A new scenario of triplehop mixed RF/FSO/RF relay network with generalized order user scheduling and power allocation
 Anas M. Salhab^{1}Email authorView ORCID ID profile
https://doi.org/10.1186/s1363801607519
© The Author(s) 2016
Received: 11 June 2016
Accepted: 6 October 2016
Published: 28 October 2016
Abstract
This paper proposes and evaluates the performance of multiuser (MU) triplehop mixed radio frequency (RF)/freespace optical (FSO) relay network with generalized order user scheduling. An important example on the applicability of this scenario is in cellular networks where two sets of various users are communicating with their own base stations (BSs) over RF links and these BSs are connected together via an FSO link. The considered system includes K _{1} sources or users, two decodeandforward (DF) relays, and K _{2} destinations or users. The sources and destinations are connected with their relay nodes through RF links, and the relays are connected with each other through an FSO link. To achieve MU diversity, the generalized order user scheduling is used on the RF hops to select among sources and destinations. In the analysis, the RF channels are assumed to follow the Rayleigh fading model and the FSO channel is assumed to follow the GammaGamma fading model including the effect of pointing errors. Closedform expressions are derived for the outage probability, average symbol error probability (ASEP), and ergodic channel capacity. Moreover, in order to gain more insight onto the system behavior, the system is studied at the signaltonoise ratio (SNR) regime whereby the diversity order and coding gain are provided and studied. The asymptotic results are used to obtain the optimum transmission power of the system. Monte Carlo simulations are given to validate the achieved exact and asymptotic results. The results show that the diversity order and coding of the proposed scenario are determined by the worst link among the three links. Also, results illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed power allocation algorithm in enhancing the system performance compared to the case with no power allocation.
Keywords
Mixed RF/FSO/RF relay network Generalized order user scheduling Multiuser diversity Rayleigh fading GammaGamma fading Power allocation1 Introduction
The freespace optical (FSO) communication has been recently proposed as an efficient means to deal with the “lastmile” problem in wireless networks [1]. In such systems, the data transmission takes place between an optical transmitter and a receiver located, for example, on high buildings, separated by several hundred meters. Having the ability to operate on unlicensed optical beams and the potential for providing broadband communication capacity, the FSO communications represent a costeffective alternative and/or a complement to radio frequency (RF) counterparts. In addition, features such as high security, flexibility, rapid deployment time, and rigidity to RF interference have made FSO communications appealing for emergency situation recovery and military applications [2].
Cooperative relay networks have recently attracted the attention of many researchers as an efficient solution for the multipath fading problem in wireless communications [3]. Using relays in wireless networks aims to provide diversity, widen the coverage area, and reduce the need for highpower transmitters. In such networks, a relay node or a set of relays help a source node in sending its message to the destination via either an amplifyandforward (AF) scheme or a decodeandforward (DF) scheme. Despite its requirement for more signal processing, the DF relaying protocol gives better results compared to the AF protocol, especially at low signaltonoise ratio (SNR) values. Recently, a mixture of relay and FSO networks has been introduced in the literature aiming to increase the coverage distance of FSO networks which is usually limited to a few hundred meters in realistic conditions due to atmospheric turbulence condition effects [4]. In such networks, the source message is transmitted to a relay node over an RF link and then forwarded to the destination over an FSO link. Having relays in wireless networks helps in increasing the communication distance as well as in providing diversity.
The new scenario of mixed RF/FSO relaying network can be also used for user multiplexing where multiple users with only RF capability can be multiplexed into a single FSO link [5]. The RF/FSO relay communication has the ability to fill the connectivity gap between the lastmile network and the backbone network as in developing countries where the lastmile connectivity can be delivered via highspeed FSO links [6]. Such mixed relaying scheme conserves economic resources by avoiding unnecessary modifications to the current mobile devices and, at the same time, saves bandwidth by utilizing FSO capabilities. These attractive features of mixed RF/FSO relay networks make them a strong candidate for current and soontocome wireless networks.
The FSO relaying networks with single relay have been studied in the literature under various conditions [7, 8]. The outage performance of AF and DF FSO relaying networks over lognormal fading channels was studied in [7] assuming the presence of a direct link between the source and the destination. The lognormal fading model is usually used to model the FSO links assuming weak atmospheric turbulence conditions, whereas the GammaGamma fading model is more accurate and can be used to model the FSO links under both weak and strong turbulence conditions. The performance of FSO relay networks over GammaGamma fading channels was studied in [8]. The exact outage and error probabilities of twoway FSO relay networks were derived in addition to the derivation of an approximate expression for the symbol error probability. The effect of pointing errors was combined with the turbulenceinduced fading as one channel statistic in studying the performance of dualhop mixed RF/FSO relay networks in [5].
In the area of parallel FSO relaying, the authors in [9, 10] studied the performance of dualhop FSO networks over lognormal channels for DF and AF schemes, respectively. The performance of dualhop FSO selective relaying network where the source message is forwarded to the destination along the direct link or along the best relay was studied in [11]. Closedform and asymptotic expressions were derived for the bit error probability assuming Rayleigh and lognormal fading channels. A key paper which provides some new exact and approximate statistics of the sum of GammaGamma variates and their application in RF and FSO DF relay networks was presented in [12]. The outage performance of channel state information (CSI)assisted and semiblind AF opportunistic FSO relay networks was studied in [13] assuming composite channels.
Recently, the scenario of mixed RF/FSO relay networks with multiple users has induced several researchers to turn their attention to work on this hot topic. In [5, 14], the outage and error probabilities in addition to channel capacity of dualhop multiuser DF and fixedgain AF mixed RF/FSO relay networks were derived and analyzed, respectively. Despite the presence of multiple users, only one user was assumed to communicate with a relay node through an RF link and the relay was assumed to be connected with a destination through a GammaGammamodeled FSO channel with pointing errors. No multiuser diversity was achieved in that study. In [15], Miridakis et al. studied the outage and error probability performance of multiuser dualhop DF mixed RF/FSO relay network with the VBLAST technique. A resource allocation scheme for multiuser mixed RF/FSO relay network was proposed in [16], where the data of users on the RF hop are generated according to a zeromean rotationally invariant complex Gaussian distribution. The authors claimed the effectiveness of the proposed link allocation protocol even in the conditions where the FSO link is affected by severe atmospheric conditions. The area of hybrid RFFSO networks has been recently of interest for many researchers. In [17], considering the cases with and without hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) and joint transmission and reception of the RF and FSO messages, the authors derived closedform expressions for the message decoding probabilities, the throughput, and the outage probability of the RFFSO setups. The same scenario was also studied by the same authors in [18] but with consideration to the effect of adaptive power allocation on the system throughput and outage probability.
Most recently, the performance of the multiuser mixed RF/FSO relay network with outdated channel information and power allocation has been presented in [19]. Opportunistic scheduling where the user of the best RF channel is selected to send its message to the relay node was used. A generalization to the work in [19] was considered in [20], where the user of the N ^{th} best RF channel is selected to send its message to the relay node in the first communication phase. Closedform expressions for the outage and symbol error probabilities were derived, in addition to channel capacity with the effect of outdate channel information. In [21], the security analysis of multiuser mixed RF/FSO relay networks was analyzed. The paper studied the effect of a single passive eavesdropper attack on the performance of mixed RF/FSO relay network with multiple users and multiple antennas relay. The RF links and FSO link were assumed to follow the Nakagamim and GammaGamma fading models, respectively, with consideration to the effect of pointing errors on the FSO link. The authors derived closedform expressions for the outage probability, average symbol error probability (ASEP), and channel capacity as reliability performance measures for the authorized mixed RF/FSO relay network and closedfrom expression for the intercept probability as a security measure. Asymptotic expressions were also derived for the outage probability at high SNR values and used for achieving the optimum transmission powers of the selected user and relay node, where opportunistic scheduling was used to select among the users of the first hop.
Most of the previous studies considered the scenario of the dualhop mixed RF/FSO relay network. This scenario could be seen in applications where multiple users communicate with a relay node via RF links and the relay forwards their massages to a base station (BS) over an FSO link. Also, such a scenario can be seen in indoor applications where multiple users communicate with an access point that is in turn connected to a macro BS via an FSO link [16]. Another important scenario which can be seen in practice is the triplehop mixed RF/FSO/RF relay network. Example of such applications are as follows: (1) in cellular networks where two sets of various users communicate with their own BSs over RF links and these BSs are connected together via an FSO link and (2) in indoor applications where two sets of users communicate with their access points inside two buildings and these access points are connected via an FSO link. The same setup of triplehop relay network can be also used in other types of networks such as in mixed mmWave RF/FSO/mmWave RF relaying network, mixed RF/visible light communication (VLC)/RF relaying network, and mixed VLC/RF/VLC relaying network. To exploit the presence of multiple users and achieve the multiuser diversity in such networks, a single user can be selected/scheduled among the available users and allowed to conduct its transmission. The opportunistic scheduling is among the wellknown and efficient user selection schemes that are usually used to select among the users. In this scheme, the user with the best channel is always allowed to conduct its transmission in a downlink or an uplink scenario. Also, this scheme is usually used to achieve the maximum sumrate capacity in wireless networks. A generalization to the opportunistic user scheduling is the generalized order user scheduling, where the user of the N ^{th} best channel is selected for conducting its communication. This scheme is applicable in situations where the scheduling unit fails in error in selecting the best user among the available users due to error in estimating the users’ channels. More papers can be found in the literature on mixed or hybrid networks with and without relay nodes [22–24]. Also, it is worthwhile to mention here that the scenario of triplehop relaying was already considered in literature by many researchers but for one type of links [25, 26].
In this paper, we introduce the new scenario of triplehop mixed RF/FSO/RF relay network with the generalized order user scheduling scheme to select among the users of the first and third RF links. The considered system includes K _{1} sources or users, two DF relays, and K _{2} destinations. The sources and destinations are connected with their relay nodes through the RF links, and the relays are connected with each other through an FSO link. Using the generalized order user scheduler, the source with the \(N_{1}^{\text {th}}\) best SNR among the available sources is allowed to communicate with the first relay node. Also, using the same scheduling criterion, the destination which has the \(N_{2}^{\text {th}}\) best SNR is selected to receive its message from the second relay. Furthermore, the RF links are assumed to follow the Rayleigh fading model and the FSO link is assumed to follow the GammaGamma fading model with the effect of pointing errors. Closedform expressions are derived for the outage probability, ASEP, and ergodic channel capacity. Moreover, the system performance is studied at the high SNR regime, where approximate expressions for the outage probability, the diversity order, and coding gain are derived and analyzed. Furthermore, the asymptotic results are used to obtain the optimum transmission powers of the selected user on the first hop, the first relay, and the second relay. Some simulation and numerical examples are provided to study the effect of the number of users and order of selected users on both the first and third hops, atmospheric turbulence parameters, pointing errors, and power allocation on the system performance.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the system and channel models. The exact performance analysis is evaluated in Section 3. Section 4 provides the asymptotic outage performance analysis and power allocation. Some simulation and numerical results are presented and discussed in Section 5. Finally, conclusions are given in Section 6.
2 System and channel models
where P _{ k } is the transmit power of the kth user, \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}h_{k,\textsf {r}_{1}}\) is the channel coefficient of the \(\textsf {U}_{k}\rightarrow \textsf {R}_{1}\) link, \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}x_{k,\textsf {r}_{1}}\) is the transmitted symbol of U_{ k } with \(\mathbb {E}\{{x_{k,\textsf {r}_{1}}}^{2}\}=1\), and \(n_{\textsf {r}_{1}}\thicksim \mathcal {N}(0, N_{01})\) is an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) term, where \(\mathbb {E}\{\cdot \}\) is the mathematical expectation.
where \(\vartheta ^{2}=0.5{C_{n}^{2}}\varsigma ^{7/6}(d^{\text {FSO}})^{11/6}\), ξ ^{2}=ς q ^{2}/d ^{FSO}, and ς=2π/λ ^{FSO}. Here, λ ^{FSO} is the wavelength and \({C_{n}^{2}}\) is the weatherdependent index of refraction structure parameter.
where \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}P_{\text {Ele}}=\eta _{2} P_{\text {Opt}}=\eta _{1}\eta _{2} P_{\textsf {r}_{1}}\) is the electrical power received at R_{2} with η _{2} is the opticaltoelectrical conversion efficiency.
where \(\gamma _{\textsf {U}_{\text {Sel}},\textsf {R}_{1}}=\frac {P_{ \text {Sel}}}{N_{01}}h_{\text {Sel},\textsf {r}_{1}}^{2}\) and \(\gamma _{\textsf {R}_{1},\textsf {R}_{2}}=\frac {\eta _{1}\eta _{2}P_{\textsf {r}_{1}}}{N_{02}}g_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}^{2}\), where \(P_{\textsf {r}_{1}}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\) is the transmit power at R_{1}.
where \(P_{\textsf {r}_{2}}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\) is the transmit power at R_{2}, \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}h_{\textsf {r}_{2},{j}}\) is the channel coefficient of the R_{2}→D_{ j } link, \(x_{\textsf {d}_{j}}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\) is the transmitted symbol of d_{ j } with \(\mathbb {E}\{x_{\textsf {d}_{j}}^{2}\}=1\), and \(n_{\textsf {d}_{j}}\thicksim \mathcal {N}(0, N_{03})\) is an AWGN term.
According to the generalized order user scheduling, the destination with the \(N_{2}^{\text {th}}\) best \(\gamma _{\textsf {R}_{2},\textsf {D}_{j}}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\) or equivalently, the \(N_{2}^{\text {th}}\) largest \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}h_{\textsf {r}_{2},{j}}^{2}\) among the other destinations is selected to receive its message from R_{2} in the third communication phase. In other words, the destination is selected such that \(\gamma _{\textsf {R}_{2},\textsf {D}_{\text {Sel}}}=\underset {\substack {j}}{N_{2}^{\text {th}}\ \text {max}}\left \{\gamma _{\textsf {R}_{2},\textsf {D}_{j}}\right \}\).
where ζ is the ratio between the equivalent beam radius at the receiver and the pointing error displacement standard deviation (jitter) at the receiver (i.e. when ζ→∞, we get the nonpointing error case) [5], r is the parameter defining the type of detection technique (i.e. r=1 represents heterodyne detection and r=2 represents intensity modulation (IM)/direct detection (DD)), α and β are the fading parameters related to the atmospheric turbulence conditions with lower values indicating severe atmospheric turbulence conditions, Γ(.) is the Gamma function as defined in [32, Eq. (8.310)], \(\lambda _{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}=1/\bar {\gamma }_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}\) with \(\bar {\gamma }_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}=\frac {\eta _{1}\eta _{2}P_{\textsf {r}_{1}}}{N_{02}}\mathbb {E}\{ {g_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}}^{2}\}=\frac {\eta _{1}\eta _{2}P_{\textsf {r}_{1}}}{N_{02}}\mu _{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}\), and G(.) is the Meijer Gfunction as defined in [32, Eq. (9.301)].
Achieving the system performance measures requires obtaining the statistics of the e2e SNR provided in (14).
3 Exact performance analysis
In this section, we derive the exact outage probability, ASEP, and channel capacity of the considered system.
3.1 Outage probability

First hop link
Using the generalized order user selection, the PDF \(F_{\gamma _{\textsf {U}_{\text {Sel}},\textsf {R}_{1}}}(\gamma)\) can be written for independent identically distributed sources’ channels (\(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\lambda _{1,\textsf {r}_{1}}=\lambda _{2,\textsf {r}_{1}}=\ldots =\lambda _{K_{1},\textsf {r}_{1}}=\lambda _{u,\textsf {r}_{1}}\)) as [35]$$ \begin{aligned} f_{\gamma_{\textsf{U}_{\text{Sel}},\textsf{R}_{1}}}(\gamma)&={K_{1}1 \choose N_{1}1}K_{1}f_{\gamma_{\textsf{U},\textsf{R}_{1}}}(\gamma)\left(F_{\gamma_{\textsf{U}, \textsf{R}_{1}}}(\gamma)\right)^{K_{1}N_{1}}\\&\quad\times\left(1F_{\gamma_{\textsf{U},\textsf{R}_{1}}}(\gamma)\right)^{N_{1}1}, \end{aligned} $$(17)where \(f_{\gamma _{\textsf {U},\textsf {R}_{1}}}(\gamma)\) and \(f_{\gamma _{\textsf {U},\textsf {R}_{1}}}(\gamma)\) are the PDF and CDF of a source channel’s SNR at the first hop, respectively, which are given for the Rayleigh fading channels by \(f_{\gamma _{\textsf {U},\textsf {R}_{1}}}(\gamma)= \lambda _{u,\textsf {r}_{1}}\exp \left (\lambda _{u,\textsf {r}_{1}}\gamma \right)\) and \(F_{\gamma _{\textsf {U},\textsf {R}_{1}}}(\gamma)=1\exp \left (\lambda _{u,\textsf {r}_{1}}\gamma \right)\), and N _{1} is the order of the selected source. In other words, the PDF in (17) represents the PDF of the \(N_{1}^{\text {th}}\) best SNR or, equivalently, the source of the best \(N_{1}^{\text {th}}\) SNR is selected by the first relay.
Upon substituting these statistics in (17) and using the binomial rule, the PDF in (17) can be rewritten as$$\begin{array}{*{20}l} f_{\gamma_{\textsf{U}_{\text{Sel}},\textsf{R}_{1}}}(\gamma)&=K_{1}\lambda_{u,\textsf{r}_{1}}{K_{1}1 \choose N_{1}1}\sum_{k=0}^{K_{1}N_{1}}{K_{1}N_{1} \choose k}\\&\quad\times(1)^{k}\exp\left(\left(k+N_{1}\right) \lambda_{u,\textsf{r}_{1}}\gamma\right). \end{array} $$(18)Integrating, (18) using \(\int _{0}^{\gamma }f_{\gamma _{\textsf {U}_{\text {Sel}},\textsf {R}_{1}}}(t)dt\), we get$$\begin{array}{*{20}l} F_{\gamma_{\textsf{U}_{\text{Sel}},\textsf{R}_{1}}}(\gamma)&=K_{1}{K_{1}1 \choose N_{1}1}\sum_{k=0}^{K_{1}N_{1}}\frac{{K_{1}N_{1} \choose k}(1)^{k}}{\left(k+N_{1}\right)}\\ &\quad\times[1\exp\left(\left(k+N_{1}\right) \lambda_{u,\textsf{r}_{1}}\gamma\right)]. \end{array} $$(19) 
Second hop link
The CDF \(F_{\gamma _{\textsf {R}_{1},\textsf {R}_{2}}}(\gamma)\) can be obtained by integrating the PDF in (13) using \(\int _{0}^{\gamma }f_{\gamma _{\textsf {R}_{1},\textsf {R}_{2}}}(t)dt\) and with the help of Eq. 07.34.21.0003.01 in [36] to get$$ \begin{aligned} F_{\gamma_{\textsf{R}_{1},\textsf{R}_{2}}}(\gamma)=A \mathrm{G}^{3r,1}_{r+1,3r+1} \left[ \begin{array}{cc} & 1,\chi_{1}\\[4pt] \frac{B}{\bar{\gamma}_{\textsf{r}_{1}, \textsf{r}_{2}}}\gamma & \\[4pt] &\chi_{2},0 \end{array}\right], \end{aligned} $$(20)where \(A=\frac {r^{\alpha +\beta 2}\zeta ^{2}}{(2\pi)^{r1}\Gamma (\alpha)\Gamma (\beta)}\), \(B=\frac {(\alpha \beta)^{r}}{r^{2r}}\), \(\chi _{1}=\frac {\zeta ^{2}+1}{r},\ldots, \frac {\zeta ^{2}+r}{r}\) comprises of r terms, and \(\chi _{2}=\frac {\zeta ^{2}}{r},\ldots,\frac {\zeta ^{2}+r1}{r}, \frac {\alpha }{r}, \ldots,\frac {\alpha +r1}{r},\frac {\beta }{r},\ldots,\frac {\beta +r1}{r}\) comprises of 3r terms. Note that introducing these parameters primarily aims to simplify the calculations and expressions of the paper.

Third hop link
Similar to the first hop link, the PDF and CDF of the SNR of the selected destination can be, respectively, written as$$\begin{array}{*{20}l} f_{\gamma_{\textsf{R}_{2},\textsf{D}_{\text{Sel}}}}(\gamma)&=K_{2}\lambda_{\textsf{r}_{2},u}{K_{2}1 \choose N_{2}1}\sum_{j=0}^{K_{2}N_{2}}{K_{1}N_{1} \choose j}\\ &\quad\times(1)^{j}\exp\left(\left(j+N_{2}\right)\lambda_{\textsf{r}_{2},u}\gamma\right), \end{array} $$(21)$$\begin{array}{*{20}l} F_{\gamma_{\textsf{R}_{2},\textsf{D}_{\text{Sel}}}}(\gamma)&=K_{2}{K_{2}1 \choose N_{2}1}\sum_{j=0}^{K_{2}N_{2}}\frac{{K_{2}N_{2} \choose j}(1)^{j}}{\left(j+N_{2}\right)}\\ &\quad\times[1\exp\left(\left(j+N_{2}\right)\lambda_{\textsf{r}_{2},u}\gamma\right)], \end{array} $$(22)where the users on the third hop have been assumed to have independent identical distributed channels in (21) and (22), that is, (\(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\lambda _{\textsf {r}_{2},1}=\lambda _{\textsf {r}_{2},2}=\ldots =\lambda _{\textsf {r}_{2},K_{2}}= \lambda _{\textsf {r}_{2},u}\)). Again, the PDF in (21) represents the PDF of the \(N_{2}^{\text {th}}\) best SNR or, equivalently, that the destination of the \(N_{2}^{\text {th}}\) best SNR is selected by the second relay.
Upon substituting (19), (20), and (22) in (15) and after some simplifications, we get$$ \begin{aligned} F_{\gamma_{\textsf{D}}}(\gamma)&={K_{1}1 \choose N_{1}1}K_{1}\sum_{k=0}^{K_{1}N_{1}}\frac{{K_{1}N_{1} \choose k}(1)^{k}} {(k+N_{1})} \left\{1\exp\left(\tau_{1}\gamma\right)A{\vphantom{\left(\mathrm{G}^{3r,1}_{r+1,3r+1} \left[ \begin{array}{cc} & {1,\chi_{1}} \\[4pt] \delta_{0}\gamma & \\[4pt] & {\chi_{2},0} \\ \end{array}\right] \left[1\exp\left(\tau_{1}\gamma\right)\right]\right)}}\right.\\&\left.\quad\times\left(\mathrm{G}^{3r,1}_{r+1,3r+1} \left[ \begin{array}{cc} & {1,\chi_{1}} \\[4pt] \delta_{0}\gamma & \\[4pt] & {\chi_{2},0} \\ \end{array}\right] \left[1\exp\left(\tau_{1}\gamma\right)\right]\right)\right\}\\ &\quad +{K_{2}1 \choose N_{2}1}K_{2}\sum_{j=0}^{K_{2}N_{2}}\frac{{K_{2}N_{2} \choose j}(1)^{j}}{(j+N_{2})} \left\{1\exp\left(\tau_{2}\gamma\right){\vphantom{\left(\mathrm{G}^{3r,1}_{r+1,3r+1} \left[ \begin{array}{cc} & 1,\chi_{1}\\[4pt] \delta_{0}\gamma & \\[4pt] & \chi_{2},0 \\ \end{array}\right] \left[1\exp\left(\tau_{2}\gamma\right)\right]\right)}}\right.\\&\left.\quadA\left(\mathrm{G}^{3r,1}_{r+1,3r+1} \left[ \begin{array}{cc} & 1,\chi_{1}\\[4pt] \delta_{0}\gamma & \\[4pt] & \chi_{2},0 \\ \end{array}\right] \left[1\exp\left(\tau_{2}\gamma\right)\right]\right)\right\}\\ & \quad {K_{1}1 \choose N_{1}1}K_{1}\sum_{k=0}^{K_{1}N_{1}}\frac{{K_{1}N_{1} \choose k}(1)^{k}}{(k+N_{1})}{K_{2}1 \choose N_{2}1}K_{2}\\&\quad\times\sum_{j=0}^{K_{2}N_{2}}\frac{{K_{2}N_{2} \choose j}(1)^{j}}{(j+N_{2})} \left\{{\vphantom{\sum_{0}^{1}}}1\exp\left(\tau_{1}\gamma\right)\exp\left(\tau_{2}\gamma\right)\right.\\ & \quad +\exp\left([\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}]\gamma\right) A \left({\vphantom{\sum_{0}^{1}}}\mathrm{G}^{3r,1}_{r+1,3r+1}\right. \left[ \begin{array}{cc} & 1,\chi_{1}\\[4pt] \delta_{0}\gamma & \\[4pt] & \chi_{2},0 \\ \end{array}\right]\\ &\quad\left.\left.\times\left[1\exp\left(\tau_{1}\gamma\right)\exp\left(\tau_{2}\gamma\right) +\exp\left([\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}]\gamma\right)\right]{\vphantom{\sum_{0}^{1}}}\right){\vphantom{\sum_{0}^{1}}}\right\}\\ &\quad +A\mathrm{G}^{3r,1}_{r+1,3r+1} \left[ \begin{array}{cc} &1,\chi_{1} \\[4pt] \delta_{0}\gamma & \\[4pt] & \chi_{2},0 \\ \end{array}\right], \end{aligned} $$(23)where \(\tau _{1}=(k+N_{1})\lambda _{u,\textsf {r}_{1}}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\), \(\delta _{0}=\frac {B}{\bar {\gamma }_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\), and \(\tau _{2}=(j+N_{2})\lambda _{\textsf {r}_{2},u}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\).
The CDF in (23) represents an important statistic to the e2e SNR γ _{D} and allows to derive several performance measures in closedform expressions as will be seen in the next sections of the paper. Up to now, the outage probability can be obtained by replacing γ by γ _{out} in (23).
3.2 Average symbol error probability
where a and b are modulationspecific parameters. Note that we adopt the SIM scheme and hence the known digital modulation techniques can be used, such as phase shift keying (PSK) [38]. Therefore, the error probability computing method (24) used in RF wireless communication systems can be used to evaluate the error probability performance in FSO systems.
3.3 Ergodic channel capacity
where \(\mathcal {I}_{1}^{'}=\mathcal {I}_{1}\), \(\mathcal {I}_{3}^{'}=\mathcal {I}_{3}\), and \(\mathcal {I}_{4}^{'}=\mathcal {I}_{4}\) with replacing k by j, N _{1} by N _{2}, and \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\lambda _{u,\textsf {r}_{1}}\) by \(\lambda _{\textsf {r}_{2},u}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\), respectively.
where E_{i}(.) is the exponential integral function defined by Eq. 8.211.1 in [32], and G[Z _{1},Z _{2}...] is the extended generalized bivariate Meijer Gfunction. Note that in order to evaluate the expression in (36), a Mathematica code similar to the one provided in Table 2 in [41] has been used here.
4 Asymptotic outage performance and power allocation
Due to complexity of the achieved expressions in the previous section, it is hard to easily study the effect of various system parameters and get more insights about the system performance. Therefore, we see that it is important to derive simple expressions for the outage probability which will be helpful in achieving more insights about the system behavior. These expressions will be used also in allocating the transmission power for the transmitting nodes of the system (first hop source’s power, second hop relay’s power, and third hop relay’s power).
4.1 Asymptotic outage probability
The outage probability can be written at the high SNR regime as \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}P_{\textsf {out}}\simeq (G_{\textsf {c}}SNR)^{G_{\textsf {d}}}\), where G _{c} and G _{d} are the coding gain and diversity order of the system, respectively [42]. Obviously, G _{c} represents the horizontal shift in the outage probability performance relative to the benchmark curve \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}(\text {SNR})^{G_{\textsf {d}}}\) and G _{d} refers to the increase in the slope of the outage probability vs SNR curve. Therefore, the parameters on which the diversity order depends will affect the slope of the outage probability curves and the parameters on which the coding gain depends will affect the position of the curves. Obtaining the outage probability in this simple form allows us to easily study and know the effect of each system parameter on the system performance instead of dealing with the long/complex expressions derived in Section 3. Notice that such an accurate approximation has been widely used in the conventional cooperative diversity systems.
Here, we consider the case of identical sources’ channels \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}(\lambda _{1,\textsf {r}_{1}}=\lambda _{2,\textsf {r}_{1}}=\cdots =\lambda _{K_{1},\textsf {r}_{1}}=\lambda _{u,\textsf {r}_{1}})\) and identical destinations’ channels \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}(\lambda _{\textsf {r}_{2},1}=\lambda _{\textsf {r}_{2},2}=\cdots =\lambda _{\textsf {r}_{2},K_{2}}=\lambda _{\textsf {r}_{2},u})\). Again, we follow the same procedure that we followed before in Section 3 in obtaining the outage probability of the proposed scenario by dealing with the approximate CDF of each hop separately and then calculating the approximate CDF of the e2e SNR.
4.1.1 First hop link
4.1.2 Second hop link
where b _{ k }=ν.
4.1.3 Third hop link
where the remaining terms in (16) are omitted and this is accurate for high SNRs.
It is clear from (47) that the performance of the considered relay network will be dominated by the worst link among the available three links, the first RF link, the FSO link, and the third RF link. This domination depends on the parameters of these links. Therefore, the diversity order (G _{d}) of the triplehop mixed RF/FSO/RF relay network with generalized order user scheduling is equal to min(K _{1}−N _{1}+1,ν/r,K _{2}−N _{2}+1) and based on the value of the diversity order, one of the following three cases could represent the overall system performance:
Case 1 (One hop is dominant).
Case 2 (Two hops are dominant).
Case 3 (Three hops have the same diversity order).
In summary, the system performance could be dominated by the following: (1) the first hop link (i.e., K _{1} and N _{1}) when it is the worst link among the three links; (2) the second hop link (i.e., ζ ^{2}, α, and β) when it is the worst link among the three links; and (3) the third hop link (i.e., K _{2} and N _{2}) when it is the worst link among the three links. It is very important to mention here that if the diversity orders of two hops are equal and they are the minimum compared to that of the third hop, the coding gain of the system in this case equals the summation of the coding gains of the two hops which dominate the system performance divided by 2. Similarly, if the diversity orders of the three hops are equal, the coding gain of the system in this case equals the summation of the coding gains of the three hops divided by 3.
4.2 Power allocation
In this section, we aim to derive the optimum adaptive power allocation for the transmitting nodes in the system. In the proposed power allocation protocol, the powers of all transmitting nodes (selected source, first relay, and second relay) in the system are considered to be variables. Assuming that we may have two different cases in regard to the transmission power of the first relay: the allocated power for the first relay is less than the peak/maximum allowed power and in this case, the power allocation protocol is optimum and the second case where the allocated power for the first relay is larger than the peak power and here the extra allocated power will be saved.
We denote the distance between the first hop K _{1} sources and relay R_{1} by \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}d_{\textsf {s},\textsf {r}_{1}}\), the distance between the relays R_{1} and R_{2} by \(d_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\), while the distance between the relay R_{2} and third hop K _{2} destinations by \(d_{\textsf {r}_{2},\textsf {d}}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\). We consider a total distance of D _{tot} between the first hop sources and third hop destinations. The total distance D _{tot} can be written as \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}D_{\text {tot}}=d_{\textsf {s},\textsf {r}_{1}}+d_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}+d_{\textsf {r}_{2},\textsf {d}}\). Under the scenario where the received power decays with the distance, we can express the average value of SNR in the hop between the K _{1} sources and relay R_{1} as \(\bar {\gamma }_{\textsf {s},\textsf {r}_{1}}={P_{\textsf {s},\textsf {r}_{1}}}{d^{\mu }_{\textsf {s},\textsf {r}_{1}}}\), where \(P_{\textsf {s},\textsf {r}_{1}}=\frac {P_{u,\textsf {r}_{1}}}{K_{1}}= \frac {E_{\textsf {s},\textsf {r}_{1}}}{N_{0}}\), μ is the path loss exponent and is equal for all hops to a value greater than 1, and N _{0} is AWGN power which is assumed equal for the three hops. Similarly, we can express the average value of SNR in the second hop as \(\bar {\gamma }_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}={P_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}}{d^{\mu }_{\textsf {r}_{1}, \textsf {r}_{2}}}\), where \(P_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}=\frac {E_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}}{N_{0}}\). The average value of SNR in the hop between the relay R_{2} and K _{2} destinations can be expressed as \(\bar {\gamma }_{\textsf {r}_{2},\textsf {d}}={P_{\textsf {r}_{2},\textsf {d}}} {d^{\mu }_{\textsf {r}_{2},\textsf {d}}}\), where \(P_{\textsf {r}_{2},\textsf {d}}=\frac {P_{\textsf {r}_{2},\textsf {d}}}{K_{1}}= \frac {E_{\textsf {r}_{2},\textsf {d}}}{N_{0}}\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\). Finally, the power constraint can be written as \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}P_{\text {tot}}=P_{\textsf {s},\textsf {r}_{1}}+P_{\textsf {r}_{1},\textsf {r}_{2}}+P_{\textsf {r}_{2},\textsf {d}}\).
To simplify the understanding of the next steps of optimization, we introduce here the Lagrangian multipliers method which is used in deriving of the optimal transmission powers of the transmitting nodes of the system. This method is a very common strategy used for finding the local maxima and minima of a function subject to equality constraints. The method depends on defining a Lagrange multiplier, Lagrange function, and a constraint. The Lagrange function is then defined as a summation of the constraint multiplied by the Lagrange multiplier and the original constrained problem or function. Note that the original constrained function and constraint are functions of the unknowns which we need to find their optimum values. Then, the Lagrange function is differentiated with respect to each unknown and equated by zero trying to find a solution to that unknown in terms of the Lagrange multiplier. Then, the unknowns are written again (in terms of the Lagrange multiplier) to formulate the constraint. After that, the constraint is solved in order to obtain the Lagrange multiplier. Finally, the obtained Lagrange multiplier is used in finding the optimal values of the unknowns.
The effectiveness of the derived optimal power allocation solutions will be verified in the following section where a numerical example which compares the system performance with and without power allocation is provided and discussed.
5 Simulation and numerical results
In this section, we validate the accuracy of the achieved analytical and asymptotic expressions via comparison with Monte Carlo simulations. Additionally, some numerical examples are provided and discussed to illustrate the impact of the number of available sources and order of selected source at the first hop, number of available destinations and order of selected destination at the third hop, and turbulence fading parameters and pointing errors on the system performance. The effectiveness of the proposed power allocation algorithm is also shown in this section. A total number of 2×10^{5} samples/SNR value have been used in generating the simulation results. Also, the BPSK modulation scheme has been used in the results of ASEP.
It is worth mentioning here that the issue of achieving the best performance and satisfying fairness among users is indeed a tradeoff. The scheduling schemes which exist in literature can be divided according to two criteria: sumrate capacity and fairness among users. Maximum rate or conventional scheduling maximizes the sum capacity of the system at the expense of fairness among users, whereas proportional fair user selection scheme satisfies fairness among users at the expense of system sumrate [44, 45]. Therefore, the selection of the scheduling scheme depends on the system requirements and nature of the system. As an example on the suitability of the scheme to be used, although the proportional fair user scheduling could be helpful for users of weak channels, the loss that occurs in throughput when this scheduling scheme is used can be large in situations where users are scattered across the cell [46]. In summary, the opportunistic and even the generalized order user selection schemes are suitable for systems where the system overall sumrate capacity or the overall performance is the main requirement of the system; conversely, the proportional fair user scheduling scheme is more desirable in systems where fairness among users is the first priority.
6 Conclusions
In this paper, the performance of a new scenario of triplehop multiuser mixed RF/FSO/RF relay network with generalized order user scheduling was evaluated. Also, a power allocation algorithm to calculate the optimum transmission power was proposed. Closedform expressions were derived for the outage probability, average symbol error probability, and channel capacity assuming Rayleigh and GammaGamma fading models for the RF and FSO links, respectively. The effect of pointing errors was also considered in the derivations. Furthermore, the system performance was studied at the highSNR regime where an approximate expression for the outage probability, in addition to the diversity order and coding gain were provided. Monte Carlo simulations were provided to illustrate the validity of the achieved exact and asymptotic results. The main results illustrated that the system performance is dominated by the worst hop among the three hops. The diversity order and coding gain are determined by the parameters of the link/s which dominate the system performance. These parameters are: number of users and order of selected users in the RF links and atmospheric turbulence parameters, pointing error, and type of detector in the FSO link. Finally, the results showed that the proposed power allocation algorithm clearly enhances the system performance compared to the case with no power allocation.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the National Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (Maarifah)—King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology—through the Science and Technology Unit at the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM)—the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, under grant number 15ELE415704.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Authors’ information
Anas M. Salhab is a member of IEEE.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 D Kedar, S Arnon, Urban optical wireless communications networks: the main challenges and possible solutions. IEEE Commun. Mag. 42(5), 2–7 (2003).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 ND Chatzidiamantis, HG Sandalidis, GK Karagiannidis, M Matthaiou, Inverse Gaussian modeling of turbulenceinduced fading in freespace optical systems. IEEE/OSA J. Lightw. Technol. 29(10), 1590–1596 (2011).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 JN Laneman, DNC Tse, GW Wornell, Cooperative diversity in wireless networks: efficient protocols and outage behavior. IEEE Trans. Info. Theory. 50(12), 3062–3080 (2004).MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 E Lee, J Park, D Han, G Yoon, Performance analysis of the asymmetric dualhop relay transmission with mixed RF/FSO links. IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 23(21), 1642–1644 (2011).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 IS Ansari, F Yilmaz, MS Alouini, Impact of pointing errors on the performance of mixed RF/FSO dualhop transmission systems. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett. 2(3), 351–354 (2013).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 N Saquib, MSR Sakib, A Saha, M Hussain, in Proc. Int. Conf. Education Technol. and Computer. Free space optical connectivity for last mile solution in Bangladesh (IEEEShanghai, 2010), pp. 484–487.Google Scholar
 M Karimi, M NasiriKenari, Outage analysis of relayassisted freespace optical. IET Commun.4(12), 1423–1432 (2010). doi:10.1049/ietcom.2009.0335.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 P Puri, P Garg, M Aggarwal, Outage and error rate analysis of networkcoded coherent TWRFSO systems. IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 26(18), 1797–1800 (2014).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 BT Vu, TC Thang, AT Pham, in Proc. 9th Int’l Symp. on Commun. Systems, Netw. and Digital Signal Process. Selective relay decodeandforward QAM/FSO systems over atmospheric turbulence channels (IEEEManchester, 2014), pp. 407–410.Google Scholar
 SI Hussain, MM Abdallah, KA Qaraqe, in Proc. IEEE GCC Conf. and Exhibition. Power optimization and kth order selective relaying in free space optical networks (IEEEDoha, 2013), pp. 330–333.Google Scholar
 C AbouRjeily, Performance analysis of selective relaying in cooperative freespace optical systems. IEEE/OSA J. Lightw. Technol. 31(18), 2965–2973 (2013).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 ND Chatzidiamantis, GK Karagiannidis, On the distribution of the sum of GammaGamma variates and applications in RF and optical wireless communications. IEEE Trans. Commun. 59(5), 1298–1308 (2011).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 JY Wang, JB Wang, M Chen, X Song, Performance analysis for freespace optical communications using parallel alloptical relays over composite channels. IET Commun. 8(9), 1437–1446 (2014). doi:10.1049/ietcom.2013.0754.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 IS Ansari, Yilmaz Fe, MS Alouini, in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. On the performance of mixed RF/FSO variable gain dualhop transmission systems with pointing errors (IEEELas Vegas, 2013), pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
 NI Miridakis, M Matthaiou, GK Karagiannidis, Multiuser relaying over mixed RF/FSO links. IEEE Trans. Commun. 62(5), 1634–1645 (2014).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 V Jamali, DS Michalopoulos, M Uysal, R Schober, in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. Mixed RF and hybrid RF/FSO relaying (IEEESan Diego, 2015), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
 B Makki, T Svensson, T Eriksson, MS Alouini, in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. On the performance of HARQbased RFFSO links (San Diego, 2015), pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
 B Makki, T Svensson, T Eriksson, MS Alouini, On the performance of RFFSO links with and without hybrid ARQ. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 15(7), 4928–4943 (2016).Google Scholar
 AM Salhab, F AlQahtani, RM Radaydeh, SA Zummo, H Alnuweiri, Power allocation and performance of multiuser mixed RF/FSO relay networks with opportunistic scheduling and outdated channel information. IEEE/OSA J. Lightw. Technol.PP(99) (2016). doi:10.1109/JLT.2016.2555944.
 AM Salhab, Performance of multiuser mixed RF/FSO relay networks with generalized order user scheduling and outdated channel information. Arabian J. Sci Eng. 40(9), 2671–2683 (2015).MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 AA ElMalek, AM Salhab, SA Zummo, Securityreliability tradeoff analysis for multiuser SIMO mixed RF/FSO relay networks with opportunistic user scheduling. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. 15(9), 5904–5918 (2016).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 PV Trinh, AT Pham, in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. Outage performance of dualhop AF relaying systems with mixed MMW RF and FSO links (IEEEBoston, 2015), pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
 I Stefan, H Haas, in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. Hybrid visible light and radio frequency communication systems (IEEEVancouver, 2014), pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
 M Kashef, M Ismail, M Abdallah, KA Qaraqe, E Serpedin, Energy efficient resource allocation for mixed RF/VLC heterogeneous wireless networks. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 34(4), 883–893 (2016).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 VK Sakarellos, CI Kourogiorgas, D Skraparlis, AD Panagopoulos, JD Kanellopoulos, Endtoend performance analysis of millimeter wave triplehop backhaul transmission systems. Springer Wirel. Pers. Commun. 71(4), 2725–2740 (2013).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 SQ Nguyen, HY Kong, Outage performance and diversity analysis of cognitive triplehop clusterbased networks under interference constraint. Springer Wirel. Pers. Commun. 85(3), 1669–1688 (2015).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 KP Peppas, CK Datsikas, Average symbol error probability of generalorder rectangular quadrature amplitude modulation of optical wireless communication systems over atmospheric turbulence channels. J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 2(2), 102–110 (2010).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 WO Popoola, Z Ghassemlooy, BPSK subcarrier intensity modulated freespace optical communications in atmospheric turbulence. IEEE/OSA J. Lightw. Technol. 27(8), 967–973 (2009).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 J Park, E Lee, G Yoon, Average bit error rate of the Alamouti scheme in GammaGamma fading channels. IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 23(4), 269–271 (2011).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 W Zhang, S Hranilovic, C Shi, Softswitching hybrid FSO/RF links using shortlength raptor codes: design and implementation. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 27(9), 1698–1708 (2009).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 B He, R Schober, Bitinterleaved coded modulation for hybrid RF/FSO systems. IEEE Trans. Commun. 57(12), 3753–3763 (2009).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 IS Gradshteyn, IM Ryzhik, Tables of Integrals, Series and Products, 6th ed (Acadamic Press, San Diago, 2000).MATHGoogle Scholar
 TM Duman, A Ghrayeb, Coding for MIMO Communication Systems (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, 2007). doi:10.1002/9780470724347.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 SS Ikki, S Aissa, A study of optimization problem for amplifyandforward relaying over Weibull fading channels with multiple antennas. IEEE Commun. Lett. 15(11), 1148–1151 (2011).View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 RJ Vaughan, WN Venables, Permanent expressions for order statistics densities. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B. 34(2), 308–310 (1972).MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 Wolfram, The Wolfram functions site (2013). http://functions.wolfram.com. Accessed Jan 2016.
 MR McKay, AL Grant, IB Collings, Performance analysis of MIMOMRC in doublecorrelated Rayleigh environments. IEEE Trans. Commun. 55:, 497–507 (2007).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 X Song, J Cheng, Optical communication using subcarrier intensity modulation in strong atmospheric turbulence. IEEE/OSA J. Lightwave Technol. 30(22), 3484–3492 (2012).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 A Farid, S Hranilovic, Outage capacity optimization for freespace optical links with pointing errors. IEEE/OSA J. Lightw. Technol. 25(7), 1702–1710 (2007).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 ND Chatzidiamantis, AS Lioumpas, GK Karagiannidis, S Arnon, in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. Optical wireless communications with adaptive subcarrier PSK intensity modulation (IEEEMiami, 2010), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
 IS Ansari, S AlAhmadi, F Yilmaz, MS Alouini, H Yanikomeroglu, A new formula for the BER of binary modulations with dualbranch selection over generalizedK composite fading channels. IEEE Trans. Commun. 59(10), 2654–2658 (2011).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 MK Simon, MS Alouini, Digital Communication over Fading Channels, 2nd ed (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 2005).Google Scholar
 L Yang, X Gao, MS Alouini, Performance analysis of relayassisted alloptical FSO networks over strong atmospheric turbulence channels with pointing errors. IEEE/OSA J. Lightw. Technol. 32(23), 4011–4018 (2014).Google Scholar
 JW So, JM Cioffi, Capacity and fairness in multiuser diversity systems with opportunistic feedback. IEEE Commun. Lett. 12(9), 648–650 (2008).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 L Yang, M Kang, MS Alouini, On the capacityfairness tradeoff in multiuser diversity systems. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 56(4), 1901–1907 (2007).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 L Yang, MS Alouini, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Performance analysis of multiuser selection diversity (IEEEParis, 2004), pp. 3066–3070.Google Scholar