Is NOMA Efficient in Multi-Antenna Networks? A Critical Look at Next Generation Multiple Access Techniques

TL;DR

This paper critically evaluates multi-antenna NOMA, revealing its inefficiencies and limitations compared to MULP and RS, and emphasizes that NOMA is generally not suitable for multi-antenna deployments.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive analysis contrasting NOMA with MULP and RS, clarifying misconceptions and highlighting the inefficiencies of NOMA in multi-antenna systems.

Findings

NOMA is inefficient in multi-antenna settings due to multiplexing gain loss.

NOMA incurs higher complexity with limited performance benefits.

RS outperforms NOMA in exploiting multiplexing gains in multi-antenna networks.

Abstract

In this paper, we take a critical and fresh look at the downlink multi-antenna NOMA literature. Instead of contrasting NOMA with OMA, we contrast NOMA with two other baselines. The first is conventional Multi-User Linear Precoding (MULP). The second is Rate-Splitting Multiple Access (RSMA) based on multi-antenna Rate-Splitting (RS) and SIC. We show that there is some confusion about the benefits of NOMA, and we dispel the associated misconceptions. First, we highlight why NOMA is inefficient in multi-antenna settings based on basic multiplexing gain analysis. We stress that the issue lies in how the NOMA literature has been hastily applied to multi-antenna setups, resulting in a misuse of spatial dimensions and therefore loss in multiplexing gains and rate. Second, we show that NOMA incurs a severe multiplexing gain loss despite an increased receiver complexity due to an inefficient use of SIC receivers. Third, we emphasize that much of the merits of NOMA are due to the constant comparison to OMA instead of comparing it to MULP and RS baselines. We then expose the pivotal design constraint that multi-antenna NOMA requires one user to fully decode the messages of the other users. This design constraint is responsible for the multiplexing gain erosion, rate loss, and inefficient use of SIC receivers in multi-antenna settings. Our results confirm that NOMA should not be applied blindly to multi-antenna settings, highlight the scenarios where MULP outperforms NOMA and vice versa, and demonstrate the inefficiency, performance loss and complexity disadvantages of NOMA compared to RS. The first takeaway message is that, while NOMA is not beneficial in most multi-antenna deployments. The second takeaway message is that other non-orthogonal transmission frameworks, such as RS, exist which fully exploit the multiplexing gain and the benefits of SIC to boost the rate in multi-antenna settings.