as an attempt to
enlarge the feasible SINR regime of the conventional power control and beamforming technique
[27] by a utilization of the D2D network such that URLLC can be achieved in more challenging
settings.
B. Main Contributions
The main contributions of this paper are summarized as follows.
First, this paper proposes a novel two-phase transmission protocol for URLLC based on the
observation that devices in close proximity to each other can form one group of D2D network in
which reliable communication is possible. Under our proposed protocol, the BS combines each
group’s messages together and multicasts them to the corresponding groups in the first phase,
while the users that decode the messages successfully, i.e., leaders, help relay the messages
to the other users in the same group in the second phase. We point out that since reliable
communication is possible in each D2D network, the core issue under our proposed protocol is
the beamforming design in the first phase that aims to activate at least one leader in each group,
on whom the other users can rely in the second phase.
Second, we formulate the leader selection based beamforming problem in the first phase from
a sparse optimization perspective by introducing a set of auxiliary variables that indicate the
gap between each user’s SINR and its SINR target. Such a formulation enables us to design
the beamforming at the BS and select the leaders of each group jointly rather than separately.
Moreover, leader selection results in a new and non-trivial sparsity pattern for the auxiliary
variables since in each group at least one auxiliary variable should be zero (which implies zero
gap between the SINR and SINR target and thus a leader). To achieve this desired sparsity
pattern, we introduce a novel geometric-mean based penalty for the auxiliary variables of each
group, which is minimized to zero when each group has at least one leader. Numerical results
are provided to show that such a penalty guarantees a fair leader assignment among groups.
At last, we provide a comprehensive performance comparison between our proposed strategy
and other existing ones, e.g., Occupy CoW [24] and traditional information broadcasting. For
various schemes, the probability of URLLC is defined as the probability that all the users
in the system receive their messages successfully within the delay requirement. It is shown
by simulation that with inter-cell interference, only our proposed scheme is able to achieve a
probability of URLLC above 99.99% as the number of information bits to each user increases.

7

C. Organization
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the system model for
URLLC; Section III introduces the D2D-based two-phase transmission protocol for URLLC;
Section IV describes the corresponding leader selection based beamforming design; Section
V introduces some benchmark schemes; Section VI provides the numerical simulation results
pertaining to performance comparison between our proposed scheme and benchmark schemes.
Finally, Section VII concludes this paper.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
Consider the downlink communication in one cell (factory) consisting of one BS (controller)
and K users (actuators) as shown in Fig. 1. It is assumed that the BS is equipped with M
antennas, and each user is equipped with one single antenna. It is further assumed that the K
users form N disjoint groups based on their geographic locations, while the users in each group
are in close proximity to each other. Let Gn denote the set of users that belong to group n, and
its cardinality Kn = |Gn | denote the number of users in this group, n = 1, · · · , N, respectively.
T
P
Note that each user only belongs to one group, thus Gn Gj = ∅ if n 6= j, and N
n=1 Kn = K.
The downlink channel from the BS to the kth user in group n is denoted by hk,n ∈ CM ×1 ,

k = 1, · · · , Kn , n = 1, · · · , N, while the channel from the ith user in group j to the kth user in
group n is denoted by hk,n,i,j ∈ C, ∀(k, n) 6= (i, j). This paper adopts a block-fading model, in
which all the channels follow independent quasi-static flat-fading within a block of coherence
time, where hk,n ’s and hk,n,i,j ’s remain constant, but vary independently from block to block.
For convenience, it is assumed that the coherence time and bandwidth of hk,n ’s are the same as
those of hk,n,i,j ’s, which are denoted by T second and BHz, respectively. It is further assumed
that the downlink channels hk,n ’s are perfectly known by the BS, but the channels between
the users hk,n,i,j ’s are not known by the BS. At last, we assume that for any user k in group
n, it knows its downlink channel hk,n and the channels from other users to it, i.e., hk,n,i,j ’s,
∀(i, j) 6= (k, n), for information decoding.
For ultra-reliable communications, let τ second denote the delay requirement for all the users,
which in general is much smaller than the channel coherence time, i.e., τ < T . Furthermore,
let Ωk,n and Dk,n denote the set and number of information bits that need to be conveyed to
the kth user in group n within the delay requirement, i.e., τ , respectively. The core question
for ultra-reliable communications in this scenario can be thus summarized as follows: how to

8

design a protocol such that each of the K users can receive its messages with an extremely low
decoding error probability within τ second?
III. P ROPOSED P ROTOCOL

FOR

U LTRA -R ELIABLE C OMMUNICATIONS

In this section, we propose a D2D-based two-phase transmission protocol to achieve ultrareliable communications for the K users located in N groups. We assume that hk,n,i,j is very
strong if n = j since the users in the same group are close to each other, but relatively weak
otherwise. As a result, the users in the same group can form a D2D network in which the
communications can be made reliable. Motivated by the above observation, the D2D-based twophase transmission protocol is briefly outlined as follows: in the first phase with a duration of
S n
τ1 < τ second, the BS combines each group’s messages together, i.e., Ω(n) = K
k=1 Ωk,n with
PKn
(n)
’s to the corresponding groups simultaneously
k=1 Dk,n bits information, ∀n, and sends Ω
via multi-group multicasting; in the second phase with a duration of τ2 = τ − τ1 second, the

users that decode the information successfully in the first phase can help relay the messages to
the other users in the same group via the D2D network. Note that under the proposed protocol,
each user not only decodes its own messages, but also receives its neighbors’ messages, since
the successful users in Phase I need to relay other users’ messages in the same group in Phase
II. In the following, we elaborate this protocol in details.
A. Phase I
In the first phase with a duration of τ1 second, let sn ∼ CN (0, 1) denote the combined symbol
intended for all the users in group n, which is modeled as a circularly symmetric complex
Gaussian (CSCG) random variable with zero-mean and unit-variance, ∀n. Then, the transmit
signal of the BS in Phase I is expressed as
x(I) =

N
X

w(I)
n sn ,

(1)

n=1

(I)

where w n ∈ CM ×1 denotes the transmit beamforming for the entire massages of group n.
Suppose that the BS has a transmit power constraint PBS ; from (1), we thus have
N
X
n=1

2
kw(I)
n k ≤ PBS .

(2)

9

The received signal of the kth user in group n in Phase I is expressed as
X (I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
T
yk,n = hTk,n x(I) + zk,n = hTk,n w(I)
wj sj + zk,n , k = 1, · · · , Kn , ∀n,
n sn + hk,n

(3)

j6=n

(I)

(I)

where zk,n ∈ CN (0, Ik,n ) denotes the superposition of the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN)
(I)

and the inter-cell interference at the kth user in group n in Phase I, with a power Ik,n . The SINR
of the kth user in group n in Phase I is then expressed as
(I)

(I)
γk,n

= P

j6=n

|hTk,n w n |2
(I)

(I)

|hTk,n w j |2 + Ik,n

.

(4)

For the first transmission phase, in total there are τ1 B symbols available for the BS to perform
information multicasting. Note that although the seminal work [28] shows that in an AWGN
channel, encoding over finite blocklength can result in a penalty on the channel capacity, it is
recently shown in [29] that in a fading channel, the outage is dominated by channel fading,
rather than the finite blocklength coding. As a result, in this paper we ignore the effect of finite
P n
blocklength coding, and the minimum SINR target required to convey K
k=1 Dk,n bits messages

to any user in group n using τ1 B symbols is then expressed as
γ̄n(I) = 2

K
n
P
Dk,n
k=1
τ1 B

− 1,

∀n.

Then, we define an indicator function for each user as follows:

 1, if γ (I) ≥ γ̄n(I) ,
(I)
k,n
φk,n =
 0, if γ (I) < γ̄n(I) .

(5)

(6)

k,n

Definition 1: The kth user in group n is defined as a leader of group n if it can decode the
(I)

messages Ω(n) in the first transmission phase, i.e., φk,n = 1. Moreover, the set of leaders in
(I)

group n is defined as Θn = {k : φk,n = 1, k = 1, · · · , Kn }, n = 1, · · · , N.
B. Phase II
In the second phase over the remaining τ2 second, the leaders in each group help relay the
messages to the unsuccessful users in the same group via the local D2D networks. Since the
S
leaders in group n has decoded the message k∈Θn Ωk,n , they merely need to relay the message
S
P
k ∈Θ
/ n Ωk,n with
k ∈Θ
/ n Dk,n bits information to the other users.

Due to the lack of CSI of the D2D networks, in this paper we assume that power control

is not conducted among users and each leader simply transmits at its full power for relaying

10

the messages. Suppose that all the users possess a common transmit power constraint P . The
transmit signal of the kth user in group n in the second phase is thus expressed as
√
(II)
(I)
xk,n = φk,n P sn ,

k = 1, · · · , Kn , n = 1, · · · , N.

(7)

As a result, in Phase II, the received signal for each unsuccessful user in Phase I is expressed
as
(II)

yk,n =

X

(II)

(II)

hk,n,i,j xi,j + zk,n

(i,j)6=(k,n)

=

X

(I)
hk,n,i,nφi,n

√

P sn +

√
(I)
(II)
(I)
hk,n,i,j φi,j P sj + zk,n , if φk,n = 0, (8)

j6=n i=1

i6=k

(II)

Kj
XX

(II)

where zk,n ∼ CN (0, Ik,n ) denotes the superposition of the AWGN and the inter-cell interference
(II)

at the kth user in group n in Phase II, with a power Ik,n .
(II)

The corresponding SINR to decode sn based on yk,n is thus
P

i6=k

(II)

γk,n =

Kj
P P

j6=n i=1

(I) √
hk,n,i,nφi,n P

2

√
(I)

(9)

+ Ik,n

Similar to (5), the minimum SINR requirement to relay
τ2 B symbols in Phase II can be expressed as
γ̄n(II) = 2

if φk,n = 0.

(II)

hk,n,i,j φi,j P

P
Dk,n
k∈Θ
/ n
τ2 B

(I)

,

2

− 1,

P

k ∈Θ
/ n

Dk,n bits information using

∀n.

(10)

Then, we define an indicator function for each user as follows:

 1, if γ (II) < γ̄n(II) and γ (II) ≥ γ̄n(II) ,
(II)
k,n
k,n
φk,n =
 0, otherwise.

(11)

(II)

As a result, φk,n = 1 if an unsuccessful user in Phase I decodes the messages in Phase II, and
(II)

φk,n = 0 otherwise.
(I)

(I)

(I)

(II)

At last, define Φn = {φ1,n , · · · , φKn ,n } and Φn
(I)

(II)

(II)

(II)

= {φ1,n , · · · , φKn,n }, n = 1, · · · , N,
(I)

(II)

respectively. Thus, the cardinalities of Φn and Φn , i.e., |Φn | and |Φn |, indicate the numbers
of users of group n that decode their messages successfully in Phase I (leaders) and Phase II,
PN
P
(II)
(I)
respectively. Moreover, N
n=1 |Φn | denotes the total number of successful users
n=1 |Φn | +

within the cell after τ second.

11

(I)

Definition 2: Given a time slot of duration τ second, if some beamforming vectors w n ’s
satisfying the transmit power constraints (2) can be found at the BS such that all the users can
P
(I)
receive their messages under the proposed two-phase transmission protocol, i.e., N
n=1 |Φn | +
PN
(II)
n=1 |Φn | = K, then ultra-reliable communication is established over the τ second. Otherwise,
we say outage occurs within this τ second.
C. Problem Formulation
To achieve ultra-reliable communication over any particular duration τ , we need to design the
beamforming vectors at the BS to maximize the total number of the successful users, i.e.,
maximize
(I)
{w n }
subject to

N
X
n=1

N
X
n=1

|Φ(I)
n |+

N
X
n=1

|Φ(II)
n |

2
kw(I)
n k ≤ PBS .

(12a)

(12b)

If the optimal value to the above problem is K, then ultra-reliable communication is achieved
according to Definition 2.
IV. L EADER S ELECTION

BASED

B EAMFORMING D ESIGN

Since in practice it is hard to acquire the CSI of the D2D networks, i.e., hk,n,i,j ’s, the challenge
to solve problem (12) lies in the lack of the user SINRs in Phase II at the BS side given any
(I)

beamforming solution w n ’s in Phase I. In this section, we propose an efficient leader selection
based beamforming design for solving problem (12) without any knowledge of hk,n,i,j ’s.
A. Problem Reformulation
The proposed two-phase transmission protocol in Section III arises from the observation that
if one group has at least one leader in the first phase, then with a very high probability, all
the other users in the same group will decode the messages successfully over the D2D network
in the second phase due to their proximity to the leaders. Motivated by this, even without any
knowledge of hk,n,i,j ’s in Phase II, reliable communications can be achieved if the beamforming
(I)

solution wn ’s meets two requirements in Phase I: on one hand, each group should have at least
one leader since otherwise no user in this group can decode the messages after Phase II; on
the other hand, the total number of leaders should be maximized such that fewer information
bits and thus lower SINR targets are required in Phase II, as shown in (10). Therefore, we are

12

interested in the following problem in the case without the knowledge of hk,n,i,j ’s in problem
(12):
maximize
(I)
{w n }

N
X
n=1

|Φ(I)
n |

subject to |Φ(I)
n | ≥ 1,
N
X
n=1

(I)

(13a)
∀n,

(13b)

2
kw(I)
n k ≤ PBS .

(13c)

In problem (13), φk,n ’s as given in (6) are complicated and discontinuous functions over
the beamforming vectors, which make it challenging to apply optimization technique to solve
(I)

problem (13). To tackle the issue arising from non-continuous φk,n ’s, let us define t(I)
=
n
(I)

(I)

[t1,n , · · · , tKn ,n ]T ∈ CKn ×1 , ∀n. It can then be shown that problem (13) is equivalent to the
following problem:
minimize
(I) (I)
{w n ,tn }

N
X
n=1
(I)

|t(I)
n |0

(14a)

(I)

(14b)

subject to γk,n + tk,n ≥ γ̄n(I) , ∀k, ∀n,
|t(I)
n |0 ≤ Kn − 1, ∀n,
(I)

tk,n ≥ 0, ∀k, ∀n,
N
X
n=1

where

(I)
γk,n ’s

2
kw (I)
n k ≤ PBS ,

(14c)
(14d)
(14e)

are given in (4). The equivalence between problem (13) and problem (14) lies in
(I)

the fact that the auxiliary variables tk,n ’s characterize the gap between the SINR targets and
(I)

achievable SINRs in Phase I, thus the number of zero tk,n ’s denotes the number of leaders in
Phase I, and constraint (14c) guarantees at least one leader in each group. Such an equivalent
(I)

transformation based on the auxiliary variables tk,n ’s results in a continuous problem (14).
Moreover, since we desire more zero elements in t(I)
n ’s, the sparse optimization technique can
now be used to solve the problem.
The difficulty to solve (14) lies in the multiple cardinality constraints (14c). To ensure at least
one leader in each group in Phase I without dealing with the complicated cardinality constraints

13

(14c), in this paper, we propose the following novel leader selection based beamforming problem:

minimize
(I) (I)
{w n ,tn }

N
X
n=1

|t(I)
n |1 +

N
X
n=1

v
u Kn
uY (I)
Kt
tk,n
βn n

(15a)

k=1

subject to (14b), (14d), (14e),

(15b)

where βn > 0 is the corresponding penalty weight for group n, n = 1, · · · , N.

Note that in the objective function of problem (15), we use the convex functions |t(I)
n |1 ’s to

approximate non-convex functions |t(I)
sparse optimization
n |0 ’s in problem (14) based on standard
qQ
(I) 1
n
in the
technique. In addition, we define a new penalty for each group as βn Kn K
k=1 tk,n
objective function of problem (14). It is easily observed that for each group n, its penalty is

zero if at least one element of t(I)
n is zero. As a result, the new penalty can lead to the desired
sparsity pattern, i.e., at least one zero in t(I)
n , ∀n. In the rest of this section, we aim to solve the
above leader selection based beamforming design problem.
B. Beamforming Design to Problem (15)
The new penalty in problem (15) enables us to bypass the complicated cardinality constraints
of t(I)
n ’s in problem (14). However, problem (15) is a non-convex problem and it is thus difficult
to find its globally optimal solution. On one hand, the penalty in the objective function is nonconvex. On the other hand, the SINR constraints given in (14b) are also non-convex. In the
following, we propose an algorithm based on the successive convex approximation technique
that always yields a locally optimal solution to problem (15).
First, we provide a convex upper bound to the objective function of problem (15).
qQ
PN
(I)
Kn (I)
Kn
Proposition 1: The function n=1 βn
k=1 tk,n is concave over tk,n > 0’s. As a result, its
(I)

first-order approximation at any given point t̂n
v
u Kn
N
N
X
X KuY
βn
(I)
(I)
(I)
n
t
t̂k,n +
f ({tk,n , t̂k,n }) =
βn
Kn
n=1
n=1
k=1

serves as its upper bound.

(I)

(I)

= [t̂1,n , · · · , t̂Kn ,n ]T , ∀n:
v
"
#
u Kn
uY (I)
1
1
(I)
Kt
n
t̂k,n (I) , · · · , (I)
(t(I)
n − t̂n ), (16)
t̂1,n
t̂Kn ,n
k=1

Proof: Please refer to Appendix A.
1

In this paper, we set the penalty weight as βn = 2Kn , ∀n, i.e., a higher penalty is introduced to the groups with more users

since a leader in such groups can help more users in the second phase.

14

Next, we deal with the non-convex SINR constraints (14b). Well-known methods to deal with
the multicasting SINR constraints include semidefinite relaxation (SDR) [30] and successive
convex approximation [31]. Recently, it is shown in [32] that the successive convex approximation
based algorithm in general achieves better performance in multicasting than the SDR-based
algorithm when the number of antennas at the BS and the number of devices are large. As a
result, in this paper, we adopt the successive convex approximation technique to deal with the
non-convex SINR constraints (14b). First, the SINR constraints (14b) can be re-formulated as
(I)

|hTk,n w n |2
(I)
γ̄n

(I) (I)

+ Ik,n tk,n ≥
(I)

X
j6=n

(I)

(I)

|hTk,n wj |2 + Ik,n ,

∀k, ∀n.

(17)

The main issue is that |hTk,n w n |2 is a convex function, rather than a concave function, over
(I)

(I)

w n . We use the first-order approximation to provide concave upper bounds to |hTk,n w n |2 ’s as
in [31]. Specifically, define
ak,n = R(hTk,n w (I)
n ),
bk,n = I(hTk,n w (I)
n ),

∀k, ∀n,

(18)

∀k, ∀n.

(19)

(I)

Then we have |hTk,n w n |2 = a2k,n + b2k,n , ∀k, n. Given any point ŵ(I)
n ’s satisfying the transmit
power constraint (2), we can define âk,n ’s and b̂k,n ’s as (18) and (19). Then, the first-order
(I)

approximation to |hTk,n wn |2 at this particular point is given by

 

a
â
k,n
 −  k,n  , ∀k, ∀n. (20)
gk,n (ak,n , bk,n , âk,n , b̂k,n ) = â2k,n + b̂2k,n + 2[âk,n , b̂k,n ] 
bk,n
b̂k,n

To summarize, by introducing the auxiliary variables ak,n ’s and bk,n ’s, given any point ŵ(I)
n ’s,
we can use the following convex constraints to approximate the non-convex constraints (17):
X
gk,n (ak,n , bk,n , âk,n , b̂k,n )
(I) (I)
(I)
(I)
+
I
t
≥
|hTk,n wj |2 + Ik,n , ∀k, ∀n.
(21)
k,n k,n
(I)
γ̄n
j6=n
(I)

With the above approximations, given any fixed point t̂n ’s and ŵ (I)
n ’s, we can solve the
following convex problem:
minimize
(I) (I)
{w n ,tn ,an ,bn }
subject to

N
X

(I)

(I)

|t(I)
n |1 + f ({tk,n , t̂k,n })

(22a)

(18), (19), (21), (14d), (14e),

(22b)

n=1

(I)

(I)

where an = [a1,n , · · · , aKn ,n ]T , bn = [b1,n , · · · , bKn ,1 ]T , ∀n, and f ({tk,n , t̂k,n }) is as given in (16).
Since problem (22) is a convex problem, it can be globally solved by CVX [33]. The successive

15

Algorithm 1 Proposed Algorithm for Solving Problem (15)
(I)

Initialization: Set the initial values for t̂n ’s and ŵ(I)
n ’s and set l = 1;
Repeat:
(I,l)

(l)

1) Find the optimal solution to problem (22) using CVX as {wn , tn(I,l) , an , bn(l) };
(I,l)

2) Update ŵ (I)
n = wn

(I)

(l)

(thus ân = an and b̂n = bn(l) ), t̂n = tn(I,l) , ∀n;

3) l = l + 1.
Until convergence

convex approximation method based algorithm to solve the leader selection based beamforming
(I)

problem, i.e., problem (15), proceeds by iteratively updating t̂n ’s and ŵ(I)
n ’s (thus ân ’s and b̂n ’s)
based on the solution to problem (22). The proposed algorithm is summarized in Algorithm 1.
The convergence behaviour of Algorithm 1 is guaranteed in the following proposition.
Proposition 2: Monotonic convergence of Algorithm 1 is guaranteed, i.e.,
v
v
u Kn
u Kn
N
N
N
N
uY (I,l)
X
uY (I,l+1) X
X
X
K
K
n
n
tk,n ≤
|tn(I,l) |1 +
βn t
tk,n ,
βn t
|tn(I,l+1) |1 +
n=1

n=1

k=1

n=1

n=1

k=1

where l denotes the index of iteration of Algorithm 1. Moreover, the converged solution satisfies
all the constraints as well as the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions of problem (15).
Proof: Please refer to Appendix B.
Toward this end, the leader selection based beamforming design for solving problem (12) to
maximize the total number of active users under the proposed two-phase transmission scheme
in Section III and achieve ultra-reliable communication as defined in Definition 2 is summarized
(I)

(I)

as follows. First, we solve problem (15) via Algorithm 1 and use w n ’s to calculate φk,n ’s based
(II)

on (6). Then, we calculate φk,n ’s based on (11). At last, we can claim reliable communications
P
PN
(I)
(II)
if N
n=1 |Φn | +
n=1 |Φn | = K.
V. B ENCHMARK S CHEMES

FOR

U LTRA -R ELIABLE C OMMUNICATIONS

In this section, we briefly introduce some other potential approaches for ultra-reliable communications as benchmark schemes. Simulation comparisons are provided in Section VI to show
the performance gain of our proposed scheme over the benchmark schemes.

16

A. Benchmark Scheme 1: Our Proposed Scheme but without Leader Selection
First, to illustrate the importance of leader selection in our proposed two-phase transmission
scheme, in the following we consider one benchmark scheme in which the number of leaders
is maximized in Phase I without encouraging at least one leader for each group. In this case,
problem (15) reduces to
minimize
(I) (I)
{w n ,tn }

N
X
n=1

|t(I)
n |0

subject to (14b), (14d), (14e).

(23a)
(23b)

In other words, the penalty for encouraging at least one leader in each group is removed. Problem
(23) can be solved similarly to problem (15).
As a remark, the strategy that maximizes the total number of leaders in Phase I is expected to
activate more users in the cell-center groups that close to the BS, because they have strong direct
channels and suffer little from the inter-cell interference. As a result, it is expected that with the
beamforming solution to problem (23), there are many leaders in each of the cell-center groups,
while there is no leader in the cell-edge groups. Our proposed scheme tries to activate at least
one leader in each group by solving problem (15), which promotes fairness among difference
groups in Phase I and thus makes the best use of the D2D network in Phase II, as later verified
by numerical results in Section VI.
B. Benchmark Scheme 2: Occupy CoW Protocol [24]
Occupy CoW protocol is first proposed in [24] for achieving ultra-reliable communications in
a similar setup to this paper. Specifically, Occupy CoW protocol is also a two-phase transmission
protocol where user messages are transmitted from the BS to the users in the first phase and the
successful users help relay the messages to the other users via the D2D network in the second
phase. The main difference of Occupy CoW protocol to our proposed protocol lies in the fact
that all the users form one group, rather than N groups based on their geographic locations. As a
S
result, in the first phase, the BS combines all users’ messages together, i.e., Ω = k,n Ωk,n , and
multicasts this entire message to all the users, while in the second phase, the successful users in

Phase I can help all the unsuccessful users via the D2D network. Note that [24] only considers
the case that the BS has one single antenna. To make a fair comparison, in the following we

17

briefly introduce how to design the beamforming under the Occupy CoW protocol if the BS has
multiple antennas.
Let s ∼ CN (0, 1) denote the entire message intended for all the users. The received signal at
each user in the first phase is expressed as
(I)

(I)

yk,n = hTk,n w (I) s + zk,n ,

∀k, n,

(24)

where w (I) ∈ CM ×1 denotes the multicast beamforming at the BS in Phase I. The corresponding
SINR to decode s is
(I)

γk,n =

|hTk,n w (I) |2
(I)

Ik,n

∀k, n.

,

Similar to (5) in Section III, to decode a message of

(25)

PN PKn
n=1

k=1

Dk,n bits using Bτ1 symbols,

the identical minimum SINR requirement for all the users is expressed as:
N K
n
P
P

γ̄

(I)

=2

n=1 k=1
Bτ1

Dk,n

− 1.

(26)

The indicator function of each user in Phase I then depends on whether its SINR satisfies this
common SINR target or not, i.e.,
(I)

φk,n


 1, if γ (I) ≥ γ̄ (I) ,
k,n
=
 0, if γ (I) < γ̄ (I) .
k,n

(27)

The users that decode the messages successfully in the first phase can then relay the messages
to the other users in the second phase. Similar to Section III-B, each leader only needs to relay
S S
PN P
the message n k∈Θ
/ n Ωk,n with
n=1
k ∈Θ
/ n Dk,n bits information to the other users, where
Θn denotes the set of leaders located in group n. The minimum SINR requirement to send the
above message using Bτ2 symbols is
N
P

γ̄

(II)

=2

P

n=1 k∈Θ
/ n
Bτ2

Dk,n

− 1.

(28)

The key to achieve ultra-reliable communications for the Occupy CoW protocol is the assumption that full diversity gain can be achieved in the second phase even though there is no
cooperation between the BS and leaders. Specifically, [24] assumes that if the kth user in group
n does not decode the messages in Phase I, based on some space-time coding technique, its
SINR achieved from the second phase transmission is
(II)

γk,n =

(i,j)

(I)

max γk,n , if φk,n = 0,

(i,j)6=(k,n)

(29)

18

where
(I)

(i,j)
γk,n

=

φi,j P |hk,n,i,j |2
(II)

Ik,n

,

∀(i, j) 6= (k, n),

(30)

denotes the individual SINRs of the orthogonal signals from the ith user in group j. Depending
on whether its SINR in Phase II satisfies the SINR target or not, the indicator functions of the
unsuccessful users in Phase I are defined as

 1, if γ (II) < γ̄ (II) and γ (II) ≥ γ̄ (II) ,
(II)
k,n
k,n
φk,n =
 0, otherwise.

(31)

Under the Occupy Cow protocol, the objective of designing the beamforming vectors w (I) is

to maximize the total number of successful users in Phase I such that more leaders can help
relay the messages in Phase II, i.e.,
minimize
(I)
{w (I) ,tn }

N
X
n=1
(I)

|t(I)
n |0

(32a)

(I)

(32b)

subject to γk,n + tk,n ≥ γ̄ (I) , ∀k, n,
(I)

tk,n ≥ 0, ∀k, n,

(32c)

kw (I) k2 ≤ PBS .

(32d)

Similar to Algorithm 1, we can use sparse optimization and successive convex approximation
techniques to solve problem (32), and then determine whether ultra-reliable communication is
established under the Occupy CoW protocol, i.e., whether all the users receive their messages
over τ second.
Note that in [24], all the users’ channels are assumed to have the same distribution since
the locations of the users are not considered in the channel model. This paper shows that if in
practice the effect of user locations on user channels is considered, we should group the users
in close proximity together since the gain of D2D network in Phase II mainly comes from the
adjacent users. Note that in Phase I, user grouping leads to multi-group multicast, instead of
single-group multicast under the Occupy CoW protocol in [24]. If there is only one antenna at
the BS, Occupy CoW is more powerful since there is no inter-group interference in Phase I if
the BS does not separate users into groups in the spatial domain. If the BS is equipped with
multiple antennas, however, our proposed scheme in Section III works better since the BS can
adjust N beams in Phase I and utilize the spatial multiplexing gain to activate one leader in each

19

group as long as M > N. Note that for Occupy CoW, the BS only designs one beam in Phase
I to satisfy the SINR targets of all the users, which is hard. The increased degree of freedom,
i.e., optimization of N beams rather than one beam, ensures that our proposed scheme is much
powerful than Occupy CoW, as later verified by numerical results in Section VI.
C. Benchmark Scheme 3: Modified Occupy CoW Protocol with Leader Selection
Leader selection introduced in Section IV can be applied in Occupy CoW as well. In the first
phase, although all users’ messages are combined together, we can design w (I) to activate at
least one leader in each geographical group. The considered problem is thus formulated as
v
u Kn
N
N
uY (I)
X
X
Kt
n
tk,n
(33a)
|t(I)
|
+
β
minimize
0
n
n
(I)
(I)
{w ,tn } n=1
n=1
k=1
subject to (32b), (32c), (32d).

(33b)

This problem can be solved similarly as problem (15).
For Occupy CoW, combining all users’ messages together significantly increases the SINR
targets of all the users as compared to our proposed scheme and thus leads to a reduction of
the number of leaders in Phase I. In Phase II, an geographically isolated group without a leader
nevertheless cannot rely on the far away leaders in other groups. As a result, even if leader
selection is considered in Occupy CoW, its probability of reliable communications is much
lower than our proposed scheme, as later verified by numerical results in Section VI.
D. Benchmark Scheme 4: One-Phase Transmission Protocol with Broadcasting
The proposed scheme in Section III and Occupy CoW proposed in [24] both advocate a twophase transmission for achieving ultra-reliable communications by utilizing the D2D network
in the second phase. In the rest of this section, we introduce some possible approaches with
one-phase transmission where only the downlink communication from the BS to the users is
considered. First, consider the case of broadcasting. In this case, the received signal of the kth
user in group n is
yk,n = hTk,n w k,n sk,n + hTk,n

X

(i,j)6=(k,n)

w i,j si,j + zk,n ,

∀k, n,

(34)

20

where sk,n ∼ CN (0, 1) denotes the message for the kth user in group n, w k,n ∈ CM ×1 denotes
the corresponding beamforming vector, and zk,n ∼ CN (0, Ik,n ) denotes the superposition of the
AWGN and inter-group interference, with a power Ik,n . The SINR for decoding sk,n is thus
γk,n =

P

|hTk,n wk,n |2

(i,j)6=(k,n)

|hTk,n w i,j |2 + Ik,n

,

∀k, n.

(35)

Note that the minimum SINR target to deliver Dk,n bits information using Bτ symbols is:
γ̃k,n = 2

Dk,n
Bτ

− 1,

∀k, n.

(36)

Then, we can design the beamforming vectors wk,n ’s to maximize the number of users whose
SINRs satisfy their SINR targets, i.e.,
minimize
{w k,n ,tk,n }

N X
Kn
X
n=1 k=1

|tk,n |0

subject to γk,n + tk,n ≥ γ̃k,n, ∀k, n,
(I)

tk,n ≥ 0, ∀k, n,
Kn
N X
X
n=1 k=1

kw k,n k2 ≤ PBS .

(37a)
(37b)
(37c)
(37d)

Similar to [34], we can transform the SINR constraint (37b) into the following convex form:
s X
hTk,n w k,n
+ Ik,n tk,n ≥
|hTk,n w i,j |2 + Ik,n , ∀k, n.
(38)
γ̃k,n
(i,j)6=(k,n)

Then, via relaxing |tk,n |0 ’s by |tk,n |1 ’s in the objective function (37a), we can design the beamforming vectors by solving the following convex problem:
minimize

{w k,n ,tk,n }

N X
Kn
X
n=1 k=1

|tk,n |1

subject to (38), (37c), (37d).

(39a)
(39b)

At last, ultra-reliable communication via broadcasting is claimed if with the obtained beamforming vectors, all the users satisfy their SINR targets.
As a remark, for ultra-reliable communications, in general the rate requirement of each user
is very low, and thus even if we combine each group’s messages together, the SINR requirement
for each group is achievable. In this case, intuitively, with M antennas at the BS, approximately
M leaders and thus M groups with one leader in each group can be supported under our

21

proposed scheme. On the other hand, approximately M users can be supported for information
broadcasting, i.e., ultra-reliable communication is not possible if K ≫ M. With a reliable D2D
network, our proposed scheme is more reliable in the case when K ≫ M but N < M.
E. Benchmark Scheme 5: One-Phase Transmission Protocol with TDMA
Another strategy to convey Ωk,n to the kth user in group n, ∀k, n, is TDMA. Specifically,
when the kth user in group n is scheduled, the BS can implement a maximal-ratio transmission
(MRT) beamforming, and the received signal at the user is
√
pk,n h∗k,n
T
sk,n + zk,n ,
yk,n = hk,n
khk,n k

∀k, n,

(40)

where pk,n denotes the power to transmit the message Ωk,n . The corresponding SINR at the user
is
γk,n =

pk,n khk,n k2
,
Ik,n

∀k, n.

(41)

Note that with TDMA, Dk,n bits information needs to be transmitted to the kth user in group
n with only Bτ /K symbols. The corresponding minimum SINR target for each user is:
γ̂k,n = 2

KDk,n
Bτ

− 1,

∀k, n.

(42)

Then, the transmit power to satisfy each user’s SINR target is
p∗k,n =

γ̂k,n Ik,n
,
khk,n k2

∀k, n.

(43)

At last, if the total transmit power at the BS satisfies the transmit power constraint, i.e.,
Kn
N X
X
n=1 k=1

p∗k,n ≤ PBS ,

(44)

then all the users can be supported via TDMA, and thus ultra-reliable communication can be
claimed.
In a massive connectivity scenario, the number of users, i.e., K, can be very large. If each
user is only allocated to τ /K second for information transmission, the resulting SINR target as
shown in (42) is quite high. As a result, as later shown in Section VI, TDMA cannot achieve
reliable communications in general.

22

base station (controller)
one group devices (actuators)
one cell (factory)

Fig. 2. The cellular-based model for industrial automation: the cell, BS, and user act as factory, controller, and actuator,
respectively, in industrial automation. In this setup, the center cell is the reference cell of interests, while the other 6 cells
generate inter-cell interference to the users in the reference cell.

F. Benchmark Scheme 6: One-Phase Transmission Protocol with Multi-Group Multicasting
Moreover, similar to the first phase in our proposed scheme, we can also apply multi-group
P n
multicasting to convey the message Ω(n) with K
k=1 Dk,n bits to all the users in group n, ∀n,
but using all the Bτ symbols in one shot. The SINR of each user is given in (4). However, since
the transmission time is doubled compared to our proposed two-phase transmission scheme, the
SINR target for each group is reduced. Specifically, the minimum SINR requirement for the
users in group n is:
γ̃n = 2

K
n
P
Dk,n
k=1
Bτ

− 1,

∀n.

(45)

At last, problem (23) in Benchmark Scheme 1 can be solved with the new SINR targets γ̃n ’s. If
one beamforming solution can be found such that all the users can decode their messages, then
ultra-reliable communication is claimed for this scheme.
However, similar to Benchmarks 4 and 5, the lack of utilization of the reliable D2D network
makes this one-phase scheme difficult to guarantee the performance of cell-edge users whose
inter-cell interference can be as strong as the desired signal from the BS.
VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, we show numerical results to verify the effectiveness of our proposed two-phase
transmission protocol in Sections III and IV for ultra-reliable communications as compared to
other benchmark schemes introduced in Section V.

23

The simulation setup is as follows. As shown in Fig. 2, we consider a network consisting
of 7 cells in a wrapped around topology, in which the center cell is the reference cell the
performance of which we are interested in, and the other 6 adjacent cells generate inter-cell
interference to the users in the reference cell.2 This cellular-based topology is a proper model
for industrial automation: each cell, BS, and device can be viewed as the factory, controller, and
actuator, respectively, in which each factory consists of several groups actuators. As a result, the
simulation results shown in this section are valid in an industrial automation topology.
In the simulation, the cell radius is 500m. It is assumed that there are N = 6 groups in the
reference cell, while each group consists of 4 users, i.e, K = 48. The center of each group is
randomly located in a doughnut of inner radius 250m and outer radius 350m. Moreover, each
group covers an area with a radius of 20m, and its users are randomly located in the area
covered by this group. The BS is assumed to be equipped with M = 8 antennas. The downlink
channel from the BS to the kth user in group n is modeled as hk,n = ηk,n g k,n , where ηk,n
denotes the path-loss component, and g k,n ∼ CN (0, I) denotes the Rayleigh fading component.
Moreover, the path-loss component is modeled as −128.1 − 36.7 log10 (dk,n ) in dB, where dk,n
in km denotes the distance from the kth user in group n to the BS. For the communications
between the users over the D2D network, if two users are in the same group, we model their
channel as Rician fading; otherwise, we model their channel as Rayleigh fading. Specifically,
the channel from the ith user in group n to the kth user in the same group is modeled as
p
p
hk,n,i,n = ηk,n,i,n( δ/(δ + 1)ĝk,n,i,n + 1/(δ + 1)g̃k,n,i,n), where ηk,n,i,n denotes the path-loss

component, ĝk,n,i,n with |ĝk,n,i,n|2 = 1 denotes the line-of-sight (LOS) deterministic component,
g̃k,n,i,n ∼ CN (0, 1) denotes the Rayleigh fading component, and δ denotes the Rician factor
specifying the power ratio between the LOS and fading component. In this paper, we set δ = 4
and characterize the path-loss component as −76.8 − 18.7 log10 (dk,n,i,n) in dB according to
the indoor channel model in [35], where dk,n,i,n denotes the distance between the two users.
Moreover, the channel from the ith user in group j to the kth user in another group n is
modeled as hk,n,i,j = ηk,n,i,j gk,n,i,j , where the path-loss component is modeled as −128.1 −
36.7 log10 (dk,n,i,j ) in dB, and gk,n,i,j ∼ CN (0, 1) denotes the Rayleigh fading component. The
2

In our simulation, for each channel realization, we first randomly generate the other 6 cells’ beamformers. Then, we calculate

the inter-cell interference for the reference cell and design its beamforming accordingly as shown in Section IV. In other words,
only the reliability of the reference cell is considered for convenience.

24

channel coherence bandwidth is assumed to be B = 100kHz for both the downlink channels
hk,n ’s and D2D channels hk,n,i,j ’s. The delay requirement for the communication is τ = 1ms.
As a result, there are totally Bτ = 100 symbols available to deliver the messages Ωk,n ’s to each
user. Moreover, we set τ1 = 0.75ms in Phase I and τ2 = 0.25ms in Phase II. The transmit power
constraint at the BS is PBS = 43dBm, and at the user is P = 23dBm. The power spectral density
of the AWGN at the users is assumed to be −169dBm/Hz. For convenience, it is assumed that all
the users require the same amount of information bits, i.e., Dk,n = D, ∀k, n. In the simulation,
we generate 10, 000 channel realizations and for each realization, we measure whether all the
users decode their messages within τ = 1ms for each investigated scheme. The probability of
reliable communications for each scheme is then defined as the ratio between the numbers of
reliable communications and channel realizations, i.e., 10, 000.
A. Performance Comparison between Proposed Scheme and Benchmark Schemes when D = 22
In this numerical example, we assume that each user requires 22 bits messages, i.e., D = 22.
The probabilities of reliable communications and averaged numbers of users that decode their
messages successfully achieved by our proposed scheme and Benchmark Schemes 1 – 6 are given
in Tables I and II, respectively. It is observed that our proposed scheme can achieve a probability
of reliable communications above 99.99% (no outage is observed in 10, 000 channel realizations)
in this setup, which is much higher than the benchmark schemes. Specifically, if leader selection
is not considered in our proposed scheme, i.e., Benchmark Scheme 1, the probability of reliable
communications is 0, although the averaged number of successful users is 32.241. It is worth
noting that under our proposed scheme with leader selection, all the 8 groups possess at least
one leader after Phase I in all the 10, 000 channel realizations, while under Benchmark Scheme
1 without leader selection, on average only 4.192 groups have at least one leader. This verifies
the effectiveness of the leader selection based beamforming design in our proposed scheme.
Moreover, for Occupy Cow protocol, no user can decode the message for both the cases without
and with leader selection, i.e., Benchmark Schemes 2 and 3, since the SINR requirement for
multicasting KD = 1056 bits to the users using τ1 B = 75 symbols is 42.38dB. At last, for
the one-phase transmission scheme, information broadcasting, i.e., Benchmark Scheme 4, can
achieve reliable communications with a probability of 11.60%, while the probabilities of reliable
communications achieved by TDMA and information multicasting, i.e., Benchmark Schemes 5
and 6, are both zero.

25

TABLE I
P ROBABILITY OF

RELIABLE COMMUNICATIONS WHEN

Proposed Scheme

> 99.99%

Benchmark Scheme 1

0

Benchmark Scheme 2

0

Benchmark Scheme 3

0

Benchmark Scheme 4

11.60%

Benchmark Scheme 5

0

Benchmark Scheme 6

0

D = 22 BITS

TABLE II
AVERAGED TOTAL NUMBER OF USERS THAT DECODE THEIR MESSAGES SUCCESSFULLY WHEN D = 22 BITS

Proposed Scheme

48.000

Benchmark Scheme 1

32.241

Benchmark Scheme 2

0

Benchmark Scheme 3

0

Benchmark Scheme 4

45.096

Benchmark Scheme 5

0.014

Benchmark Scheme 6

11.548

B. How Many Bits can Be Transmitted Ultra-Reliably
In this example, we study the effect of transmission rate, which is determined by D given the
delay requirement 1ms and channel coherence bandwidth 100kHz, on the probability of reliable
communications. This result is useful in practice since it indicates how much information can
be reliably sent to all the users under each scheme.
Fig. 3 shows the probabilities of reliable communications achieved by different schemes versus
various values of D. Under our proposed scheme, when D ≤ 24 bits, outage is not observed in
the 10, 000 channel realizations, while when D = 26, 28 bits, 51 and 509 outages are observed
in the 10, 000 channel realizations, respectively. As a result, if the reliability requirement of the
communications is 99.99%, i.e., no more than 1 outages in 10, 000 channel realizations, then
we can transmit at most D = 24 bits to each user in this setup. Moreover, it is also observed
that when D ≤ 18 bits, reliable communications can be achieved by information broadcasting

26

Probability of Reliable Communications

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

Proposed Scheme
Benchmark Scheme 1
Benchmark Scheme 2
Benchmark Scheme 3
Benchmark Scheme 4
Benchmark Scheme 5
Benchmark Scheme 6

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

D (bits)

Fig. 3. Probabilities of reliable communications versus various values of D under different schemes.

as well. However, Occupy CoW Protocol cannot achieve reliable communications even when
D = 12 bits. This is because when D = 12 bits, the minimum SINR requirement for multicasting
KD = 576 bits to the users using τ1 B = 75 symbols is 23.10dB, which is too high to be achieved.
In [24], it is shown that if the BS has one antenna, i.e., M = 1, many users’ channels from
the BS can suffer from deep fading at any time, and the two-phase Occupy Cow protocol is
able to combat the fading and enhance the system reliability by increasing the diversity order in
the second phase, if the rate requirement of each user is extremely small such that a sufficient
number of users can decode the message in the first phase. However, if the BS has multiple
antennas, the multiplexing gain can be exploited to mitigate the effect of channel fading. In
other words, via a proper beamforming design at the BS, information broadcasting can achieve
reliable communications even when the user rate is moderate. In such a case, combining all
users’ messages together can result in an infeasible multicasting SINR requirement. Instead, we
should group the users based on their geometric locations and merely combine each group’s
messages together, as our proposed scheme.
VII. C ONCLUSION
This paper proposes a novel two-phase transmission protocol to fully exploit the reliable
D2D networks for URLLC. Under the proposed protocol, each group’s messages are combined
together and multicast to the leaders from the BS in the first phase, while the leaders relay the
messages to the other users in their groups in the second phase. Since the D2D networks are
reliable due to the strong channels between the users in the same group, the challenge of our

27

protocol is to select at least one leader for each group in the first phase via a proper beamforming
design at the BS. Utilizing the sparse optimization technique, this paper proposes an efficient
algorithm that jointly optimizes the beamforming at the BS and leader selection in each group.
Simulation results show that the proposed algorithm results in a fair leader assignment among
groups in the first phase, thus leading to reliable communications in all the groups in the second
phase. Performance comparison to other existing schemes for URLLC is provided to show the
effectiveness of the proposed protocol with the leader selection based beamforming design.
A PPENDIX
A. Proof of Proposition 1
In this appendix, we show that the geometric mean f (x1 , · · · , xN ) =

qQ
N

N
n=1

xn is a concave

function over xn ’s when xn > 0, ∀n. It can be shown that the second-order derivative of
qQ
f (x1 , · · · , xN ) = N N
n=1 xn is
s
N
Q
(N − 1) N
xn
n=1
∂ 2 f (x1 , · · · , xN )
=−
,
(46)
∂x2n
N 2 x2n
s
N
Q
N
xn
n=1
∂ 2 f (x1 , · · · , xN )
= 2
, if n 6= m.
(47)
∂xn xm
N xn xm
Define ∇2 f (x1 , · · · , xN ) as the Hessian of f (x1 , · · · , xN ), the diagonal and off-diagonal elements
of which are given in (46) and (47), respectively. Then, given any vector y = [y1 , · · · , yN ]T ∈

RN ×1 , it can be shown that

s
N

y T ∇2 f (x1 , · · · , xN )y = −

N
Q

xn  N
X y2
n
N
−
2
N
x2
n=1 n
n=1

N
X
yn
x
n=1 n

!2 
 ≤ 0.

(48)

As a result, the Hessian of f (x1 , · · · , xN ) is negative-semidefinite, and thus f (x1 , · · · , xN ) is a
concave function. Proposition 1 is thus proved.
B. Proof of Proposition 2
First, it can be shown that in the lth iteration of Algorithm 1, the solution obtained in the
(I,l−1)

(l−1)

(l − 1)th iteration is also feasible to problem (22) given ŵ(I)
(thus ân = an
n = wn
P
(I)
(I,l−1) (I,l−1)
N
and b̂n = bn(l−1) ) and t̂n = tn(I,l−1) , ∀n. In other words, n=1 |tn(I,l−1) |1 + f ({tk,n , t̂k,n }) is

28

achievable to problem (22) in the lth iteration. As a result, the optimal objective value of problem
(I,l−1)

(22) in the lth iteration is no larger than that achieved by the solution w n
’s and tn(I,l−1) ’s,
P
P
(I,l−1) (I,l−1)
(I,l) (I,l−1)
(I,l)
|tn(I,l−1) |1 + f ({tk,n , t̂k,n }). It is worth noting
}) ≤ N
i.e., N
n=1
n=1 |tn |1 + f ({tk,n , t̂k,n
qQ
P
(I,l−1) (I,l−1)
Kn (I,l−1)
Kn
according to (16). It is also worth noting
that f ({tk,n , t̂k,n }) = N
β
k=1 tk,n
n=1 n
q
Q
PN
Kn (I)
Kn
that since
k=1 tk,n is a concave function according to Proposition 1, we have
n=1 βn
qQ
P
(I,l) (I,l−1)
Kn (I,l)
Kn
β
f ({tk,n , t̂k,n }) ≥ N
n=1 n
k=1 tk,n . To summarize, it follows that
N
X
n=1

|tn(I,l) |1 +
≤

N
X
n=1

N
X
n=1

v
u Kn
N
uY (I,l) X
(I,l) (I,l−1)
Kt
tk,n ≤
|tn(I,l) |1 + f ({tk,n , t̂k,n })
βn n
n=1

k=1

(I,l−1)

|tn(I,l−1) |1 + f ({tk,n

(I,l−1)

, t̂k,n

}) =

N
X
n=1

|tn(I,l−1) |1 +

Monotonic convergence of Algorithm 1 is thus proved.

N
X
n=1

v
u Kn
uY (I,l−1)
Kt
βn n
tk,n . (49)
k=1

Next, since in Algorithm 1 we use lower-bound to approximate the non-concave functions in
problem (15), as shown in (18), (19), and (21), any feasible solution to problem (22) satisfies
all the constraints of problem (15).
Last, according to [36, Theorem 1], the solution obtained by the successive convex approximation based Algorithm 1 must satisfy the KKT conditions of problem (15).
R EFERENCES
[1] 3GPP TR 138 913, “5G: Study on scenarios and requirements for next generation access technologies (Release 14)”.
[2] T. L. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas,“ IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3590-3660, Nov. 2010.
[3] E. G. Larsson, F. Tufvesson, O. Edfors, and T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186-195, Feb. 2014.
[4] W. Roh et al., “Millimeter-wave beamforming as an enabling technology for 5G cellular communications: Theoretical
feasibility and prototype results,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 106-113, Feb. 2014.
[5] O. Simeone, A. Maeder, M. Peng, O. Sahin, and W. Yu, “Cloud radio access network: Virtualizing wireless access for dense
heterogeneous systems,” J. Commun. and Networks, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 135-149, Apr. 2016.
[6] L. Liu and W. Yu, “Massive connectivity with massive MIMO-Part I: Device activity detection and channel estimation,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2017, submitted. [Online] Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06438.
[7] L. Liu and W. Yu, “Massive connectivity with massive MIMO-Part II: Achievable Rate Characterization,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., 2017, submitted. [Online] Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06433.
[8] E. Björnson, E. de Carvalho, J. H. Sørensen, E. G. Larsson, and P. Popovski, “A random access protocol for pilot allocation
in crowded massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 2220-2234, Apr. 2017.
[9] A. A. Kumar Somappa, K. Øvsthus, and L. M. Kristensen, “An industrial perspective on wireless sensor networks-A survey
of requirements, protocols, and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1391-1412, 3rd Quart., 2014.

29

[10] A. Frotzscher, U. Wetzker, M. Bauer, M. Rentschler, M. Beyer, S. Elspass, H. Klessig, “Requirements and current solutions
of wireless communication in industrial automation,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop on 5G Technol. (5GWS’14), 2014.
[11] A. Varghese and D. Tandur, “Wireless requirements and challenges in industry 4.0,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Comtemporary
Comput. Informat., Nov. 2015, pp. 634-638.
[12] Q. Wang and J. Jiang, “Comparative examination on architecture and protocol of industrial wireless sensor network
standards,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 2197-2219, 3rd Quart., 2016.
[13] C. Lu, A. Saifullah, B. Li, M. Sha, H. Gonzalez, D. Gunatilaka, C. Wu, L. Nie, and Y. Chen, “Real-time wireless sensoractuator networks for industrial cyber-physical systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 1013-1024, May
2016.
[14] E. Karipidis, N. D. Sidiropoulos, and Z. Q. Luo, “Quality of service and max-min fair transmit beamforming to multiple
cochannel multicast groups,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 1268-1279, Mar. 2008.
[15] J. Liu, N. Kato, J. Ma, and N. Kadowaki, “Device-to-device communication in LTE-advanced networks: A survey,” IEEE
Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1923-1940, 4th Quart., 2015.
[16] P. Popovski, “Ultra-reliable communication in 5G wireless systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. 5G for Ubiquitous
Connectivity (5GU), Nov. 2014, pp. 146-151.
[17] G. Durisi, T. Koch, and P. Popovski, “Toward massive, ultrareliable, and low-latency wireless communication with short
packets,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 1711-1726, Sep. 2016.
[18] N. A. Johansson, Y.-P. E. Wang, E. Eriksson, and M. Hessler, “Radio access for ultra-reliable and low-latency 5G
communications,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), London, UK., Jun. 2015, pp. 1184-1189.
[19] H. Shariatmadari, S. Iraji, and R. Jantti, “Analysis of transmission methods for ultra-reliable communications,” in Proc.
IEEE Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2015, Hong Kong, China, pp. 1126-1131.
[20] D. Ohmann, M. Simsek, and G. Fettweis, “Achieving high availability in wireless networks by an optimal number of
Rayleigh-fading links,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom Workshops, Dec. 2014, Austin, USA, pp. 1402-1407.
[21] N. Brahmi, O. N. C. Yilmaz, K.W. Helmersson, S. A. Ashraf, J. Torsner, “Deployment strategies for ultra-reliable and
low-latency communication in factory automation,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom Workshops, San Diego, USA, Dec. 2015.
[22] H. Shariatmadari, Z. Li, M. A. Uusitalo, S. Iraji, and R. Jäntti, “Link adaptation design for ultra-reliable communications,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2016.
[23] O. N. C. Yilmaz, Y.-P. E. Wang, N. A. Johansson, N. Brahmi, S. A. Ashraf, and J. Sachs, “Analysis of ultra-reliable and
low-latency 5G communication for a factory automation use case,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC) Workshop,
London, UK., Jun. 2015, pp. 1190-1195.
[24] V. N. Swamy et al., “Cooperative communication for high-reliability lowlatency wireless control,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Commun. (ICC), London, UK, Jun. 2015.
[25] I. Mitliagkas, N. D. Sidiropoulos, and A. Swami, “Joint power and admission control for ad-hoc and cognitive underlay
networks: Convex approximation and distributed implementation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 12, pp.
4110-4121, Dec. 2011.
[26] Y.-F. Liu, Y.-H. Dai, and Z.-Q. Luo, “Joint power and admission control via linear programming deflation,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1327-1338, Mar. 2013.
[27] G. J. Foschini and Z. Miljanic, “A simple distributed autonomous power control algorithm and its convergence,” IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 641-646, Nov. 1993.
[28] Y. Polyanskiy, H. V. Poor, and S. Verdú, “Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307-2359, May 2010.

30

[29] W. Yang, G. Durisi, T. Koch, and Y. Polyanskiy, “Quasi-static multipleantenna fading channels at finite blocklength,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 4232-4265, Jun. 2014.
[30] N. D. Sidiropoulos, T. N. Davidson, and Z.-Q. Luo, “Transmit beamforming for physical-layer multicasting,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 2239-2251, Jun. 2006.
[31] L. N. Tran, M. F. Hanif, and M. Juntti, “A conic quadratic programming approach to physical layer multicasting for
large-scale antenna arrays,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 114-117, Jan. 2014.
[32] C. Lu and Y.-F. Liu, “An efficient global algorithm for single-group multicast beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 65, no. 14, pp. 3761-3774, July 2017.
[33] M. Grant and S. Boyd, CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 1.21, http://cvxr.com/cvx/ Apr.
2011.
[34] A. Wiesel, Y. C. Eldar, and S. Shamai, “Linear precoding via conic optimization for fixed MIMO receivers,” IEEE Trans.
on Signal Process., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 161-176, January 2006.
[35] IST-4-027756 WINNER II D1.1.2 V1.2 WINNER II Channel Models, 2008.
[36] B. R. Marks and G. P. Wright, “A general inner approximation algorithm for nonconvex mathematical programs,” Operations
Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 681-683, 1978.

