User Clustering for STAR-RIS Assisted Full-Duplex NOMA Communication Systems

Abstract

In contrast to conventional reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS), simultaneous transmitting and reflecting reconfigurable intelligent surface (STAR-RIS) has been proposed recently to enlarge the serving area from $180^{o}$ to $360^{o}$ coverage. This work considers the performance of a STAR-RIS aided full-duplex (FD) non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) communication systems. The STAR-RIS is implemented at the cell-edge to assist the cell-edge users, while the cell-center users can communicate directly with a FD base station (BS). We first introduce new user clustering schemes for the downlink and uplink transmissions. Then, based on the proposed transmission schemes closed-form expressions of the ergodic rates in the downlink and uplink modes are derived taking into account the system impairments caused by the self interference at the FD-BS and the imperfect successive interference cancellation (SIC). Moreover, an optimization problem to maximize the total sum-rate is formulated and solved by optimizing the amplitudes and the phase-shifts of the STAR-RIS elements and allocating the transmit power efficiently. The performance of the proposed user clustering schemes and the optimal STAR-RIS design are investigated through numerical results.

I Introduction

Reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) has been envisioned as a promising technology for sixth-generation (6G) wireless communication networks [1, 2, 3, 4]. RIS is capable of manipulating the propagation of electromagnetic waves. More specifically, the conventional RIS consists of controllable reflecting elements that can manipulate the phase shifts of the im**ing signals to improve the quality of the received signals [5, 6, 7, 8]. However, the single-faced structure of the conventional RIS limits its service to only half-space, and the base station (BS) and the users should be situated on the same RIS side. To tackle this shortcoming, very recently simultaneous transmitting and reflecting RIS (STAR-RIS) has been proposed and investigated in the literature [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. STAR-RIS can simultaneously transmit and reflect the im**ing signals to the users located on both sides of the surface, and thus it can extend the serving area from $180^{o}$ to $360^{o}$ coverage. The concept of STAR-RIS, its potential benefits, and the key differences between conventional RIS and STAR-RIS have been discussed in [9] and [10]. The authors in [9] and [10] proposed three practical STAR-RIS operating protocols, namely, mode switching (MS), time switching (TS), and energy splitting (ES). In MS protocol the STAR-RIS elements are divided into a transmission group and a reflecting group, and in TS protocol the STAR-RIS elements periodically switch between the transmission and reflection modes. Whilst, ES protocol splits the energy of the incident signal on each element into two portions for transmitting and reflecting. In [11] a STAR-RIS-assisted two-user downlink (DL) communication systems has been considered for orthogonal multiple access (OMA) and non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) techniques. The performance of STAR-RIS empowered NOMA systems to support low-latency communications has been studied in [12]. Analytical expressions to evaluate the ergodic rate and the coverage probability of a STAR-RIS assisted NOMA multi-cell networks were provided in [13]. In [14] a power minimization problem for STAR-RIS-aided uplink (UL) NOMA systems has been studied. The energy efficiency of a STAR-RIS aided multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO)-NOMA systems with a user-pairing scheme has been considered in [15]. Approximate analytical expressions of the ergodic rate for a STAR-RIS-aided DL NOMA systems with statistical channel state information (CSI) have been derived in [16]. In [17] the achievable sum rate of a STAR-RIS assisted NOMA systems has been maximized by optimizing the decoding order and the transmission-reflection beamforming. In addition, analytical expressions of the ergodic rate and the outage probability for a pair of users in a STAR-RIS assisted NOMA systems over Rician fading channels have been derived in [18].

Moreover, full-duplex (FD) technique allows wireless devices to simultaneously transmit and receive messages in the same time and frequency resources [19, 20]. Consequently, FD communication systems can offer more flexible usage of the spectrum. Interestingly, the implementation of RIS in FD communication systems has been proposed and studied recently in the literature [21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. In [21] a RIS has been deployed to cover the dead zones of FD cellular communication systems, the results in this work showed that the spectral efficiency can be doubled compared to the conventional half duplex (HD) systems. In [22] a joint beamforming design for a RIS-aided multiple-antennas FD communication systems has been studied, where the active beamforming at the transmitter and the passive beamforming at the RIS were designed. In [23] the deployment design for a RIS-assisted FD communication system has been considered, in which an FD transmitter communicates with an UL user and a DL user over the same time and frequency resources through a RIS. A multiple users FD communication system was studied in [24] where a dedicated RIS was assigned to each user in the system. In our previous work [25], we investigated the performance of a STAR-RIS-assisted FD-NOMA pairing communication systems.

Furthermore, it has been shown in the literature that, the detection complexity of NOMA increases as number of the users increases due to the increase in the SIC layers. To overcome this issue, a user clustering scheme has been introduced and investigated [26, 27, 28, 29, 30]. For instance, in [26] a comprehensive user clustering strategy for DL NOMA systems has been introduced, in which the users grouped in a cluster can receive their signals simultaneously using NOMA technique, and time-division multiple access (TDMA) scheme has been implemented among the different clusters. A novel user clustering scheme for NOMA assisted multi-cell massive MIMO systems was proposed in [27]. Efficient user clustering schemes for UL and DL NOMA transmissions have been designed in [28]. In [29] a user scheduling problem for DL NOMA systems has been studied, in which the BS allocates the spectrum and power resources to a set of users by taking into account the users’ fairness. In addition, a user clustering scheme for UL multiple-input single-output (MISO)-NOMA systems has been considered in [30].

Accordingly, this paper considers a STAR-RIS assisted multiple-user FD communication system, where the FD-BS employs NOMA technique to serve the DL and UL users. The cell-edge users communicate with the FD-BS via a passive STAR-RIS, while the cell-center users can communicate directly with the FD-BS. The BS and the STAR-RIS are assumed to know only the statistical channel state information (CSI) and the users’ distances. We first present new simple and efficient user-clustering schemes for DL and UL NOMA transmissions. Then, according to the proposed transmission schemes, the ergodic rates for the DL and UL modes are analyzed. In addition, the total sum rates are maximized by optimizing the STAR-RIS elements and the power transmissions. For clarity, the main contributions are listed as follows:

1) New user clustering schemes for STAR-RIS-aided FD NOMA communication systems are presented and discussed.

2) New closed-form analytical expressions for the ergodic rates of DL and UL users under Rician fading channels are derived. This channel model is more general but also challenging and hard to analyze. The impact of the imperfect SIC and the self interference at the FD-BS are also taken into account in the analysis.

3) The optimal STAR-RIS phase shifts and amplitudes that maximize the ergodic sum-rates are obtained. In addition, sub-optimal designs of the STAR-RIS phase shifts and amplitudes are also provided.

4) An efficient power allocation scheme that enhances the ergodic sum-rates is considered.

5) Monte-Carlo simulations are executed to investigate the performance of the user clustering schemes and the optimal system design.

The results in this work show that increasing the transmit signal to noise ratio (SNR) always improves the achievable rates, and the performance of the cell-edge users can be enhanced by increasing number of the STAR-RIS elements. Furthermore, NOMA user clustering scheme can achieve a higher sum rate than NOMA pairing scheme in the DL mode with perfect and imperfect SIC, when $0\%$ and $10\%$ of the power remains as interference. Whilst, in the UL mode NOMA user clustering scheme outperforms NOMA paring scheme in the perfect SIC case, $0\%$, and in the low SNR regime when $10\%$ of the power remains as interference.

Next, Section II presents the system model. Section III presents DL and UL NOMA user clustering schemes, and Section IV analyzes the ergodic rates of the DL and UL users. In Section V we consider the optimal system design. Section VI depicts our simulation and numerical results. The main conclusions are summarized in Section VII.

II System Model

Considering a STAR-RIS-assisted multiple-users FD NOMA communication system shown in Fig. 1. The FD-BS is situated at the cell-center with coverage radius, $R_{t}$, and the STAR-RIS with $N$ reconfigurable elements is situated at the cell-edge with coverage radius $R_{r}$. According to this deployment, the total coverage area $R_{t}$ can be divided into two areas, the cell-center area with radios $R$, and the cell-edge area with radios $R_{r}$. The FD-BS is equipped with two antennas, one for transmission and one for reception, while the users are equipped with a single antenna. Number of the DL and UL cell-center users are $K_{cd}\textrm{ and }K_{cu}$, respectively, where $K_{cd}+K_{cu}=K_{c}$, and number of the DL and UL cell-edge users are $K_{ed}\textrm{ and }K_{eu}$, respectively, where $K_{ed}+K_{eu}=K_{e}$, the total number of the DL and UL users are $K_{cd}+K_{ed}=K_{d}$ and $K_{cu}+K_{eu}=K_{u}$, respectively. The users are assumed to be uniformly distributed in the areas as shown in Fig 1. Rician fading model is assumed for the STAR-RIS related channels, while Rayleigh fading model is assumed for BS to users and user to user channels due to extensive scatterers. It is also assumed that the BS and the RIS can only know the statistical CSI and the users’ locations.

Figure 1: A STAR-RIS assisted FD communication system.

In this work, the ES operating protocol is implemented at the STAR-RIS. Thus, the STAR-RIS elements operate in the transmission ($t$) and reflection ($r$) modes, and the energy of the incident signal on each element is split into two portions, one for the transmitted signals and one for the reflected signals with the energy-splitting coefficients (amplitude coefficients) $\rho_{n}^{r}$ and $\rho_{n}^{t}$ ($\rho_{n}^{r}+\rho_{n}^{t}\leq 1$). The transmission and reflection matrices of the STAR-RIS can be written as $\Theta_{k}=\textrm{diag}\left(\rho_{1}^{k}\theta_{1}^{k},....,\rho_{N}^{k}\theta_{N}^{k}\right),k\in\left\{t,r\right\}$, where $\theta_{n}^{k}=e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}$, $\rho_{n}^{k}\in\left[0,1\right]$, $\rho_{n}^{k}>1$ and $\left|\theta_{n}^{k}\right|=1$.

II-A Data Transmission and Problem Formulation

In the considered model, the FD-BS employs NOMA scheme to serve the DL and UL users. To reduce the detection complexity of NOMA technique, the DL and UL users are divided into orthogonal clusters. Number of the DL clusters, $1\leq M_{d}\leq\frac{K_{d}}{2}$, and UL clusters, $1\leq M_{u}\leq\frac{K_{u}}{2}$. In addition, number of the users in each DL cluster and UL cluster are denoted by $\kappa_{d}$ and $\kappa_{u}$, respectively, where $2\leq\kappa_{d}\leq K_{d}$ and $2\leq\kappa_{u}\leq K_{u}$. The joint user-clustering and STAR-RIS design to maximize the sum rate can be formulated as

$$\underset{\rho,\mathbf{\theta},\beta}{\max}\,\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{\frac{K_{d}}{2}}{\sum}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{K_{d}}{\sum}\beta_{d_{i,j}}\bar{R}_{u_{i,jd}}+\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{\frac{K_{u}}{2}}{\sum}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{K_{u}}{\sum}\beta_{u_{i,j}}\bar{R}_{u_{i,ju}}$$

$$(C.1) \textrm{s.t}\>\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{\frac{K_{d}}{2}}{\sum}\beta_{d_{i,j}}\bar{R}_{u_{i,jd}}>\hat{R}_{d_{i}},\>\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{\frac{K_{u}}{2}}{\sum}\beta_{u_{i,j}}\bar{R}_{u_{i,ju}}>\hat{R}_{u_{i}}$$

$$(C.2) R_{u_{kd}\rightarrow u_{id}}\geqslant R_{u_{id}},k>i$$

$$(C.3) \beta_{d_{i,j}}\in\left\{0,1\right\},\,\beta_{u_{i,j}}\in\left\{0,1\right\},\forall i,j$$

$$(C.4) \stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{\frac{K_{d}}{2}}{\sum}\beta_{d_{i,j}}=1,\,\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{\frac{K_{u}}{2}}{\sum}\beta_{u_{i,j}}=1,\forall i$$

$$(C.5) 2\leq\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{K_{d}}{\sum}\beta_{d_{i,j}}\leq K_{d},\,2\leq\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{K_{u}}{\sum}\beta_{u_{i,j}}\leq K_{u},\forall j$$

$$(C.6) \left(\rho_{n}^{r}\right)+\left(\rho_{n}^{t}\right)=1,\forall n\in N$$

$$(C.7) \rho_{n}^{k}\geq 0,\left|\theta_{n}^{k}\right|=1,\forall n\in N$$ (1)

where $\bar{R}_{u_{i,jd}}$ is the average rate of the $i^{th}$ DL user in cluster $j$, $\bar{R}_{u_{i,ju}}$ is the average rate of the $i^{th}$ UL user in cluster $j$, and

$$\beta_{p_{i,j}}=\begin{cases}1,&\textrm{if a user }i\textrm{ is grouped into cluster }j\\ 0,&\textrm{otherwise}\end{cases}$$

The first constraint $\left(C.1\right)$ provides the data rate requirements of the DL and UL users, and the second constraint $(C.2)$ provides the SIC implementation condition, while the constraint $\left(C.3\right)$ explains that $\beta_{d_{i,j}}$ and $\beta_{u_{i,j}}$ are integer variables. The constraints $\left(C.\text{4}\right)$ and $\left(C.\text{5}\right)$ are required to ensure that each user is assigned to only one cluster and that each cluster has at least two users, constraints $\left(C.6\right)$ and $\left(C.7\right)$ for the amplitude and phase shift on each STAR-RIS element.

As we can observe from (1), it is extremely difficult to find the solution of the problem due to its non-convexity in nature. Specifically, an exhaustive search algorithm is required to find the optimal solution for NOMA user clustering scheme. Thus, for each DL and UL user all possible combinations should be considered. For instance, in the DL number of the possible combinations is: $\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{K_{d}}{\sum}\left(\begin{array}[]{c}K_{d}\\ i\end{array}\right)$. It is clear that, the computational complexity of the optimal user clustering is extremely high and impractical with a large number of users. In addition, considering the two variables, $\rho,\mathbf{\theta}$, to obtain the optimal STAR-RIS design makes the problem more complicated. In the following sections we divide the main problem into two sub-problems. We first develop a less complex and efficient solution for user clustering scheme, and then we consider the optimal system design.

III User Clustering Scheme

A user clustering scheme is an efficient solution to reduce the decoding and implementation complexities of SIC in NOMA systems. In the user clustering scheme number of the signals decoded by SIC can be reduced by distributing the users into small groups [31, 32, 33].

In this section, we introduce low-complexity sub-optimal user clustering schemes for a STAR-RIS-aided FD-NOMA systems. The proposed schemes exploit the users locations, and the distances between the users and the FD-BS.

III-A Key Principles

In DL, following the principles of NOMA, the users are sorted in descending order based on their distances to the BS, $l_{b,u_{Kd}}>..l_{b,u_{2d}}>l_{b,u_{1d}}$ where $l_{b,u_{kd}}$is the distance between the BS and user $k$. After applying SIC, the rate of the closet users to the BS (the strong/cell-center users) will depend essentially on their channel variances and the amount of power allocated to each user. Thus, it is reasonable and beneficial to distribute the strong users into different clusters to enhance the achievable sum-rate. For the far users (the weak/cell-edge users), it is more reasonable and useful to include them with the strong users. This is because the strong users can achieve high rates with low power portions, and thus large portion of power can be allocated to the weak users. Accordingly, the key idea here is to group the strongest users and the weakest users into the same cluster [34, 27, 35].

In UL, similarly, the users are sorted in descending order according to their distances to the BS, $l_{b,u_{Ku}}>....>l_{b,u_{2u}}>l_{b,u_{1u}}$. In UL NOMA, the strong users have less impact on the performance of the weak users, because the strongest users’ messages will be canceled/reduced using SIC scheme. Thus, the users can transmit their messages using the highest available power. Accordingly, it is useful to cluster the strong users together to enhance the achievable sum-rate of the cluster [34, 27, 35]. It is also worth mentioning that, in UL the BS is the receiver, thus it can receive the messages in any users order.

III-B User Clustering Algorithm

To simplify NOMA operation, the cell-center users are virtually partitioned into two groups, group 1 ($\mathcal{G}_{1}$ ) and group 2 ($\mathcal{G}_{2}$ ), their locations are as much different as possible [36, 34, 37]. The users in $\mathcal{G}_{1}$ are the nearest to the BS and the users in $\mathcal{G}_{2}$ are the farthest users to the BS. Number of the users in group $\mathcal{G}_{1}$ is $K_{d_{1}}$ in DL and $K_{u_{1}}$in UL, while number of the users in group $\mathcal{G}_{2}$ is $K_{d_{2}}$ in DL and $K_{u_{2}}$ in UL . This partitioning of the users results in three different groups in total, $\mathcal{G}_{1}$, $\mathcal{G}_{2}$ and the cell-edge users group $\mathcal{G}_{3}$. Based on the discussions above, we sort the DL and UL users in each group in descending order, $l_{b,u_{K_{di}}}>...>l_{b,u_{2di}}>l_{b,u_{1di}}$ and $l_{b,u_{K_{ui}}}>...>l_{b,u_{2ui}}>l_{b,u_{1ui}}$ where $i\in\left\{1,2,3\right\}$ is the group index.

In DL, following the key principles, the strongest users in $\mathcal{G}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{2}$ and the weakest user in $\mathcal{G}_{3}$ are grouped into the same cluster, while the second strongest users in $\mathcal{G}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{2}$ and the second weakest user in $\mathcal{G}_{3}$ are grouped into another cluster, and so on.

In UL, as we explained above, the strongest users in each group are included in a cluster, the second strongest users in each group are grouped in another cluster, and so on.

All steps of the proposed algorithm are summarized in Aalgorithm1. In addition, for clarity in Fig. 2, we illustrate the user clustering scheme for 6 cell-center users, and 3 cell-edge users in DL and UL modes.

1. Calculate the distances between the users and the BS.

2. Sort the DL and UL users according to their distances to the BS.

3. Divide the cell-center users into two groups, and assign the users in each group: $\underset{\textrm{DL users in $\mathcal{G}_{1}$}}{\underbrace{l_{b,u_{1d1}}^{-m}>l_{b,u_{2d1}}^{-m}>.}.}.\underset{\textrm{DL users in $\mathcal{G}_{2}$}}{\underbrace{>l_{b,u_{1d2}}^{-m}>l_{b,u_{2d2}}^{-m}>.}}.$

$.\underset{\textrm{DL users in $\mathcal{G}_{3}$}}{.\underbrace{>l_{b,u_{K_{ed}-1}}^{-m}>l_{b,u_{K_{ed}}}^{-m}}}$and

$\underset{\textrm{UL users in $\mathcal{G}_{1}$}}{\underbrace{l_{b,u_{1u1}}^{-m}>l_{b,u_{2u1}}^{-m}>.}}.\underset{\textrm{UL users in $\mathcal{G}_{2}$}}{.\underbrace{>l_{b,u_{1u2}}^{-m}>l_{b,u_{2u2}}^{-m}>.}}$

$\underset{\textrm{UL users in $\mathcal{G}_{3}$}}{\underbrace{..>l_{b,u_{K_{eu}-1}}^{-m}>l_{b,u_{K_{eu}}}^{-m}}}$.

4.1 Group the DL users into clusters: $\textrm{1st cluster}=\left\{l_{b,u_{1d1}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{1d2}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{K_{ed}}}^{-m}\right\}$, $\textrm{2nd cluster}=\left\{l_{b,u_{2d1}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{2d2}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{K_{ed}-1}}^{-m}\right\}$… and $\textrm{last cluster}=\left\{l_{b,u_{K_{d1}}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{{}_{K_{d2}}}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{K_{d1}+K_{d2}+1}}^{-m}\right\}$.

4.2 Group the UL users into clusters:$\textrm{1st cluster}=\left\{l_{b,u_{1u1}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{1u2}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{1u3}}^{-m}\right\}$, $\textrm{2nd cluster}=\left\{l_{b,u_{2u1}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{2u2}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{2u3}}^{-m}\right\}$ and $\textrm{last cluster}=\left\{l_{b,u_{K_{u1}}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{K_{u2}}}^{-m},l_{b,u_{K_{eu}}}^{-m}\right\}$

Algorithm 1 User Clustering Algorithm.

Figure 2: Illustration of user clustering scheme to serve 6 cell-center users and 3 cell-edge users in DL and UL modes.

IV Ergodic Rate Analysis

In this section, we derive the ergodic rates of the DL and UL users, which will be used later to find the optimal system design.

IV-A DL

In the DL transmission, the BS transmits the following signal to a cluster in the system

$$s=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{3}{\sum}\sqrt{\alpha_{i}}x_{u_{id}}$$ (2)

where $\alpha_{i}$ is the power allocation coefficients with $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}\leq 1$ ,$\alpha_{1}<\alpha_{2}<\alpha_{3}$ and $x_{u_{id}}$ is the information signal of user $i$ with unit variance.

IV-A1 Cell-center, Group $\mathcal{G}_{1}$

The received signal at the DL strongest user in a cluster (user 1) can be written as

$$y_{u_{1d}}=\sqrt{P_{b}l_{b,u_{1d}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{1d}}s+I_{u_{1d}}+n_{u_{1d}}$$ (3)

where $P_{b}$ is the BS transmit power, $l_{b,u_{1d}}^{-m}$ is the path-loss between the BS and the user, $m$ is the path-loss exponent, $h_{b,u_{1d}}\thicksim CN(0,1)$ is the channel between the BS and the user, $n_{u_{1d}}$ is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the user, $n_{u_{1d}}\sim CN\left(0,\sigma_{u_{1d}}^{2}\right)$, and $I_{u_{1d}}$ is the interference caused by the UL transmissions and given by

$$I_{u_{1d}}=\underset{\textrm{UL cell-center user 1 signal}}{\underbrace{\sqrt{p_{u_{1u}}l_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}^{-m}}h_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}x_{u_{1u}}}}$$

$$+\underset{\textrm{ UL cell-center user 2}\textrm{ signal}}{\underbrace{\sqrt{p_{u_{2u}}l_{u_{1d},u_{2u}}^{-m}}h_{u_{1d},u_{2u}}x_{u_{2u}}}}$$

$$+\underset{\textrm{UL cell-edge user signal }}{\underbrace{\sqrt{p_{u_{3u}}l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m}l_{r,u_{1d}}^{-m}}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{1d}}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}x_{u_{3u}}}}$$

where $x_{u_{iu}}$ and $p_{u_{iu}}$ are the transmit power and the signal of user $i$, $h_{u_{1d},u_{iu}}\thicksim CN(0,1)$ is the channel between the user and UL user $i$, $l_{u_{1d},u_{iu}}^{-m},l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m},l_{r,u_{1d}}^{-m}$ represent the path-losses between, the user and UL user $i$, the STAR-RIS and the UL cell-edge user, the STAR-RIS and the user, respectively, and $\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u_{1d}}}=\left(\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{r,u_{1d}}}{\kappa_{r,u_{1d}}+1}}\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{{}_{r,u_{1d}}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u_{1d}}+1}}\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{{}_{r,u_{1d}}}\right),\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u_{3u}}}=\left(\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}}{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}+1}}\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{{}_{r,u_{3u}}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}+1}}\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{{}_{r,u_{3u}}}\right)$ are the channel vectors between the RIS and the user, and the RIS and the UL cell-edge user, respectively.

The SINR at the DL strongest user in a cluster, user 1, can be written as

$$\gamma_{u_{1d}}=\frac{\alpha_{1}P_{b}A_{u_{1d}}}{\Xi P_{b}\left(\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}\right)A_{u_{1d}}+B_{u_{1d}}+C_{u_{1d}}+D_{u_{1d}}+\sigma_{u_{1d}}^{2}}$$ (4)

where

$A_{u_{1d}}=\left|\sqrt{l_{b,u_{1d}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{1d}}\right|^{2}$,

$B_{u_{1d}}=p_{u_{1u}}\left|\sqrt{l_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}^{-m}}h_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}\right|^{2}$,

$C_{u_{1d}}=p_{u_{2u}}\left|\sqrt{l_{u_{1d},u_{2u}}^{-m}}h_{u_{1d},u_{2u}}\right|^{2}$,

$D_{u_{1d}}=p_{u_{3u}}l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m}l_{r,u_{1d}}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{1d}}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}$,

and $0\leq\Xi\leq 1$ is the SIC error factor which represents a fraction of the power that remains as interference due to imperfect SIC.

Theorem 1.

The ergodic rate of the DL strongest user in a cluster can be evaluated by

$$\mathcal{E}\left[R_{u_{1d}}\right]\approx\frac{1}{M_{d}}\log_{2}\left(1+\right.$$

$$\left.\frac{P_{b_{1}}x_{1_{u_{1d}}}}{\Xi P_{b}\left(\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}\right)x_{1_{u_{1d}}}+p_{u_{1,2}}y_{1_{u_{1d}}}+p_{u_{3u}}\omega_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{1d}}y_{2_{u_{1d}}}+\sigma_{u_{1d}}^{2}}\right)$$ (5)

where $x_{1_{u_{1d}}},y_{1_{u_{1d}}},\textrm{ and }y_{2_{u_{1d}}}$ are defined as

$$x_{1_{u_{1d}}}=2a_{1_{u1d}}\Gamma\left(k_{cd_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k_{cd_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{cd}\right\},R^{2}\right)$$

$$-mRa_{1_{u1d}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k_{cd_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k_{cd_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{cd}\right\},R^{2}\right)$$ (6)

$$y_{1_{u_{1d}}}=\frac{2}{\left(2-3m+m^{2}\right)R^{2}}-\frac{2\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2},-1+\frac{m}{2},-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{-1}{2},1\right\},4R^{2}\right)}{\left(2-3m+m^{2}\right)R^{2}}$$

$$-\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}+\frac{m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},3\right\},4R^{2}\right)+\frac{64mR\,\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{2,\frac{1}{2}+\frac{m}{2},1+\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{7}{2}\right\},4R^{2}\right)}{15\pi}$$

$$-\frac{64mR\,\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{2,\frac{1}{2}+\frac{m}{2},1+\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{5}{2},\frac{5}{2}\right\},4R^{2}\right)}{9\pi}$$ (7)

$$y_{2_{u_{1d}}}=\left(2a_{1_{u3u}}\Gamma\left(k_{eu_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k_{eu_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right.$$

$$\left.-mR_{r}a_{1_{u3u}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k_{eu_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k_{eu_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right)$$

$$\times\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{C}{\sum}\textrm{H}_{j}\,\left(1+\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)\right)^{-m}\frac{2\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)}{\pi R^{2}}\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)}\left(r_{1}+\frac{\left(\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\right)}{2\left(R+r_{1}\right)}\right)\right)$$ (8)

while $k_{cd_{1}}$ is the user order $1\leq k_{cd_{1}}\leq K_{d_{1}}$, $\mathcal{H}\left(.\right)$ is the hypergeometric function, $p_{u_{1,2}}=\left(p_{u_{1u}}+p_{u_{2u}}\right)$, $a_{1_{u1d}}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k_{cd_{1}}+K_{cd}\right)2K_{cd}!}{4\left(k_{cd_{1}}-1\right)!\left(K_{cd}-k_{cd_{1}}\right)!}$, $a_{1_{u3u}=}\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k_{eu_{3}}+K_{eu}\right)2K_{eu}!}{4\left(k_{eu_{3}}-1\right)!\left(K_{eu}-k_{eu_{3}}\right)!}$, $\omega_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{1d}}=\left(\varpi_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{1d}}\xi_{1}+\hat{\varpi}_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{1d}}\right)$, $\xi_{1}=\left|\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2},\varpi_{y}^{x}=\frac{\kappa_{x}}{\kappa_{x}+1}\frac{\kappa_{y}}{\kappa_{y}+1}$, $\hat{\varpi}_{y}^{x}=\frac{\kappa_{x}}{\kappa_{x}+1}\frac{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}}{\kappa_{y}+1}+\frac{\kappa_{y}}{\kappa_{y}+1}\frac{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}}{\kappa_{x}+1}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{x}+1}\frac{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}}{\kappa_{y}+1}$.

Proof:

The proof is provided in Appendix A. ∎

.

IV-A2 Cell-center, Group $\mathcal{G}_{2}$

The received signal at the DL second strongest user in a cluster (user 2) can be expressed as

$$y_{u_{2d}}=\sqrt{P_{b}l_{b,u_{2d}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{2d}}s+I_{u_{2d}}+n_{u_{2d}}$$ (9)

where $I_{u_{2d}}$ is the interference caused by the UL transmissions and given by

$$I_{u_{2d}}=\underset{\textrm{UL cell-center user 1 signal}}{\underbrace{\sqrt{p_{u_{1u}}l_{u_{2d},u_{1u}}^{-m}}h_{u_{2d},u_{1u}}x_{u_{1u}}}}$$

$$+\underset{\textrm{UL cell-center user 2 signal}}{\underbrace{\sqrt{p_{u_{2u}}l_{u_{2d},u_{2u}}^{-m}}h_{u_{2d},u_{2u}}x_{u_{2u}}}}$$

$$+\underset{\textrm{ UL cell-edge user signal }}{\underbrace{\sqrt{p_{u_{3u}}l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m}l_{r,u_{2d}}^{-m}}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{2d}}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}x_{u_{3u}}}}$$

Thus, the SINR at the user can be written as

$$\gamma_{u_{2d}}=\frac{\alpha_{2}P_{b}A_{u_{2d}}}{P_{b}A_{u_{2d}}\left(\Xi\alpha_{3}+\alpha_{1}\right)+B_{u_{2d}}+C_{u_{2d}}+D_{u_{2d}}+\sigma_{u_{2d}}^{2}}$$ (10)

where

$A_{u_{2d}}=\left|\sqrt{l_{b,u_{2d}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{2d}}\right|^{2}$,

$B_{u_{2d}}=p_{u_{1u}}\left|\sqrt{l_{u_{2d},u_{1u}}^{-m}}h_{u_{2d},u_{1u}}\right|^{2}$

$C_{u_{2d}}=p_{u_{2u}}\left|\sqrt{l_{u_{2d},u_{2u}}^{-m}}h_{u_{2d},u_{2u}}\right|^{2}$,

$D_{u_{2d}}=p_{u_{3u}}l_{r,u3u}^{-m}l_{r,u2d}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{2d}}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}$.

Theorem 2.

The ergodic rate of the DL second strongest user in a cluster can be evaluated by

$$\mathcal{E}\left[R_{u_{2d}}\right]\approx\frac{1}{M_{d}}\log_{2}\left(1+\right.$$

$$\left.\frac{P_{b_{2}}x_{1_{u_{2d}}}}{P_{b}x_{1_{u_{2d}}}\left(\Xi\alpha_{3}+\alpha_{1}\right)+p_{u_{1,2}}y_{1_{u_{2d}}}+p_{u_{3u}}\omega_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{2d}}y_{2_{u_{2d}}}+\sigma_{u_{2d}}^{2}}\right)$$ (11)

where $x_{1_{u_{2d}}}$ is defined as

$$x_{1_{u_{2d}}}=2a_{1_{u2d}}\Gamma\left(k_{cd_{2}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k_{cd_{2}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{cd}\right\},R^{2}\right)$$

$$-mRa_{1_{u2d}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k_{cd_{2}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k_{cd_{2}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{cd}\right\},R^{2}\right)$$ (12)

while $y_{1_{u_{2d}}}=y_{1_{u_{1d}}}$, $y_{2_{u_{2d}}}=y_{2_{u_{1d}}}$, $k_{cd_{2}}$ is the user order $K_{d_{1}}+1\leq k_{cd_{2}}\leq K_{cd}$, $\omega_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{2d}}=\left(\varpi_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{2d}}\xi_{2}+\hat{\varpi}_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{2d}}\right)$, $\xi_{2}=\left|\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{{}_{r,u2d}}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}$ and $a_{1_{u2d}}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k_{cd_{2}}+K_{cd}\right)2K_{cd}!}{4\left(k_{cd_{2}}-1\right)!\left(K_{cd}-k\right)!}$.

Proof:

The proof is provided in Appendix B. ∎

IV-A3 Cell-edge, Group $\mathcal{G}_{3}$

The received signal at the cell-edge user, user 3, can be expressed as

$$y_{u_{3d}}=\sqrt{P_{b}l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{r,u_{3d}}^{-m}}g_{r,u_{3d}}\Theta_{r}g_{b,r}s+I_{u_{3d}}+n_{u_{3d}}$$ (13)

where $I_{u_{3d}}$ is the interference caused by the UL transmissions and given by

$$I_{u_{3d}}=\underset{\textrm{UL cell-center user 1 signal}}{\underbrace{\sqrt{p_{u_{1u}}l_{r,u_{3d}}^{-m}l_{r,u_{1u}}^{-m}}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3d}}\Theta_{r}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{1u}}x_{u_{1u}}}}$$

$$+\underset{\textrm{UL cell-center user 2 signal}}{\underbrace{\sqrt{p_{u_{2u}}l_{r,u_{3d}}^{-m}l_{r,u_{2u}}^{-m}}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3d}}\Theta_{r}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{2u}}x_{u_{2u}}}}$$

$$+\underset{\textrm{UL cell-edge user signal }}{\underbrace{\sqrt{p_{u_{3u}}l_{r,u_{3d}}^{-m}l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m}}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3d}}\Theta_{r}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}x_{u_{3u}}}}$$

The SINR at the user can be written as

$$\gamma_{u_{3d}}=\frac{A_{u_{3d}}}{P_{b_{1,2}}A_{u_{3d}}+B_{u_{3d}}+C_{u_{3d}}+D_{u_{3d}}+\sigma_{u_{3d}}^{2}}$$ (14)

where $A_{u_{3d}}=\alpha_{3}P_{b}l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{r,u_{3d}}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3d}}\Theta_{r}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\right|^{2}$, $P_{b_{1,2}}=\left(\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}\right)P_{b}$,

$B_{u_{3d}}=p_{u_{1u}}l_{r,u_{3d}}^{-m}l_{r,u_{1u}}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3d}}\Theta_{r}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{1u}}\right|^{2}$,

$C_{u_{3d}}=p_{u_{2u}}l_{r,u_{3d}}^{-m}l_{r,u_{2u}}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3d}}\Theta_{r}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{2u}}\right|^{2}$,

$D_{u_{3d}}=p_{u_{3u}}l_{r,u_{3d}}^{-m}l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3d}}\Theta_{r}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}$.

Theorem 3.

The ergodic rate of the DL weakest user in a cluster can be evaluated by

$$\mathcal{E}\left[R_{u_{3d}}\right]\approx\frac{1}{M_{d}}\log_{2}\left(1+\right.$$

$$\left.\frac{P_{b_{3}}x_{u_{3d}}}{P_{b_{1,2}}x_{u_{3d}}+b_{1}y_{1_{u_{3d}}}+b_{2}y_{2_{u_{3d}}}+\sigma_{u_{3d}}^{2}}\right)$$ (15)

where $x_{u_{3d}}=l_{b,r}^{-m}\omega_{b,r}^{r,u_{3d}}x_{1_{u_{3d}}}$, $b_{1}=p_{u_{1u}}\omega_{r,u_{1u}}^{r,u_{3d}}+p_{u_{2u}}\omega_{r,u_{2u}}^{r,u_{3d}}$, $b_{2}=p_{u_{3u}}\omega_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{3d}}$, $x_{1_{u_{3d}}},y_{1_{u_{3d}}},y_{2_{u_{3d}}}$ are defined as

$$x_{1_{u_{3d}}}=2a_{1_{u3d}}\Gamma\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k{}_{ed_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{ed}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)$$

$$-mR_{r}a_{1_{u3d}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{ed_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{ed}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)$$ (16)

$$y_{1_{u_{3d}}}=x_{1_{u_{3d}}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{C}{\sum}\textrm{H}_{j}\,\left(1+\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)\right)^{-m}\frac{2\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)}{\pi R^{2}}\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)}\left(r_{1}+\frac{\left(\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\right)}{2\left(R+r_{1}\right)}\right)\right)$$ (17)

$$y_{2_{u_{3d}}}=x_{1_{u_{3d}}}a_{2_{u3d}}2\Gamma\left(k{}_{eu_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k{}_{eu_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)$$

$$-mR_{r}x_{1_{u_{3d}}}a_{2_{u3d}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{eu_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{eu_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)$$ (18)

while $k{}_{ed_{3}}$ is the user order $1\leq k{}_{ed_{3}}\leq K_{ed}$, $\omega_{b,r}^{r,u_{3d}}=\varpi_{b,r}^{r,u_{3d}}\xi_{3}+\hat{\varpi}_{b,r}^{r,u_{3d}}$ $\omega_{r,u_{1u}}^{r,u_{3d}}=\varpi_{r,u_{1u}}^{r,u_{3d}}\xi_{4}+\hat{\varpi}_{r,u_{1u}}^{r,u_{3d}}$, $\omega_{r,u_{2u}}^{r,u_{3d}}=\varpi_{r,u_{2u}}^{r,u_{3d}}\xi_{5}+\hat{\varpi}_{r,u_{2u}}^{r,u_{3d}}$ $\omega_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{3d}}=\varpi_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{3d}}\xi_{6}+\hat{\varpi}_{r,u_{3u}}^{r,u_{3d}}$ $\xi_{3}=\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta_{r}\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\right|^{2}$, $\xi_{4}=\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{1u}}\right|^{2}$, $\xi_{5}=\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{2u}}\right|^{2}$, $\xi_{6}=\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}$, $a_{1_{u3d}}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k{}_{ed_{3}}+K_{ed}\right)2K_{ed}!}{4\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}-1\right)!\left(K_{ed}-k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)!}$, and $a_{2_{u3d}}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k{}_{eu_{1}}+K_{eu}\right)2K_{eu}!}{4\left(k{}_{eu_{1}}-1\right)!\left(K_{eu}-k{}_{eu_{1}}\right)!}$.

Proof:

The proof is provided in Appendix C. ∎

IV-B UL

In UL mode, the received signal at the BS can be expressed as

$$y_{b}=\sqrt{p_{u_{1u}}l_{b,u_{1u}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{1u}}x_{u_{1u}}+\sqrt{p_{u_{2u}}l_{b,u_{2u}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{2u}}x_{u_{2u}}+$$

$$\sqrt{p_{u_{3u}}l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m}}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}x_{u_{3u}}+I_{b}+n_{b}$$ (19)

where $n_{b}$ is the AWGN at the BS, $n_{b}\sim CN\left(0,\sigma_{b}^{2}\right)$ and $I_{b}$ is the interference term which can be represented by

$$I_{b}=\underset{\textrm{self interference }}{\underbrace{\sqrt{P_{b}}h_{b,b}s}}+\underset{\textrm{reflection of the DL signal}}{\underbrace{\sqrt{P_{b}l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{b,r}^{-m}}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}^{H}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}s}}$$

Several self interference suppression (SIS) techniques have been proposed in the literature, such as passive cancellation, analog and digital cancellations, etc [38, 39]. Employing these interference suppression schemes will minimize the self interference to the background noise floor. Following the results in [38, 39], the residual self-interference is assumed to follow Gaussian distribution with zero-mean and variance $V$, $\tilde{s}\sim CN\left(0,V\right)$. Thus, the interference term $I_{b}$ can be written as

$$I_{b}=\underset{\textrm{residual self interference }}{\underbrace{\tilde{s}}}+\underset{\textrm{reflection of the DL signal}}{\underbrace{\sqrt{P_{b}l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{b,r}^{-m}}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}^{H}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}s}}$$

According to the experimental results, the variance of the residual self interference can be modeled as $V=\beta P_{b}^{\lambda}$, where $\beta$ and $\lambda$ ($0\leq\lambda\leq 1$) are constants reflect the quality of the cancellation technique.

IV-B1 Cell-center, Group $\mathcal{G}_{1}$

The SINR to detect the signal of the UL strongest user in a cluster, user 1, can be written as,

$$\gamma_{u_{1u}}=\frac{p_{u_{1u}}A_{u_{1u}}}{p_{u_{2u}}B_{u_{1u}}+p_{u_{3u}}C_{u_{1u}}+P_{b}D_{u_{1u}}+V+\sigma_{u_{1u}}^{2}}$$ (20)

where

$A_{u_{1u}}=\left|\sqrt{l_{b,u_{1u}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{1u}}\right|^{2}$,

$B_{u_{1u}}=\left|\sqrt{l_{b,u_{2u}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{2u}}\right|^{2}$

$C_{u_{1u}}=l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}$

$D_{u_{1u}}=l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{b,r}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}^{H}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\right|^{2}$.

Theorem 4.

The ergodic rate of the UL strongest user in a cluster can be evaluated by

$$\mathcal{E}\left[R_{u_{1u}}\right]\approx\frac{1}{M_{u}}\log_{2}\left(1+\right.$$

$$\left.\frac{p_{u_{1u}}\chi_{u_{1u}}}{p_{u_{2u}}\chi_{u_{2u}}+p_{u_{3u}}\omega_{b,r}^{r,u_{3u}}y_{2_{u_{1u}}}+P_{b}y_{3_{u_{1u}}}+V+\sigma_{b}^{2}}\right)$$ (21)

where $\chi_{u_{iu}},y_{2_{u_{1u}}}$ and $y_{3_{u_{1u}}}$ are defined as

$$\chi_{u_{iu}}=2a_{i_{u1u}}\Gamma\left(k_{cu_{i}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k_{cu_{i}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{cu}\right\},R^{2}\right)$$

$$-mRa_{i_{u1u}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k_{cu_{i}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k_{cu_{i}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{cu}\right\},R^{2}\right)$$ (22)

$$y_{2_{u_{1u}}}=2a_{3_{u1u}}\Gamma\left(k_{eu_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k_{eu_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)$$

$$-mR_{r}a_{3_{u1u}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k_{eu_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k_{eu_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)$$ (23)

$$y_{3_{u_{1u}}}=l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{b,r}^{-m}\left(\left(\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\right)^{2}\xi_{8}+2\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}\right.+\left(\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\right)^{2}$$

$$\left(2\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{1}=1]{N}{\sum}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{2}\neq n_{1}]{N}{\sum}\left(\rho_{n_{1}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{1}}^{k}}\right)\left(\rho_{n_{2}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{2}}^{k}}\right)^{H}\right)\left.+2\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\left(\hat{\zeta}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left(\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}\right)^{H}\right)\right)$$ (24)

while $k_{cu_{1}}$is the strongest cell-center user order $1\leq k_{cu_{1}}\leq K_{u_{1}}$, $k_{cu_{2}}$is the second strongest cell-center user order $K_{u_{1}}+1\leq k_{cu_{2}}\leq K_{cu}$, $k{}_{eu_{1}}$ is the UL cell-edge user order $1\leq k{}_{eu_{1}}\leq K_{eu}$, $\omega_{b,r}^{r,u_{3u}}=\varpi_{b,r}^{r,u_{3u}}\xi_{7}+\hat{\varpi}_{b,r}^{r,u_{3u}}$, $a_{1_{u1u}}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k_{cu_{1}}+K_{cu}\right)2K_{cu}!}{4\left(k_{cu_{1}}-1\right)!\left(K_{cu}-k\right)!}$, $a_{2_{u1u}}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k_{cu_{2}}+K_{cu}\right)2K_{cu}!}{4\left(k_{cu_{2}}-1\right)!\left(K_{cu}-k_{cu_{2}}\right)!}$, $a_{3_{u1u}}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k_{eu_{1}}+K_{eu}\right)2K_{eu}!}{4\left(k_{eu_{1}}-1\right)!\left(K_{eu}-k_{eu_{1}}\right)!}$, $\xi_{7}=\left|\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{{}_{r,u3u}}}\right|^{2}$, $\xi_{8}=\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\Theta_{t}\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\right|^{2}$ and $\hat{\zeta}=\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\Theta_{t}\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}$.

Proof:

The proof is provided in Appendix D. ∎

IV-B2 Cell-center, Group $\mathcal{G}_{2}$

The SINR to detect the UL second strongest user signal can be written as,

$$\gamma_{u_{2u}}=\frac{p_{u_{2u}}A_{u_{2u}}}{\Xi p_{u_{1u}}B_{u_{2u}}+p_{u_{3u}}C_{u_{2u}}+P_{b}D_{u_{2u}}+V+\sigma_{b}^{2}}$$ (25)

where

$A_{u_{2u}}=\left|\sqrt{l_{b,u_{2u}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{2u}}\right|^{2}$,

$B_{u_{2u}}=\left|\sqrt{l_{b,u_{1u}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{1u}}\right|^{2}$

$C_{u_{2u}}=l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}$,

$D_{u_{2u}}=l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{b,r}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}^{H}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\right|^{2}$.

Theorem 5.

The ergodic rate of the UL second strongest user in a cluster can be evaluated by

$$\mathcal{E}\left[R_{u_{2u}}\right]\approx\frac{1}{M_{u}}\log_{2}\left(1+\right.$$

$$\left.\frac{p_{u_{2u}}\chi_{u_{2u}}}{\Xi p_{u_{1u}}\chi_{u_{1u}}+p_{u_{3u}}\omega_{b,r}^{r,u_{3u}}y_{2_{u_{2u}}}+P_{b}y_{3_{u_{2u}}}+V+\sigma_{b}^{2}}\right)$$ (26)

where $\chi_{u_{iu}}$, $y_{2_{u_{2u}}}=y_{2_{u1_{2u}}}$ and $y_{3_{u_{2u}}}=y_{3_{u_{1u}}}$ are defined in (22)-(24).

Proof:

The proof is provided in Appendix D. ∎

IV-B3 Cell-edge, Group $\mathcal{G}_{3}$

The SINR to detect the UL cell-edge user signal can be written as,

$$\gamma_{u_{3u}}=\frac{p_{u_{3u}}A_{u_{3u}}}{\Xi p_{u_{1u}}B_{u_{3u}}+\Xi p_{u_{2u}}C_{u_{3u}}+P_{b}D_{u_{3u}}+V+\sigma_{b}^{2}}$$ (27)

where $A_{u_{3u}}=l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta_{t}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}$,

$B_{u_{3u}}=\left|\sqrt{l_{b,u_{1u}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{1u}}\right|^{2}$

$C_{u_{3u}}=\left|\sqrt{l_{b,u_{2u}}^{-m}}h_{b,u_{2u}}\right|^{2}$

$D_{u_{3u}}=l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{b,r}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}^{H}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\right|^{2}$.

Theorem 6.

The ergodic rate of the UL weakest user in a cluster can be evaluated by

$$\mathcal{E}\left[R_{u_{3u}}\right]\approx\frac{1}{M_{u}}\log_{2}\left(1+\right.$$

$$\left.\frac{p_{u_{3u}}\omega_{b,r}^{r,u_{3u}}x_{1_{u_{3u}}}}{\Xi p_{u_{1u}}\chi_{u_{1u}}+\Xi p_{u_{2u}}\chi_{u_{2u}}+P_{b}y_{3_{u_{3u}}}+V+\sigma_{b}^{2}}\right)$$ (28)

where $\chi_{u_{iu}}$, $x_{1_{u_{3u}}}=y_{2_{u_{1u}}}$ , and $y_{3_{u_{3u}}}=y_{3_{u_{1u}}}$ are defined in (22)-(24).

Proof:

The proof is provided in Appendix D. ∎

V Systems Design

As we can observe from the Theorems, the ergodic rates depend on the amplitudes and phase shifts of the STAR-RIS elements and also on the transmit powers. Thus, these parameters are optimized in this Section to maximize the weighted sum rate of a DL cluster and an UL cluster.

V-A Simultaneous Amplitudes and Phase-Shifts Optimization

The total weighted sum-rate at a given time slot and power transmission can be optimized by considering the following problem

$$\underset{\rho,\mathbf{\theta}}{\max}\,\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{3}{\sum}\varpi_{u_{id}}\bar{R}_{u_{id}}+\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{3}{\sum}\varpi_{u_{iu}}\bar{R}_{u_{iu}}$$

$$\textrm{s.t}\>\left(\rho_{n}^{r}\right)+\left(\rho_{n}^{t}\right)=1,\forall n\in N$$

$$\rho_{n}^{k}\geq 0,\left|\theta_{n}^{k}\right|=1,\forall n\in N$$ (29)

where $\varpi_{u_{id}}$ and $\varpi_{u_{iu}}$ are the weighting factors, which signify the priority assigned to each user and $\mathbf{\mathbf{\theta}}=\left[\theta^{t},\theta^{r}\right]$, $\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\rho}}}=\left[\rho^{t},\rho^{r}\right]$. The non-convexity of the problem in (29) with the two optimization variables make the problem challenging and hard to solve. However, projected gradient ascent method (PGAM), can be used to find the optimal solutions. To apply the PGAM, first we define $\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{3}{\sum}\varpi_{u_{id}}\bar{R}_{u_{id}}+\varpi_{u_{iu}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{3}{\sum}\bar{R}_{u_{iu}}=f\left(\theta,\rho\right)$, $\Phi=\left\{\theta^{t}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1},\theta^{r}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}\left|\left|\theta^{r}\right|=\left|\theta^{t}\right|=1\right.\right\}$, and

$Q=\left\{\rho^{t}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1},\rho^{r}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1},\right.$

$\left.\left(\rho_{i}^{t}\right)+\left(\rho_{i}^{r}\right)=1,\rho_{i}^{t}\geq 0,\rho_{i}^{r}\geq 0\right\}$. Then, we calculate the gradients of $f\left(\theta,\rho\right)$ with respect to $\theta$, $\nabla_{\theta}f\left(\theta^{i},\rho^{i}\right)$, and $\rho^{i}$, $\nabla_{\rho}f\left(\theta^{i},\rho^{i}\right)$. Next we update the phases and amplitudes at each iteration using the expressions, $\theta^{i+1}=\left(\theta^{i}+\nu_{i}\nabla_{\theta}f\left(\theta^{i},\rho^{i}\right)\right)$ and $\rho^{i+1}=\left(\rho^{i}+\vartheta_{i}\nabla_{\rho}f\left(\theta^{i},\rho^{i}\right)\right)$, respectively, where $\nu_{i}$ and $\vartheta_{i}$ are the step sizes. Then we project them onto $\Phi$ and $Q$. The overall steps of the algorithm is summarized in Algorithm 2.

Input: Set the maximum number of iterations $\mathscr{W}$ and a tolerance $\mu>0$.

Initialize $\mathbf{\rho}^{(0)},\textrm{ and }\mathbf{\theta}^{(0)}$ , and set the step sizes.

for $i=0\textrm{ to }\mathscr{W}$ do

Evaluate: $f\left(\theta^{(i)},\rho^{(i)}\right)$, then $\nabla_{\theta}f\left(\theta^{(i)},\rho^{(i)}\right)$, and $\nabla_{\rho}f\left(\theta^{(i)},\rho^{(i)}\right)$

Update: $\theta^{i+1}=\theta^{i}+\nu\nabla_{\theta}f\left(\theta^{i},\rho^{i}\right)$ and $\rho^{i+1}=\rho^{i}+\vartheta\nabla_{\rho}f\left(\theta^{i},\rho^{i}\right)$

Evaluate: $f\left(\theta^{(i+1)},\rho^{(i+1)}\right)$

Until Convergence: $f\left(\theta^{(i+1)},\rho^{(i+1)}\right)-f\left(\theta^{(i)},\rho^{(i)}\right)<\mu$.

Algorithm 2 Optimization Algorithm.

V-A1 Sub-optimal Design

In such systems the cell-edge users have the highest priority in the STAR-RIS design. Therefore, the phase shifts can be aligned to the cell-edge users’ channels. The phase shifts can be presented as, $\phi_{n}^{k}=-2\pi\frac{\iota}{\lambda}\left(c_{n}\upsilon_{b,u_{2k}}+f_{n}l_{b,u_{2k}}\right),k\in\left\{t,r\right\}$ where $\upsilon_{u_{2k}}=\sin\varphi_{b,r}^{a}\sin\varphi_{b,r}^{e}-\sin\varphi_{r,u_{2k}}^{a}\sin\varphi_{r,u_{2k}}^{e},$ $l_{u_{2k}}=\cos\varphi_{b,r}^{e}-\cos\varphi_{r,u_{2k}}^{e}$, and $\varphi_{i,j}^{a},\varphi_{i,j}^{e}$ are the azimuth and elevation angles of arrival from node $i$ to node $j$, $\lambda$ is the wavelength, $\iota$ is the elements spacing, and $c_{n}=\left(n-1\right)\textrm{mod}\sqrt{N}$, $f_{n}=\frac{n-1}{\sqrt{N}}$. Also, the amplitudes $\rho_{n}^{r}$ and $\rho_{n}^{t}$ can be calculated using the ergodic rate expressions based on the target data rates.

V-B Power Allocation

The optimal power allocation scheme can be obtained by solving the problem

$$\underset{\mathbf{p}}{\max}\,\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{2}{\sum}f\left(\mathbf{p}\right)$$

$$\left(C.1\right) \textrm{s.t}\>\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{3}{\sum}P_{b_{i}}\leq P_{b},P_{b_{i}}>0,0<p_{u_{iu}}\leq p_{u_{m}}$$

$$\left(C.2\right) \bar{R}_{u_{id}}\geq\hat{R}_{d_{i}},\>\bar{R}_{u_{iu}}\geq\hat{R}_{u_{i}},\,i\in\left\{1,2,3\right\}$$

$$\left(C.3\right) R_{u_{kd}\rightarrow u_{id}}\geqslant R_{u_{id}},k>i$$ (30)

where $f\left(\mathbf{p}\right)=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{3}{\sum}\omega_{u_{id}}\bar{R}_{u_{id}}+\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{3}{\sum}\omega_{u_{iu}}\bar{R}_{u_{iu}}$, $\mathbf{p}=\left[p_{u_{1}},p_{u_{2}},p_{u_{3}},P_{b_{1}},P_{b_{2}},P_{b_{3}}\right]^{T}$, $P_{b}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{i}}=1]{3}{\sum}P_{b_{i}}$ and $p_{u_{m}}$ is the maximum transmission power at a user. The optimal solution of the problem in (30) can be obtained by using some complicated techniques such as monotonic optimization, and block coordinate descent (BCD) iterative algorithms which are described in [40, 41], the details are omitted here due to the paper length limitation.

As a simple sub-optimal solution, the minimum power required for each user can be obtained by achieving the minimum data rate requirement of each user, i.e., satisfying $(C.2)$ in (30) with equality, $\bar{R}_{u_{id}}=\hat{R}_{d_{i}},\>\bar{R}_{u_{iu}}=\hat{R}_{u_{i}}$. Thus, using the expressions in Theorems 1-6, the minimum required power values can be obtained by solving all the equality equations together.

VI Numerical Results

In this section simulation and numerical results are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed schemes and confirm the accuracy of the analytical expressions. The radius of the cell-center and cell-edge areas are assumed to be $R=50m$ and $R_{r}=30m$ respectively. For simplicity, it is assumed that the nodes have same noise variance, $\sigma^{2}$, and thus the DL transmit SNR is defined as $\bar{\gamma}=\frac{P_{b}}{\sigma^{2}}$, and the maximum UL user power is $p_{u_{m}}=0.1P_{b}$ [42]. The Rician factors are 3, and the path-loss exponent is $m=2.7$. In addition, number of the STAR-RIS elements is $N=10$, number of the cell-center users is $K_{c}$=6, and the cell-edge users $K_{e}=3$, the self interference parameters are $\beta=0.001,\lambda=0.1$ and the SIC error factor is $\Xi=0.1$.

(a) DL rates versus transmit SNR,$\bar{\gamma}$, for random and optimal phase shifts.

(b) UL rates versus transmit SNR,$\bar{\gamma}$, for random and optimal phase shifts.

Figure 3: Ergodic rates versus transmit SNR,$\bar{\gamma}$, for different phase shifts.

In Fig. 3 we illustrate the ergodic rates of a DL cluster and an UL cluster versus the transmit SNR, $\bar{\gamma}$. Fig. 3a shows the achievable DL ergodic rates using the optimal and random phase shifts, while the UL ergodic rates with the optimal and random phase shifts are presented in Fig. 3b. Firstly, it is clear from these results that the DL and UL rates enhance with increasing the transmit SNR. In addition, the cell-edge users achieve higher data rates in the optimal phase shifts case than that in the random phase shifts case. Interestingly enough, the performance of the UL cell-center users improves in the random phase shifts case, due to reducing the interference power caused by the UL cell-edge users.

(a) DL rates versus transmit SNR$\bar{\gamma}$, with ideal SIC $\Xi=0$.

(b) UL rates versus transmit SNR$\bar{\gamma}$, with ideal SIC $\Xi=0$.

(c) UL rates versus the transmit SNR, $\bar{\gamma}$, when $\beta=1,\lambda=0.4$.

Figure 4: Ergodic rates versus transmit SNR,$\bar{\gamma}$, with different values of the SIC error factor and self interference.

To show the impact of the system impairments on the users’ performance, in Fig. 4 we plot the DL and UL ergodic rates versus the transmit SNR, $\bar{\gamma}$, for ideal SIC and high self interference at the FD-BS. Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b depict the DL and UL achievable rates with ideal SIC $\Xi=0$, respectively, while Fig. 4c presents the UL ergodic rates when the variance of the residual self interference at the BS is high with, $\beta=1,\lambda=0.4$. It can be observed from Figs. 4a and 3a that the imperfect SIC results in deteriorating the achievable rates of the DL cell-center users as their performance relies on the SIC detection scheme. In addition, from Fig. 4b and Fig. 3b, we can see that, the performance of the UL cell-center user 2 and the UL cell-edge user enhance greatly with reducing the SIC error factor. Also, comparing Fig. 4c and Fig. 3b, we can observe that, high residual self interference at the BS causes deep degradation of the UL users’ performance.

(a) DL sum-rates of user-clustering and user-paring schemes versus the transmit SNR, $\bar{\gamma}$.

(b) UL sum-rates of user-clustering and user-paring schemes versus the transmit SNR, $\bar{\gamma}$.

Figure 5: Sum-rates of user-clustering and user-paring schemes versus the transmit SNR, $\bar{\gamma}$, for perfect and imperfect SIC.

To compare NOMA user clustering scheme with NOMA pairing scheme considered in [25], we plot in Fig. 5 the DL and UL sum rates of the two schemes versus the transmit SNR, $\bar{\gamma}$, for perfect and imperfect SIC, $\Xi=0\textrm{ and }\Xi=0.1$,e.g., $0\%$ and $10\%$ of the power remains as interference. The power in these results is allocated between the users to achieve the target data rates of the cell-edge users, and the remaining power is divided between the cell-center users to enhance the total sum rate. It is worth mentioning that, in NOMA user clustering scheme there are 3 different DL and UL clusters, while in NOMA pairing scheme, there are 5 different DL and UL clusters. From Fig. 5a, in DL mode NOMA user clustering scheme achieves higher sum rates than NOMA pairing scheme. On the other hand, from Fig. 5b in UL mode NOMA user clustering scheme outperforms NOMA paring scheme in the perfect SIC case, and at low SNR values in the imperfect SIC case. However, in a high SNR regime NOMA pairing scheme can achieve higher sum-rates. The sum-rate of a cluster is controlled by the performance of the cell-center users. In DL increasing SIC error hurts the performance of the cell-center users in the two schemes, while in UL mode increasing SIC error degrades the performance of the cell-edge users which can be controlled by the power allocation scheme.

(a) DL rates versus number of the STAR-RIS elements $N$.

(b) UL rates versus number of the STAR-RIS elements $N$.

Figure 6: Ergodic rates versus number of the STAR-RIS elements $N$.

Fig. 6, illustrates the ergodic rates versus number of the STAR-RIS elements $N$ when $\bar{\gamma}=40\textrm{ dB}$. Fig. 6a shows that the performance of the DL cell-edge user is enhanced with increasing number of the STAR-RIS elements, $N$, while the cell-center users performance degrades with increasing $N$. This is because increasing number of the elements leads to increase the interference power caused by the UL cell-edge user. On the other hand, Fig. 5b demonstrates that the performance of the UL cell-edge user is enhanced greatly with increasing $N$, which is not the case for the UL cell-center users where adding more elements results in increasing the interference power caused by the UL cell-edge user.

VII Conclusions

This work considered a STAR-RIS-assisted FD NOMA communication system, where the STAR-RIS is implemented at the cell-edge region to assist the cell-edge users. Firstly, new user clustering schemes for DL and UL transmissions were presented. Then, closed-form analytical expressions of the DL and UL ergodic sum rates have been derived. In addition, the optimal amplitudes and phase-shifts of the STAR-RIS elements that maximize the total sum-rate were obtained. Moreover, a power allocation scheme of the DL and UL communications was studied. The results in this work showed that increasing the transmitted SNR always improves the achievable rates, and the performance of the cell-edge users can be enhanced by using a large number of STAR-RIS elements. Furthermore, imperfect SIC degrades the achievable rates of the DL cell-center users and the UL cell-edge user, while imperfect SIS reduces the performance of the UL users significantly. In addition, NOMA user clustering scheme can achieve a higher sum rate than NOMA pairing scheme in DL mode, while in UL mode NOMA user clustering scheme outperforms NOMA paring scheme in the perfect SIC case, and at low SNR values in the imperfect SIC case.

Appendix A

By using Jensen inequality, the ergodic rate can be approximated by [3, 43, 44]

$$\mathcal{E}\left[R_{u_{1d}}\right]\thickapprox\log_{2}\left(1+\right.$$

$$\left.\frac{\alpha_{1}P_{b}\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{1d}}\right\}}{\Xi P_{b}\left(\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}\right)\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{1d}}\right\}+\mathcal{E}\left\{B_{u_{1d}}\right\}+\mathcal{E}\left\{C_{u_{1d}}\right\}+\mathcal{E}\left\{D_{u_{1d}}\right\}+\sigma_{u_{1d}}^{2}}\right)$$ (31)

1- The first term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{1d}}\right\}$ can be calculated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{1d}}^{-m}\left|h_{b,u_{1d}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{1d}}^{-m}\right\}=x_{1_{u_{1d}}}$$ (32)

The PDF of the users at radius $r$ relative to the BS is $f_{d}\left(r\right)=\frac{2r}{R^{2}},\quad 0\leq r\leq R$. Thus, the density of the $kth$ user order can be expressed as

$$f_{d_{k}}\left(r\right)=\frac{K_{cd}!}{\left(k-1\right)!\left(K_{cd}-1\right)!}\frac{2\left(r\right)}{\left(R\right)^{2}}\left(\frac{r^{2}}{R^{2}}\right)^{k-1}\left(1-\frac{r^{2}}{R^{2}}\right)^{K_{cd}-k}$$ (33)

Then, we can find the average by

$$x_{1_{u_{1d}}}=\frac{2K_{cd}!}{\left(k_{cd_{1}}-1\right)!\left(K_{cd}-1\right)!}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{0}}]{R}{\int}\left(1+r_{u_{1d}}\right)^{-m}$$

$$\times\frac{r}{\left(R\right)^{2}}\left(\frac{r^{2}}{\left(R\right)^{2}}\right)^{k_{cd_{1}}-1}\left(1-\frac{r^{2}}{R^{2}}\right)^{K_{cd}-k_{cd_{1}}}dr_{u_{1d}}$$ (34)

The solution of (34) is presented in (6).

2- The second term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{B_{u_{1d}}\right\}$ can be calculated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{\left|\sqrt{l_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}^{-m}}h_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}^{-m}\right\}=y_{1_{u_{1d}}}$$ (35)

Considering the distribution of the distance between two random points inside a circle in [45], we can write

$$y_{1_{u_{1d}}}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{}{0}]{2R}{\int}\left(1+r_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}\right)^{-m}\frac{4r_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}}{\pi R^{2}}}$$

$$\times\left(\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{r_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}}{2R}\right)-\frac{r_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}}{2R}\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{r_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}^{2}}{4R^{2}}}\right)\right)dr_{u_{1d},u_{1u}}$$ (36)

The solution of (36) is presented in (7).

3- The third term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{C_{u_{1d}}\right\}$ can be calculated by following similar steps as in (35) and (36).

4- The last term $\mathcal{E}\left\{D_{u_{1d}}\right\}$ can be evaluated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{p_{u_{3u}}l_{r,u3u}^{-m}l_{r,u1d}^{-m}\left|g_{r,u_{1d}}\Theta_{t}g_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}\right\}=$$

$$p_{u_{3u}}\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3u}^{-m}\right\}\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u1d}^{-m}\right\}\mathcal{E}\left\{\left|g_{r,u_{1d}}\Theta_{t}g_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}\right\}$$ (37)

The PDF of the weak user location at radius $r_{r}$ relative to the RIS is $f_{d}\left(r_{r}\right)=\frac{2r_{r}}{R_{r}^{2}},\quad 0\leq r_{r}\leq R_{r}$. Thus, we can calculate the first average as,

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3u}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{2K_{eu}!}{\left(k-1\right)!\left(K_{eu}-k\right)!}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{0}}]{R_{r}}{\int}\left(1+r_{r,u3u}\right)^{-m}$$

$$\times\frac{r}{\left(R_{r}\right)^{2}}\left(\frac{r^{2}}{\left(R_{r}\right)^{2}}\right)^{k-1}\left(1-\frac{r^{2}}{R_{r}^{2}}\right)^{K_{eu}-k}dr_{r,u3u}$$ (38)

which can be found as

$$y_{2_{u_{1d}}}=\left(2a_{1_{u3u}}\Gamma\left(k_{eu_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k_{eu_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right.$$

$$\left.-mR_{r}a_{1_{u3u}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k_{eu_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k_{eu_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right)$$ (39)

By invoking the distribution of the distance between a random point inside a circle and a fixed point outside the circle provided in [45], we can write

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u_{1d}}^{-m}\right\}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{r}}_{1}]{r_{1}+2R}{\int}r_{r,u1d}^{-m}\frac{2r_{r,u_{1d}}}{\pi R^{2}}\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{r_{r,u_{1d}}}\right.$$

$$\left.\left(r_{1}+\frac{\left(r_{r,u_{1d}}^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\right)}{2\left(R+r_{1}\right)}\right)\right)dr_{r,u_{1d}}$$ (40)

where $r_{1}=d_{b,r}-R$ is the distance from RIS to the circle boundary, $r_{1}\leq r_{r,u_{1d}}\leq r_{1}+2R$. Applying Gaussian Quadrature rules we can get

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u1d}^{-m}\right\}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{C}{\sum}\textrm{H}_{j}\,\left(1+\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)\right)^{-m}\frac{2\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)}{\pi R^{2}}$$

$$\times\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)}\left(r_{1}+\frac{\left(\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\right)}{2\left(R+r_{1}\right)}\right)\right)$$ (41)

After removing the zero expectation terms, the last expectation can be written as

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\frac{\kappa_{r,u1d}}{\kappa_{r,u1d}+1}\frac{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}}{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}+1}\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}+\frac{\kappa_{r,u1d}}{\kappa_{r,u1d}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}+1}\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\Theta\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}$$

$$+\frac{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}}{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u1d}+1}\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u1d}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}+1}\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}$$ (42)

Now, the first term in (42) is

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}=$$

$$=\left|\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}a_{N,n}\left(\psi_{r,u_{3u}}^{a},\psi_{r,u_{3u}}^{e}\right)\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}a_{N,n}\left(\psi_{r,u_{1d}}^{a},\psi_{r,u_{1d}}^{e}\right)\right|^{2}=\xi_{1}$$ (43)

Similarly, the second term,

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\Theta\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+$$

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{1}=1]{N}{\sum}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{2}\neq n_{1}]{N}{\sum}\left(a_{Nn_{1}}\left(\psi_{r,u_{1d}}^{a},\psi_{r,u_{1d}}^{e}\right)\rho_{n_{1}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{1}}^{k}}\left[\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right]_{n_{1}}\right)\right.$$

$$\left.\left(a_{Nn_{2}}\left(\psi_{r,u_{1d}}^{a},\psi_{r,u_{1d}}^{e}\right)\rho_{n_{2}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{2}}^{k}}\left[\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right]_{n_{2}}\right)^{H}\right\}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (44)

The other terms,

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+$$

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{1}=1]{N}{\sum}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{2}\neq n_{1}]{N}{\sum}\left(\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\right]_{n_{1}}\rho_{n_{1}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{1}}^{k}}a_{Nn1}\left(\psi_{r,u_{3u}}^{a},\psi_{r,u_{3u}}^{e}\right)\right)\right.$$

$$\left.\left(\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\right]_{n_{2}}\rho_{n_{1}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{1}}^{k}}a_{Nn_{2}}\left(\psi_{r,u_{3u}}^{a},\psi_{r,u_{3u}}^{e}\right)\right)^{H}\right\}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (45)

and

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}=$$

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{{}_{r,u1d}}\right]_{n}\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{r,u_{3u}}\right]_{n}\right|^{2}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (46)

Now, we are ready to write the average as

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{1d}}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\frac{\kappa_{r,u_{1d}}}{\kappa_{r,u_{1d}}+1}\frac{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}}{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}+1}\xi_{1}$$

$$+\frac{\kappa_{r,u_{1d}}}{\kappa_{r,u_{1d}}+1}\frac{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}}{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}+1}+\frac{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}}{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}+1}\frac{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}}{\kappa_{r,u_{1d}}+1}$$

$$+\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u_{1d}}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u_{3u}}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (47)

Appendix B

By using Jensen inequality, the ergodic rate can be approximated by

$$\mathcal{E}\left[R_{u_{2d}}\right]\thickapprox\log_{2}\left(1+\right.$$

$$\left.\frac{\alpha_{2}P_{b}\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{2d}}\right\}}{P_{b}\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{2d}}\right\}\left(\Xi\alpha_{3}+\alpha_{1}\right)+\mathcal{E}\left\{B_{u_{2d}}\right\}+\mathcal{E}\left\{C_{u_{2d}}\right\}+\mathcal{E}\left\{D_{u_{2d}}\right\}+\sigma_{u_{2d}}^{2}}\right)$$ (48)

1- The first term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{2d}}\right\}$ can be calculated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{\left|\sqrt{l_{b,u_{2d}}^{-m}}h_{u_{2d}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{2d}}^{-m}\right\}$$ (49)

which can be found by,

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{2d}}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{2K_{cd}!}{\left(k_{cd_{2}}-1\right)!\left(K_{cd}-1\right)!}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{0}}]{R}{\int}\left(1+r_{u_{2d}}\right)^{-m}\frac{\left(r\right)}{\left(R\right)^{2}}\left(\frac{r^{2}}{R^{2}}\right)^{k_{cd_{2}}-1}\left(1-\frac{r^{2}}{R^{2}}\right)^{K_{cd}-k_{cd_{2}}}dr_{u_{2d}}$$ (50)

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{2d}}^{-m}\right\}=2a_{1_{u2d}}\Gamma\left(k_{cd_{2}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k_{cd_{2}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{cd}\right\},R^{2}\right)-$$

$$mRa_{1_{u2d}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k_{cd_{2}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k_{cd_{2}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{cd}\right\},R^{2}\right)$$ (51)

The derivation of $\mathcal{E}\left\{B_{u_{2d}}\right\},\mathcal{E}\left\{C_{u_{2d}}\right\},\mathcal{E}\left\{D_{u_{2d}}\right\}$ can be obtained as in Appendix A.

Appendix C

By using Jensen inequality, the ergodic rate can be approximated by

$$\mathcal{E}\left[R_{u_{3d}}\right]\thickapprox\log_{2}\left(1+\right.$$

$$\left.\frac{\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{3d}}\right\}}{P_{b_{1,2}}\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{3d}}\right\}+\mathcal{E}\left\{B_{u_{3d}}\right\}+\mathcal{E}\left\{C_{u_{3d}}\right\}+\mathcal{E}\left\{D_{u_{3d}}\right\}+\sigma_{u_{3d}}^{2}}\right)$$ (52)

1-The first term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{3d}}\right\}$ can be calculated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{r,u3d}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\right|^{2}\right\}=l_{b,r}^{-m}\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3d}^{-m}\right\}\mathcal{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\right|^{2}\right\}$$ (53)

where

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3d}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{2K_{ed}!}{\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}-1\right)!\left(K_{ed}-1\right)!}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{0}}]{R_{r}}{\int}r_{r,u3d}^{-m}\frac{r}{\left(R_{r}\right)^{2}}\left(\frac{r^{2}}{\left(R_{r}\right)^{2}}\right)^{k^{\prime}_{e}-1}\left(1-\frac{r^{2}}{R_{r}^{2}}\right)^{K_{ed}-k{}_{ed_{3}}}dr_{r,u3d}$$ (54)

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3d}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k{}_{ed}+K_{ed}\right)2K_{ed}!}{4\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}-1\right)!\left(K_{ed}-k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)!}\left(2\Gamma\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k{}_{ed_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{ed}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right.$$

$$\left.-mR_{r}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{ed_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{ed}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right)$$ (55)

and

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\right|^{2}\right\}=\frac{\kappa_{r,u3d}}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\xi_{3}+\frac{\kappa_{r,u3d}}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$

$$+\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (56)

where $\xi_{3}=\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\right|^{2}.$

2- The term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{B_{u_{3d}}\right\}$ can be calculated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3d}^{-m}l_{r,u1u}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta_{k}\mathbf{g}_{u_{1u,r}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3d}^{-m}\right\}\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u1u}^{-m}\right\}\mathcal{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta_{k}\mathbf{g}_{u_{1u,r}}\right|^{2}\right\}$$ (57)

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u1u}^{-m}\right\}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{r}}_{1}]{r_{1}+2R}{\int}r_{r,u1u}^{-m}\frac{2r_{r,u1u}}{\pi R^{2}}\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{r_{r,u1u}}\left(r_{1}+\frac{\left(r_{r,u1u}^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\right)}{2\left(R+r_{1}\right)}\right)\right)dr_{r,u1u}$$ (58)

where $r_{1}\leq r_{r,u1u}\leq r_{1}+2R$, $r_{1}=d_{b,r}-R$ is the distance from RIS to the boundary. Applying Gaussian Quadrature rules we can get,

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u1u}^{-m}\right\}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{C}{\sum}\textrm{H}_{j}\,\left(1+\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)\right)^{-m}\frac{2\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)}{\pi R^{2}}\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)}\left(r_{1}+\frac{\left(\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\right)}{2\left(R+r_{1}\right)}\right)\right)$$ (59)

Following similar steps we can find

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3d}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k{}_{ed_{3}}+K_{ed}\right)2K_{ed}!}{4\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}-1\right)!\left(K_{ed}-k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)!}\left(2\Gamma\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k{}_{ed_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{ed}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right.$$

$$\left.-mR_{r}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{ed_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{ed}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right)$$ (60)

and

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta_{k}\mathbf{g}_{u_{1u,r}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\frac{\kappa_{r,u3d}}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{\kappa_{u_{1u,r}}}{\kappa_{u_{1u,r}}+1}\xi_{4}+\frac{\kappa_{r,u3d}}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{u_{1u,r}}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$

$$+\frac{\kappa_{u_{1u,r}}}{\kappa_{u_{1u,r}}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{u_{1u,r}}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (61)

where $\xi_{4}=\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{u_{1u,r}}\right|^{2}.$

3- The term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{C_{u_{3d}}\right\}$ can be calculated by

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3d}^{-m}l_{r,u2u}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{u_{2u,r}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3d}^{-m}\right\}\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u2u}^{-m}\right\}\mathcal{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{u_{2u,r}}\right|^{2}\right\}$$ (62)

The first expectation can be found as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u2u}^{-m}\right\}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{r}}_{1}]{r_{1}+2R}{\int}r_{r,u2u}^{-m}\frac{2r_{r,u2u}}{\pi R^{2}}\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{r_{r,u2u}}\left(r_{1}+\frac{\left(r_{r,u2u}^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\right)}{2\left(R+r_{1}\right)}\right)\right)dr_{r,u2u}$$ (63)

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u2u}^{-m}\right\}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{j}}=1]{C}{\sum}\textrm{H}_{j}\,\left(1+\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)\right)^{-m}\frac{2\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)}{\pi R^{2}}$$

$$\times\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)}\left(r_{1}+\frac{\left(\left(R\,r_{j}+R\right)^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\right)}{2\left(R+r_{1}\right)}\right)\right)$$ (64)

From the previous derivations, we can write

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3d}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k{}_{ed_{3}}+K_{ed}\right)2K_{ed}!}{4\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}-1\right)!\left(K_{ed}-k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)!}\left(2\Gamma\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k{}_{ed_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{ed}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right.$$

$$\left.-mR_{r}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{ed_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{ed}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right)$$ (65)

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{u_{2u,r}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\frac{\kappa_{r,u3d}}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{\kappa_{u_{2u,r}}}{\kappa_{u_{2u,r}}+1}\xi_{5}+\frac{\kappa_{r,u3d}}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{u_{2u,r}}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$

$$+\frac{\kappa_{u_{1u,r}}}{\kappa_{u_{1u,r}}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{u_{2u,r}}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{u_{2u,r}}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (66)

where $\xi_{5}=\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{u_{2u,r}}\right|^{2}.$

4- Similarly, the term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{D_{u_{3d}}\right\}$ can be calculated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{D_{u_{3d}}\right\}=p_{u_{3u}}\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u_{3d}}^{-m}\right\}\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u_{3u}}^{-m}\right\}\mathcal{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3d}}\Theta_{r}\mathbf{g}_{r,u_{3u}}\right|^{2}\right\}$$ (67)

where

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3d}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k{}_{ed_{3}}+K_{ed}\right)2K_{ed}!}{4\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}-1\right)!\left(K_{ed}-k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)!}\left(2\Gamma\left(k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k{}_{ed_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{ed}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right.$$

$$\left.-mR_{r}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{ed_{3}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{ed_{3}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{ed}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right)$$ (68)

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3u}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k{}_{eu_{1}}+K_{eu}\right)}{4}\left(2\Gamma\left(k{}_{eu_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k{}_{eu_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right.$$

$$-mR_{r}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{eu_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k{}_{eu_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)$$ (69)

and

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\left|g_{u_{3u,r}}\Theta_{k}g_{{}_{r,u3d}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\frac{\kappa_{r,u3d}}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{\kappa_{u_{3u,r}}}{\kappa_{u_{3u,r}}+1}\xi_{6}+\frac{\kappa_{r,u3d}}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{u_{3u,r}}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$

$$+\frac{\kappa_{u_{3u,r}}}{\kappa_{u_{3u,r}}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{u_{3u,r}}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u3d}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{u_{3u,r}}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (70)

where $\xi_{6}=\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{r,u3d}}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{u_{3u,r}}\right|^{2}.$

Appendix D

By using Jensen inequality, the ergodic rate can be approximated by

$$\mathcal{E}\left[R_{u_{1u}}\right]\thickapprox\log_{2}\left(1+\right.$$

$$\left.\frac{p_{u_{1u}}\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{1u}}\right\}}{p_{u_{2u}}\mathcal{E}\left\{B_{u_{1u}}\right\}+p_{u_{3u}}\mathcal{E}\left\{C_{u_{1u}}\right\}+P_{b}\mathcal{E}\left\{D_{u_{1u}}\right\}+V+\sigma_{u_{1u}}^{2}}\right)$$ (71)

1-The first term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{A_{u_{1u}}\right\}$ can be calculated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{1u}}^{-m}\left|h_{b,u_{1u}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{1u}}^{-m}\right\}$$ (72)

which can be found as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{1u}}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{2K_{cu}!}{\left(k_{cu_{1}}-1\right)!\left(K_{cu}-1\right)!}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{0}}]{R}{\int}r_{u_{1u}}^{-m}\frac{r}{\left(R\right)^{2}}\left(\frac{r^{2}}{\left(R\right)^{2}}\right)^{k-1}\left(1-\frac{r^{2}}{R^{2}}\right)^{K_{cu}-k_{cu_{1}}}dr_{u_{1u}}$$ (73)

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{1u}}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k_{cu_{1}}+K_{cu}\right)2K_{cu}!}{4\left(k_{cu_{1}}-1\right)!\left(K_{cu}-k_{cu_{1}}\right)!}\left(2\Gamma\left(k_{cu_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k_{cu_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{cu}\right\},R^{2}\right)\right.$$

$$\left.-mR\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k_{cu_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k_{cu_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{cu}\right\},R^{2}\right)\right)$$ (74)

2-The term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{B_{u_{1u}}\right\}$ can be calculated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{p_{u_{2u}}l_{b,u_{2u}}^{-m}\left|h_{b,u_{2u}}\right|^{2}\right\}=p_{u_{2u}}\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{2u}}^{-m}\right\}$$

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{2u}}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{2K_{cu}!}{\left(k_{cu_{2}}-1\right)!\left(K_{cu}-1\right)!}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{0}}]{R}{\int}\left(r_{u_{2u}}\right)^{-m}\frac{\left(r\right)}{\left(R\right)^{2}}\left(\frac{r^{2}}{R^{2}}\right)^{k_{cu_{2}}-1}\left(1-\frac{r^{2}}{R^{2}}\right)^{K_{cu}-k_{cu_{2}}}dr_{u_{2u}}$$ (75)

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,u_{2u}}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k_{cu_{2}}+K_{cu}\right)2K_{cu}!}{4\left(k_{cu_{2}}-1\right)!\left(K_{cu}-k_{cu_{2}}\right)!}\left(2\Gamma\left(k_{cu_{2}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k_{cu_{2}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{cu}\right\},R^{2}\right)\right.$$

$$\left.-mR\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k_{cu_{2}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k_{cu_{2}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{cu}\right\},R^{2}\right)\right)$$ (76)

3- Similarly, the term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{C_{u_{1u}}\right\}$ can be calculated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{r,u3u}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3u}}\right|^{2}\right\}=l_{b,r}^{-m}\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3u}^{-m}\right\}\mathcal{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3u}}\right|^{2}\right\}$$ (77)

where

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{r,u3u}^{-m}\right\}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(1-k_{eu_{1}}+K_{eu}\right)}{4}\left(2\Gamma\left(k_{eu_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{k_{eu_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{1}{2},1+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right.$$

$$\left.-mR_{r}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+k_{eu_{1}}\right)\mathcal{H}\left(\left\{\frac{1}{2}+k_{eu_{1}},\frac{1+m}{2},\frac{2+m}{2}\right\},\left\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}+K_{eu}\right\},R_{r}^{2}\right)\right)$$ (78)

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{g}_{{}_{r,u3u}}\right|^{2}\right\}=\frac{\kappa_{r,u3u}}{\kappa_{r,u3u}+1}\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\xi_{7}+\frac{\kappa_{r,u3u}}{\kappa_{r,u3u}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$

$$+\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u3u}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{r,u3u}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (79)

where $\xi_{7}=\left|\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{{}_{{}_{r,u3u}}}\right|^{2}.$

4- The term, $\mathcal{E}\left\{D_{u_{1u}}\right\}$ can be calculated as

$$\mathcal{E}\left\{l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{b,r}^{-m}\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta_{k}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}\right\}=l_{b,r}^{-m}l_{b,r}^{-m}\mathcal{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta_{k}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}\right\}$$

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta_{k}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}\right\}=\mathscr{E}\left\{\left|\left(\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}}\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}+\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}}\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right.\right.\right.$$

$$\left.\left.\left.+\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}}\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}}\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right)\right|^{2}\right\}$$ (80)

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\left|\mathbf{g}_{b,r}\Theta_{k}\mathbf{g}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}\right\}=\left(\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\right)^{2}\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}+\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}$$

$$+\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}+\left(\frac{1}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}\right)^{2}\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}$$

$$+2\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{b,r}}{\kappa_{b,r}+1}}\mathscr{E}\left(\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\left(\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right)^{H}\right)$$ (81)

Now

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}=\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}=\xi_{8}$$ (82)

Similarly, the second term,

$$\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}a_{Nn}\left(\psi_{b,r}^{a},\psi_{b,r}^{e}\right)\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}\left[\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n}$$ (83)

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}=\mathscr{E}\left|\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}a_{Nn}\left(\psi_{b,r}^{a},\psi_{b,r}^{e}\right)\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}\left[\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n}\right|^{2}$$ (84)

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+$$

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{1}=1]{N}{\sum}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{2}\neq n_{1}]{N}{\sum}\left(a_{Nn_{1}}\left(\psi_{b,r}^{a},\psi_{b,r}^{e}\right)\rho_{n_{1}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{1}}^{k}}\left[\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n_{1}}\right)\left(a_{Nn_{2}}\left(\psi_{b,r}^{a},\psi_{b,r}^{e}\right)\rho_{n_{2}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{2}}^{k}}\left[\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n_{2}}\right)^{H}\right\}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (85)

Similarly,

$$\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n}\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}a_{N,n}\left(\psi_{b,r}^{a},\psi_{b,r}^{e}\right)$$ (86)

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+$$

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{1}=1]{N}{\sum}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{2}\neq n_{1}]{N}{\sum}\left(\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n_{1}}\rho_{n_{1}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{1}}^{k}}a_{Nn1}\left(\psi_{b,r}^{a},\psi_{b,r}^{e}\right)\right)\left(\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n_{2}}\rho_{n_{1}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{1}}^{k}}a_{Nn_{2}}\left(\psi_{b,r}^{a},\psi_{b,r}^{e}\right)\right)^{H}\right\}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$ (87)

and

$$\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n}\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right]_{n}$$ (88)

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}=\mathscr{E}\left|\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n}\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}\left[\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right]_{n}\right|^{2}$$ (89)

$$\mathscr{E}\left|\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right|^{2}=2\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}+$$

$$\mathscr{E}\left\{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{1}=1]{N}{\sum}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{2}\neq n_{1}]{N}{\sum}\left(\left[\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n_{1}}\rho_{n_{1}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{1}}^{k}}\left[\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right]_{n_{1}}\right)\left(\left[\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}\right]_{n_{2}}\rho_{n_{2}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{2}}^{k}}\left[\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right]_{n_{2}}\right)^{H}\right\}=2\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left|\rho_{n}^{k}\right|^{2}$$

$$+\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{1}=1]{N}{\sum}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}_{2}\neq n_{1}]{N}{\sum}\left(\rho_{n_{1}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{1}}^{k}}\right)\left(\rho_{n_{2}}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n_{2}}^{k}}\right)^{H}$$ (90)

Last term

$$\mathscr{E}\left(\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\left(\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\mathbf{\tilde{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\right)^{H}\right)=\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}a_{Nn}\left(\psi_{b,r}^{a},\psi_{b,r}^{e}\right)^{H}\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}a_{Nn}\left(\psi_{b,r}^{a},\psi_{b,r}^{e}\right)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left(\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}\right)^{H}$$

$$=\mathbf{\bar{g}}_{b,r}\Theta\bar{\mathbf{g}}_{b,r}^{H}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}=\hat{\zeta}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle[}}{{n}}=1]{N}{\sum}\left(\rho_{n}^{k}e^{j\phi_{n}^{k}}\right)^{H}$$ (91)