Capacity-Based User Selection Algorithm for

Downlink Beamforming Non-Orthogonal Multiple

Access System

Abdelsalam Sayed-Ahmed1 , Maha Elsabrouty2

Department of Electronics and Communications
Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology
New Borg El-Arab, Alexandria, Egypt
Email: 1 abdelsalam.ahmed@ejust.edu.eg, 2 maha.elsabrouty@ejust.edu.eg

Abstract—Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA) is a key
multiple access technique for 5th generation (5G) mobile commu-
nication systems. In this paper, we propose a capacity-based user
selection (NOMA-CUS) algorithm for multiuser multiple input
single output (MISO) downlink NOMA system with zero-forcing
beamforming. NOMA-CUS algorithm improves the sum rate of
the NOMA system by selecting the users in each cluster based
on the system sum rate improvement. Simulation results indicate
that NOMA-CUS algorithm gives a very close performance to that
obtained by the exhaustive search with acceptable complexity and
provides better system sum rate and average matched user data
rate than that of the other existing user selection algorithms.
Keywords—Non-orthogonal multiple access; zero-forcing beam-
forming; capacity-based user selection; multiple input single output
(MISO); 5G mobile communication systems
I. I NTRODUCTION
One of the promising technologies for increasing the
system capacity in upcoming 5G communication systems is
non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) [1]. In downlink
NOMA systems, the message signals of the different users
are multiplexed in the power domain with different power
levels, i.e. large power to users with weak channel conditions
and less power to users with good channel conditions, at the
transmitter and successive interference cancellation (SIC) is
used for multiuser detection (MUD) at the receivers [2].
On the other hand, another trend to increase the system sum
rate in orthogonal multiple access (OMA) systems is zero-
forcing beamforming (ZFBF). In ZFBF, the cell is divided
into a number of clusters equal to the number of transmit
antennas and each user message is multiplied by a beamform-
ing (BF) vector and transmitted through multiple antennas.
If the beamforming vectors are optimally selected, the mu-
tual interference between users’ signals will be eliminated.
However, obtaining the optimal beamforming vectors is a
complicated nonconvex optimization problem [3]. Therefore,
many suboptimal beamforming techniques were proposed for
effectively selecting the beamforming user set that maximizes
the sum rate. These beamforming techniques are divided into
two main categories: 1) Frobenius norm-based algorithms such
as the semi-orthogonal user selection (SUS) algorithm [4] and
2) capacity-based algorithms such as the greedy user selection
with swap (GUSS) algorithm [5].
Recently, many researchers have directed their attention
towards merging the concepts of NOMA and ZFBF. Existing
user selection techniques for NOMA systems such as NOMA-
based zero-forcing beamforming (NOMA-ZFBF) scheme [6]
and NOMA-based ZFBF using semi-orthogonal user selection
and matching user selection (NOMA-SUS-MU) scheme [7]
firstly select the ZFBF users, i.e. users whose channel coef-
ficients are used for obtaining the zero-forcing beamforming
(ZFBF) vectors, greedily based on their channel norm param-
eters using Frobenius norm-based algorithms and then select
their NOMA matched users.
In this paper, we propose a user selection algorithm to
maximize the NOMA system sum rate using the concepts
of the capacity-based user selection beamforming techniques.
The proposed NOMA capacity-based user selection (NOMA-
CUS) algorithm selects the users in each cluster such that
the NOMA system sum rate is maximized and becomes very
close to exhaustive search user selection sum rate but with
much lower computational complexity as confirmed by the
complexity estimation developed.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II
presents the system model of the NOMA with beamform-
ing system. Section III shows the concepts of the existing
NOMA with beamforming schemes. In section IV, the pro-
posed NOMA-CUS algorithm is presented, and its compu-
tational complexity analysis is performed. Simulation results
are presented in section V. Finally, conclusions are drawn in
section VI.
Notations: Matrices and vectors are referred to by upper-
case and lowercase boldface letters, respectively. The operators
(.)T and (.)∗ denote the transpose and conjugate transpose,
respectively. khk denotes the Euclidean vector norm of h. H†
stands for the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse. |U | stands for
the cardinality of the candidate user set U . U \ S means the
set difference that deletes the elements of S from U . R(x, y)
denotes the system sum rate for the ZFBF user set x and the
matched user set y.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
In this paper, we consider a multiple input single output
(MISO) downlink multiuser mobile communication system

978-1-5386-0643-8/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Higher College of Technology. Downloaded on March 23,2021 at 07:06:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
that contains a single base station (BS) that is equipped with Table I: The proposed NOMA-CUS Algorithm
M transmit antennas and K users whose mobile equipment
1) Let SZ = ∅, SM = ∅, S = SZ ∪ SM and RS = 0.
have one receive antenna (K ≥ 2M ). The BS is assumed Let Add = 1 and Del = 1.
to have complete channel state information (CSI) for all users. while (Add == 1) and (|SZ | < M ) or
The modeled system uses zero-forcing beamforming (ZFBF) in (Del == 1) and (|SZ | > 1) do
which the BS sends M simultaneous beams and each beam is while (Add == 1) and (|SZ | < M ) do
directed to a cluster of L users. The leader is called ZFBF user 2) Add Stage:
whose channel vector is used to find the beamforming vectors a) Search for a new ZFBF user :
and the others are called matched users. Let the ZFBF user set KZ = arg max R(SZ ∪ {kz } , SM )
kz ∈U \S
be SZ and the matched user set be SM . Denote the candidate b) Search for a new matched user to KZ :
user set
Pas U whose cardinality is K, i.e. |U | = K. The BS KM = arg max R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ∪ {km })
M km ∈U \(S∪{KZ })
sends k=1 wk,1 xk where xk is the sum of the transmitted c) Take a decision:
signals for the ZFBF and matched users in cluster k, i.e. if R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ∪ {KM }) > R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM )
L p
xk =
P
αk,i P Sk,i , and wk,1 is (M × 1) ZFBF vector and R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ∪ {KM }) > RS then
i=1 RS = R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ∪ {KM })
for the k-th cluster. Sk,i , i = 1, 2, ..., L is the normalized SZ ← SZ ∪ {KZ }, SM ← SM ∪ {KM } and Del = 1
transmitted signal of the i-th user in the k-th cluster, i.e. else if
with unit energy, and P is the total transmit power in each R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ) > R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ∪ {KM })
cluster. αk,i is the power allocation factor for the i-th user and R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ) > RS then
in the k-th cluster and 0 < αk,i < 1. The ZFBF vectors are RS = R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM )
SZ ← SZ ∪ {KZ }, and Del = 1
generated Tbased on the
T channel vectors of the ZFBF users, else
T
H1 = h1,1 ... hM,1 where hm,1 is the 1 × M channel Add = 0
vector for the ZFBF user in the m-th cluster, as follows: end if
end while
W1 = [w1,1 ... wM,1 ] = H†1 = H∗1 (H1 H∗1 )−1 (1) while (Del == 1) and (|SZ | > 1) do
3) Delete Stage:
where hk,1 wm,1 = 0 for 1 ≤ m, k ≤ M, k 6= m and wm,1 is a) Search for a redundant matched user:
obtained by normalizing the m-th column of W1 . L = arg max R(SZ , SM \ {l})
l∈SM
b) Search for a redundant cluster:
In this paper, the channel model is assumed to be Rayleigh {LZ , LM } = arg max R(SZ \ {lz } , SM ∪ {lm })
fading with zero mean and unit variance. The noise is assumed lz ∈SZ ,lm ∈SM
to be independent and identically distributed (i.i.d) additive c) Take a decision:
white complex Gaussian noise with zero mean and variance if R(SZ \ {LZ } , SM ∪ {LM }) > R(SZ , SM \ {L})
and R(SZ \ {LZ } , SM ∪ {LM }) > RS then
of σn2 .
RS = R(SZ \ {LZ } , SM ∪ {LM })
SZ ← SZ \ {LZ }, SM ← SM \ {LM } and Add = 1
else if R(SZ , SM \ {L}) > R(SZ \ {LZ } , SM \ {LM })
III. E XISTING NOMA WITH BEAMFORMING SCHEMES
and R(SZ , SM \ {L}) > RS then
In [6], the NOMA-ZFBF algorithm reduces the inter- RS = R(SZ , SM \ {L})
SM ← SM \ {L}, and Add = 1
cluster interference by selecting the highly correlated users as
else
candidates to be set in the same cluster. The algorithm tries Del = 0
to reduce the inter-user interference by selecting from these end if
highly correlated users those who have the largest channel end while
gain difference to be clustered together. The strong user in end while
each cluster is called ZFBF user and the weak user is called
the matched user. The ZFBF vectors are generated based on IV. P ROPOSED NOMA-CUS T ECHNIQUE
the channel vectors of the strong users as described in (1).
Consequently, the inter-cluster interference is removed. A. NOMA-CUS Algorithm Structure
We propose a NOMA user selection algorithm (NOMA-
In [7], the NOMA-SUS-MU algorithm divides the cluster-
CUS) utilizing the concepts of the capacity-based user se-
ing process into two stages: 1) Selecting the ZFBF users using
lection algorithms that were proposed for OMA with ZFBF
the conventional SUS algorithm [4] and the ZFBF vectors
systems such as GUSS algorithm [5]. The proposed algorithm
are calculated as described in (1). 2) Choosing the matched
tries to greedily select the ZFBF and matched user sets that
users using the MU algorithm by selecting users that bear the
will provide the maximum sum rate to be clustered together.
least inter-cluster interference. Consequently, the inter-cluster
During our development, we consider two users in each cluster,
interference is removed at the ZFBF users and minimized at
similar to the existing schemes in [6], [7]. The NOMA-CUS
the matched users. In all NOMA with beamforming schemes,
algorithm is presented in Table I. Let U = {1, ..., K} be the
SIC is applied to remove the inter-user interference. Simulation
index set of all the candidate users, SZ and SM be the index
results in [7] show that the system sum rate and matched users
sets of the selected ZFBF and matched users, respectively and
sum rate of NOMA-SUS-MU scheme are better than those of
S be the index set of all the selected users, i.e. S = SZ ∪ SM .
NOMA-ZFBF scheme. Therefore, in this paper, the proposed
NOMA-CUS scheme performance will be compared against The algorithm starts with empty selected user sets, i.e.
that of NOMA-SUS-MU scheme. SZ = ∅ and SM = ∅, and zero sum rate, i.e. RS = 0.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Higher College of Technology. Downloaded on March 23,2021 at 07:06:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The algorithm is divided into two stages: add and delete.
During the add stage, the algorithm searches for a new ZFBF
user KZ that when added to SZ provides the highest sum
rate R(SZ ∪ {kz } , SM ) for kz ∈ U \ S and then searches
for a new matched user KM that when added to SM gives
the highest sum rate R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ∪ {km }) for km ∈
U \(S ∪{KZ }). The algorithm compares R(SZ ∪{KZ } , SM ),
R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ∪ {KM }) and RS to take one of the
following decisions: 1) if R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ) is the highest
data rate, then the user index KZ is added to the index set
SZ . 2) if R(SZ ∪ {KZ } , SM ∪ {KM }) is the highest data
rate, then the user indices KZ and KM are added to the index
sets SZ and SM , respectively. 3) if RS is the highest one, no
users are added. The add stage is repeated until M ZFBF users
are selected, i.e. |SZ | = M or the sum rate decreases and the
algorithm goes to the delete stage.
In the delete stage, the algorithm tries to delete the redun-
dant users and maximize the sum rate. The algorithm searches
for a redundant matched user L that when deleted from SM
gives the highest sum rate R(SZ , SM \ {l}) for l ∈ SM and
then searches for a redundant cluster of users {LZ , LM } that
when deleted from SZ and SM , respectively gives the highest
sum rate R(SZ \ {lz } , SM \ {lm }) for lz ∈ SZ and lm ∈ SM
and lz and lm belong to the same cluster. The algorithm com-
pares R(SZ , SM \ {L}), R(SZ \ {LZ } , SM \ {LM }) and RS
to take one of the following decisions: 1) if R(SZ , SM \ {L})
is the highest data rate, then the user index L is deleted from
the index set SM . 2) if R(SZ \ {LZ } , SM \ {LM }) is the
highest data rate, then the user indices LZ and LM are deleted
from the index sets SZ and SM , respectively. 3) if RS is the
highest one, no users are deleted. The delete stage is repeated
until there is only one remaining ZFBF user in the system, i.e.
|SZ | = 1 or the sum rate decreases. The algorithm oscillates
between the add and delete stages until there is no sum rate
improvement in both stages.
Hint: The power allocation factors and data rates calculations
used in the NOMA-CUS algorithm are performed using the
equations deriven in [7].
B. Computational Complexity Analysis
In this section, the computational complexity of the pro-
posed NOMA-CUS scheme and that of the NOMA-SUS-MU
scheme are evaluated. The basic operations used in these
two schemes are vector multiplication, vector 2-norm, vector-
matrix multiplication and beamforming vectors calculation [8].
The flop count for each of the (1 × M ) × (M × 1) vector
multiplication, and (1 × M ) or (M × 1) vector 2-norm is
M flops. The flop count for the (1 × M ) × (M × M )
vector-matrix multiplication is M 2 flops. The beamforming
vectors calculation is performed in two steps: First, obtaining
the channel matrix pseudo-inversion and second, normalizing
the resulting matrix columns. The (N × M ) matrix pseudo-
inversion consists of 2 matrix multiplications and one matrix
inversion. The normalizing operation requires calculating N
(M × 1) vector 2-norm operations. Thus, the flop count for
the beamforming vectors calculation is 2M N 2 + M N + N 3
flops.
The computational complexity of the NOMA-SUS-MU
scheme was analyzed in [9] and its flop count is given by
FS ≈ O(KM 3 )
Authorized licensed use limited to: Higher College of Technology. Downloaded on March 23,2021 at 07:06:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The computational complexity of the NOMA-CUS algo-
rithm is equal to the sum of the computational complexity of
the add stage and that of the delete stage. Let n1 = |SZ | and
n2 = |SM | be the size of the ZFBF and matched user index
sets, respectively, at the start of any step in the NOMA-CUS
algorithm. The complexity of one add iteration is due to:
1) (K − (n1 + n2 )) rate calculations for selecting the ZFBF
user index that when added to SZ could maximize the sum
rate. Each sum rate calculation is done in two steps:
i) Calculating the beamforming vectors based on the ZFBF
users channel vectors Wm,1 and the matched users channel
vectors Wm,2 that requires one ((n1 + 1) × M ) and one
(n2 × M ) matrix pseudo-inversion operations, respectively.
ii) Calculating (n1 + 1) power allocation factors. The com-
plexity of calculating each power allocation factor is due to
(n1 + 3) (1 × M ) × (M × 1) vector multiplications.
2) One ((n1 +1)×M ) matrix pseudo-inversion for calculating
Wm,1 for the selected ZFBF index set.
3) (K − (n1 + n2 ) − 1) rate calculations for selecting the
matched user index that when added to SM could maximize
the sum rate. Each sum rate calculation is done in two steps:
i) Calculating the beamforming vectors Wm,2 that requires
one ((n2 + 1) × M ) matrix pseudo-inversion.
ii) Calculating (n1 + 1) power allocation factors. The com-
plexity of calculating each power allocation factor is due to
(n1 + 3) (1 × M ) × (M × 1) vector multiplications.
The maximum computational complexity of one add stage is
the sum of the complexity of the M add iterations under the
assumption that n1 = n2 .
The complexity of one delete iteration is due to:
1) One (n1 × M ) matrix pseudo-inversion for calculating
Wm,1 .
2) n2 rate calculations to select the redundant matched user
index that when deleted from SM may maximize the sum rate.
Each sum rate calculation is done in two steps:
i) Calculating the beamforming vectors Wm,2 that requires
one ((n2 − 1) × M ) matrix pseudo-inversion.
ii) Calculating (n1 ) power allocation factors. The complexity
of calculating each power allocation factor is due to (n1 + 2)
(1 × M ) × (M × 1) vector multiplications.
3) n1 rate calculations to select the redundant cluster that when
deleted may maximize the sum rate. Each sum rate calculation
is done in two steps:
i) Calculating the beamforming vectors Wm,1 and Wm,2 that
requires one ((n1 − 1) × M ) matrix pseudo-inversion and one
((n2 − 1) × M ) matrix pseudo-inversion, respectively.
ii) Calculating (n1 − 1) power allocation factors. The com-
plexity of calculating each power allocation factor is due to
(n1 + 1) (1 × M ) × (M × 1) vector multiplications.
The maximum computational complexity of one delete stage
is the sum of the complexity of the possible (M − 1) delete
iterations under the assumption that n1 = n2 .
Since the algorithm may oscillate between the add and
delete stages, the complexity of one add stage and one delete
stage should be multiplied by a and b factors which are the
average number of add and delete stage repetitions till the
algorithm is finished, respectively. The values of a and b
(2) depend on M , K, P and the candidate users channel model.
 20 90
NOMA-Ex
NOMA-CUS
TDMA-Ex
80 TDMA-CUS
NOMA-CUS
NOMA-SUS-MU
TDMA-CUS
TDMA-SUS-MU
NOMA-SUS-MU 70
M=8
TDMA-SUS-MU
Sum rate (bps/Hz)

Sum rate (bps/Hz)

15 60

50

40
M=4

10 30

20 M=2

10

5 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Number of users Number of users

Fig. 1: Sum rate performance of NOMA-Ex and NOMA-CUS algorithms Fig. 2: Sum rate performance of NOMA-CUS, NOMA-SUS-MU algorithms
versus the number of users K at M = 2, and SN R = 15 dB. versus the number of users K at M = 2, 4 and 8 clusters, and SN R = 15
dB.
Therefore, NOMA-CUS algorithm flop count is
5
M −1 NOMA-CUS
M=4 M=2
X TDMA-CUS
2 M=8
FC = a [(K − (n1 + n2 ))(2M (n1 + 1)

Average matched user rate (bps/Hz)

NOMA-SUS-MU
4.5
TDMA-SUS-MU
n1 =n2 =0
+ M (n1 + 1) + (n1 + 1)3 + (n1 + 1)(n1 + 3)M ) 4

+ 2M (n1 + 1)2 + M (n1 + 1) + (n1 + 1)3

3.5
+ (K − (n1 + n2 ) − 1)((2M (n2 + 1)2
+ M (n2 + 1) + (n2 + 1)3 ) + (n1 + 1)(n1 + 3)M )] 3

XM
+b [2M n21 + M n1 + n31 + n2 (2M (n2 − 1)2 2.5
n1 =n2 =2
+ M (n2 − 1) + (n2 − 1)3 + n1 (n1 + 2)M ) 2
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
+ n1 (2M (n1 − 1)2 + M (n1 − 1) + (n1 − 1)3 Number of users

+ 2M (n2 − 1)2 + M (n2 − 1) + (n2 − 1)3
+ (n1 − 1)(n1 + 1)M )]
≈ O(3.4aKM 4 + (2.6b − 5.2a)M 5 )
From this complexity analysis, the proposed NOMA-CUS
scheme has polynomial time computational complexity and
its complexity is slightly higher than that of NOMA-SUS-
MU scheme. Although the NOMA-SUS-MU scheme has lower
computational complexity as most of the Frobenius norm
algorithms, it does not guarantee a substantial rate increase in
each iteration. Therefore, the higher computational complexity
of NOMA-CUS scheme is acceptable as a price to guarantee
a positive rate increment in each iteration and to have a very
close performance to that of the exhaustive search.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In this section, the simulation results of the proposed
NOMA-CUS algorithm performance compared to the NOMA-
SUS-MU and exhaustive search user selection (NOMA-Ex) are
presented versus the number of candidate users K, the number
of clusters M and the transmit signal to noise ratio (SN R).
Fig.1 shows the sum rate performance of the three schemes
as K increases at M = 2. The results show that the proposed
NOMA-CUS scheme sum rate performance is very close to
that of the NOMA-Ex scheme.
Fig.2 shows that the sum rate of the proposed NOMA-
CUS scheme is better than that of NOMA-SUS-MU scheme
Fig. 3: Average matched user rate performance of NOMA-CUS, NOMA-SUS-
MU algorithms versus the number of users K at M = 2, 4 and 8 clusters,
and SN R = 15 dB.
(3)
for all values of K. The sum rate of the NOMA-CUS scheme
is higher than that of its TDMA-CUS version and this proves
the contribution of the NOMA concepts. Furthermore, NOMA-
SUS-MU scheme performance is leading its TDMA-SUS-MU
version only for M = 2. At M = 4 and 8, NOMA-SUS-MU
scheme does not provide any sum rate improvement over its
TDMA-SUS-MU version. In Fig.3, the NOMA-CUS is shown
to have a higher average matched user rate than that of NOMA-
SUS-MU scheme for all values of K.
Fig.4 indicates that the sum rate of the proposed NOMA-
CUS scheme is better than that of NOMA-SUS-MU scheme
for all values of M . The sum rate of the NOMA-CUS scheme
is higher than that of its TDMA-CUS version and this proves
that the proposed NOMA-CUS scheme works efficiently at any
number of clusters. Furthermore, NOMA-SUS-MU scheme
performance is leading its TDMA-SUS-MU version only for
M = 2. At M > 2, NOMA-SUS-MU scheme does not provide
any sum rate improvement over its TDMA-SUS-MU version.
In Fig.5, the NOMA-CUS average matched user rate is shown
to be higher than that of NOMA-SUS-MU scheme for all
values of M . It is noticed that for M > 2, NOMA-SUS-MU
average matched user rate is decreased with increasing M .
Fig.6 indicates that the sum rate of the proposed NOMA-
CUS scheme is better than that of NOMA-SUS-MU scheme

Authorized licensed use limited to: Higher College of Technology. Downloaded on March 23,2021 at 07:06:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 90 120
NOMA-CUS
TDMA-CUS NOMA-CUS
80
NOMA-SUS-MU 100 TDMA-CUS
TDMA-SUS-MU NOMA-SUS-MU
70 TDMA-SUS-MU
M=8
Sum rate (bps/Hz)

Sum rate (bps/Hz)

80
60

50 60
M=4
40
40

30 M=2

20
20

10 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of clusters SNR (dB)

Fig. 4: Sum rate performance of NOMA-CUS, NOMA-SUS-MU algorithms Fig. 6: Sum rate performance of NOMA-CUS, NOMA-SUS-MU algorithms
versus the number of clusters M at K = 100 users and SN R = 15 dB. versus the SNR at K = 100 users and M = 2, 4 and 8 clusters.

5 8
NOMA-CUS NOMA-CUS
TDMA-CUS TDMA-CUS
7
Average matched user rate (bps/Hz)

Average matched user rate (bps/Hz)

NOMA-SUS-MU NOMA-SUS-MU
4.5 M=8
TDMA-SUS-MU TDMA-SUS-MU
6
M=4
4
5 M=2

3.5 4

3
3

2
2.5
1

2 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of clusters SNR (dB)

Fig. 5: Average matched user rate performance of NOMA-CUS, NOMA-SUS- Fig. 7: Average matched user rate performance of NOMA-CUS, NOMA-SUS-
MU algorithms versus the number of clusters M at K = 100 users and MU algorithms versus the SNR at K = 100 users and M = 2, 4 and 8
SN R = 15 dB. clusters.

for all values of the SN R. In Fig.7, the average matched user [2] Z. Ding, Z. Yang, P. Fan, and H. V. Poor, “On the Performance of Non-
rate for NOMA-CUS scheme is higher than that of NOMA- Orthogonal Multiple Access in 5G Systems with Randomly Deployed
SUS-MU scheme for all values of the SN R. It is noticed Users,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1501–1505, Dec
2014.
that NOMA-SUS-MU average matched user performance for
[3] S. Venkatesan and H. Huang, “System Capacity Evaluation of Multiple
M = 8 is less than that at M = 2 and 4. Antenna Systems Using Beamforming and Dirty Paper Coding,” Bell
Labs, 2003.
VI. C ONCLUSION [4] T. Yoo and A. Goldsmith, “On the Optimality of Multiantenna Broadcast
Scheduling Using Zero-Forcing Beamforming,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
A capacity-based clustering algorithm for beamforming Commun., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 528–541, March 2006.
NOMA is presented. The proposed NOMA-CUS algorithm [5] S. Huang, H. Yin, J. Wu, and V. C. M. Leung, “User Selection for
efficiently selects the ZFBF and matched users that will be Multiuser MIMO Downlink with Zero-Forcing Beamforming,” IEEE
clustered together to maximize the system sum rate with Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 3084–3097, Sept 2013.
acceptable complexity. The algorithm provides very close [6] B. Kimy, S. Lim, H. Kim, S. Suh, J. Kwun, S. Choi, C. Lee, S. Lee,
performance to the exhaustive search clustering formation and and D. Hong, “Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access in a Downlink Mul-
a much improved performance, especially in system sum rate tiuser Beamforming System,” in MILCOM 2013 - 2013 IEEE Military
Communications Conference, Nov 2013, pp. 1278–1283.
and average matched user rate over the existing algorithms.
[7] S. Liu, C. Zhang, and G. Lyu, “User Selection and Power Schedule for
Downlink Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA) System,” in 2015
ACKNOWLEDGMENT IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW),
June 2015, pp. 2561–2565.
This work has been supported by Egypt Japan University of [8] C. D. Meyer, Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra. Philadelphia,
Science and Technology (E-JUST), and the Egyptian Ministry PA, USA: SIAM, 2000.
of Higher Education (MOHE). [9] A. Sayed-Ahmed and M. Elsabrouty, “User Selection and Power Al-
location for Guaranteed SIC Detection in Downlink Beamforming Non-
R EFERENCES Orthogonal Multiple Access,” in 2017 Wireless Days (WD), March 2017,
pp. 188–193.
[1] Q. C. Li, H. Niu, A. T. Papathanassiou, and G. Wu, “5G Network
Capacity: Key Elements and Technologies,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag.,
vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 71–78, March 2014.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Higher College of Technology. Downloaded on March 23,2021 at 07:06:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.