Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 19 references

Spectral-Domain Spreading via Hadamard Transform for Robust Downlink Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that applying the Hadamard transform to user data before modulation, rather than after it, makes downlink NOMA markedly more robust to fading, imperfect channel knowledge, and imperfect interference cancellation, with repo

desk verdict The source-level Hadamard idea is plausible, but the paper's analytical core is not derived for H-NOMA, the noise-halving argument is algebraically wrong, and the four-user results contradict the abstract—so the headline dB gains are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.07836 v2 pith:BI42YMNO submitted 2026-03-08 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Yaakoub Berrouche , Theodoros A. Tsiftsis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT
keywords HadamardtransformNOMAbiterrorrateimperfectCSIsuccessiveinterferencecancellationsource-levelspreadingQAMdownlink
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes H-NOMA, in which each user's bit vector is spread with the Hadamard transform before QAM modulation and despread at the receiver. It argues that this source-level spreading partially cancels post-SIC noise, making detection less sensitive to CSI errors and SIC error propagation. Simulations are reported showing a 15 dB gain for the near user at a bit error rate of 10^-2 and a 10 dB gain for the far user at 10^-1 relative to traditional NOMA, with a further 15 dB far-user gain over a post-modulation Hadamard scheme. If the claim holds, a low-complexity transform at the transmitter gives a large reliability boost without changing the spectral efficiency of NOMA.

What carries the argument

The Sylvester-Hadamard transform (H_N), a unitary matrix built recursively as H_N = H_{N-1} ⊗ H_2 with H_2 = (1/sqrt(2))[[1,1],[1,-1]], applied at the source before IQ modulation and inverted at the receiver. Its role is to spread each user's data across the transform domain so that the receiver's SIC estimates, when combined, cancel part of the noise and reduce residual interference, which the paper proposes as the mechanism behind H-NOMA's robustness.

What would settle it

Recompute the two-user BER with a direct Monte Carlo simulation of the full H-NOMA encoder/decoder (Hadamard spreading, QAM, SIC, inverse Hadamard) and compare the near-user error rate against the factor-of-two noise prediction; if the BER does not improve by approximately 3 dB relative to T-NOMA at the operating point, the claimed cancellation mechanism is not driving the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spreading user data with the Sylvester-Hadamard matrix before modulation cancels part of the noise that survives successive interference cancellation. In the two-user derivation, the near-user symbol estimate in H-NOMA has noise n/(2*g2*sqrt(P2)), half the noise of the traditional estimate n/(g2*sqrt(P2)); for the far user, the estimate also contains a partially cancelled near-user interference term rather than the full interference of T-NOMA. The paper attributes the reported bit-error-rate improvements to this factor-of-two noise reduction and to the fact that all transformed components participate in each user's data estimate. Analytical BER expressions and Monte

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes, without deriving, that the BER expressions taken from prior T-NOMA analysis describe the H-NOMA receiver; if those analytical curves are just the T-NOMA formulas relabeled, the simulation "validation" does not confirm the claimed Hadamard mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, H-NOMA gives a low-complexity robustness fix that can be added to existing downlink NOMA without changing power allocation or spectrum use.
  • The reported 10-15 dB BER gains imply users can meet target error rates at substantially lower SNR, which could extend cell coverage or reduce transmit power.
  • In the four-user results, near users gain 1-5 dB at BER 10^-3 while the farthest user loses about 7 dB, indicating that HT spreading improves most users but can trade away the worst user's performance.
  • The image-transmission results suggest the scheme also improves perceptual quality for multimedia NOMA, not just raw bit errors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The analytical BER expressions are quoted from prior non-Hadamard NOMA work, and no derivation shows how the factor-of-two noise reduction enters those Q-function formulas; if the analytical curve is just the T-NOMA formula relabeled, the reported simulation "validation" is circular rather than confirmatory.
  • A natural test is to simulate the exact H-NOMA encoder/decoder with the inverse Hadamard at the receiver and check whether the near-user BER shifts by the expected 3 dB from the noise factor of two; if it does not, the claimed cancellation mechanism is not the source of the gains.
  • Because HT spreading changes the effective symbol constellation seen by SIC, the optimal power-allocation coefficients for H-NOMA likely differ from T-NOMA; re-optimizing them could shift or shrink the reported gains.
  • The factor-of-two noise reduction is derived only for two users; whether it grows with transform order for larger N is an open, testable extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes H-NOMA, a downlink non-orthogonal multiple access scheme in which the Hadamard transform (HT) is applied at the source, before modulation, for each user's data. The authors claim that this source-level spreading mitigates the adverse effects of fading, imperfect channel state information (CSI), and imperfect successive interference cancellation (SIC), yielding large BER gains: 15 dB for the near user at BER 10^-2 and 10 dB for the far user at BER 10^-1 relative to T-NOMA, and 15 dB for the far user relative to Usman-NOMA. The paper presents an analytical SIC error analysis (Section III.A), BER expressions (Section III.B), Monte Carlo simulations for two- and four-user scenarios, and an image transmission example. The central claim is that H-NOMA is more robust than T-NOMA in general multi-user settings.

Significance. If the claims were correct, source-level Hadamard spreading would be a simple, low-complexity robustness enhancement for NOMA, and the paper would fill a gap in the literature on transform-domain NOMA. The paper addresses a relevant problem and includes Monte Carlo simulations and an application-oriented image transmission study. However, the analytical core is not self-contained: the BER expressions in Section III.B are imported from prior T-NOMA work without any derivation showing how the Hadamard transform enters the error probability. Moreover, the noise-halving argument in Section III.A is algebraically invalid, and the four-user results in Section IV.2 explicitly report a 7 dB degradation for the farthest user, contradicting the abstract's universal-gain claim. The Monte Carlo validation is also circular because the equations cited for validation are channel-generation formulas, not BER expressions. The paper therefore does not currently provide a valid argument for its headline results. No machine-checked proofs or reproducible code are provided. The significance is conditional on a derivation that is absent.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A, Eqs. (22)-(25)] The noise-halving argument is algebraically invalid. For the near user, Eq. (22) defines \hat{x}_1 = r/(g_2√P_1) = x_1 + √(P_2/P_1)x_2 + n/(g_2√P_1) unless the SIC step has already removed x_2, yet Eq. (23) claims \hat{x}_1 = x_1. The later subtraction in Eq. (24) to obtain Eq. (25) is inconsistent; the sign of the noise term depends on which equation is subtracted from which. The claimed factor-of-two noise reduction is therefore an artifact of the algebra, not a property of the H-NOMA receiver. A correct derivation must start from the actual H-NOMA detection rule (e.g., inverse HT after joint symbol estimation) and account for the transformed constellation and SIC errors explicitly.
  2. [Section III.B, Eqs. (34)-(40)] The analytical BER expressions are not derived for H-NOMA. Eq. (34) defines the H-NOMA transmitted signal, but the symbols E_k are undefined and Eq. (35) is a garbled Q-function definition. Eqs. (36)-(40) are stated as 'given in [15] as derived from [5]' and are the T-NOMA BER formulas of Assaf et al. The text never shows how the Hadamard transform modifies the constellation, the effective noise variance, or the decision regions. Consequently, the analytical curves in Fig. 4 are indistinguishable from the T-NOMA formulas relabeled as H-NOMA, and the agreement between 'analytical' and simulation is not confirmatory of the H-NOMA mechanism.
  3. [Section IV.1, first paragraph] The paper states that 'the BER of a downlink H-NOMA system is analytically derived and validated through Monte Carlo simulations using equations [(14), (16)].' Equations (14) and (16) are channel-generation formulas for \hat{g}_2 and \tilde{g}_2, not BER expressions. This makes the validation circular: the simulation uses the same channel model and the analytical curve is imported from T-NOMA. The statement must be corrected and the BER derivation must be supplied.
  4. [Section IV.2, Fig. 5 and accompanying text] The four-user results directly contradict the abstract's universal performance claim. The text says: 'for the user1 (the farest), we obtain a degradation of 7 dB or more at a bit-error-rate (BER) of 10^-3 compared to the state-of-the-art existing T-NOMA.' This is a load-bearing inconsistency: the abstract claims that source-level HT 'mitigates the adverse impact of fading and CSI imperfections' and improves reliability, but the paper's own results show that the farthest user is worse under H-NOMA. Either the claim must be restricted to certain user/channel conditions or the contradiction must be resolved with an explanation (e.g., power allocation, SIC ordering, or constellation effects).
  5. [Section II.C and Section III.A] The receiver specified in Section II.C uses maximum-likelihood detection and inverse Hadamard transform, with SIC performed on the transformed-domain symbols. However, the analytical derivation in Section III.A models the receiver as simple division and subtraction of the superimposed symbols, without any inverse HT or ML detection. The analytical model therefore does not match the described H-NOMA receiver. A correct analysis must either analyze the actual ML/inverse-HT receiver or justify why the simplified model is equivalent.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.B, Eq. (35)] Equation (35) is not a valid definition of the Q-function. It appears to be a fragment of a longer expression. Please replace with the standard Q-function definition or remove the equation.
  2. [Section II.B, Eq. (5) and Eq. (6)] The Sylvester-Hadamard matrix of order 2 is written with 1/√2 normalization, but Eq. (6) then uses the Kronecker product without clarifying whether the normalization is preserved. Define H_N consistently throughout.
  3. [Section IV.1] The text says 'user 1 requires an SNR at least 14 dB lower than user 2 to achieve a BER of 10^-3' but the preceding discussion does not make clear whether this is a comparison of H-NOMA curves or a property of the power allocation. Please clarify.
  4. [Section IV.2] Several typos: 'bleu' should be 'blue', 'depected' should be 'depicted', 'are are' should be 'are'. These should be corrected.
  5. [Table I] The table caption is 'ABBREVIATION' but the table contains mathematical definitions. Rename the table and ensure all symbols used in Eqs. (36)-(40) are defined consistently.
  6. [General] The notation for channel coefficients alternates between g_k, h_k, and \mathcal{h}_k. Unify the notation and define all symbols before first use.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Analytical H-NOMA BER is imported from T-NOMA [15]; the Hadamard transform never enters the equations, so the claimed validation is against a relabeled baseline.

  1. renaming known result [Section III.B, Eqs. (34), (36), (39); Section IV.1]
    "The H-NOMA signal transmitted by the BS is defined as [15]: ... The analytical BER expression for user 1 is given in [15] as derived from [5, (9), (14)]: ... The analytical BER expression for user 2 is provided in [15], as derived from [5, (19)(20)]: ..."

    Equations (34), (36) and (39) are taken verbatim from [15], which is a T-NOMA two-user QAM BER analysis. No term in them involves the Hadamard transform, the affine shift w'=w+m1, or the inverse-HT recovery of Eqs. (10)-(11). Thus the paper's 'analytical BER of H-NOMA' is, by construction, the same T-NOMA BER formula that is also used as the benchmark. The Monte Carlo validation in Sec. IV.1 is then performed against this same imported expression, so agreement cannot confirm any HT-induced gain; the prediction is the input formula relabeled as H-NOMA.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section I, Introduction (paragraph before Main contributions)]
    "On the other hand, applying HT before modulation at the user data level streamlines the process, preserves the physical meaning of the data, and aligns with MDC theory, as supported by earlier research (e.g., [12])."

    The only cited authority for the central design premise — that source-level HT is theoretically sound and beneficial — is [12], the present first author's prior work on image coding. The paper does not independently derive or verify that pre-modulation HT yields BER gains in NOMA; in fact, the BER analysis in Sec. III.B never uses the Hadamard transform. The scheme's claimed foundation therefore reduces to a self-citation plus the relabeled T-NOMA formulas, rather than to an external, machine-checked, or parameter-free derivation.

full rationale

The core circularity is in Sec. III.B: Eqs. (36)-(40), advertised as the analytical BER of H-NOMA, are quoted from [15], a published exact BER analysis of T-NOMA with QAM. The Hadamard transform appears nowhere in those expressions or in the surrounding derivation, so the claimed H-NOMA analytical prediction is identical by construction to the T-NOMA formula that is also used as the comparison baseline. The statement in Sec. IV.1 that the BER is 'analytically derived and validated ... using equations [(14), (16)]' further reinforces the gap, since Eqs. (14) and (16) are channel-generation formulas, not BER expressions. This is a renaming of a known result rather than a derivation, and the subsequent 'agreement' between simulation and this imported formula cannot validate the HT mechanism. A secondary self-citation, [12], is used to justify the pre-modulation HT design premise, but without any derivation of how the transform changes the error probability. In addition, the only purported mechanism for HT gain, Sec. III.A Eqs. (22)-(25), is algebraically invalid: subtracting expressions for hat x_1 + hat x_2 and hat x_1 - hat x_2 yields an equation for hat x_2, not hat x_1, so the claimed factor-of-2 noise reduction is an artifact of the manipulation, not a property of the receiver. That is a correctness issue rather than a circularity, so it does not by itself raise the circularity score, but it underscores that the analytical case for H-NOMA is unsupported. The four-user result (a 7 dB degradation for user 1) also contradicts the abstract's universal-gain claim; again this is an internal inconsistency rather than a circularity. Weighing all of this, the central analytical claim reduces by construction to an imported T-NOMA result, giving a score of 6: one or more 'predictions' reduce by construction, though the Monte Carlo simulations could in principle contain independent content, so the paper is not at the 8-10 level of definitional collapse.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on roughly six scenario-specific simulation parameters (distances, path-loss exponent, power split, CSI error variance, SNR operating point, and constellation sizes), one imported analytical expression set whose applicability to H-NOMA is asserted but not derived, and one cited-but-unverified estimator assumption. For a claimed 10–15 dB universal robustness gain, the paper does not provide the actual imperfect-CSI sigma_E value used for the headline curves, does not provide sensitivity to power allocation or path-loss exponent, and does not reconcile the four-user 7 dB loss with the blanket claim. The halo effect of the contribution is small relative to the number of untested premises.

free parameters (6)
  • per-user distances q1, q2 (and q1..q4) in Monte Carlo simulations = q1=6.015, q2=1; q1=500m,q2=400m,q3=150m,q4=100m (four-user path-loss model)
    Chosen by hand per simulation scenario; the observed dB gains, including the 7 dB loss for user 1 in the four-user case, depend on these separations and on zeta=2. The abstract cites them as general gains, but they are scenario-specific. Sec. IV.1–IV.2.
  • path-loss exponent zeta = 2 (two-user), 4 (Nakagami section), 1 (image section)
    Varied per experiment without sensitivity analysis; the claimed 10–15 dB gains are only shown for these values. Sec. IV.
  • power allocation coefficients alpha1, alpha2 = alpha1=0.7 (two-user), alpha1=0.6 (image), unspecified four-user coefficients
    Chosen ad hoc from [18],[19]; the SIC toy derivation explicitly conditions on P1 ≈ P2, and the dB gains are known to depend on the power split. Sec. IV; Eq. (20)-(33).
  • channel estimation error variance sigma_E^2 / imperfect CSI level = sigma_E in [0,1] per Eq. (12)-(18); actual sigma_E used in Figs. 6–7 not stated
    The headline imperfect-CSI gains (15/10/15 dB) are produced by Eqs. (13)–(18) with an unspecified sigma_E; the text only says sigma_E=0 is coherent. This is the single most important parameter for the central claim, and its value is not given. Sec. II.C; Sec. IV.3.
  • SNR at which BER curves are compared = Not tabulated; gains read off logarithmic plots that are not included in text
    The 15/10/14/7/3 dB values are extracted from figures that are not present in the provided manuscript text, so the precise operating point of each claimed gain cannot be verified. Sec. IV.
  • K factor / MDC parameter m = N/2 affine shift = m=N/2, HT order N = number of users
    The affine shift w' = w + m1 with m=N/2 is introduced to map transformed symbols onto a higher-order constellation; its statistical optimality is not demonstrated. The choice of N (number of users) as the HT size couples transform order to user count, an assumption not justified physically. Sec. II.B, Eq. (4)–(6).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Rayleigh fading with unit-power small-scale coefficients and independent channel estimates (G = G_hat + G_tilde with independent entries) obtainable via LMMSE
    The imperfect-CSI model in Sec. II.C (Eqs. 12–18) and all claimed robustness gains depend on this independence and on the specific variance split (1-sigma_E^2, sigma_E^2). The paper asserts LMMSE achievability but does not derive the estimator or its error statistics.
  • ad hoc to paper The BER expressions Eqs. (36)–(40) from [15]/[5] remain valid for the H-NOMA receiver
    This is the load-bearing analytical premise: the paper imports a T-NOMA BER derivation and labels it H-NOMA without showing how the Hadamard transform modifies the decision variables. The validity of this identification is also the main circularity concern.
  • standard math Sylvester-Hadamard matrix unitary property and the transform being applied over real data before IQ modulation
    The recursion H_N = H_{N-1} ⊗ H_2 and unitarity are standard [13]. The assumption that the transform preserves the NOMA superposition structure is not proven, and the affine shift w+m1 changes the modulation mapping.
  • domain assumption Noise is i.i.d. complex Gaussian with equal variance at the two users and SIC is perfect (in the analytical section)
    The toy derivation in Sec. III.A assumes the far-user symbol x2 is decoded and canceled perfectly to obtain Eq. (25), while the stated contribution is robustness under imperfect SIC; the imperfect-SIC analysis is only empirical.
invented entities (1)
  • H-NOMA (Hadamard-NOMA) — source-level Hadamard transform prior to modulation in downlink NOMA
    purpose: Spread each user's information across transformed symbols to mitigate fading, CSI errors, and SIC error propagation.
    This is not a new physical entity but a new signal-processing block. Its claimed improvement mechanism (noise halving in Eq. 25; interference cancellation in Eq. 32) is demonstrated only in a two-symbol toy example without any channel noise or CSI error, and the paper's own four-user simulation shows a 7 dB loss for the farthest user, so the favorable mechanism is not independently evidenced. The abstract 'findings' are the only source of evidence for the claimed gains.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral-Domain Spreading via Hadamard Transform for Robust Downlink Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BI42YMNO

@misc{pith2026260307836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral-Domain Spreading via Hadamard Transform for Robust Downlink Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BI42YMNO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.07836}
}
abstract

Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) systems allowing multiple users sharing the same resource block offer significant gains in spectral efficiency which can enable the required massive access in future wireless systems. However, they face several challenges due to their sensitivity to power allocation coefficients, fading effects, and imperfect channel state information (CSI). To address these limitations, this paper proposes Hadamard-NOMA, an approach leveraging the Hadamard Transform (HT) at the source level prior to modulation. By introducing HT, the system mitigates the adverse impact of fading and CSI imperfections, reducing bit error rates (BER) and enhancing overall system reliability. Theoretical analysis and Monte Carlo simulations validate the effectiveness of this technique, demonstrating robust NOMA transmission in dynamic wireless environments. The proposed method offers a promising solution for next-generation wireless networks, ensuring more reliable performance under diverse transmission conditions. Simulation results confirm analytical predictions, demonstrating significant performance improvements over state-of-the-art T-NOMA and Usman-NOMA schemes. Specifically, for the Near user, a gain of 15 dB is achieved at a Bit Error Rate (BER) of $10^{-2}$, while the Far user benefits from a 10 dB gain at a BER of $10^{-1}$. Compared to Usman-NOMA, the proposed method provides an improvement of 15 dB for the Far user at BER $10^{-1}$. Additionally, in a two-user scenario with imperfect Successive Interference Cancelation (SIC), user 1 requires an SNR at least 14 dB lower than user 2 to achieve a BER of $10^{-3}$. These findings highlight the effectiveness of applying HT at the source stage, significantly mitigating CSI errors and making NOMA more resilient for next-generation wireless networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.07836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System model of downlink NOMA. signal (treat the intended signal from other users as noise), and user i = {2, 3, ..., K} performs j = {1, 2, .., i−1} SIC to remove the NOMA interference before decode its own signal. A. Traditional NOMA A downlink NOMA system with a single base station (BS) and N users is considered. The users are arranged according to their channel quality so that |gN | > ... > |g2| > |g1|, where gk… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System model of H-NOMA. wˆ = wˆ ′ − m1. (10) If user 1’s transformed signal wˆ1 is correctly decoded, user 2’s transformed signal wˆ2 can be recovered interference￾free. Otherwise, errors in user 1’s decoding will propagate, affecting user 2. After recovering the transformed vector wˆ = [ ˆw1, . . . , wˆN ] T , the estimated binary data is obtained via inverse HT as such: dˆ = H−1 N wˆ . (11) Finally, the estimated … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. BER analysis for two users H-NOMA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: BER analysis and simulation for two users [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Imperfect Channel Coefficient comparison for two users between T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BER comparison for four users. The interpretation is that on the contrary of T-NOMA system, H-NOMA system is more resilient to multipath fading and channel impairments by using Hadamard Transform. 3) Imperfect SIC for Two Users Scenario: T-NOMA pro￾vides high spectrum …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Imperfect Channel Coefficient comparison for two users between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references

  1. [15]

    Exact bit error-rate analysis of two-user noma using qam with arbitrary modulation orders,

    T. Assaf, A. J. Al-Dweik, M. S. El Moursi, H. Zeineldin, and M. Al- Jarrah, “Exact bit error-rate analysis of two-user noma using qam with arbitrary modulation orders,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2705–2709, 2020

    2020

  2. [5]

    Robust resource allocation for noma-assisted heterogeneous networks,

    H. Xie and Y . Xu, “Robust resource allocation for noma-assisted heterogeneous networks,”Digital Communications and Networks, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 208–214, 2022

    2022

  3. [1]

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

    L. Dai, B. Wang, Y . Yuan, S. Han, I. Chih-Lin, and Z. Wang, “Non- orthogonal multiple access for 5g: solutions, challenges, opportunities, and future research trends,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 74–81, 2015

    2015

  4. [2]

    Nonorthogonal multiple access for 5g and beyond,

    Y . Liu, Z. Qin, M. Elkashlan, Z. Ding, A. Nallanathan, and L. Hanzo, “Nonorthogonal multiple access for 5g and beyond,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 105, no. 12, pp. 2347–2381, 2017

    2017

  5. [3]

    Delay-doppler domain pulse design for otfs-noma,

    M. Kulhandjian, H. Kulhandjian, G. K. Kurt, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Delay-doppler domain pulse design for otfs-noma,” in2024 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2024, pp. 63–68

    2024

  6. [4]

    A unified performance analysis of cooperative noma with practical constraints: Hardware impairment, imperfect sic and csi,

    S. Beddiaf, A. Khelil, F. Khennoufa, F. Kara, H. Kaya, X. Li, K. Rabie, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “A unified performance analysis of cooperative noma with practical constraints: Hardware impairment, imperfect sic and csi,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 132 931–132 948, 2022

    2022

  7. [6]

    Video multicast: Integrating scalability of soft video delivery systems into noma,

    J. Wu, B. Tan, J. Wu, and M. Wang, “Video multicast: Integrating scalability of soft video delivery systems into noma,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1722–1726, 2019

    2019

  8. [7]

    Resource allocation for layered multicast video streaming in noma systems,

    M. N. Dani, D. K. So, J. Tang, and Z. Ding, “Resource allocation for layered multicast video streaming in noma systems,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 11, pp. 11 379–11 394, 2022

    2022

Show all 19 references
  1. [8]

    Mdc- noma: Multiple description coding-based nonorthogonal multiple access for image transmission,

    T. Tang, A. Wang, S. Muhaidat, S. Li, M. Li, and J. Liang, “Mdc- noma: Multiple description coding-based nonorthogonal multiple access for image transmission,”IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 3632– 3641, 2020

    2020

  2. [9]

    Joint non- orthogonal multiple access (noma) & walsh-hadamard transform: En- hancing the receiver performance,

    M. R. Usman, A. Khan, M. A. Usman, and S. Y . Shin, “Joint non- orthogonal multiple access (noma) & walsh-hadamard transform: En- hancing the receiver performance,”China Communications, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 160–177, 2018

    2018

  3. [10]

    On the papr reduction: A novel filtering based hadamard transform precoded uplink mc-noma scheme for 5g cellular networks,

    I. Baig, U. Farooq, N. Ul Hasan, M. Zghaibeh, U. M. Rana, M. Imran, and M. Ayaz, “On the papr reduction: A novel filtering based hadamard transform precoded uplink mc-noma scheme for 5g cellular networks,” in2018 1st International Conference on Computer Applications & Informat...

    2018

  4. [11]

    Noma based walsh hadamard transform and user pairing strategy,

    K. A. Bouslam, J. Amadid, F.-Z. Bennioui, R. Iqdour, and A. Zeroual, “Noma based walsh hadamard transform and user pairing strategy,” in 2024 International Conference on Global Aeronautical Engineering and Satellite Technology (GAST). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  5. [12]

    Improved multiple description wavelet based image coding using hadamard transform,

    Y . Berrouche and R. E. Bekka, “Improved multiple description wavelet based image coding using hadamard transform,”AEU-International Journal of Electronics and Communications, vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 976– 982, 2014

    2014

  6. [13]

    Performance measures for transform data coding,

    J. Pearl, H. Andrews, and W. Pratt, “Performance measures for transform data coding,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 411–415, 1972

    1972

  7. [14]

    Design criterion and construction methods for partially coherent multiple antenna constella- tions,

    M. J. Borran, A. Sabharwal, and B. Aazhang, “Design criterion and construction methods for partially coherent multiple antenna constella- tions,”IEEE transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4122–4133, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    A novel user grouping in phase rotation based downlink noma,

    H. Y . Lee and S. Y . Shin, “A novel user grouping in phase rotation based downlink noma,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 27 211–27 222, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Error rate analysis of noma: Principles, survey and future directions,

    H. Yahya, A. Ahmed, E. Alsusa, A. Al-Dweik, and Z. Ding, “Error rate analysis of noma: Principles, survey and future directions,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Closed-form ber expression for fourier and wavelet transform-based pulse-shaped data in downlink noma,

    S. Baig, U. Ali, H. M. Asif, A. A. Khan, and S. Mumtaz, “Closed-form ber expression for fourier and wavelet transform-based pulse-shaped data in downlink noma,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 592–595, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Bit error rate for noma network,

    M. Aldababsa, C. G ¨oztepe, G. K. Kurt, and O. Kucur, “Bit error rate for noma network,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1188–1191, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.