pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.02761 · v1 · pith:XQDCWEXDnew · submitted 2019-07-05 · 💻 cs.NI · cs.DC· cs.IT· math.IT

Distributed User Clustering and Resource Allocation for Imperfect NOMA in Heterogeneous Networks

Abdulkadir Celik , Ming-Cheng Tsai , Redha M. Radaydeh , Fawaz S. Al-Qahtani , Mohamed-Slim Alouini This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 01:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI cs.DCcs.ITmath.IT
keywords NOMAheterogeneous networksuser clusteringresource allocationimperfect SICfractional error factorDUDe associationspectral efficiency
0
0 comments X

The pith

A distributed clustering and resource allocation method for imperfect NOMA in heterogeneous networks yields higher spectral and energy efficiency than fixed clusters of size two.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a framework that accounts for NOMA imperfections through a fractional error factor capturing receiver sensitivity and residual successive interference cancellation effects. It first derives limits on feasible cluster sizes as functions of this error factor, available bandwidth, and user quality-of-service demands, then builds a clustering algorithm that respects those limits together with channel gain differences among users. A distributed alpha-fair resource allocation scheme follows, with closed-form power solutions that allow iterative updates of bandwidths, clusters, and transmit powers. Numerical evaluation shows the resulting variable-size clusters improve spectral and energy efficiency over the conventional size-two baseline and that downlink-uplink decoupled user association maximizes the NOMA gain, while also identifying regimes where imperfect NOMA underperforms orthogonal multiple access.

Core claim

By modeling NOMA imperfections with a fractional error factor, the work derives cluster-size limits and implements distributed cluster formation and alpha-fair resource allocation that achieve higher spectral and energy efficiency than the basic NOMA cluster size of two, demonstrates that imperfect NOMA does not always outperform orthogonal multiple access, and shows that NOMA performance gains are largest under downlink-uplink decoupled user association.

What carries the argument

The fractional error factor that quantifies receiver sensitivity plus residual successive interference cancellation interference and is used both to bound feasible cluster sizes and to obtain closed-form power levels inside the alpha-fair allocation.

If this is right

  • Cluster sizes larger than two become feasible and beneficial when the fractional error factor is sufficiently low relative to bandwidth and quality-of-service requirements.
  • Imperfect NOMA can deliver lower spectral efficiency than orthogonal multiple access under some combinations of error factor, bandwidth, and user demands.
  • NOMA spectral and energy efficiency gains reach their maximum when users are associated under downlink-uplink decoupling rather than conventional coupled association.
  • Closed-form optimal power levels allow the distributed algorithm to iteratively refine bandwidths, clusters, and powers without central coordination.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same fractional-error-factor bounding technique could be applied to derive cluster limits for other non-ideal multiple-access schemes that rely on successive cancellation.
  • Testing the framework with measured rather than modeled residual interference would reveal how sensitive the efficiency gains are to the accuracy of the fractional error factor.
  • The alpha-fair formulation already encodes a tunable fairness-throughput trade-off; varying the fairness parameter across network slices could produce service-differentiated clustering policies.

Load-bearing premise

The fractional error factor is assumed to fully and accurately capture all sources of NOMA imperfection across the full range of cluster sizes and channel conditions examined.

What would settle it

A direct measurement or simulation in which the actual residual interference after successive interference cancellation for clusters larger than two deviates enough from the fractional error factor prediction that the measured spectral efficiency falls below that of orthogonal multiple access.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02761 by Abdulkadir Celik, Fawaz S. Al-Qahtani, Ming-Cheng Tsai, Mohamed-Slim Alouini, Redha M. Radaydeh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the proposed distributed clustering and resource [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the proposed CF method for sum-rate Maxi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Optimal power allocations of a basic cluster vs. FEF levels; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The largest feasible cluster size vs. different FEF and CSCs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of channel gain disparity on NOMA gain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impacts of cluster size on spectrum and energy efficiency. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized network sum-rate vs. FEF levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalized network sum-rate vs. total number of SBSs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized network sum-rate vs. total number of UEs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a distributed cluster formation (CF) and resource allocation (RA) framework for non-ideal non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) schemes in heterogeneous networks. The imperfection of the underlying NOMA scheme is due to the receiver sensitivity and interference residue from non-ideal successive interference cancellation (SIC), which is generally characterized by a fractional error factor (FEF). Our analytical findings first show that several factors have a significant impact on the achievable NOMA gain. Then, we investigate fundamental limits on NOMA cluster size as a function of FEF levels, cluster bandwidth, and quality of service (QoS) demands of user equipments (UEs). Thereafter, a clustering algorithm is developed by taking feasible cluster size and channel gain disparity of UEs into account. Finally, we develop a distributed alpha-fair RA framework where alpha governs the trade-off between maximum throughput and proportional fairness objectives. Based on the derived closed-form optimal power levels, the proposed distributed solution iteratively updates bandwidths, clusters, and UEs' transmission powers. Numerical results demonstrate that proposed solutions deliver a higher spectral and energy efficiency than traditionally adopted basic NOMA cluster size of two. We also show that an imperfect NOMA cannot always provide better performance than orthogonal multiple access under certain conditions. Finally, our numerical investigations reveal that NOMA gain is maximized under downlink/uplink decoupled (DUDe) UE association.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a distributed cluster formation and resource allocation framework for imperfect NOMA in heterogeneous networks. Imperfections are modeled by a fractional error factor (FEF) capturing receiver sensitivity and residual SIC interference. Analytical results derive limits on feasible NOMA cluster sizes as functions of FEF, bandwidth, and QoS demands. A clustering algorithm accounts for feasible sizes and channel gain disparity. An alpha-fair distributed RA scheme is developed with closed-form optimal power levels, and an iterative algorithm updates bandwidths, clusters, and powers. Numerical results claim higher spectral and energy efficiency than fixed cluster size 2, that imperfect NOMA is not always superior to OMA, and that NOMA gains are maximized under DUDe UE association.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work offers practical insights into NOMA deployment limits in HetNets by quantifying how imperfections constrain cluster sizes and efficiency. The closed-form power solutions and distributed iterative updates are strengths for potential implementation. The comparisons showing conditions where OMA outperforms imperfect NOMA and the DUDe maximization finding could inform 5G resource management strategies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and analytical findings on cluster size limits] Abstract and section on fundamental limits on NOMA cluster size: the derivation treats FEF as a fixed scalar fully representing all impairments including residual SIC interference. For clusters of size 3+, residual interference after the first SIC stage feeds into subsequent stages and may compound depending on instantaneous SINR; a constant FEF therefore risks under- or over-estimating effective impairment, directly affecting the derived cluster-size bounds and the claim that imperfect NOMA cannot always outperform OMA.
  2. [Numerical results] Numerical results section: the reported SE/EE gains versus fixed cluster size 2, the OMA comparisons, and the DUDe maximization result are presented without error bars, number of Monte-Carlo runs, or explicit verification that the iterative bandwidth-cluster-power loop converges to the claimed optima. This makes the robustness of the central efficiency claims difficult to assess.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation and parameter settings] The range and typical values chosen for the fractional error factor (FEF) in both analysis and simulations should be stated explicitly to allow reproduction.
  2. [Algorithm description] A pseudocode listing or flowchart for the iterative distributed RA algorithm would clarify the sequence of bandwidth, cluster, and power updates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's detailed review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments point-by-point below and outline the revisions we plan to make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and analytical findings on cluster size limits] Abstract and section on fundamental limits on NOMA cluster size: the derivation treats FEF as a fixed scalar fully representing all impairments including residual SIC interference. For clusters of size 3+, residual interference after the first SIC stage feeds into subsequent stages and may compound depending on instantaneous SINR; a constant FEF therefore risks under- or over-estimating effective impairment, directly affecting the derived cluster-size bounds and the claim that imperfect NOMA cannot always outperform OMA.

    Authors: The fractional error factor (FEF) is employed as a standard modeling approach in the literature to represent the combined effects of receiver sensitivity and residual SIC interference in a simplified yet effective manner. Our analytical derivations of cluster size limits are performed under this constant FEF model, which allows for closed-form expressions and practical insights. While a more granular model accounting for compounding interference could be considered, it would significantly complicate the analysis without necessarily altering the qualitative conclusions. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly discuss this modeling assumption and its implications for the derived bounds. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Numerical results] Numerical results section: the reported SE/EE gains versus fixed cluster size 2, the OMA comparisons, and the DUDe maximization result are presented without error bars, number of Monte-Carlo runs, or explicit verification that the iterative bandwidth-cluster-power loop converges to the claimed optima. This makes the robustness of the central efficiency claims difficult to assess.

    Authors: We agree that providing details on the simulation setup would strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript, we will include the number of Monte-Carlo runs performed, add error bars to the figures where appropriate to indicate variability, and provide evidence or discussion of the convergence of the iterative algorithm to the reported optima. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper derives cluster-size limits and closed-form power allocations analytically from the FEF-based imperfect NOMA model, QoS constraints, and alpha-fair utility; these feed an iterative distributed algorithm. No equations or self-citations are shown that reduce any claimed result (e.g., optimal powers or feasible cluster sizes) to a fitted input or prior self-result by construction. FEF is an exogenous modeling scalar, not derived from the outputs it enables. Numerical SE/EE gains versus cluster size 2 or OMA are simulation outcomes under the stated model, not forced equivalences. The derivation chain is self-contained against its modeling assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the FEF model as an exogenous input, standard convex optimization assumptions for the alpha-fair problem, and the existence of closed-form power solutions under the stated channel model. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • fractional error factor (FEF)
    Characterizes residual interference and receiver sensitivity; treated as a tunable input that directly sets cluster-size limits and performance comparisons.
  • alpha (fairness parameter)
    Governs the throughput-fairness trade-off in the RA objective; chosen by the designer rather than derived.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The wireless channel model and QoS constraints admit closed-form optimal power allocations under the imperfect NOMA rate expressions.
    Invoked when the paper states 'derived closed-form optimal power levels' that enable the distributed iteration.
  • standard math Standard convex optimization theory applies to the alpha-fair resource allocation problem once powers are fixed.
    Required for the iterative bandwidth and cluster updates to be well-defined.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5818 in / 1524 out tokens · 19725 ms · 2026-05-25T01:54:24.374655+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Resource allocation and cluster formation for imperfect NOMA in DL/UL decoupled HetNets,

    A. Celik, R. M. Radaydeh, F. S. Al-Qahtani, A. H. A. El-Malek, and M. S. Alouini, “Resource allocation and cluster formation for imperfect NOMA in DL/UL decoupled HetNets,” in proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) Workshops (GC Wkshps) , Dec. 2017, pp. 1–6

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Non-orthogonal multiple access for 5G: solutions, challenges, opportunities, and future research trends,

    L. Dai, B. Wang, Y . Yuan, S. Han, C. l. I, and Z. Wang, “Non-orthogonal multiple access for 5G: solutions, challenges, opportunities, and future research trends,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 74–81, Sept. 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Optimum power control for succes- sive interference cancellation with imperfect channel estimation,

    J. G. Andrews and T. H. Meng, “Optimum power control for succes- sive interference cancellation with imperfect channel estimation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 375–383, Mar. 2003

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    A survey on the successive interference cancellation performance for single-antenna and multiple- antenna OFDM systems,

    N. I. Miridakis and D. D. Vergados, “A survey on the successive interference cancellation performance for single-antenna and multiple- antenna OFDM systems,” IEEE Commun. Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 312–335, First 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Impact of user pairing on 5G nonorthogonal multiple-access downlink transmissions,

    Z. Ding, P. Fan, and H. V . Poor, “Impact of user pairing on 5G nonorthogonal multiple-access downlink transmissions,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 6010–6023, Aug. 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Fairness of user clustering in MIMO non-orthogonal multiple access systems,

    Y . Liu, M. Elkashlan, Z. Ding, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Fairness of user clustering in MIMO non-orthogonal multiple access systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1465–1468, Jul. 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Joint beam- forming and power optimization with iterative user clustering for MISO- NOMA systems,

    Z. Liu, L. Lei, N. Zhang, G. Kang, and S. Chatzinotas, “Joint beam- forming and power optimization with iterative user clustering for MISO- NOMA systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 6872–6884, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    On user pairing in uplink NOMA,

    M. A. Sedaghat and R. R. MÃijller, “On user pairing in uplink NOMA,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 3474–3486, May 2018

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Optimal user grouping for downlink NOMA,

    J. Kang and I. Kim, “Optimal user grouping for downlink NOMA,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 724–727, Oct. 2018

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Resource optimization and power allocation in in-band full duplex- enabled non-orthogonal multiple access networks,

    M. S. Elbamby, M. Bennis, W. Saad, M. Debbah, and M. Latva-aho, “Resource optimization and power allocation in in-band full duplex- enabled non-orthogonal multiple access networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 2860–2873, Dec. 2017

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) for downlink multiuser MIMO systems: User clustering, beamforming, and power allocation,

    S. Ali, E. Hossain, and D. I. Kim, “Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) for downlink multiuser MIMO systems: User clustering, beamforming, and power allocation,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 565–577, 2017

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Dynamic user clustering and power allocation for uplink and downlink non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) systems,

    M. S. Ali, H. Tabassum, and E. Hossain, “Dynamic user clustering and power allocation for uplink and downlink non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 6325–6343, 2016

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    An improved coalition game approach for mimo-noma clustering integrating beamforming and power allocation,

    J. Ding, J. Cai, and C. Yi, “An improved coalition game approach for mimo-noma clustering integrating beamforming and power allocation,” IEEE Trans.Vehicular Technol., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 1672–1687, Feb. 2019. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS 16

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Unsupervised machine learning-based user clustering in millimeter-wave-noma systems,

    J. Cui, Z. Ding, P. Fan, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Unsupervised machine learning-based user clustering in millimeter-wave-noma systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 7425–7440, No.v 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Quality-balanced user clustering schemes for non- orthogonal multiple access systems,

    Y . Tsai and H. Wei, “Quality-balanced user clustering schemes for non- orthogonal multiple access systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 113–116, Jan. 2018

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Joint user scheduling and power allocation optimization for energy-efficient NOMA systems with imperfect CSI,

    F. Fang, H. Zhang, J. Cheng, S. Roy, and V . C. M. Leung, “Joint user scheduling and power allocation optimization for energy-efficient NOMA systems with imperfect CSI,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 2874–2885, Dec. 2017

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Optimal resource allocation for power-efficient MC-NOMA with imperfect channel state information,

    Z. Wei, D. W. K. Ng, J. Yuan, and H. Wang, “Optimal resource allocation for power-efficient MC-NOMA with imperfect channel state information,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 3944–3961, Sep. 2017

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Reinforcement learning- based NOMA power allocation in the presence of smart jamming,

    L. Xiao, Y . Li, C. Dai, H. Dai, and H. V . Poor, “Reinforcement learning- based NOMA power allocation in the presence of smart jamming,” IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technol., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 3377–3389, Apr. 2018

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Modeling and analysis of uplink non-orthogonal multiple access in large-scale cellular networks using poisson cluster processes,

    H. Tabassum, E. Hossain, and J. Hossain, “Modeling and analysis of uplink non-orthogonal multiple access in large-scale cellular networks using poisson cluster processes,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 3555–3570, Aug. 2017

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Power and channel allocation for non-orthogonal multiple access in 5G systems: Tractability and computation,

    L. Lei, D. Yuan, C. K. Ho, and S. Sun, “Power and channel allocation for non-orthogonal multiple access in 5G systems: Tractability and computation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 8580– 8594, Dec. 2016

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    Uplink nonorthogonal multiple access in 5G systems,

    N. Zhang, J. Wang, G. Kang, and Y . Liu, “Uplink nonorthogonal multiple access in 5G systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 458–461, Mar. 2016

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    On power and rate allocation for coded uplink NOMA in a multicarrier system,

    J. Choi, “On power and rate allocation for coded uplink NOMA in a multicarrier system,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 2762– 2772, Jun. 2018

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Distributed uplink-NOMA for cloud radio access networks,

    K. N. Pappi, P. D. Diamantoulakis, and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Distributed uplink-NOMA for cloud radio access networks,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 2274–2277, Oct. 2017

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    A general power allocation scheme to guarantee quality of service in downlink and uplink NOMA systems,

    Z. Yang, Z. Ding, P. Fan, and N. Al-Dhahir, “A general power allocation scheme to guarantee quality of service in downlink and uplink NOMA systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 7244– 7257, Nov. 2016

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Cluster formation and joint power-bandwidth allocation for imperfect NOMA in DL-HetNets,

    A. Celik, F. S. Al-Qahtani, R. M. Radaydeh, and M. S. Alouini, “Cluster formation and joint power-bandwidth allocation for imperfect NOMA in DL-HetNets,” in proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , Dec. 2017, pp. 1–6

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Distributed cluster formation and power-bandwidth allocation for im- perfect NOMA in DL-HetNets,

    A. Celik, M. Tsai, R. M. Radaydeh, F. S. Al-Qahtani, and M. Alouini, “Distributed cluster formation and power-bandwidth allocation for im- perfect NOMA in DL-HetNets,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 1677–1692, Feb. 2019

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Why to decouple the uplink and downlink in cellular networks and how to do it,

    F. Boccardi, J. Andrews, H. Elshaer, M. Dohler, S. Parkvall, P. Popovski, and S. Singh, “Why to decouple the uplink and downlink in cellular networks and how to do it,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 110–117, Mar. 2016

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Joint interference management and resource allocation for device-to-device (D2D) communications underlying downlink/uplink decoupled (DUDe) heterogeneous networks,

    A. Celik, R. M. Radaydeh, F. S. Al-Qahtani, and M.-S. Alouini, “Joint interference management and resource allocation for device-to-device (D2D) communications underlying downlink/uplink decoupled (DUDe) heterogeneous networks,” in proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. Commun.(ICC), May 2017

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Cancellation error statistics in a power- controlled cdma system using successive interference cancellation,

    A. Hasan and J. Andrews, “Cancellation error statistics in a power- controlled cdma system using successive interference cancellation,” in 8th IEEE International Symposium on Spread Spectrum Techniques and Applications, Aug. 2004, pp. 419–423

    work page 2004

  30. [30]

    Interference cancellation for cellular systems: a contem- porary overview,

    J. G. Andrews, “Interference cancellation for cellular systems: a contem- porary overview,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 19–29, Apr. 2005

    work page 2005

  31. [31]

    Fair end-to-end window-based congestion control,

    J. Mo and J. Walrand, “Fair end-to-end window-based congestion control,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 556–567, Oct. 2000

    work page 2000

  32. [32]

    Generalized α-fair resource allocation in wireless networks,

    E. Altman, K. Avrachenkov, and A. Garnaev, “Generalized α-fair resource allocation in wireless networks,” in 2008 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , Dec. 2008, pp. 2414–2419

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    Iterative power control for imperfect successive interference cancellation,

    A. Agrawal, J. G. Andrews, J. M. Cioffi, and T. Meng, “Iterative power control for imperfect successive interference cancellation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 878–884, May 2005

    work page 2005

  34. [34]

    Ieee standard 754 for binary floating-point arithmetic,

    W. Kahan, “Ieee standard 754 for binary floating-point arithmetic,” Lecture Notes on the Status of IEEE , vol. 754, no. 94720-1776, p. 11, 1996

    work page 1996

  35. [35]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix analysis. Cambridge university press, 1990

    work page 1990

  36. [36]

    E. K. Chong and S. H. Zak, An introduction to optimization . John Wiley & Sons, 2013, vol. 76

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    Lecture notes on difference equations,

    A. Jensen, “Lecture notes on difference equations,” Jul. 2011. Abdulkadir Çelik (S’14-M’16) received the B.S. degree in electrical-electronics engineering from Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey in 2009, the M.S. degree in electrical engineering in 2013, the M.S. degree in computer engineering in 2015, and the Ph.D. degree in co-majors of electrical enginee...

    work page 2011