1

Ultra-Reliable Short-Packet Communications:
Half-Duplex or Full-Duplex Relaying?

arXiv:1711.08199v1 [cs.IT] 22 Nov 2017

Yifan Gu, He Chen, Yonghui Li and Branka Vucetic

Abstract—This letter analyzes and compares the performance
of full-duplex relaying (FDR) and half-duplex relaying (HDR)
for ultra-reliable short-packet communications. Specifically, we
derive both approximate and asymptotic closed-form expressions
of the block error rate (BLER) for FDR and HDR using short
packets with finite blocklength codes. We define and attain a
closed-form expression of a critical BLER, which can be used to
efficiently determine the optimal duplex mode for ultra-reliable
low latency communication scenarios. Our results unveil that
FDR is more appealing to the system with relatively lower
transmit power constraint, less stringent BLER requirement and
stronger loop interference suppression.
Index Terms—Ultra-reliable, low latency, short-packet communication, finite blocklength, full-duplex relay.

I. I NTRODUCTION
In conventional wireless systems, extremely long packet has
been used in coding and transmission. However, to support
ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) as a new
service type of 5G cellular systems [1], short-packet transmissions are essential. In this case, errors cannot be reduced to
arbitrarily low for a given coding rate due to the limited packet
size. Motivated by this, [2] developed a new fundamental
framework for short-packet communications and derived an
error probability bound for a given blocklength and coding
rate. It was shown that the block error rate (BLER) increases as
the blocklength of the system decreases. This new theoretical
framework opens a new research direction for the revisit of
conventional communication networks, which were mainly
designed based on the Shannon formula and thus cannot be
directly applied to short-packet communications.
References [3], [4] investigated a classical three node cooperative network under finite blocklenth regime with static
and quasi-static channel conditions. It was shown that there
exists a performance tradeoff between cooperative and noncooperative communications: On the one hand, a relay can
boost the power gains of both hops and thus improve the
system performance; on the other hand, it can degrade the
system performance by halving the blocklength of each packet
transmission. However, only half-duplex relaying (HDR) was
considered in [3], [4]. To the best knowledge of the authors,
the performance of full-duplex relaying (FDR) under the finite
blocklength regime has not been studied so far in open literature. Compared to HDR, FDR has a great potential to improve
the system performance since it has a longer blocklength
for each packet transmission, which is twice longer as that
of HDR. On the other side, FDR suffers from additional
interference caused by receiving and transmitting information
at the same time, degrading the system performance [5], [6].
Y. Gu, H. Chen, Y. Li and B. Vucetic are with School of Electrical
and Information Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
2006, Australia (email: yifan.gu@sydney.edu.au, he.chen@sydney.edu.au,
yonghui.li@sydney.edu.au, branka.vucetic@sydney.edu.au).

It is thus essential to revisit the optimal choice between FDR
and HDR for short-packet communication scenarios.
Note that in existing studies under the Shannon theory,
errors can be avoided when the transmission rate is below the
Shannon capacity. Outage probability is thus an appropriate
performance metric to compare the performance of HDR
and FDR [5], [6]. However, when it comes to short-packet
communication scenarios, there always exists a non-zero error
probability even when the transmission rate is below Shannon
capacity. According to the seminal work given in [2], the
achievable rate in short-packet communications depends on
both the blocklength and the desired BLER. We are thus
motivated to adopt the BLER as a metric to evaluate and
compare the performance of HDR and FDR. Furthermore,
the Shannon bound considered in the existing studies only
involves a logarithm function and depends on the received
SNR. In this sense, the comparison between HDR and FDR for
conventional long-packet communications conducted in [5],
[6] thus focused only on the received SNR and coding rate.
In contrast, for the considered short-packet communications,
we need to jointly consider the received SNR, coding rate,
the blocklength and the BLER to properly compare these
two duplex modes. Moreover, the new rate bound for shortpacket communications has a more complex structure and
involves a complicated Q-function. As such, the performance
analysis and optimization requires more complex mathematical
manipulations and new approximation methods.
The main contribution of this paper is summarized as
follows. We derive approximate closed-form expressions of
average BLER for FDR and HDR under the finite blocklength
regime. In order to gain further insights, we then derive simple
asymptotic expressions of average BLER at high signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) for both systems. Based on the derived
asymptotic expressions, we optimize the transmit powers of
source and relay under individual peak power constraints and
analytically compare the optimal performance of FDR and
HDR. We obtain an expression for a critical BLER that can
be used to choose the optimal duplex mode for short-packet
communication scenarios. Simulation results are provided to
verify the correctness of our theoretical analysis.
Notation: Throughout this paper, we use fX (x) and FX (x)
to denote the probability density function (PDF) and cumulative distribution function (CDF) of a random variable X. E {·}
R∞
t2
represents the expectation operator. Q (x) = x √12π e− 2 dt
is the Q-function. Ei (x) is the exponential integral function
[7, Eq. (8.21)].
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a dual-hop relay system consisting of one
source S, one destination D and one decode-and-forward (DF)
relay R. The relay can work in either full-duplex relaying

2

(FDR) or half-duplex relaying (HDR) modes. The source
and destination are equipped with single antenna and the
relay is implemented with two isolated receive and transmit
antennas. The isolation of antennas at the relay can mitigate
the line-of-sight (LoS) component of loop interference (or
“echo interference”) caused by receiving and transmitting
information simultaneously when operating in the full-duplex
mode. However, the loop interference cannot be eliminated
completely due to multipath scattering [5], [6]. We thus
consider the existence of loop interference link R − R for
FDR (i.e., residual interference after cancellation). Besides, we
investigate a short-packet communication scenario and each
transmission block of the considered system has a length of
m channel uses (c.u.). The links S − R, R − D, and R − R
are assumed to suffer from Rayleigh fading with average
power gains ΩS,R , ΩR,D , and ΩR,R , respectively. We assume
quasi-static fading channels for which the fading coefficients
remain constant during each transmission block and change
independently from one block to another. In the following, we
give the SNRs at relay and destination for FDR and HDR.
In FDR, the source transmits information to the relay during
each whole transmission block. At the same time, the relay
forwards the received signal from source to destination. We
denote by PS the transmit power of the source and PR the
transmit power of the relay. We use NR and ND to denote the
variance of additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at R and
D, respectively. For notation simplicity, we define the average
P Ω
SNR for the considered three links as γ S,R = SNRS,R , γ R,D =
PR ΩR,R
PR ΩR,D
and γ R,R = NR . According to [5], [6], the SNRs
ND
γ̄S,R X
F
F
at R and D for FDR can be written as γR
= γ̄R,R
Y +1 , γD =
γ̄R,D Z, respectively, where X, Y and Z are exponentially
distributed random variables with unit power gain.
In HDR, each transmission block is divided into two time
slots with equal length. During the first time slot, the source
transmits information to the relay. In the second time slot,
the relay decodes and forwards the received signal to the
destination. In HDR, the loop interference at the relay is
completely avoided by receiving and transmitting information
separately. The received SNRs at R and D for the HDR system
H
H
are given by γR
= γ̄S,R X and γD
= γ̄R,D Y , respectively.
III. P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS AND C OMPARISON
In this section, we derive approximate closed-form expressions of BLER for both FDR and HDR under the finite
blocklength regime. In order to gain further insights, we
then derive asymptotic expressions for BLER at high SNR
range and compare these two systems analytically. For a fair
comparison, we assume that S transmits σ bits of information
to D over m channel uses during each packet transmission.
Note that in the following analysis of BLER, HDR and FDR
have different distributions of end-to-end SNR. Besides, the
blocklength and coding rate for each hop is different for HDR
and FDR. Specifically, the blocklength of each information
packet in FDR and HDR systems is given by mF = m channel
uses and mH = m/2 channel uses, respectively, the coding
σ
and rH = 2σ
rate for FDR and HDR is given by rF = m
m,
respectively.
A. Full-Duplex Relaying (FDR)
We first study the BLER of the FDR system. Considering a
decode-and-forward protocol implemented at the relay, errors

can occur from the following two events: relay detects an
error and relay decodes the received information correctly but
F
destination detects an error. Let εF
S,R and εR,D denote the
BLER of S − R link and R − D link of the FDR system, the
overall BLER can thus be expressed as
 F
F
(1)
εF = εF
S,R + 1 − εS,R εR,D .

F
We now evaluate the terms εF
S,R and εR,D . Specifically,
according to [8, Eq. (59)], when mF is sufficiently large (i.e.,
F
mF > 100),
!)be tightly approximated as
( the term εS,R can
F
C (γR
)−rF
q
F /m
V (γR
) F
F
received SNR γR
, C

εF
S,R ≈ E Q

, where the expectation is


F
F
over the
γR
 = log2 1 +
 γR is the

1
F
Shannon capacity and V γR
= 1−
(log2 e)2 is
2
(1+γRF )
the channel dispersion which measures the stochastic variability of the channel relative to a deterministic channel
with the same capacity [2]. It is hard to characterize εF
S,R
in a closed-form due to the complicated Q-function and
we are thus motivated
to use a linear approximation of
!
F

C (γ )−rF
F
Q q RF
≈ Ξ γR
given by [9], [10]
V (γR )/mF

F
γR
≤ ζF

 1,


√
1
F
F
Ξ (γR ) =
− θF , ζF < γR
< ξF ,
− ϑF mF γR

2


F
0,
γR
≥ ξF
(2)
1
where ϑF = √ 12r
, θF = 2rF − 1, ζF = θF − 2ϑF √
mF
2π

2

F

−1

1
F
and ξF = θF + 2ϑF √
mF . With the above approximation, εS,R
can be evaluated as
Z ∞
Z ξF
√
F
FγRF (x)dx.
εS,R ≈
Ξ (x)fγRF (x) dx = ϑF mF
0

ζF

(3)
F
With the CDF of γR
given in [5, Eq. (6)] and the integral
formula [7, Eq. (3.352-1)], the term εF
S,R can be evaluated
from (3) as


√
γ̄S,R
1
m
×
exp
εF
≈
1−ϑ
F
F
S,R
γ̄R,R
γ̄
 
 R,R

ξF
ζF
1
1
Ei −
− Ei −
.
−
−
γ̄S,R
γ̄R,R
γ̄S,R
γ̄R,R
(4)
We can also evaluate the term εF
R,D similarly. By substiF
into
(1),
the
overall
BLER for FDR system
,
ε
tuting εF
R,D
S,R
can be written in (5) on top of the next page.
B. Half-Duplex Relaying (HDR)
We now consider the HDR system and for the purpose of
brevity, we omit the details of the derivation. With a similar
method used in the previous subsection, we can attain the
overall BLER for the HDR system approximated by


ζ
ξ
− H
− H
εH ≈ 1−ϑH 2 mH γ̄S,R γ̄R,D e γ̄S,R − e γ̄S,R


(6)
ζ
ξ
− H
− H
× e γ̄R,D − e γ̄R,D ,

3

εF ≈ 1−ϑF

2

 


 




1
ξF
γ̄S,R γ̄R,D γ̄R,R
ζF
ζF
ξF
1
1
Ei −
mF
− Ei −
exp −
− exp −
.
e
−
−
γ̄R,R
γ̄S,R
γ̄R,R
γ̄S,R
γ̄R,R
γ̄R,D
γ̄R,D
(5)

2σ
where mH = m
2 is the blocklength for HDR system, rH = m
is the coding rate for HDR and the parameters ζH , ξH are
1
1
√
given by ζH = θH − 2ϑH √
mH , ξH = θH + 2ϑH mH , where
ϑH = √ 12r
and θH = 2rH − 1.
2π

2

H −1

Till now, we have derived closed-form expressions for the
BLER of both FDR and HDR, respectively. However, due
to the complicated structure of the expressions, we cannot
gain further insights in terms of the effect of various system
parameters on the system performance. We are thus motivated
to conduct asymptotic analysis by deriving simple expressions
at high SNR in the following subsections.

C. Asymptotic Performance at High SNR
At high SNR, the received SINR at R in FDR can be
γ̄S,R X
F
F
expressed as γR
≈ γ̄R,R
Y . The CDF of γR can be approximated as




Z ∞
xt
t
1
1−exp −
FγRF (x) =
dt
exp −
γ̄S,R
γ̄R,R
γ̄R,R
0


Z ∞
x
t
≈
dt
t exp −
γ̄S,R γ̄R,R 0
γ̄R,R
γ̄R,R
x,
=
γ̄S,R
(7)


xt
xt
≈ γ̄S,R
in
where we apply approximation 1 − exp − γ̄S,R
the above derivation and the last integral can be solved by
using [7, Eq. (3.351-3)]. On the other hand, the CDF of the
F (x) = 1 −
received SNR at D can be approximated as FγD


x
x
exp − γ̄R,D ≈ γ̄R,D . With the above two simplified CDFs
and the expression given in (3), the BLER for the FDR system
at high SNR can be derived as
F
F
F
F
ε∞
F = εS,R + εR,D − εS,R εR,D

≈ εF
+ εF
R,D
S,R


σ
γ̄R,R
1
≈
+
2m − 1 .
γ̄S,R
γ̄R,D

(8)

Remark 1:
We now optimize the source transmit power and relay
transmit power by assuming that they are subject to individual
peak power constraints given by PS , PR ≤ PC . Obviously,
the optimal source transmit power is given by PS∗ = PC .
Substituting PS∗ = PC into (8), taking the derivative with
respect to PR and considering the power constraint, we can
∗
obtain
optimal value
o of relay transmit power as PR =
n the q
PC ΩS,R ND
min PC , ΩR,R ΩR,D . We surprisingly find out that the
optimal values PS∗ and PR∗ at high SNR for a FDR under the
finite blocklength regime is independent of the blocklength
m. This is due to the approximation methods adopted in the
asymptotic analysis of FDR. Besides, PR∗ is proportional to
ΩS,R but inversely proportional to ΩR,D , ΩR,R .

Similarly, the BLER for a HDR system at high SNR range
can be asymptotically expressed as



2σ
ND
NR
m − 1
2
+
ε̂∞
≈
.
(9)
H
PS ΩS,R
PR ΩR,D
For individual constraints PR , PS ≤ PC , the optimal transmit powers of HDR systems are PS∗ = PR∗ = PC .
D. Performance Comparison
In the following, we analytically compare the performance
of HDR and FDR with optimal transmit powers at source
and relay for short-packet communications. Specifically, we
define δF and δH as the minimum blocklength (i.e., delay) for
the considered FDR and HDR systems under a given BLER
constraint ε, respectively. Based on the results given in (8)
and (9), the minimum delay, measured by channel uses, can
be expressed as δF = log σε +1 and δH = log 2σε +1 , where
(A )
)
2
2( B
r

min PC ,

A=

PC ΩS,R ND
ΩR,R ΩR,D

PC ΩS,R

ΩR,R

+

r ND


P Ω
ND
ΩR,D
min PC , ΩC S,R
Ω

R,R R,D


R
D
. We now define the term
+ ΩNR,D
and B = P1C ΩNS,R
∆δ = δF − δH . We then have HDR outperforms FDR when
∆δ > 0 since HDR system requires a shorter blocklength
for a common BLER constraint and vice versa. After some
manipulation, the term ∆δ can be evaluated as


A
σlog2 1 + Aε B
− Aε − 2
(10)
∆δ =
.
log2 (A + 1) log2 (B + 1)

Remark 2: From (10), we immediately have ∆δ < 0
A
− Aε − 2 < 0 since Aε > 0. Moreover,
when the term B
A
ε
B − A − 2 < 0 always holds for any given value of ε when
A < 2B. This means that when A < 2B, FDR system
always achieves shorter delay than HDR system for any BLER
requirement. We next investigate the case when A ≥ 2B. To
this end, we define a critical value of the required BLER,
denoted by ε∗ , which satisfies ∆δ = 0. We can easily attain
A
(A−2B). We can also verify that ∆δ is a
that ε∗ = B
decreasing function of ε. We thus can deduce that for any
given BLER requirement ε > ε∗ , we have ∆δ < 0 and FDR
outperforms HDR in terms of shorter delay to achieve the
same reliability. On the other hand, for any ε < ε∗ , we have
∆δ > 0 and HDR system outperforms FDR system. This
also indicates that FDR is more appealing to a system with
looser requirements on BLER. This is understandable since
FDR system suffers from loop interference, while HDR system
avoids such interference completely. The critical value ε∗ can
be expressed as
A
(A−2B) , if A ≥ 2B
.
(11)
ε∗ = B
Not Exist, Otherwise

4

PR = 0.5 PS

−1

Block Error Rate

10

−2

10

FDR, Analytical Eq. (5)
FDR, Asymptotic Eq. (8)
HDR, Analytical Eq. (6)
HDR, Asymptotic Eq. (9)
Monte Carlo Simulation

−3

10

−4

10

PR = PS
0

5

10
15
20
25
30
Source Transmit Power PS (dBm)

35

40

Fig. 1. Analytical BLER and asymptotic BLER versus PS for different PR ,
where ΩR,R = −110dB, σ = 256 bits and m = 512 channel uses.

Minimum Delay (channel uses)

PC = 30 dBm

FDR, ΩR, R = −115 dB
FDR, ΩR, R = −120 dB
FDR, ΩR, R = −125 dB
HDR
Critical BLER, Eq. (11)

3

10

PC = 50 dBm P = 40 dBm
C
2

10 −5
10

−4

10

−3

10

−2

10

BLER Constraint

Fig. 2. Minimum delay versus BLER constraint for different transmit power
constraints, where σ = 800 bits.

IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSIONS
In this section, we present some numerical results to validate our theoretical analysis performed in this letter. Unless
specified otherwise, we set the average channel power gains of
the S-R and R-D links as ΩS,R = −80dB, ΩR,D = −85dB,
respectively. The variance of AWGN suffered at R and D are
set as NR = ND = −90dBm.
We first compare the analytical expressions of average
BLER for FDR and HDR systems with the corresponding
Monte Carlo simulations in Fig. 1. We can first observe
from Fig. 1 that the derived analytical expressions match the
simulation results very well and the asymptotic expressions
approach the simulation results as source transmit power
increases. These observations validate our theoretical analysis
performed in Sec. III. Besides, we can see that HDR and FDR
systems can outperform each other depending on different
system setups, and FDR is preferable for a system with
relatively lower relay transmit power. This is because that
an increase of relay transmit power can increase the loop
interference suffered in the FDR mode. The lower the relay
transmit power, the weaker the influence of loop interference.
As the analytical results agree well with the simulation, we
will only plot the analytical values in the following figures.
We now compare the latency performance (in channel uses)
of HDR and FDR in Fig. 2 with their optimal settings. From
Fig. 2, we first observe that for the case PC = 30dBm and
ΩR,R = −120dB, FDR always outperforms HDR for any
given value of BLER requirement. This coresponds to the case
A ≤ 2B given in Remark 2 and the critical BLER does not

exist. For all other simulated cases, there exists a critical value
of BLER and the performance superiority of HDR and FDR is
reversed before and after this critical BLER. Besides, we can
see that the critical BLER increases as the power constraint
grows, and FDR is thus more suitable for a system with
relatively lower power budget. This is understandable as unlike
the HDR which uses the maximum transmit power for source
and relay to send information, FDR needs to balance the relay
transmit power with loop interference and the optimal relay
transmit power may not be the maximum value. Finally, we
can observe that the critical value of BLER shifts to the right
as the average power of loop interference link ΩR,R decreases.
This observation reveals that FDR is preferable for a system
with a weaker loop interference link which coincides well with
the conventional FDR systems.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this letter, we revisited full-duplex relaying (FDR)
and half-duplex relaying (HDR) under the finite blocklength
regime. Specifically, we first derived approximate closed-form
expressions of average block-error rate (BLER) for both FDR
and HDR. In order to gain further insights and optimize the
transmit powers of source and relay, we then characterized
simple asymptotic expressions in terms of BLER at high SNR
for both schemes. To compare the FDR and HDR, we defined
and obtained a critical BLER which can be used to determine
the performance superiority of FDR and HDR in terms of
lower delay under a given BLER requirement. Our results
discovered that FDR is more preferable for a system with
relatively lower transmit power constraint, less stringent BLER
requirement and stronger loop interference mitigation.
R EFERENCES
[1] H. Chen et al., “Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Cellular Networks: Use
cases, challenges and approaches,” Sep. 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00560
[2] Y. Polyanskiy, H. V. Poor, and S. Verdu, “Channel coding rate in the
finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307–2359, 2010.
[3] Y. Hu, J. Gross, and A. Schmeink, “On the capacity of relaying with
finite blocklength,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65,
no. 3, pp. 1790–1794, 2016.
[4] Y. Hu, A. Schmeink, and J. Gross, “Blocklength-limited performance
of relaying under quasi-static rayleigh channels,” IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 4548–4558, 2016.
[5] T. Kwon, S. Lim, S. Choi, and D. Hong, “Optimal duplex mode for DF
relay in terms of the outage probability,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 3628–3634, 2010.
[6] T. Riihonen, S. Werner, and R. Wichman, “Hybrid full-duplex/halfduplex relaying with transmit power adaptation,” IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 3074–3085, 2011.
[7] A. Jeffrey and D. Zwillinger, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products,
ser. Table of Integrals, Series, and Products Series. Elsevier Science,
2007.
[8] W. Yang, G. Durisi, T. Koch, and Y. Polyanskiy, “Quasi-static multipleantenna fading channels at finite blocklength,” IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 4232–4265, 2014.
[9] B. Makki, T. Svensson, and M. Zorzi, “Finite block-length analysis of
the incremental redundancy HARQ,” IEEE Wireless Communications
Letters, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 529–532, 2014.
[10] O. L. A. Lpez, H. Alves, R. D. Souza, and E. M. G. Fernndez, “Ultrareliable short-packet communications with wireless energy transfer,”
IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 387–391, 2017.

