rthrth rthrth th

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Aufrufe

rthrth rthrth th

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Nokia Siemens LTE E2E Field Network Performance
- Understanding Wireless Communications in Public Safety
- Evdo Multi Carrier Optimization_draft_031610
- gate cs
- Const Cv Shamim
- Performance Measures of Wireless Protocols for ATM Networks
- LTE Throughput Optim
- sdma
- Time Warner Cable False Advertising Complaint
- Performance Evaluation and QoS Analysis of EEPB and PDCH Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks
- Assignment MSL Case
- Comparative Analysis of AODV Base and RSSI Base Wireless Sensor Node Localization Techniques
- 1.Cellular Systems
- 05206428
- International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)
- Cellular Network
- Title 4 Wcdma
- 04489322
- Measurement Methodology and Post Processing(2)
- Chap 011

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Outage Probability and Throughput

Rana Abbas, Student Member, IEEE, Mahyar Shirvanimoghaddam, Member, IEEE, Yonghui Li, Senior

Member, IEEE, and Branka Vucetic, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, we consider a massive uncoordinated perspective, orthogonal multiple access has been shown to be

non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) scheme where devices strictly sub-optimal for short packet transmissions [6]. The

have strict latency requirements and no retransmission oppor- gap between the achievable sum-rate of orthogonal multiple

tunities are available. Each device chooses a pilot sequence

from a predetermined set as its signature and transmits its access and the maximum sum-rate increases as the system

arXiv:1707.07401v1 [cs.IT] 24 Jul 2017

selected pilot and data simultaneously. A collision occurs when load increases [6].

two or more devices choose the same pilot sequence. Collisions On the other hand, authors in [7] showed that the maximum

are treated as interference to the remaining received signals. sum-rate is achievable through non-orthogonal multiple access

We consider successive joint decoding (SJD) and successive (NOMA) and joint decoding. This is because NOMA allows

interference cancellation (SIC) under a Rayleigh fading and path

loss channel model. We first derive the expression for the outage multiple users to share the different resources, e.g., time, fre-

probability for the case where devices transmit at the same fixed quency, and space, either through power domain multiplexing

rate. Then, we derive the expression for the maximum achievable or code domain multiplexing [1], [8], [9]. Thus, unlike orthog-

throughput for the case where devices transmit with rateless onal multiple access, overloading is possible at the expense

codes. Thus, their code rate is adaptive to the system conditions, of increased processing complexity at the receiver [9]. As

i.e., load, received powers, and interference. Numerical results

verify the accuracy of our analytical expressions. For low data mMTC communications are uplink-oriented, this complexity

rate transmissions, results show that SIC performs close to that is at the access point (AP) and is, thus, acceptable. NOMA

of SJD in terms of outage probability for packet arrival rates up allows multiple users to share time and frequency resources

to 10 packets per slot. However, SJD can achieve almost double in the same spatial layer via power domain or code domain

the throughput of SIC and is, thus, far more superior. multiplexing. In what follows, we highlight some of the recent

works conducted on NOMA so far.

I. I NTRODUCTION

A. Related Work

pected to play an important role in future 5G networks

[1]. mMTC handles the connections between the massive

For uplink coordinated NOMA, the problem of user

scheduling, resource allocation, and power control has been

widely investigated [10]–[18]. Authors in [13] proposed a

number of machine type devices (MTDs) which are char-

novel interference cancellation technique, called Triangular

acterized by their short packets, and low computational and

SIC, for asynchronous NOMA. Triangular SIC detects and

storage capabilities. Moreover, in most cases, MTDs have

exploits a priori information of all the overlapping symbols.

fixed locations and need to operate on a low power budget.

Authors also presented the bit-error rate for their proposed

Previous works have shown that coordinated access is not

technique. In [18], authors proposed a physical layer network

suitable for mMTC due to the large control overhead. The

coding scheme and cascade-computation decoding scheme for

control overhead can be as large as the payloads themselves

the case where a fixed number of users are transmitting over

in a large network which is very inefficient [2]. In contrast,

a fading channel. Their results show that cascade computation

uncoordinated access operates without or with minimal control

can outperform the iterative detection and decoding scheme.

overhead at the expense of collisions due to devices contending

Authors in [16] considered a single-cell scenario where active

to access the channel.

users follow a Poisson Point Process (PPP). All the active

One of the most common uncoordinated access schemes is

users are known at the AP and are scheduled together. Authors

the slotted ALOHA protocol. Many variants of this protocol

derived the expression for the achievable spectrum efficiency

have been proposed over the past decade [3]–[5] that aim at

for Nakagami fading. In [17], authors considered a multi-cell

improving the system throughput. However, as these protocols

scenario. Using the theory of ordered statistics and Poisson

are orthogonal in nature, i.e., transmissions take place over a

Cluster Process, they characterized the rate coverage proba-

set of non-overlapping resource units, the number of devices

bility for perfect and imperfect SIC. Their results show that

that can be supported is dependent on the number of avail-

NOMA outperforms its counterpart orthogonal multiple access

able resource units. Moreover, from an information theoretic

cluster in the cases of higher number of users per cell and

The authors R. Abbas, M. Shirvanimoghaddam, Y. Li and B. Vucetic higher target rate requirements.

are with the Center of Excellence in Telecommunications, School For uncoordinated NOMA, the problem is that the set of

of Electrical and Information Engineering, The University of Sydney, active users as well as their respective channel conditions are

NSW, Australia (email: {rana.abbas; mahyar.shirvanimoghaddam; yonghui.li;

branka.vucetic}@sydney.edu.au). not known a priori at the AP. Different approaches to solve

This paper was submitted in part to PIMRC 2017. this problem have been proposed. In [19], a message passing

2

algorithm was proposed to jointly detect user activity and their TABLE I

data. This problem was also solved in [20] using compressive N OTATION S UMMARY

sensing. In their technique, the estimated user set in each Notation Description

slot depends on prior information from previous transmissions. M Number of symbols in a time slot

This is valid when there exist temporal correlations between K Number of information bits in a packet

q Number of symbols in a pilot sequence

user transmissions. In [21], another user detection technique N Set of transmitting devices

was proposed using a set of orthogonal pilot sequences which L Set of pilot sequences

are chosen uniformly at random by the set of active users. Ls Set of singleton pilot sequences/layers/devices

As long as every pilot sequence is chosen by only one user, Nℓ Set of devices that chose the ℓth pilot sequence

Z Set of devices in collision (interfering)

users can be accurately detected at the receiver side and PT Maximum transmit power of a device

their channel state information can be accurately estimated. Pi Received power of device i

However, even when the number of pilot sequences is very P̂i Received power of the device in ℓth singleton layer

large, the probability that two or more users choose the same ρℓ SINR of layer ℓ, ℓ ∈ Ls

ρ̂ℓ SINR of the ℓth singleton layer

pilot sequence is non-zero. In this case, a collision is said to Rc Device code rate

have occurred as these devices cannot be distinguished by the Rf Device effective rate

AP. While authors in [22] suggest that devices adopt some

back-off scheme to resolve this collision, this implies that any pilot sequences scales linearly with the packet arrival rate. Our

collision will lead to the loss of all data including those devices results also show that SIC achieves a similar performance as

that did not collide. This is very wasteful of resources. SJD while reducing the decoding complexity.

cellation: We then consider the case where the devices trans-

Motivated by these findings, this paper investigates the per- mit using rateless codes. In this case, the rate is determined

formance of an uncoordinated massive NOMA scheme where on the fly and varies from slot to slot based on the system

user detection and channel estimation is carried out via pilot load, received powers and interferers. The receiver stops

sequences that are transmitted simultaneously with the device’s transmissions by broadcasting a beacon when the throughput

data. In particular, we investigate the performance of massive is maximized. We derive the expression for the maximum

NOMA with collisions, which is missing from previous works throughput for the case of joint decoding and successive in-

in this area. If the AP is not able to resolve the collisions, they terference cancellation. The evaluation of the exact expression

are regarded as interference. In this case, other devices that is shown to be very complicated. Based on this, we propose

did not collide in the given slot can still be recovered. This a simplified expression and demonstrate its accuracy through

allows for a more practical transmission scheme along with simulations. Our results show that the maximum throughput

a more rounded assessment of its performance and suitability of SJD is almost double that of SIC. However, we explain

for mMTC. All in all, the work provides the following three that the maximum throughput under SIC is achievable in

major contributions. practice whereas the existence of codebooks that can achieve

1) Grant-Free Massive NOMA Scheme: We consider an the maximum throughput in the case of SJD is questionable.

uplink grant-free NOMA setting where devices jointly transmit

a randomly chosen pilot sequence along with their data. For The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II

this setting, there is always a non-zero probability that two describes the system model and the considered transmission

or more devices choose the same pilot sequence. The receiver scheme for uncoordinated massive NOMA. In Section III, we

is only able to estimate their aggregate power. However, it is show that the aggregate power of collisions can be modelled

unable to distinguish the devices from one and another, and as a PPP and present its distribution. In Section IV and V, we

a collision is said to have occurred. In this work, we propose derive the outage probability and maximum system throughput

to treat these codewords as interfering signals at the AP. for uncoordinated NOMA under massive access for SJD and

We derive the distribution of the number of collided devices SIC, respectively. Numerical results are presented in Section

and show that the aggregate interference power can be well- VI. Practical considerations are discussed in Section VII, and

approximated by a PPP. Finally, we present the characteristic conclusions are drawn in Section VIII.

function of the aggregate interference power which is an

essential parameter in the performance analysis of this system. In this paper, we denote by fX (x), FX (x), ψX (ω) and

2) Outage Probability of Massive NOMA: For the proposed µX (n) the probability density function (PDF), the cumulative

framework, we first consider the case where all the devices density function (CDF), the characteristic function (CF), and

transmit at the same fixed code-rate. We derive the expression the nth moment of X, respectively. The cardinality of the set

of the outage probability for the case of joint decoding and X is denoted by |X | = X. All logarithms are taken to the

successive interference cancellation. The evaluation of the base 2, unless otherwise indicated. C(x) = log(1 + x) is the

exact expression is shown to be daunting especially for the point-to-point Gaussian channel capacity with x denoting the

case of joint decoding. To overcome this problem, we propose signal-to-noise

√ ratio (SNR), Γ(·) is the Gamma function, and

a simplified expression and demonstrate its accuracy through j = −1. Finally, δ(x) is the indicator function such that

simulations. Our results show that the optimal length of the δ(x) = 1 if x > 0 and is zero otherwise.

3

A. Overview

In each slot, each device chooses a pilot sequence of length

We model the location of the devices transmitting in any q symbols independently and uniformly at random from a set

time slot as a homogeneous Poisson point process (PPP) L = {1, 2, ..., L}. We categorize the pilots sequence into three

on an annular region with minimum and maximum radii types. An idle pilot sequence is a pilot sequence which has

dmin and dmax [23]–[27], respectively. The AP is located at not been chosen by any device. A singleton pilot is a pilot

the center, and the average number of transmitting devices sequence chosen by only one device, and a collision pilot

surrounding the AP per time slot is denoted by λ. Devices sequence is a pilot sequence chosen by two or more devices.

are considered to be static, and the channel is modelled as a Each pilot sequence ℓ is made unique to a specific code book

block fading channel. That is, the devices’ channel conditions Cℓ and, thus, acts as the device’s signature. A device i that

remain constant for the duration of one packet and vary has chosen the pilot sequence ℓ encodes its data bi into a

randomly and independently from one slot to the other. For codeword xi = fℓ (bi ).

reciprocal channels, each device can make use of the pilot

signal sent periodically over the downlink channel by the AP In practice, the set of received pilot sequences is determined

to synchronize their timing to that of the AP. The impact of by the AP via the power delay profile which is constructed

asynchrony is discussed in Section VII. by performing cross-correlations between the known pilot

For each time slot, the AP initiates uplink transmissions sequences and the received signals and averaging the absolute

through beaconing. To minimize signalling overhead, we as- square values of the created channel impulse responses [28].

sume that the beacon signal carries load information based on This is based on the fact that the auto-correlation of orthogonal

which the devices adjust their code rate. The received signal pilot sequences can be approximated by a delta function, and

at the AP for a given time slot t can be expressed as: its cross-correlation with other pilot sequences yields all-zero

sequences [28]. Thus, it is essential that the chosen set of pilot

(t) sequences have good auto and cross-correlation properties,

X

y(t) = xi + w(t) , (1)

i∈N (t)

e.g., Zadoff-chu [29], Golden codes [30], m-sequences [31]. In

what follows, we assume perfect pilot sequence detection and

(t)

where xi is the codeword transmitted by device i from the power estimation, i.e., perfect device detection and channel

total set of transmitting devices N (t) with a received power of estimation.

(t)

Pi , and w(t) is a circular symmetric white Gaussian noise Some examples are illustrated in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1(a), the

with unity variance (could include inter-cell interference). We four transmitting devices choose unique pilot sequences (1, 2,

consider Rayleigh fading and a path-loss channel model. Thus, 4 and 8). Thus, there are no collisions. The received powers

(t) (t)

Pi = |hi |2 d−α i PT , where hi , di , α and PT denote the are estimated as P1 , P2 , P4 , and P8 . The remaining pilot

small scale fading gain of the ith device, the distance between sequences (3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10) are idle pilot sequences. In Fig.

the ith device and the AP, the path-loss exponent and the 1(b), three devices choose the first pilot sequences. Devices

transmit power, respectively. In what follows, we consider tight that choose the same pilot sequence also choose the same code

latency requirements where no retransmission opportunities book. These devices cannot be distinguished by the AP and

are available, i.e., if the transmission of the packet is not are said to have collided. We will refer to each code book as a

successful in one slot, the packet is dropped. Thus, for the layer. Thus, these devices have collided over the first layer. In

remaining part of the paper, we focus our analysis on a single what follows, we assume that the AP can distinguish between

time-slot and, thus, we drop the superscripts. collision layers and singleton layers. However, for collision

In this work, each codeword is concatenated with a pilot layers, the AP does not know the number of colliding devices

sequence of length q symbols for user detection and decoding. and is, thus, unable to decode the collision layers. Instead,

Thus, each codeword is of length M − q symbols. Assuming the AP treats them as interference whose aggregate power can

each device has a set of K information bits to transmit, the be estimated from the power delay profile. The feasibility of

code rate per device is defined as these assumptions will be discussed in Section VII.

Rc := bits/symbol. (2) ℓth pilot sequence of size Nℓ . For a sufficiently large number

M −q

of pilot sequences, the random variables N1 , N2 , ..., NL are

On the other hand, the effective rate per device is defined as Poisson random variables with average λ/L. This is a practical

assumption as the length of the pilot sequences need to be

K large enough for the AP to accurately calculate the received

Rf := bits/symbol. (3) powers, and the number of pilot sequences increases with its

M

length [29]. The set of devices that have collided is denoted

Rf represents the ratio of the number of information bits to by Z = {ii ∈ Nℓ , Nℓ > 1, ∀ℓ ∈ L}. Moreover, the set of

the total number of symbols transmitted. Thus, the effective

singleton layers is denoted by Ls = {ℓNℓ = 1, ∀ℓ ∈ L}.

rate takes into consideration the redundancy incurred by the

pilot sequence. Then, the equivalent received signal as seen by the AP can be

4

4

A. Distribution of Received Power

1 1

3

2

4 1 2

For the case where devices always transmit with maximum

2

8

1 8

transmit power PT over a channel subject to Rayleigh fading

8 7

and path-loss, the distribution of the received power of a

singleton layer is given in the following corollary. We refer

C1

C1

the readers to Appendix A for the proof. We make note that

C1

C1

C2

C3

the extension of this to Nakagami fading or any other fading

C2 C4

C4

C8

C7

C8

C2

C8

distribution is straight-forward.

q M −q q M −q q M −q

P4 P4 P8

P1 P2 P2

P3

P2

with a minimum radius of dmin and a maximum radius of dmax ,

the CDF of the received power P = |h|2 d−α (PT = 1) at the

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

origin under Rayleigh fading is

(a) (b) (c)

2

p− α Γ α2 + 1

Fig. 1. Different case scenarios of a network with L = 10 pilot sequences: d2

(a) N = 4, (b) N = 8 and (c) N = 2. FP (p) = 1 − 2 2 + 2 min 2 . (7)

dmax − dmin dmax − dmin

expressed as

X X B. Aggregate Interference Power

y= xn + xn′ + w, (4)

n∈Nℓ ,ℓ∈Ls n′ ∈Z We now proceed to find the distribution of the aggregate

interference power I. For that, we first find the exact distri-

where xi = fℓ (bi ) for i ∈ Nℓ . The received signal-to-

bution of the number of interferers in the following lemma,

interference-and-noise-ratio (SINR) of the singleton layers is

i.e., number of devices in collision Z. We refer the readers to

given as

Appendix B for the proof.

Pi

ρℓ = , for i ∈ Nℓ , ℓ ∈ Ls , (5) Lemma 1. Consider a total of L layers where packet arrivals

I + σ2

where I denotes the aggregate interference power caused by over each layer are Poisson distributed with an average of

these collisions given as: λ/L. Given that the number of singleton layers is Ls < L,

X the probability of having a total of n packets collide in a given

I= |hn |2 d−α

n PT . (6) time slot is expressed in (8) (top of the next page).

n∈Z

Although Z devices are only Poisson distributed in space

It is worthy of pointing out the main differences between this

and not in number, our results in Fig. 2 show that their aggre-

transmission scheme and that of Long-term Evolution (LTE).

gate power can be well-approximated by a PPP. Accordingly,

In LTE [32], the set of orthogonal sequences used for user

the distribution of the aggregate interference power I, given

detection are called preambles. Users transmit their chosen

Ls , can be well-approximated by the skewed truncated stable

preambles separately from their data on a dedicated random

distribution [33], and its CF can be expressed as

access channel, and the AP allocates resources on the uplink

α

ψI (jω) = eγI Γ(−aI )((gI −jω) −gI I )

αI

data channel for each of the detected preambles. A collision , (9)

occurs when two or more devices choose the same preamble.

These devices will transmit their packets over the same time- where the parameters αI , gI and γI determine the shape of

frequency resources, and the AP will not be able to decode the distribution. In particular, the parameters αI and γI are

them correctly. Although many techniques have been proposed related to the dispersion and the characteristic exponent of the

to resolve these collisions, e.g. [15], LTE remains a form of stable distribution, respectively, and the parameter gI is the

coordinated orthogonal transmission scheme and, thus, is not argument of the exponential function used to smooth the tail

suitable for massive access as explained in Section I. More of the stable distribution. These parameters are found through

importantly, the control signals and the data are transmitted the method of the cumulants [33] and are given as

over separate channels at different times which was shown to 2

be strictly sub-optimal for small payloads [2]. αI = , (10)

α

κI (1)(1 − αI )

III. P RELIMINARIES gI = , (11)

κI (2)

In this section, we first derive the distribution for the

−κI (1)

received power of a single user randomly located in the γI = αI −1 . (12)

cell. Then, for Poisson packet arrivals, we show that the κI (1)(1−αI )

Γ[−αI ]αI κI (2)

colliding/interfering devices can be well-approximated by a

Poisson point process (PPP). Based on this, we find the Here, κI (n) denotes the nth cumulant of the interference

characteristic function for the aggregate power I defined

(CF) power and is given as

as ψI (jω) := E e−jωI . These parameters will be useful in

2λZ d2−nα 2−nα

min − dmax

evaluating the outage probability and the throughput of the κI (n) = µv (n)PTn , (13)

considered uncoordinated NOMA setting. nα − 2 d2max − d2min

5

n (L−Ls )λ

(L−Ls )λ

e− min{L−Ls −1,n} λ n−c −(L−Ls −c) L

λ

L

(L − L − c) e

L L − Ls

c

X s

−λe−λ L

Pr Z = nLs = 1 + .

n!(1 − λe−λ )L−Ls c (n − c)!

c=1

(8)

0.06

= 10 Consider the case where all the devices encode their data

K

= 20

using a fixed rate code with code rate Rc := M−q . In this

PDF of Aggregate Interference Power

0.05 = 30

case, we are interested in characterizing and evaluating the

outage probability of the system. That is, the probability that

0.04

a device is not successfully decoded in a given time slot. Given

Ls singleton layers with a received power vector P̂, subject

0.03

to an interference power I, a successive joint decoder first

tries to decode all Ls layers jointly. However, if the equal-rate

0.02 point (R, ..., R) ∈ RL+ is outside the Ls -dimensional capacity

s

0.01 decode the strongest Ls − 1 devices by treating the weakest

layer as interference. The weakest layer is defined as the

0 singleton layer with the smallest received power. Similarly, if

-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 Ls −1

the equal-rate point (R, ..., R) ∈ R+ is outside the Ls − 1-

Aggregate Inteference Power: I (dB)

dimensional capacity region, the AP will try to decode the

Fig. 2. Aggregate interference power for L − Ls = 200. The solid lines strongest Ls − 2 layers by treating the two weakest layers as

correspond to the actual distribution, and the dashed lines correspond to the interference. The process repeats until decoding is successful

Poisson distribution. Readers are referred to Table II for the remaining system

parameters.

or until there are no more layers to decode. Now, consider the

descending ordered set P̂(1) ≥ P̂(2) ≥ . . . ≥ P̂(Ls ) .

where v = |h|2 is a chi-squared distributed random vari- For that, the outage probability is defined as the average

able under Rayleigh-fading,

µv (n) is its nth moment, and number of singleton layers that cannot be decoded success-

λZ (Ls ) := E[Z Ls ].

fully. Given Ls singleton layers with a received power vector

Finally, the inversion theorem [33] dictates that the P, subject to an interference power I, the fraction of layers in

cumulative-density function (CDF) of I can be computed as outage can be expressed as

Z ∞

ψI (−jω)ejωx − ψI (jω)e−jωx

1 1 ℓ

FI (x) = − Re dω, ǫSJD (Ls , I, P̂) = 1 − max , (16)

2 2π 0 jω 0≤ℓ≤Ls Ls

(14) Pℓ !

and the probability density function (PDF) of I can be 1 P̂(c)

s.t. Rc ≤ min log 1 + PLs c=ℓ−i+1 .

computed as 1≤i≤ℓ i ′ =ℓ+1 P̂(c′ ) + I + σ

2

Z ∞ c

1

fI (x) = e−jωx ψI (−jω)dω. (15) Here, ℓ denotes the maximum number of layers that can be

2π 0 decoded out of the Ls singleton layers. In general, the outage

IV. P ERFORMANCE OF M ASSIVE NOMA WITH probability can be expressed as

S UCCESSIVE J OINT D ECODING "L

s

#

X ℓ

In this section, we consider the case where all the singleton ǫSJD = 1 − ELs ,I,P̂ Pr φ̄Ls ,Ls , . . . , φ̄ℓ+1,Ls , φℓ,Ls ,

Ls

layers are jointly decoded at the receiver using a maximum ℓ=0

likelihood decoder. Although jointly decoding all of the sin- (17)

gleton layers is optimal in terms of the common outage event, where φℓ,Ls =

i.e., the probability that at least one layer decoded incorrectly, Pℓ !!

it is not optimal in terms of the individual outage event, i.e., 1 c=ℓ−i+1 P̂(c)

the probability that one layer is decoded incorrectly. Therefore, δ Rc ≤ min log 1 + PLs ,

1≤i≤ℓ i 2

c′ =ℓ+1 P̂(c′ ) + I + σ

we consider the successive joint decoder (SJD) where a

subset of the layers can be decoded jointly while regarding Thus, to find the outage probability, not only do we need

the remaining layers as interference. For that, we derive the to average over the different number of singleton layers as

expressions for the outage probability and the throughput. For well as the different aggregate interference powers, we also

ease of notation, we define P̂ := [P̂ℓ ]1≤ℓ≤Ls , where P̂ℓ is need to average over the numerous realizations of the received

the received power of the device in the ℓth singleton layer. power vector. Thus, computing the outage probability for

Similarly, we define ρ̂ := [ρ̂ℓ ]1≤ℓ≤Ls , where ρ̂ℓ is the SINR uncoordinated multiple access is even more daunting than

of the ℓth singleton layer. that for coordinated multiple access [34]. In what follows, we

6

make use of the massive aspect of mMTC to simplify this throughput is maximized through beaconing. The throughput

expression. is defined as the ratio of the number of successfully decoded

Consider a set of L i.i.d. random variables [Xi ]1≤i≤L , where information bits to the length of the transmitted codeword

X1 ≥ X2 ≥ ... ≥ XL . Then, from ordered statistics [35], we (M − q). This is determined by the AP and can be made

have known to the devices through beacons. Given Ls singleton

−1

layers, a received power vector P̂, subject to an interference

lim Pr |X⌊yL⌋ − FX (1 − y)| > ν = 0, (18) power I, the maximum instantaneous throughput is given as

L→∞

for all y ∈ [0, 1] and ν > 0. Based on this, for an asymptoti- ζSJD (Ls , I, P̂) =

cally large number of singleton layers, the following equality Pℓ !

holds for all ℓ1 , ℓ2 ∈ [1, Ls ]. ℓ c=ℓ−i+1 P̂(c)

max min log 1 + PLs .

1≤ℓ≤Ls 1≤i≤ℓ i 2

Xℓ2 Z ℓ2 /Ls c′ =ℓ+1 P̂(c′ ) + I + σ

lim P̂(i) =Ls FP−1 (1 − y)dy As the throughput varies from slot to slot, the maximum aver-

Ls →∞ ℓ1 /Ls

i=ℓ1 age throughput should be averaged over all possible values of

=Ls (g(ℓ2 /Ls ) − g(ℓ1 /Ls )) , (19) Ls , I and P̂. However, from (18), the maximum instantaneous

system throughput under massive access can be expressed

where g(y) := FP−1 (1 − y)dy. For Rayleigh fading and a

R

from [34] as

path-loss channel model, g(y) is evaluated by integrating the

inverse of (7) and is expressed in (20). For the special case of ζSJD (Ls , I, P̂) =

Rayleigh fading only, we have

!

1 g(v) − g(v − uv)

max min log 1 + 2 . (24)

gRay. (y) = (1 − y) loge (1 − y) − (1 − y). (21) 0≤v≤1 0<u≤1 u g(1) − g(v) + I+σ

Ls

Using this property, the complexity of computing the outage Then, the average maximum system throughput under massive

probability of massive NOMA in (17) is significantly reduced access is derived in the following lemma. We refer the readers

as P converges to a deterministic value as Ls → ∞. The to Appendix D for the proof.

expression for that is derived in the following lemma. We refer Lemma 3. For L pilot sequences of length q and a packet

the readers to Appendix C for the proof. We make note that in arrival rate of λ packets, the average maximum system

practice, we find that this property gives sufficiently accurate throughput of massive NOMA with SJD can be expressed as

results for Ls > 10. in (25).

Lemma 2. Consider a time slot of length M symbol durations.

V. P ERFORMANCE OF M ASSIVE NOMA WITH

For a code rate Rc , L pilot sequences of length q and a packet

S UCCESSIVE I NTERFERENCE C ANCELLATION

arrival rate of λ packets, the outage probability of the massive

NOMA system with SJD can be expressed as As joint decoding is often infeasible in practice due to

Z 1 Z ∞ complexity constraints, we consider successive interference

v ∗ cancellation (SIC) in this section. In each stage of SIC, the

ǫSJD = 1−ELs e−jωISJD (v) ψI (−jω)dω , (22)

0 2π 0

strongest layer is decoded by regarding remaining layers as

∗ interference. Thus, we only need a single-user decoder. If the

where ISJD (v) is the solution to the equation below

layer is decoded successfully, the decoded layer is subtracted

! from the received signal. We assume perfect SIC. In the second

1 g(v) − g(v − uv)

Ls Rc − min log 1 + 2 = 0. stage, the second strongest layer is decoded by regarding the

0<u≤1 uv g(1) − g(v) + I+σ Ls remaining layers as interference. SIC stops when a layer is

(23) decoded unsuccessfully or when there are no more layers to

Here, I ∗ (v) denotes the largest interference power for which decode.

SJD

the largest fraction of layers that can be decoded successfully

A. Outage Probability with SIC

is v. The integral in Lemma 3 averages over the aggregate

interference power, and the expectation averages over the Given that the strongest ℓ − 1 layers have been decoded

number of singleton layers. successfully, the ℓth strongest layer is decoded successfully if

the following condition is true.

B. Maximum Throughput with SJD P̂(ℓ)

PLs ≥ 2 Rc − 1 (26)

2

We now consider the case where devices can transmit as c=ℓ+1 P̂(c) + I + σ

many coded symbols as necessary. This is feasible when Thus, given that the strongest ℓ − 1 layers have been decoded

devices use rateless channel codes to encode their information successfully, the probability that the ℓth strongest layer is

[36]. With rateless codes, the length of the codeword is decoded successfully is given as

determined on the fly and is adaptive to the load, received PLs

powers and interference power. Thus, the duration of the slot P̂(ℓ) − 2Rc − 1 c=ℓ+1 P̂(c) + σ

2

(M ) as well as the devices’ code rate (Rc ) also varies from one Pr I ≤

2 Rc − 1

slot to the other. Transmissions are stopped by the AP when the

7

g(y) = −α α

. (20)

(α − 2)(d2max − d2min ) Γ α2 + 1 2 ((d2max − d2min )y − d2min ) 2

∞

1 ψI (−s) −s((g(1)−g(v))Ls +σ2 )

Z

−s((g(1)−g(v−uv))Ls +σ2

ζSJD = ELs max min e −e ds . (25)

0≤v≤1 0<u≤1 u 0 s

From (18), given Ls and I, the SINR at each stage of the SIC is TABLE II

deterministic under massive access. Based on this, the outage S YSTEM PARAMETERS

probability under SIC is derived in the following proposition. Parameter Value

The definition of the outage probability is as given in Section Cell Radius 500 m

IV-A, and the proof of the proposition is similar to that of Reference Distance 50 m

Bandwidth 15 kHz

Lemma 2. Transmit Power 23 dBm

Thermal Noise Density -174 dBm/Hz

Proposition 1. For a code rate Rc , L pilot sequences of length Receiver Noise Figure 3 dB

q and a packet arrival rate of λ packets, the outage probability Path loss exponent 3.5

of massive NOMA with SIC can be expressed as

Z 1 Z ∞ suffers from collision. We also assume that q = L [29]–

v ∗ [31]. This means that the overhead associated with channel

ǫSIC (R) = 1−ELs e−jωISIC (v) ψI (−jω)dω ,

0 2π 0 estimation and user detection scales linearly with the packet

(27) arrival rate. In what follows, we evaluate the performance of

massive NOMA for different collision probabilities.

where

First, we evaluate the outage probability for massive

FP−1 (v) − 2Rc − 1 (g(1) − g(v))Ls + σ 2

∗ NOMA. Each time slot is of length M = 2000 [37] over

ISIC (v) := .

2 Rc − 1 which the devices transmit with a code rate of 0.1. Results for

(28) SJD and SIC are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively.

∗ We first observe that the analytical results from Lemma 3

Here, ISIC (v) denotes the largest interference power for which

and Proposition 1(PROP 1) provide a good approximation of

the largest fraction of layers that can be decoded successfully

the actual performance obtained from Monte Carlo simula-

is v.

tions. When comparing the performance for different collision

probabilities, we find that the gap between the number of

B. Maximum Throughput with SIC successfully decoded devices and the number of singleton

We now consider the same setup in Section IV-B. Given Ls layers becomes more significant as β increases for both

singleton layers with a received power vector P̂, subject to an SJD and SIC. This is because collisions in NOMA act as

interference power I, the maximum instantaneous throughput interference to the remaining singleton layers which leads to

is given as more outages.

In Fig. 3(c) and Fig. 4(c), the effective sum-rate is evaluated

ζSIC (P, Ls , I) = as the product of the number of successfully decoded devices

K

FP−1 (1 − v ′ )

and the effective rate M . In general, if the number of pilot

Ls max v log 1 + min . sequences is too small, the number of singleton layers will be

0<v≤1 ′ 0<v ≤v (g(1) − g(v ′ ))Ls + I + σ 2

low. Thus, the number of successfully decoded devices will

(29)

be low as well. On the other hand, when the number/length

The average maximum system throughput is given in the of pilot sequences is too large, the overhead will be large.

following proposition. The proof of this proposition is similar Thus, the effective rate will be low. Interestingly, it seems that

to that of Lemma 3. the optimal value of L scales linearly with the packet arrival

rate. Finally, in Fig. 3(d) and Fig. 4(d) we plot the maximum

Proposition 2. For L pilot sequences of length q and with a

payload sizes that can be transmitted and compare them to the

packet arrival rate of λ packets, the average maximum system

overhead induced by the pilot sequences. In general, we can

throughput of massive NOMA under SIC can be evaluated

say that for applications with payloads of size 100-200 bits and

from (30).

a target outage probability of ≈ 0.01, we can simultaneously

support up to 7 devices with SJD and up to 6 devices with

VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS SIC.

In our simulations, we consider single-tone transmissions In Fig. 5, we evaluate the outage probability for a larger

with the system parameters listed in Table II [37]–[39]. code rate (Rc = 1). Here, we notice that the performance

The number of pilot sequences L is determined such that gap between SJD and SIC is more significant. In fact, from

λ

1 − e− L = β, where β denotes the probability that a device Fig. 5(b), we can see that SIC can barely decode any packet.

8

∞

ψI (−s) −s((g(1)−g(v′ ))Ls +σ2 )

Z

−sFP−1 (1−v ′ )

ζSIC = ELs max vLs min e 1−e ds . (30)

0<v≤1 ′ 0<v ≤v 0 s

SIM: = 0.10 SIM: = 0.10 = 0.10 K: = 0.10

900

LEMMA 2: = 0.10 9 E[L ]: = 0.10 = 0.05 q: = 0.10

s 0.8

SIM: = 0.05 = 0.01 K: = 0.05

SIM: = 0.05 800

LEMMA 2: = 0.05 q: = 0.05

8 E[L s]: = 0.05

) SJD

SIM: = 0.01 700

LEMMA 2: = 0.01 q: = 0.01

10-1

E[L s]: = 0.01

Outage Probability (

7

600

0.6

6 500

0.5

400

5

10-2

0.4 300

4

200

3 0.3

100

10-3 2 0.2 0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( )

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

K

Fig. 3. Outage Probability for massive NOMA with SJD for different values of β. The code rate M −q

is equal to 0.1 and the slot duration is M = 2000

symbols.

SIM: = 0.90 SIM: = 0.90 = 0.90 K: = 0.90

PROP 2: = 0.90 9 E[L s]: = 0.90 = 0.95

900 q: = 0.90

0.8

SIM: = 0.95 = 0.99 K: = 0.95

SIM: = 0.95

800

Number of Successful Devices

PROP 2: = 0.95 8 E[L ]: = 0.95 q: = 0.95

)

SIC

= 0.99

0.7 700

PROP 2: = 0.99 q: = 0.99

10-1 7

E[L s]: = 0.99

Outage Probability (

600

6 0.6

500

5 0.5

400

-2 4

10

0.4 300

3

200

0.3

2 100

10-3 1 0.2 0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( )

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

K

Fig. 4. Outage Probability for massive NOMA with SIC for different values of β. The code rate M −q

is equal to 0.1 and the slot duration is M = 2000

symbols.

100 10 7 2000

SIC = 0.10 = 0.10

9 1800

E[L s]: = 0.10 = 0.05

6 SJD

SJD = 0.01

Effective Sum-Rate (bits/symbol)

8 = 0.05 1600

Number of Successful Devices

5

Outage Probability ( )

7 = 0.01 1400

10-1

E[L s]: = 0.01 K: = 0.10

6 1200 q: = 0.10

4

K: = 0.05

5 1000 q: = 0.05

3 K: = 0.01

4 800 q: = 0.01

10-2

3 2 600

SIC

2 SIC 400

= 0.10

= 0.05

1

1 200

= 0.01

10-3 0 0 0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( )

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

K

Fig. 5. Outage Probability for massive NOMA with SJD and SIC for different values of β. The code rate M −q

is equal to 1 and the slot duration is

M = 2000 symbols.

However, although the outage probability of SJD is better, it of that of SIC, thus, SJD is in theory far more superior in

is still too high for any practical use. Moreover, as mMTC are this case. However, in the following section, we explain that

characterized by their low data rate transmissions, SIC seems the maximum throughput under SIC is achievable in practice

to be a good candidate for our uncoordinated massive NOMA whereas the achievability in the case of SJD is questionable.

scheme when low processing complexity is needed. Finally, we make note that in practice M should not be larger

Next, we evaluate the throughput for massive NOMA in than the coherence time. In this case, collision probabilities

Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. In this setup, each device has a set lower than 0.01 cannot be supported by this scheme as it will

of 1024 information bits to transmit [37]. The number and require longer pilot sequences.

length of pilot sequences is determined as before. We observe

VII. P RACTICAL C ONSIDERATIONS

that the analytical results from Lemma 4 and Proposition 2

(PROP 2) also provide a good approximation of the actual A. Detection of Collision Layers and Achievability

performance obtained from Monte Carlo simulations. We also For SIC, the detection of collision layers can be imple-

observe that the throughput gain of SJD is almost double mented through a simple algorithm. At first, the AP assumes

9

14 10 7 2500

= 0.10 q: = 0.10

9 = 0.05 M-q: = 0.10

12 6

)

= 0.01 M: = 0.10

SJD

2000 q: = 0.05

8

M-q: = 0.05

10 5

Average System Throughput (

M: = 0.05

7

q: = 0.01

1500 M-q: = 0.01

8 6 4

M: = 0.01

6 5 3

1000

SIM: = 0.10

SIM: = 0.10 4 E[L ]: = 0.10

s

4 LEMMA 3: = 0.10

2

SIM: = 0.05

SIM: = 0.05 3 E[L ]: = 0.05

s 500

LEMMA 3: = 0.05

2 SIM: = 0.01 1

SIM: = 0.01 2

E[L s]: = 0.01

LEMMA 3: = 0.01

0 1 0 0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( )

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

Fig. 6. Average system Throughput for massive NOMA with SJD for different values of β (K = 1024).

14 10 7 2500

SIM: = 0.10 SIM: = 0.10 = 0.10 q: = 0.10

PROP 2: = 0.10 9 E[L s]: = 0.10 = 0.05 M-q: = 0.10

12 6

)

SIC

Number of Successful Devices

SIM: = 0.01 M-q: = 0.05

Average System Throughput (

10 SIM: = 0.01 5

PROP 2: = 0.01 7 M: = 0.05

E[L ]: = 0.01 q: = 0.01

s

1500 M-q: = 0.01

8 6 4

M: = 0.01

6 5 3

1000

4

4 2

3

500

2 1

2

0 1 0 0

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( ) Packet Arrival Rate ( )

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

Fig. 7. Average system Throughput for massive NOMA with SIC for different values of β (K = 1024).

that all the layers are singleton layers and orders the layers if not null. We would like to point out that as most MTDs

according to their respective received powers in descending are stationary devices, their timing advance need not be

order. In the first iteration, the AP attempts to decode the communicated very frequently. Alternatively, time asynchrony

strongest layer. The AP can verify that the decoded informa- can provide another contention unit by which devices can be

tion is correct through a simple CRC-check. If decoding is distinguished from one another without having to increase

successful, the decoded signal is cancelled from the received the pilot sequence length and thus without introducing re-

signal. If not, the AP assumes that this is a collision layer. dundancy. Moreover, time asynchrony can help in detecting

In the second iteration, the AP attempts to decode the second the number of devices in collision layers. This allows the

strongest layer while regarding the previously undecoded layer opporutnity to resolve collisions layers and decode the packets

as interference. The AP can continue to follow the same steps of the involved devices. However, the performance analysis

until there are no more layers to decode. Detecting collision for this case scenario is not straightforward as the maximum

layers for SJD is also possible at the expense of a larger achievable rate with code-reuse is strictly lower than that with

complexity, as the AP would need decode all possible subsets unique codes and is dependent on the codes used [18].

of layers while regarding the remaining layers are interference. In general, the AP can feedback a timing advance signal

When decoding finishes, the AP would choose the largest in the acknowledgement. For that, the operator can either

subset of successfully decoded layers. choose to operate either in a fully synchronous mode or

It is straight-forward to see that the derived bounds for SIC allow the devices to introduce random asynchrony into their

are achievable when capacity achieving point to point channel transmissions to create more contention units [40].

codes are used. However, for SJD, it is uncertain whether

their exists channel codes suitable for grant-free coordinated VIII. C ONCLUSION

access with joint decoding. That is mainly because these In this paper, we considered a massive uncoordinated

codes would not only have to adapt to the different channel NOMA setting where devices choose pilot sequences from

conditions but also to the different channel loads. Finally, we a predetermined set as their signature. Then, each device

would like to point out that there exists practical low-complex encodes its data using the pilot as the signature and transmits

decoders such as belief-propagation-based decoders that can its selected pilot and data simultaneously with the rest of the

score performances close to that of maximum likelihood devices. In our proposed scheme, a collision occurs when

decoding more than one device choose the same pilot sequence. The

set of collided packets are treated as interference. For that,

B. Synchronization we show that the aggregate interference power can be well-

In conventional communication systems, synchronization approximated by a PPP. Based on this, we derive the outage

takes place beforehand. However, it has been well established probability and the maximum system throughput under suc-

now that for massive access control signals should be minimal cessive joint decoding (SJD) as well as successive interference

10

cancellation (SIC) for a Rayleigh fading and path loss channel The last equation follows from the fact that the sum of any c

model. We verified the accuracy of our derived expressions via elements of N is a Poisson distributed random variable with

simulations. Our results show that SIC performs close to that average cλ.

of SJD in terms of outage probability for packet arrival rates We want to calculate the probability that the sum of these

up to 10 packets per slot. In terms of throughput, although SJD elements is equal to some positive integer n given that Ni 6= 1

scores almost double the throughput gain of that of SIC, we for 1 ≤ i ≤ L. This can be expressed as

explained that this throughput might not be achievable with

Pr (B|Sn ) Pr (Sn ) 1 − Pr B̄|Sn Pr (Sn )

practical modulation and channel coding schemes. Pr (Sn |B) = = .

Pr (B) 1 − Pr B̄

A PPENDIX A Moreover, we have

P ROOF OF C OROLLARY 1 n−c −(L−c)λ

c ((L − c)λ) e

Pr A1 ∩ A2 ∩ ...Ac Sn = Pr (A) ,

For a device uniformly distributed in an annulus of min- (n − c)!

imum radius dmin and maximum radius dmax , the CDF of

the distance d with respect to the origin follows the truncated for c ≤ min{L − 1, n}; it is zero otherwise. Given Sn , the

Pareto distribution below probability that at least one of the elements of vector N is

equal to 1 can be expressed as:

d2 − d2min

FD (d) = 2 . L

!

dmax − d2min [

Pr B̄|Sn = Pr Ai Sn

For X = d−α , i=1

−α L

FX (x) = Pr(d < x) X X

1

= (−1)c+1 Pr (Ai1 ∩ . . . ∩ Aic |Sn )

−α

= Pr(d > x ) c=1 i1 ,...,ic :

2 1≤i1 <...<ic ≤L

x− α − d2min n−1 −(L−1)λ

=1− ((L − 1)λ) e

d2max − d2min = LPr(A) −

(n − 1)!

For Rayleigh fading, we can write n−2 −(L−2)λ

L 2 ((L − 2)λ) e

Z ∞ Pr (A) + ...+

FP (p) = Pr(vd−α < p|v)Pr(v)dv 2 (n − 2)!

0 n−θ −(L−θ)λ

L θ ((L − θ)λ) e

(−1)θ

Z ∞ 2

p −α 2 Pr (A)

− dmin −v θ (n − θ)!

= 1 − v e dv.

0 d2max − d2min θ

c ((L − c)λ)n−c e−(L−c)λ

L

(−1)c+1

X

= λe−λ ,

∞ p −α

2 c (n − c)!

− d2min −v

Z

c=1

v

=1− e dv.

0 dmax − d2min

2 where θ = min{L−1, n}. Then, it is straight-forward to arrive

−α2 (1−Pr(B̄|Sn ))Pr(Sn )

d2min at Lemma 1 by calculating and substituting

p 2 1−Pr(B̄ )

=1− Γ +1 + 2 .

d2max − d2min α dmax − d2min λ

L by L − Ls and λ by L .

A PPENDIX C

P ROOF OF L EMMA 3

From (19) and (16), the outage probability converges to a

A PPENDIX B

deterministic value given below as

P ROOF OF L EMMA 2

Consider a vector N = {Ni }1≤i≤L , where Ni ∈ N are ǫSJD (Ls , I, P̂) = 1−

independent and identically distributed Poisson distributed

( !)

1 g(v) − g(u − uv)

random variables with average λ. For that, we define the max v, R ≤ min log 1 + 2 ,

0≤v≤Ls 0<u≤1 uvLs g(1) − g(v) + I+σ

Ls

following events

Ai : Event of Ni = 1. where u := ℓi and v := Lℓs . As we are considering a massive

λ

access setting, the average number of singleton layers λe− L

B: Event of Ni 6= 1, ∀i.

is taken to be asymptotically large. Moreover, as the ordered

L

X received powers converge to deterministic values under mas-

Sn : Event of Ni = n.

sive access, we can see that expression above for the outage

i=1

probability for a given number of singleton layers depends

Following from the definition of Poisson distributions, we have only on the interference power. Based on this, in step (a), we

Pr(Ai ) = Pr(A) = λe−λ , ∀i, average over Ls and I. Then, in step (b), we decompose the

L ∗

integral such that ISJD ( Lℓs ) denotes the maximum interference

Pr(B) = (1 − Pr(A))L = 1 − λe−λ , and power for which ℓ out of Ls layers can be decoded correctly.

n −Lλ

(Lλ) e It is expressed in (23). Finally, we arrive at (22) by applying

Pr (Sn ) = .

n! the inversion theorem in (14).

11

"Z ( !) #

∞

(a) 1 g(v) − g(v − uv)

ǫSJD = 1 − ELs max v, R ≤ min log 1 + 2 fI (x)dI

0 v 0≤u≤1 uvL s g(1) − g(v) + x+σ

Ls

Z 1

(b) ∗

= 1 − ELs vfI (ISJD (v))dv .

0

" !#

1 g(v) − g(v − uv) (c)

EI max min log 1 + I+σ2

=

0≤v≤1 0<u≤1 u g(1) − g(v) + Ls

" −z(g(v)−g(v−uv))

! #

1 ∞ e−z

Z 2

g(1)−g(v)+ I+σ (d)

EI max min 1−e L s dz =

0≤v≤1 0<u≤1 u 0 z

" Z ∞ −s((g(1)−g(v))Ls +σ2 ) #

1 e −sI

−s(g(v)−g(v−uv))Ls

(e)

EI max min e 1−e ds =

0≤v≤1 0<u≤1 u 0 s

2

1 ∞ e−s((g(1)−g(v))Ls +σ ) −sI

Z (f )

max min EI e 1 − e−s(g(v)−g(v−uv))Ls ds =

0≤v≤1 0<u≤1 u 0 s

Z ∞ −s((g(1)−g(v))Ls +σ2 )

1 e

max min ψI (−s) 1 − e−s(g(v)−g(v−uv))Ls ds.

0≤v≤1 0<u≤1 u 0 s

P ROOF OF L EMMA 4 access: applying codes on graphs to design random access protocols,”

IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 144–150, June

The average system throughput can be evaluated by aver- 2015.

[6] E. MolavianJazi and J. N. Laneman, “On the second-order cost of

aging the expression in (25) over Ls and I. Step (c) follows TDMA for gaussian multiple access,” in 2014 IEEE International

from averaging over the latter and using the following identity Symposium on Information Theory. IEEE, 2014, pp. 266–270.

[ref] [41] [7] ——, “A random coding approach to gaussian multiple access channels

with finite blocklength,” in IEEE 50th Annual Allerton Conference on

Z ∞ −z Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), 2012, pp. 286–293.

e

1 − e−xz .

log(1 + x) = [8] L. Dai, B. Wang, Y. Yuan, S. Han, C. l. I, and Z. Wang, “Non-orthogonal

0 z multiple access for 5G: solutions, challenges, opportunities, and future

research trends,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53, no. 9, pp.

Step (d) follows from a change of variable: z = s I + σ 2 ,

74–81, September 2015.

and step (e) follows from interchanging the integration and [9] Y. Yuan, Z. Yuan, G. Yu, C. h. Hwang, P. k. Liao, A. Li, and

K. Takeda, “Non-orthogonal transmission technology in LTE evolution,”

the expectation. Finally, step (f ) follows from the definition IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 68–74, July 2016.

of CFs. [10] T. Takeda and K. Higuchi, “Enhanced user fairness using non-orthogonal

access with SIC in cellular uplink,” in IEEE Vehicular Technology

Conference (VTC Fall), 2011, pp. 1–5.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT [11] Y. Endo, Y. Kishiyama, and K. Higuchi, “Uplink non-orthogonal access

with MMSE-SIC in the presence of inter-cell interference,” in IEEE

The authors would like to thank Dr. Wei Bao and Dr. International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS),

2012, pp. 261–265.

Matthias Wildemeersch on their valuable feedback on this [12] M. Al-Imari, P. Xiao, M. A. Imran, and R. Tafazolli, “Uplink non-

work. orthogonal multiple access for 5G wireless networks,” in IEEE 11th In-

ternational Symposium on Wireless Communications Systems (ISWCS),

2014, pp. 781–785.

R EFERENCES [13] H. Haci, H. Zhu, and J. Wang, “A novel interference cancellation

technique for non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA),” in IEEE Global

[1] C. Bockelmann, N. Pratas, H. Nikopour, K. Au, T. Svensson, C. Ste- Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec 2015, pp. 1–6.

fanovic, P. Popovski, and A. Dekorsy, “Massive machine-type communi- [14] C. W. Sung and Y. Fu, “A game-theoretic analysis of uplink power

cations in 5G: physical and mac-layer solutions,” IEEE Communications control for a non-orthogonal multiple access system with two interfering

Magazine, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 59–65, September 2016. cells,” in IEEE 83rd Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring),

[2] G. Durisi, T. Koch, and P. Popovski, “Toward massive, ultrareliable, and 2016, pp. 1–5.

low-latency wireless communication with short packets,” Proceedings of [15] N. Zhang, J. Wang, G. Kang, and Y. Liu, “Uplink nonorthogonal multiple

the IEEE, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 1711–1726, 2016. access in 5G systems,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 20, no. 3,

[3] G. Liva, “Graph-based analysis and optimization of contention resolution pp. 458–461, 2016.

diversity slotted ALOHA,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, [16] P. Sedtheetorn and K. Panyim, “Accurate uplink spectral efficiency for

vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 477–487, 2011. non orthogonal multiple access in nakagami fading,” in IEEE 13th Inter-

[4] C. Stefanovic, P. Popovski, and D. Vukobratovic, “Frameless ALOHA national Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer,

protocol for wireless networks,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 16, Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON), 2016,

no. 12, pp. 2087–2090, 2012. pp. 1–4.

12

[17] H. Tabassum, E. Hossain, and M. J. Hossain, “Modeling and analysis [41] Y. Lin and W. Yu, “Downlink spectral efficiency of distributed antenna

of uplink non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) in large-scale cel- systems under a stochastic model,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless

lular networks using poisson cluster processes,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 6891–6902, 2014.

Communications, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, April 2017.

[18] T. Yang, L. Yang, Y. Guo, and J. Yuan, “A non-orthogonal multiple-

access scheme using reliable physical-layer network coding and cascade-

computation decoding,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communica-

tions, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2017.

[19] C. Wei, H. Liu, Z. Zhang, J. Dang, and L. Wu, “Approximate message

passing based joint user activity and data detection for NOMA,” IEEE

Communications Letters, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2016.

[20] B. Wang, L. Dai, Y. Zhang, T. Mir, and J. Li, “Dynamic compressive

sensing-based multi-user detection for uplink grant-free NOMA,” IEEE

Communications Letters, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 2320–2323, Nov 2016.

[21] H. Nikopour and H. Baligh, “Sparse code multiple access,” in IEEE

24th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile

Radio Communications (PIMRC). IEEE, 2013, pp. 332–336.

[22] S. Zhang, X. Xu, L. Lu, Y. Wu, G. He, and Y. Chen, “Sparse code

multiple access: An energy efficient uplink approach for 5G wireless

systems,” in IEEE Global Communications Conference. IEEE, 2014,

pp. 4782–4787.

[23] M. Z. Win, P. C. Pinto, and L. A. Shepp, “A mathematical theory of

network interference and its applications,” Proceedings of the IEEE,

vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 205–230, Feb 2009.

[24] J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach

to coverage and rate in cellular networks,” IEEE Transactions on

Communications, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, 2011.

[25] A. Rabbachin, T. Q. Quek, H. Shin, and M. Z. Win, “Cognitive network

interference,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,

vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 480–493, 2011.

[26] A. Ghosh, N. Mangalvedhe, R. Ratasuk, B. Mondal, M. Cudak, E. Visot-

sky, T. A. Thomas, J. G. Andrews, P. Xia, H. S. Jo et al., “Heterogeneous

cellular networks: From theory to practice,” IEEE Communications

Magazine, vol. 50, no. 6, 2012.

[27] T. D. Novlan, H. S. Dhillon, and J. G. Andrews, “Analytical modeling

of uplink cellular networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communi-

cations, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 2669–2679, 2013.

[28] T. Manabe and H. Takai, “Superresolution of multipath delay profiles

measured by PN correlation method,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas

and Propagation, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 500–509, 1992.

[29] C.-P. Li and W.-C. Huang, “A constructive representation for the fourier

dual of the zadoff–chu sequences,” IEEE Transactions on Information

Theory, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 4221–4224, 2007.

[30] J.-C. Belfiore, G. Rekaya, and E. Viterbo, “The golden code: a 2/spl

times/2 full-rate space-time code with nonvanishing determinants,” IEEE

Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1432–1436,

2005.

[31] G. T. Buračas and G. M. Boynton, “Efficient design of event-related

fMRI experiments using m-sequences,” Neuroimage, vol. 16, no. 3, pp.

801–813, 2002.

[32] D. T. Wiriaatmadja and K. W. Choi, “Hybrid random access and

data transmission protocol for machine-to-machine communications in

cellular networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,

vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 33–46, 2015.

[33] M. Wildemeersch, T. Q. Quek, C. H. Slump, and A. Rabbachin,

“Cognitive small cell networks: Energy efficiency and trade-offs,” IEEE

Transactions on Communications, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 4016–4029, 2013.

[34] D. Tuninetti and G. Caire, “The throughput of some wireless multiaccess

systems,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 48, no. 10, pp.

2773–2785, 2002.

[35] H. A. David, Ordered Statistics, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1981.

[36] M. Shirvanimoghaddam, M. Condoluci, M. Dohler, and S. Johnson, “On

the fundamental limits of random non-orthogonal multiple access in

cellular massive IoT,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.10471, 2017.

[37] A. Adhikary, X. Lin, and Y.-P. E. Wang, “Performance evaluation of NB-

IoT coverage,” in IEEE 84th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-

Fall), 2016, pp. 1–5.

[38] Y.-P. E. Wang, X. Lin, A. Adhikary, A. Grovlen, Y. Sui, Y. Blankenship,

J. Bergman, and H. S. Razaghi, “A primer on 3GPP narrowband internet

of things,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 117–123,

2017.

[39] S.-M. Oh and J. Shin, “An efficient small data transmission scheme

in the 3GPP NB-IoT system,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 21,

no. 3, pp. 660–663, 2017.

[40] S. Verdu, “The capacity region of the symbol-asynchronous gaussian

multiple-access channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,

vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 733–751, Jul 1989.

- Nokia Siemens LTE E2E Field Network PerformanceHochgeladen voncrazyroaming
- Understanding Wireless Communications in Public SafetyHochgeladen vonKevin Scott Mills
- Evdo Multi Carrier Optimization_draft_031610Hochgeladen vondeepakmattoo
- gate csHochgeladen vonawadhesh.kumar
- Const Cv ShamimHochgeladen vons44s20014710
- Performance Measures of Wireless Protocols for ATM NetworksHochgeladen vonLawrence Avery
- LTE Throughput OptimHochgeladen vonIslem Islem
- sdmaHochgeladen vonsarvanme
- Time Warner Cable False Advertising ComplaintHochgeladen vonjdzielny
- Performance Evaluation and QoS Analysis of EEPB and PDCH Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor NetworksHochgeladen vonIOSRjournal
- Assignment MSL CaseHochgeladen vonjennifer
- Comparative Analysis of AODV Base and RSSI Base Wireless Sensor Node Localization TechniquesHochgeladen vonEditor IJTSRD
- 1.Cellular SystemsHochgeladen vonMadhura Bhashitha
- 05206428Hochgeladen vonYesid Bautista
- International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES)Hochgeladen vonwww.irjes.com
- Cellular NetworkHochgeladen vonElvin Fabulare Escala
- Title 4 WcdmaHochgeladen vonlahyouh
- 04489322Hochgeladen vonSatish Naidu
- Measurement Methodology and Post Processing(2)Hochgeladen vonImran Latif
- Chap 011Hochgeladen voncastluci
- Redesign and Implementation of Low Complexity Turbo Decoder on FPGAHochgeladen vonVinod Vini
- Computer Science Formula Book Copy BackupHochgeladen vonAnurag Bansal
- nullHochgeladen vonsar0000
- Removal of DS-CDMAHochgeladen vonArun Kumar
- 29. MonteCarloSimulation DES EnHochgeladen vonzinsou1234
- Oasis English Owners Manual - 966KB PDFHochgeladen vonColin Brown
- Lab SwitchyHubHochgeladen vonnubializ10
- CSE3213 13 RandomAccess 2 F2010Hochgeladen vonmailmado
- A2 Elec_8538Hochgeladen vonDaniel Adebayo
- Air interface.docxHochgeladen vonRanjit Singh

- PDF1Hochgeladen vonDragan
- 1000-4086-FSM30x-Datasheet-v1.2Hochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- 1000-3075-FSM-9-Datasheet (1)Hochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- video_3Hochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- video.pdfHochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- 1707.07401Hochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- video_4Hochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- Word LikeHochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- 73c624ae5cb7ba26c33346fdf9b1e891e515Hochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- video_2Hochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- 10.1109@MCOM.2017.1700222.pdfHochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- 0a74836d37543b124b179a4bad5f7366643f.pdfHochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- aHochgeladen vonalfa19731973
- 1607.05267Hochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- 39940dHochgeladen voncesarlrj
- 1706.05347Hochgeladen vonasr
- 1511.08610Hochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- 1609.01856.pdfHochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- 1602.05671.pdfHochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- 1607.05267.pdfHochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- 1511.08610.pdfHochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- C8 PDF Less100kbHochgeladen vonShuvam
- PDF SampleHochgeladen vonvento
- dummy.pdfHochgeladen vonletthereberock448
- test documentHochgeladen vonapi-25738672

- Offset PrintingHochgeladen vonNayanajith Kurukulasooriya
- RiggersPDF_200406.pdfHochgeladen vonAhmed Trabelsi
- 2017-18-PG-Prospectus.pdfHochgeladen vonnina
- Organizational Culture of Telenor PakistanHochgeladen vonBadar Munir
- PeopleHochgeladen vonjack
- workcentre_7755.pdfHochgeladen vonPeter Greafe Short
- Affidavit Outline by Florida Judge 2006Hochgeladen vonYarod Yisrael
- Participatory Classification of Educational ResourcesHochgeladen vonsrdiego
- message from the mcsc president-the munronianHochgeladen vonapi-262422991
- 2012 Ibm AnnualHochgeladen vonLeonie Williams
- Bottled Water in IndiaHochgeladen vonsubhendu_pinu
- 2016-09-1_2444_OpenServe_-_eBrochure_-_SAIX_web_V16Hochgeladen vonjsinn
- SMMA Case StudyHochgeladen vonYohanes Sigit Kurnia
- Helix Antenna AxialmodeHochgeladen vonkiruthika
- Rose PerfumeHochgeladen vonNikko Sterling
- Stres perawat Critical Care Serbia.pdfHochgeladen vonRynaldi Rahman
- Economics Timeline PartialHochgeladen vonfoxf_net
- Fa2 Sugg AllHochgeladen von8928
- genre analysis 3Hochgeladen vonapi-285426523
- Offshore Stone ColumnsHochgeladen vonTony Chan
- 3 Transformer Room (1)Hochgeladen voncherif yahyaoui
- Lubricant Sourcing MethodHochgeladen vonJana Jan
- California Tax Board: 03 5949Hochgeladen vonTaxman
- Piping EngineeringHochgeladen vonVishnu Menon
- Titanium Welding and Heat TreatingHochgeladen vonSandeep Parmar
- Chapter 17 and 18 MACROHochgeladen vonGustavo Loretta
- Aircraft Fuelling Operation - Risk Assessment Case StudyHochgeladen vonDavid Grima
- Take-Two v. EvolveHochgeladen vonAdi Robertson
- Plaxis 2 Modelo MaterialesHochgeladen vonGianella Paredes Vargas
- ANA Reb - Interface with Clients V2 8.pdfHochgeladen vonIvandro Moreira