Full-duplex Multi-Antenna Relay Assisted
Cooperative Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access
Zahra Mobini† , Mohammadali Mohammadi†, Himal A. Suraweera‡, Zhiguo Ding§
†
Faculty of Engineering, Shahrekord University, Iran
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
§
School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, United Kingdom
Email: {z.mobini, m.a.mohammadi}@eng.sku.ac.ir, himal@ee.pdn.ac.lk, z.ding@lancaster.ac.uk

arXiv:1708.03919v1 [cs.IT] 13 Aug 2017

‡

Abstract—We consider a cooperative non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) network in which a full-duplex (FD)
multi-antenna relay assists transmission from a base station
(BS) to a set of far users with poor channel conditions, while
at the same time the BS transmits to a set of near users
with strong channel conditions. We assume imperfect selfinterference (SI) cancellation at the FD relay and imperfect
inter-user interference cancellation at the near users. In order
to cancel the SI at the relay a zero-forcing based beamforming
scheme is used and the corresponding outage probability
analysis of two user selection strategies, namely random near
user and random far user (RNRF), and nearest near user and
nearest far user (NNNF), are derived. Our finding suggests
that significant performance improvement can be achieved by
using the FD multi-antenna relay compared to the counterpart
system with a half-duplex relay. The achieved performance
gain depends on network parameters such as the user density,
user zones, path loss and the strength of the inter-user
interference in case of near users. We also show that the NNNF
strategy exhibits a superior outage performance compared to
the RNRF strategy, especially in the case of near user.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Due to rapid increase in services with ever growing bandwidth demand and higher quality of service requirement
of wireless subscribers and networks, spectral efficiency
is considered as a main challenge affecting the design of
emerging wireless networks. To enhance spectral efficiency,
non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) concept aims to
realize multiple access in the power domain and accordingly
serve multiple users in the same time and frequency [1],
[2]. NOMA achieves high spectral efficiency by squeezing
a user with a strong channel condition, hereafter called the
near user, into the spectrum occupied by a user with a poor
channel condition, hereafter called the far user. However, the
benefits of NOMA cannot be reaped without having some
cost increment. Particularly, the reliability of the far users
may adversely affected due to the fact that the near users coexist with the far users [2]. Recently some efforts have been
made to exploit cooperative techniques in NOMA systems
as an efficient way to improve the performance of the
far users. The existing cooperative NOMA systems can be
classified into user-assisted cooperative NOMA and relayassisted cooperative NOMA system. For user-assisted cooperative NOMA, the near user, helps the far user, exploiting
the fact that the near user is able to decode the information
for both users [3], [4]. For the relay-assisted cooperative
The work of Z. Ding was supported by the UK EPSRC under grant
number EP/N005597/1. The work of Z. Ding and H. A. Suraweera were
supported by H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015 under grant number 690750.

NOMA, a dedicated relay is employed to assist the far
user [5]–[8]. The authors in [4] investigated the application
of wireless power transfer in a user-assisted cooperative
NOMA network where the user positions were modeled
using stochastic geometry. In [5] a dedicated relay has
been used in to serve multiple users equipped with multiple
antennas. The authors in [6], have shown that remarkable
performance gains in terms of the outage performance and
sum capacity can be obtained through cooperation in a
relay-assisted NOMA system. The impact of relay selection
on the performance of relay-assisted cooperative NOMA
system was examined in [7]. In [8] the outage performance
for a downlink cooperative NOMA scenario with the help
of a relay is investigated.
Common to all the above works [5]–[8] is the assumption of half-duplex (HD) operation at the relaying
node. However, the implementation of HD relaying requires
additional time resources, which results in a loss of the
spectral efficiency. Thus, in an effort to recover the spectral
loss, full-duplex (FD) relaying, where the relay receives
and transmits simultaneously in the same frequency band
could be utilized [9], [10]. However, FD operation in a
relay-assisted NOMA system introduces several challenges
such as inter-user interference at near users due to relay
transmission to far user and self-interference (SI) at the FD
relay due to signal leakage from the relay’s output to the
input. Nevertheless, many effective SI cancellation methods
have been proposed [11], [12] to enhance the practical
application of FD implementation. As such, a few recent
studies propose the combination of FD operation and the
NOMA principle [13]–[15]. In [13], an FD device-to-device
aided cooperative NOMA scheme was proposed where the
near user is FD capable and assist the base station (BS)
transmissions to the far user. In [14], an FD relay-assisted
cooperative NOMA with dual-users was examined. It was
shown that, the proposed FD relay-assisted NOMA system
in [14] achieves better performance compared to the HD one
in the low to moderate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) regimes.
The authors in [15] provided the diversity analysis of a
hybrid FD/HD user-assisted NOMA system with two users.
The above works on FD NOMA systems have considered
a single antenna relay. However, recent studies have shown
that SI cancellation can be performed effectively in spatial
domain, if multiple antennas are used [11], [16]. However,
recently stochastic geometry has been widely used to model
user location with high accuracy. Therefore, it is important
to study the FD multi-antenna relay-assisted cooperative

NOMA in a network under random spatial deployment
of users. We assume a NOMA system with a BS, relay
and two sets of users and use stochastic geometry to
capture the impact of random locations of the users in a
cooperative NOMA system. In particular, we consider a
network with two groups of randomly deployed users: near
users, deployed within a disc, and far users, deployed within
a ring, where their locations are modeled as homogeneous
Poisson point processes (PPPs). We consider the following
user selection strategies, namely (i) random near user and
random far user (RNRF) selection; (ii) nearest near user
and nearest far user (NNNF) selection. We exploit an FD
multi-antenna relay and employ maximal ratio combining
(MRC) at the relay input and zero forcing (ZF) at the relay
output, to obtain receive and transmit beamformers with
the objective of cancelling the SI at the relay. Our main
contributions are summarized as follows:
• We consider a realistic scenario with imperfect SI
cancellation at the relay and imperfect inter-user interference cancellation at the near users and derive outage probability expressions for the RNRF and NNNF
strategies. In addition, to extract insights and highlight
the system behavior, closed-form upper bound and
lower bound on the outage probability of the near users
are presented.
• Our findings reveal that compared to the RNRF strategy, NNNF provides a superior outage probability for
both the near and far users. Moreover, comparing
the proposed FD cooperative NOMA system with the
HD counterpart, we confirm that the FD cooperative
NOMA achieves a better outage performance.
Notation: We use bold upper case letters to denote matrices,
bold lower case letters to denote vectors. The superscripts
(·)T , (·)∗ , (·)† stand for transpose, conjugated, and conjugate transpose respectively; the Euclidean norm of the
vector and the expectation are denoted by k · k and E {·}
respectively; Pr(·) denotes the probability; fX (·) and FX (·)
denote the probability density function (pdf) and cumulative
distribution function (cdf) of the random variable (RV)
X, respectively; CN (µ, σ 2 ) denotes a circularly symmetric
complex Gaussian RV x with mean µ and variance σ 2 ;
Γ(a, x) is upper incomplete Gamma function; γ(a, x) is
lower incomplete Gamma function [17, Eq. (8.350)].

 
hR

HRR

R

ϭ… E

Śϭșr
2
K

și

hϮ

ș′i

h1,i

^

f 2,i

f1,i

hϭ

Zϭ
ZϮххZϭ
ZϮ
Zϯ

Fig. 1. An illustration of relay-assisted cooperative NOMA. The spatial
distributions of the near users and the far users follow homogeneous PPPs.
FD multi-antenna relays are symmetrically deployed at a distance R1 from
the BS in a circular fashion.

from the cell center in a circular fashion, that forward the
information to the far users. Similar to [4], [8], [14] we
assume a single antenna BS communication assisted by an
FD multi-antenna relay, where the total number of antennas
at the FD relay is N = NT + NR of which NR antennas
are dedicated for reception and NT antennas are used for
transmission. For a more realistic propagation model, we
assume that the links experience both large-scale path loss
effects and small-scale fading. All channels are assumed
to be quasi-static Rayleigh fading, which means that the
channel coefficients are constant over the block time T and
vary independently between different blocks. Thus, each
element of these complex fading channel coefficients are
circular symmetric complex Gaussian random variables.
We assume that α ≥ 2 is the path loss exponent and
ℓ(x, y) = kx − yk is the Euclidean distance between two
nodes. If y is the origin, the index y will be omitted, i.e.
ℓ(x, 0) = ℓ(x). Before the transmission, the two users U1,i
and U2,i are selected to perform NOMA with the aid of the
selected relay, denoted by R, where the selection criterion
for user selection and relay selection will be discussed in
Subsection II-C.

A. Transmission Protocol
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
Consider a network with a BS and two groups of
randomly deployed users: near and far users as shown
in Fig. 1 [4]. We assume that the near users {U1,i },
i = 1, · · · , NU1 , are deployed within disc with radius R1 ,
denoted by Dn , and the far users {U2,i }, i = 1, · · · , NU2 ,
are deployed within ring with radius R2 and R3 , denoted by
Df , (assuming R2 ≫ R1 ). The locations of the near and far
users are modeled as homogeneous Poisson point processes
(PPPs) Φn and Φf , respectively, with the densities λn and
λf . Without loss of generality, we focus on the NOMA
with two users: one from near and one from far user sets
where the near user U1,i directly communicates with the
BS. However, as in [6], [14] we assume that there is no
direct link between the BS and the far user U2,i . Therefore,
we exploit K fixed decode-and-forward (DF) relays, {Rk },
k = 1, · · · , K, symmetrically deployed at a distance R1

According to the NOMA concept, BS transmits a combination of messages to both users and the selected relay R
as
p
p
(1)
s[n] = PS a1,i x1,i [n] + PS a2,i x2,i [n],
where PS is the transmit power of the BS and xk,i , k ∈
{1, 2} denotes the information symbol to Uk,i , and ak,i
denotes the power allocation coefficient, such that a1,i +
a2,i = 1 and a1,i < a2,i . The selected relay R operates in
the FD mode and hence it simultaneously receives s[n] and
forwards r[n] to the U2,i . The received signal at R is given
by
−α

yR [n] = R1 2 hR s[n] + HRR r[n] + nR [n],

(2)

where hR ∈ C NR ×1 is the channel between the source
and relay and its entries follow identically independent

distributed (i.i.d), CN
 (0, 1), r[n] is the transmitted relay
signal satisfying E r[n]r† [n] = PR , given by
p
r[n] = PR wt,i x2,i [n − δ],
(3)

δ accounts for the time delay caused by relaynprocessing,
o
and nR [n] is the AWGN at the relay with E nR n†R =
2
σR
I. We model the NR × NT residual SI channel HRR as
2
i.i.d CN (0, σRR
) RVs [10], [11]. Since the relay R adopts
the DF protocol, upon receiving the signal, it first applies a
linear combining vector wr on yR to obtain an estimate of
s, denoted by ŝ[n], as
ŝ[n] =

−α
R1 2 wr† hR s[n]

+

wr† HRR r[n]+wr† nR [n].

ρs a2,i R1−α |wr† hR |2
ρs a1,i R1−α |wr† hR |2 + ρr |wr† HRR wt,i |2 + 1

, (5)

PS
where ρs = N
and ρr = PNR0 (without lost of generality,
0
it is assumed that the mean power of noise at all users and
relay is the same and denoted byN0 ). On the other hand,
the received signal at U1,i can be written as

y1,i [n] = ℓ(U1,i )
ℓ(R, U1,i )

−α
2

−α
2

h1,i s[n]+
p
T
PR f1,i
wt,i x2,i [n − δ] + n1,i [n], (6)

where h1,i ∼ CN (0, 1) is the channel between the source
and U1,i , f1,i ∈ C NT ×1 denotes the channel between the
relay and U1,i , and n1,i [n] ∼ CN (0, σn2 1 ) denotes the additive white Gaussian
p noise (AWGN) at the U1,i . Moreover,
R12 + ℓ(U1,i )2 − 2R1 ℓ(U1,i ) cos(θr − θi ),
ℓ(R, U1,i ) =
where θr denotes the angle of the selected relay R from
reference x-axis, and θi denotes the angle of the U1,i from
reference x-axis. Moreover, −π ≤ θr − θi ≤ π. Applying
the principle of NOMA concept, successive interference
cancellation (SIC) is carried out at U1,i . In particular, U1,i
first decodes the message of U2,i , i.e., x2,i , then subtracts
it from the received signal to detect its own message [1].
Therefore, the received SINR at U1,i to detect x2,i of U2,i
is given by
x

γ1,i2,i =

(7)

ρs a2,i ℓ(U1,i )−α |h1,i |2
,
T w |2 +1
ρs a1,i ℓ(U1,i )−α |h1,i |2 +ρr ℓ(R, U1,i )−α |f1,i
t,i
and the received SINR at U1,i to detect x1,i is given by
x

γ1,i1,i =

ρs a1,i ℓ(U1,i )−α |h1,i |2
.
T w |2 + 1
ρr ℓ(R, U1,i )−α |f1,i
t,i

x

T
wt,i |2 .
γ2,i2,i = ρr ℓ(R, U2,i )−α |f2,i

(10)

(4)

Then it decodes the information intended for U2,i while
treating the symbol of U1,i as interference. Finally, it
forwards x2,i [n− δ] to U2,i using the transmit beamforming
vector wt,i . Let kwt,i k2 = kwr k2 = 1 and the received
signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) at the selected
relay R is given by
γR =

Finally, the observation at U2,i can be expressed as
follows:
p
−α
T
wt,i x2,i [n−δ]+n2,i[n],
y2,i [n] = PR ℓ(R, U2,i ) 2 f2,i
(9)
q
where ℓ(R,U2,i ) = R12 +ℓ(U2,i )2 −2R1 ℓ(U2,i )cos(θr − θ́i ),
θ́i denotes the angle of U2,i from reference x-axis,
f2,i ∈ C NT ×1 denotes the channel between the R and U2,i
and n2,i [n] ∼ CN (0, σn2 2 ) denotes the AWGN at the U2,i .
Therefore, the received SNR at U2,i is given by

(8)

According to the principle of NOMA, x2,i [n − δ] is priory
known to U1,i and thus U1,i can remove it via interference cancellation [14]. Nevertheless, here, we consider a
realistic imperfect interference cancellation wherein U1,i
cannot perfectly remove x2,i [n − δ]. In particular, we model
f1,i ∼ CN (0, qr ) as the residual inter-user interference
channel where the parameter qr presents the strength of
inter-user interference [14]. Specifically, qr = 0 implies
perfect interference cancellation at U1,i .

B. Beamforming Scheme
In this subsection, we design receive and transmit beamformers at the selected relay R. We propose a beamforming
solution, namely transmit zero-forcing (TZF), where relay
takes advantage of the multiple transmit antennas (NT > 1)
to completely cancel the SI [18]. Moreover, MRC is applied
hR
. Therefore, the
at the relay input, i.e., wrMRC = kh
Rk
optimal transmit beamforming vector wt,i is obtained by
solving the following problem:
max

kwt,i k=1

s.t.

T
|f2,i
wt,i |2

h†R HRR wt,i = 0.

(11)

The coexistence of near users and far users in the NOMA
systems results in performance degradation for the far users
with poor channel conditions and hence here we improve
the outage probability of them1 . Specifically, in (11) we
T
maximize |f2,i
wt,i |2 and consequently the second-hop SNR
at the far users.
Given the optimization problem in (11), using similar
steps as in [16], the optimal transmit vector wt,i is obtained
ZF
as wt,i
=

∗
Bf2,i
∗ k,
kBf2,i

H†RR hR h†R HRR
. Ackh†R HRR k2
ZF
wt,i into (5), (7), (8)

where B = INT −

cordingly, substituting the wrMRC and
x
x
x
and (10) γR , γ1,i2,i , γ1,i1,i and γ2,i2,i can be obtained, respectively.
C. User Selection and Relay Selection Strategies
We consider two user selection strategies namely RNRF
and NNNF. For the RNRF strategy, the BS randomly selects
a near user U1,i and a far user U2,i from the two groups
of users. For the NNNF strategy, a user within the disc Dn
with the shortest distance to the BS is selected as a near user
∗
U1,i
and the user within ring Df with the shortest distance
∗
to the BS is selected as a far user U2,i
.
On the other hand, for each user selection strategy,
the relay with the minimum Euclidean distance from the
selected far user is chosen for cooperative NOMA. We can
define the relay selection criterion as
min{ℓ(Rk , U2,i ), k ∈ {1, · · · , K}}.

(12)

This relay selection strategy is suitable for practical scenarios, wherein the far users are much farther away from the
BS in comparison with near users and thus have the poor
channel conditions. Accordingly, the criterion in (12) can
improve the reception reliability of the far users.
1 As an alternative ZF-based beamforming solution, w
t,i can be set using
the maximal ratio transmission principle (MRT) and wr,i can be designed
with the ZF criterion. The performance analysis of the ZF/MRT scheme
is left as a future work.

III. C OOPERATIVE NOMA

WITH

RNRF S ELECTION

Now, we aim to characterize the performance of cooperative NOMA with the RNRF user selection. This strategy
achieves fairness and it can be performed without the
knowledge of the instantaneous channel state information
(CSI) of the users.
A. Outage Probability at the Near Users
An outage event at the near user U1,i happens when it
cannot decode x2,i or when it can decode x2,i but cannot
decode x1,i . Let τ1 = 2R1 − 1 and τ2 = 2R2 − 1, where
R1 and R2 are the transmission rates at U1,i and U2,i ,
respectively. The outage probability at U1,i can be expressed
as

x
x
(13)
Pout,1 = 1 − Pr γ1,i2,i > τ2 , γ1,i1,i > τ1 ,
Proposition 1: The outage probability of U1,i with the
TZF scheme is given by
Z R1 Z π
1
PTZF
=
(1−
(14)
out,1
πR12 0
−π
!
α
e−µr
rdθi dr,
−α
1+ qr ρr µ (R12 + r2 −2rR1 cos(θr − θi )) 2 rα


a2,i
1 τ1
, otherwise PTZF
if τ2 ≤ a1,i
out,1 = 1, where µ = max ζ , b1
ρ a

−ρ a

τ

T
ZF 2
with ζ = s 2,i τ2s 1,i 2 . proof: Let Y0 , |f1,i
wt,i
| , Y1 =
x
x2,i
2
|h1,i | , b0 = ρs a2,i and b1 = ρs a1,i . Applying γ1,i , γ1,i1,i
in (13), the outage of U1,i can be written as

b0 ℓ(U1,i )−α Y1
TZF
> τ2 ,
Pout,1 = 1−Pr
b1 ℓ(U1,i )−α Y1 +ρr ℓ(R, U1,i )−α Y0 +1

b1 ℓ(U1,i )−α Y1
> τ1
ρ ℓ(R, U1,i )−α Y0 +1
 r

1
= Pr ρr ℓ(R, U1,i )−α Y0 + 1 > ℓ(U1,i )−α Y1 . (15)
µ
a

In (15), if τ2 > a2,i
, µ < 0 and hence PTZF
out,1 = 1. On the
1,i
a
we
have
other hand, when τ2 ≤ a2,i
1,i


TZF
Pout,1 = Pr Y1 ≤ ρr ℓ(R, U1,i )−α Y0 + 1 µℓ(U1,i )α Y0 .
(16)
a

For the case τ2 ≤ a2,i
, note that we model the location of
1,i
the near and far users as i.i.d. points in Dn and Df , denoted
by Wn,i and Wf,i , respectively, with the pdf fWn,i (wn,i ) =
λf
λn
1
1
µn = πR21 and fWf,i (wf,i ) = µf = π(R23 −R22 ) . Therefore, (16) can be expressed as (17) at the top of the next
page where (a) follows by the fact that Y0 and Y1 are
exponential RVs with the cdfs FY0 (y) = 1 − e−y/qr and
1
FY1 (y) = 1 − e−y , respectively. Substituting fΘi (θi ) = 2π
and fWn,i (wn,i ) into (17) we get the desired result in (14).

The integral in (14) does not admit a closed-form solution. Nevertheless, it can be solved numerically using
popular software packages such as MATLAB. Moreover,
we now present approximate closed-form expressions for
the lower bound and upper bound of the outage probability.
In particular, by setting cos(θr − θi ) = +1, ℓ(R, U1,i ) is
minimized and hence the inter-user interference at U1,i is
x
x
maximized which minimizes γ1,i1,i and γ1,i2,i . On the other

hand, cos(θr − θi ) = −1 results in the minimum inter-user
interference at U1,i .
Corollary 1: The outage probability of U1,i with the
TZF scheme can be approximately upper bounded (lower
bounded) in closed-form as
PTZF,U
out,1 ≈

M
π Xp
(1 − φ2m ) (1−
2M m=1

(18)

α

e−µcm

−α
2

1 + qr ρr µ (R12 + c2m − 2ηR1 cm )

cα
m

!

(φm + 1),

where η = 1 (In case of the lower bound, η = −1), cm =
(φm + 1) R21 , φm = cos( 2m−1
2M π) and M is a parameter to
guarantee a desirable complexity-accuracy tradeoff.
proof: By setting cos(θr − θi ) = 1 in (14), the upper bound
on the outage probability of U1,i written as
2
PTZF,U
(19)
out,1 =
R12
!
Z R1
α
e−µr
rdr,
1−
×
−α
1+qr ρr µ(R12 +r2 −2ηR1 r) 2 rα
0
where η = 1 (In case of the lower bound, η = −1).
To the best of our knowledge, the integral in (19) does
not admit a closed-form solution, however by following
a similar approach as in [4], we use Gaussian-Chebyshev
quadrature [19] to arrive at (18). 
B. Outage Probability at the Far Users
The outage event at U2,i results due to the following two
cases: 1) R cannot decode x2,i and 2) R can decode x2,i
but x2,i cannot be decoded correctly by U2,i . Therefore, the
outage probability at U2,i can be written as


x2 ,i
(20)
Pout,2 = Pr (γR < τ2 )+Pr (γR > τ2 ) Pr γ2,i
< τ2

The following proposition presents the outage probability
for an arbitrary choice of α.
Proposition 2: The outage probability of U2,i with the
TZF scheme is given by


b3
τ2 R1α
TZF
Pout,2 = 1 −
Γ NR ,
Γ(NR )
ρs (a2,i −τ2 a1,i )
NX
T −2
k−ǫ
β
(Γ (ǫ, βR2α )−Γ (ǫ, βR3α )),
(21)
×
k!α
k=0

τ2
2
2
where b3 = (R2 −R
2 ) , ǫ = k + α and β = ρ .
r
3
2
proof: Let us denote Y2 = ρs R1−α khR k2 and Y3 = kf̃2,i k2 .
x2 ,i
Substituting γR and γ2,i
into (20), PTZF
out,2 can be written as




a2,i Y2
a2,i Y2
+
Pr
×
<
τ
>
τ
PTZF
=Pr
2
2
out,2
a1,i Y2 + 1
a1,i Y2 + 1

(22)
Pr ρr ℓ(R, U2,i )−α Y3 < τ2 .

The RV Y2 follows the chi-square distribution with 2NR
degrees-of-freedom (DoF). Moreover, to guarantee the ima
plementation of NOMA, the condition a2,i
≥ τ2 should be
1,i
satisfied. Hence, PTZF
can
be
written
as
out,2


1
1
τ2 R1α
+
PTZF
=
1
−
Γ
N
,
×
R
out,2
Γ(NR )
ρs (a2,i − τ2 a1,i )
Γ(NR )



τ2 R1α
Pr ρr ℓ(R, U2,i )−α Y3 < τ2 .
Γ NR ,
ρs (a2,i − τ2 a1,i )
(23)

π

∞


y
−α
α
1 
1 − e−µ(ρr ℓ(R,U1,i ) y+1)ℓ(U1,i ) e− qr fΘi (θi )fWn,i (wn,i )dydθi dwn,i
qr
Dn −π 0

Z Z π 
α
e−µℓ(U1,i )
fΘi (θi )fWn,i (wn,i )dθi dwn,i ,
1−
=
1 + qr ρr µℓ(R, U1,i )−α ℓ(U1,i )α
Dn −π

(a)

PTZF
out,1 =

PTZF
out,2∗

Z

Z

Z

 NX

T −2
b4
τ2 R1α
βk
≈1−
Γ NR ,
Γ(NR )
ρs (a2,i −τ2 a1,i )
k!

M p
X
α
2
1−φ2m sαk+1
e−(βsm +πλf sm )
m

m=1

k=0

The next step is to compute Pr (ρr ℓ(R, U2,i )−α Y3 < τ2 )
where Y3 is an (NT − 1) × 1 vector and it follows the chisquare distribution with 2(NT − 1) DoF. Moreover, since
R2 ≫ R1 , we can approximate ℓ(R, U2,i ) ≈ ℓ(U2,i ) [4].
Accordingly, we have


τ2
Pr Y3 <
=
ρr ℓ(U2,i )−α
Z
NX
T −2
1 k R3 αk+1 −βrα
r
e
dr.
(24)
β
1 − b3
k!
R2
k=0

Then, by applying the integral identity [17, Eq. (2.33.10)]
the desired result in (21) can be obtained. 
The following corollary provides the outage probability
of the far users for the special case α = 2 and valid in the
high SNR regime when the noise term is neglected.
Corollary 2: In the high SNR regime and for the special
case α = 2, the outage probability of U2,i can be simplified
as
PTZF
out,2 = 1 −

NT −2
b3 X
β k (G(R2 ) − G(R3 )),
2

(25)

Pk

2j

x
where G(x) = e−βx
j=0 j!β k+1−j .
proof: Applying α = 2 and neglecting the noise term in the
dominator of (22) and then using the integral identity [17,
Eq. (2.33.11)] we obtain (25). 

IV. C OOPERATIVE NOMA W ITH NNNF S ELECTION
In this section, we investigate the outage performance of
NNNF user selection where the users’ CSI are utilized to
select the near and far users with the shortest distance to the
BS. Accordingly, NNNF strategy can maximize the outage
performance of both the near and far users.
A. Outage Probability of the Near Users
By invoking (13), we can characterize the outage probability of the near users. We have the following key result:
∗
Proposition 3: The outage probability of U1,i
with the
TZF scheme is given by
Z
Z
υn R1 π −πλn r2
TZF
re
(1−
(26)
Pout,1∗ =
2π 0
−π
!
α
e−µr
dθi dr,
−α
1+qr ρr µ (R12 +r2 −2rR1 cos(θr −θi )) 2 rα
where υn =

2πλn
2
1−e−πλn R1

proof: Similar to (16),

.
PTZF
out,1∗

for

∗
U1,i

can be written as

,

(31)


∗ −α
∗ α
PTZF
Y0 + 1 µℓ(U1,i
)
out,1∗ =Pr Y1 ≤ ρr ℓ(R, U1,i )
Y0 , NU1 ≥ 1) ,

(27)

∗
∗
where ℓ(U1,i
) is the distance from the nearest U1,i
to the
∗
∗
BS and ℓ(R, U1,i ) is the distance from R to the nearest U1,i
.
TZF
Following similar lines as in the derivation of (17), Pout,1∗
∗
can be written as
for U1,i
Z R1 Z π
1
TZF
Pout,1∗ =
(28)
fn∗ (r) (1−
2π 0
−π
!
α
e−µr
dθi dr,
−α
1+ qrρr µ (R12 +r2 −2rR1 cos(θr −θi )) 2 rα
∗
to
where fn∗ (r) is the pdf of the shortest distance from U1,i
2
−πλ
r
n
. Subthe BS which is given by [4] fn∗ (r) = υn re
stituting fn∗ (r) into (28) we obtain the outage probability
in (26). 
∗
Corollary 3: The outage probability of U1,i
of NNNF
with the TZF scheme can be approximately upper bounded
(η = 1) (lower bounded (η = −1)) as

k=0

2

!

(17)

PTZF,U
out,1∗ ≈

M
πυn R1 X p
(1 − φ2m ) (1−
2M m=1
α

e−µcm

1+

qr ρr µcα
m

(R12

+

c2m

−α
2

− 2ηR1 cm )

(29)
!

2

cm e−πλn cm .

proof: The proof is similar to Corollary 1. 

B. Outage Probability of the Far Users
Using the definition in (20), we analyze the outage probability of the far users. The following proposition presents
the outage probability valid for an arbitrary α.
∗
Proposition 4: The outage probability of U2,i
with the
TZF scheme is given by (31) at the top of the page where
2

υ π(R −R )eπλf R2

3
2
2
b4 = f
and sm = R3 −R
(φm + 1) + R2 .
2M
2
∗
proof: The outage probability of U2,i can be expressed as


a2,i Y2
< τ2 |NU2 ≥ 1 +
a Y +1
 1,i 2

a2,i Y2
Pr
> τ2 |NU2 ≥ 1 ×
a1,i Y2 + 1

∗ −α
Pr ρr ℓ(R, U2,i
) Y3 < τ2 |NU2 ≥ 1 .

PTZF
out,2∗ =Pr



(32)

∗
∗
Since R2 ≫ R1 , we can approximate ℓ(R, U2,i
) ≈ ℓ(U2,i
).
TZF
Similar to (23), Pout,2∗ can be evaluated as

0

0

10

10

Outage Probability of the Far users

Outage Probability of the Near Users

RNRF
NNNF
−1

10

−2

10

−3

10

−4

10

−20

RNRF, Upper Bound
RNRF
RNRF, Lower Bound
NNNF, Upper Bound
NNNF
NNNF, Lower Bound
−10

0

α=3, R2=12m, R3=14m

−1

10

α=3, R2=8m, R3=10m
−2

10

−3

10

α=2, R2=8m, R3=10m
−4

10

α=2, R2=12m, R3=14m

10

20

30

40

PS

Fig. 2. Outage probability of the near users versus PS (in dBW).
The derived upper bounds and lower bounds for both strategies are also
presented where α = 3, PR = 40 dBW, R1 = R2 = 0.4 bps/Hz, and
λn = 10.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

PR

Fig. 3. Outage probability of the far users versus PR (in dBW) for different
α, R2 and R3 where R1 = 2 m, NT = NR = 3, R1 = R2 = 0.4
bps/Hz, λn = λf = 10, and PS = 30 dBW.



V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
1
1
τ2 R1α
=1−
+
Γ NR ,
×
n
this
section, we present numerical results to validate
Γ(NR )
ρs (a2,i − τ2 a1,i )
Γ(NR )
!
our
analysis,
demonstrate the performance and investigate


τ2 R1α
τ2
the
impact
of
key system parameters. We set a1 = 0.2,
Γ NR,
Pr Y3 <
∗ )−α |NU2 ≥ 1 .
ρs (a2,i −τ2 a1,i )
ρr ℓ(U2,i
a2 = 0.8, N0 = 1 dBW and K = 3.
(33)
Fig. 2 shows the outage probability of the near users
versus PS for RNRF and NNNF strategies, respecThe RV, Y3 follows the chi-square distribution with 2(NT −
tively. Numerical results evaluated from (14) and (26)
1) DoF and thus
were in agreement with simulations not shown and
!
Z R3
NT−2 k

α X β
NNNF upper and lower bounds are tight. This is be∗ α
1−e−βr
FY3 βℓ(U2,i
rαk ff∗ (r)dr,
) =
cause, in the NNNF strategy, the distance of the neark!
R2
k=0
∗
and
(34) est user to the BS, i.e., ∗ℓ(U1,i ), approaches to zero
∗
)
cos(θ
−
θ
)
in
ℓ(R,
U
)
hence
the
term
2R
ℓ(U
r
i
1
1,i =
1,i
q
∗
where ff∗ (r) is the pdf of the nearest U2,i
which is given
∗
2
∗
2
R1 + ℓ(U1,i ) − 2R1 ℓ(U1,i ) cos(θr − θi ) is small which
by [4]
makes the difference of the bounds and the exact values
2
2
ff∗ (r) = υf re−πλf (r −R2 ) ,
(35) insignificant.
Fig. 3 compares the outage probability of the far users
2πλf
where υf =
2
2 . Substituting (35) into (34),
versus PR with different α, R2 , and R3 . It is observed
1−e−πλf (R3 −R2 )
we obtain
that NNNF exhibits a superior outage performance in comNT −2 k

2 X β
parison to the RNRF strategy. As expected, the outage
∗ α
Ψ,
(36)
FY3 βℓ(U2,i
) = 1 − υf eπλf R2
k!
probability increases as α increases. In addition, we see
k=0
that increasing the radius of the far user’s ring deteriorates
R R3 αk+1 −(βrα+πλ r2 )
f
where Ψ = R2 r
e
dr. An exact eval- the outage performance of the NNNF and RNRF strategies.
Fig. 4 shows the outage performance of the near users
uation of Ψ is mathematically intractable. Motivated by
this, we use Gaussian-Chebyshev quadrature to find an versus the density λn for different levels of the inter-user
interference strength at the near users, qr , and different R1 .
approximation as
!
M
It can be observed that the outage performance of RNRF
2
π(R3 − R2 ) X p
−(βsα
m+πλf sm)
Ψ≈
1 − φ2m sαk+1
e
.
is independent of the λn . This is because of the fact that
m
2M
m=1
RNRF selects users randomly and hence increasing number
(37) of near users will not affect its performance. On the other
To this end, by substituting (37) into (36) and then substi- hand, the outage probability of NNNF decreases when λn
increases. It is intuitive since a higher number of near users
tuting the result into (33) we get the desired result. 
Corollary 4: In the high SNR regime and for the special offers better near user positions, and thus better outage
∗
case α = 2, the outage probability of U2,i
of NNNF can be performance could be expected. As expected, the outage
probability decreases as qr decreases. Also, the outage
simplified as
probability
of RNRF increases by increasing R1 . However,
NT −2
b5 X
TZF
k
NNNF
presents
lower outage probability for higher R1 . This
Pout,2∗ = 1 −
β (H(R2 ) − H(R3 )),
(38)
2
is
more
noticeable
at high values of qr and the difference
k=0
between
the
curves
are negligible for low qr . In the NNNF
2 Pk
x2j
where H(x) = e−δx
j=0 j!δ k+1−j , δ = β + πλf and
strategy the nearest user to the BS is selected as a near user
2
b5 = υf eπλf R2 .
where increasing R1 will not change its position notably.
proof: Applying α = 2 in (36) and using the integral On the other hand, the outage probability of the near users
identity [17, Eq. (2.33.11)] we can obtain (38). 
degrades due to interference from the relay to the near users
PTZF
out,2∗

interference cancellation and using tools from stochastic geometry, exact analytical expressions as well as closed-form
upper bound and lower bound for the outage probability
of the near users were derived for RNRF and NNNF user
selection strategies. We also presented numerical results
to validate our analysis. Our results show that even with
imperfect inter-user interference cancellation at the near
users, FD transmissions with TZF could achieve a lower
outage probability as compered to HD transmissions. In
addition, we found that improving the outage performance
can be achieved by reducing the user’s zone or increasing
the density of the users.

0

Outage Probability of the Near Users

10

−1

10

RNRF, q =0.1
r

R1=2 m

NNNF, q =1
r

−2

10

R =3 m
1

R =4 m
1

−3

10

NNNF, q =0.1
r

R EFERENCES

−4

10

0

1

10

2

10

10

Density of the Near Users

Fig. 4. Outage probability of the near users versus density of the near
users for different strength of inter-user interference qr and R1 where
α = 3, PS = PR = 10 dBW, and R1 = 0.4 bps/Hz.
0

Outage Probability of the Near Users

Outage Probability of the Far users

10

−1

10

−2

10

HD, R1=R2=0.8
FD, R1=R2=0.8
HD, R1=R2=0.5
FD, R1=R2=0.5

−1

10

−2

10

−3

10

HD, R1=R2=0.8
FD, R =R =0.8
1

2

HD, R1=R2=0.5
−4

10

FD, R1=R2=0.5

−3

10

0

10

20

30

0

P

10

20

30

P

R

R

Fig. 5. Outage probability comparison between FD and HD for NNNF
strategy versus PR (in dBW) for different user rates (bps/Hz) where Ps =
40 dBW for the far users and 20 dBW for the near users, α = 3, R1 = 2
m, R2 = 8 m, R3 = 10 m, NT = 3, NR = 1, and λn = λf = 1.

which increases as the R1 decreases. However, when qr is
sufficiently small, the effect of this interference becomes
invisible.
Fig. 5 shows the outage probability of the near and
far users for FD and HD schemes with different target
rates under the “RF chain preserved” condition [12]. The
outage performance of FD cooperative NOMA with TZF
outperforms HD cooperative NOMA system. The main
reason is that FD cooperative NOMA with TZF can recover
the spectral loss incurred by conventional HD relaying and
cancel the residual SI at the relay at the same time. Fig. 5
also illustrates that increasing the target rates deteriorates
the outage performance of both schemes since it raises the
decoding threshold.
VI.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we have investigated a NOMA system
assisted by an FD multi-antenna relay where MRC and ZF
processing are used as receive and transmit beamformers,
respectively. Considering a realistic scenario with imperfect

[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 77th Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC’13),
Dresden, Germany, June 2013, pp. 1-5.
[2] Z. Ding, Y. Liu, J. Choi, Q. Sun, M. Elkashlan, C.-L. I, and H. V.
Poor, “Application of non-orthogonal multiple access in LTE and 5G
networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 55, pp. 185-191, Feb. 2017.
[3] Z. Ding, M. Peng, and H. V. Poor, “Cooperative non-orthogonal
multiple access in 5G Systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 19, pp.
1462-1465, Aug. 2015.
[4] Y. Liu, Z. Ding, M. Elkashlan, and H. V. Poor, “Cooperative nonorthogonal multiple access with simultaneous wireless information and
power transfer,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 34, pp. 938-953,
Apr. 2016.
[5] J. Men and J. Ge, “Non-orthogonal multiple access for multipleantenna relaying networks,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 19, pp. 16861689, Oct. 2015.
[6] J. B. Kim and I. H. Lee, “Non-orthogonal multiple access in coordinated direct and relay transmission,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 19,
pp. 2037-2040, Nov. 2015.
[7] Z. Ding, H. Dai, and H. V. Poor, “Relay selection for cooperative
NOMA,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 5, pp. 416-419, Aug. 2016.
[8] X. Liang, Y. Wu, D. W. K. Ng, Y. Zuo, S. Jin, and H. Zhu, “Outage
performance for cooperative NOMA transmission with an AF relay,”
IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. PP, pp. 1-1, 2017.
[9] A. Sabharwal, P. Schniter, D. Guo, D. W. Bliss, S. Rangarajan, and
R. Wichman, “In-band full-duplex wireless: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun, vol. 32, pp. 1637-1652, Sep.
2014.
[10] M. Duarte, C. Dick, and A. Sabharwal, “Experiment-driven characterization of full-duplex wireless systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 11, pp. 4296-4307, Dec. 2012.
[11] T. Riihonen, S. Werner, and R. Wichman, “Mitigation of loopback
self-Interference in full-duplex MIMO relays,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 59, pp. 5983-5993, Dec. 2011.
[12] H. Q. Ngo, H. A. Suraweera, M. Matthaiou, and E. G. Larsson, “Multipair full-duplex relaying with massive arrays and linear processing,”
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32, pp. 1721-1737, Sep. 2014.
[13] Z. Zhang, Z. Ma, M. Xiao, Z. Ding, and P. Fan, “Full-duplex deviceto-device-aided cooperative non-orthogonal multiple access,” IEEE
Trans. Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, pp. 4467-4471, May. 2017.
[14] C. Zhong and Z. Zhang, “Non-orthogonal multiple access with
cooperative full-duplex relaying,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 20, pp.
2478-2481, Dec. 2016.
[15] X. Yue, Y. Liu, S. Kang, A. Nallanathan, and Z. Ding, “Outage
performance of full/half-duplex user relaying in NOMA systems,” in
Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. Commun. (ICC’17), Paris, France, May 2017.
[16] M. Mohammadi, B. K. Chalise, H. A. Suraweera, C. Zhong, G.
Zheng, and I. Krikidis, “Throughput analysis and optimization of
wireless-powered multiple antenna full-duplex relay systems,” IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 64, pp. 1769-1785, Apr. 2016.
[17] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, “Table of Integrals, Series and
Products,” 7th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2007.
[18] H. A. Suraweera, I. Krikidis, G. Zheng, C. Yuen, and P. J. Smith,
“Low-complexity end-to-end performance optimization in MIMO fullduplex relay systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, pp.
913-927, Jan. 2014.
[19] F. B. Hildebrand, “Introduction to numerical analysis,” New York,
USA: Dover, 1987.

