## 5 Numerical Results  
In this section, numerical examples are performed to verify the outage performance of the downlink MISO PDMA network under Rayleigh fading channels with FD scheme. We denote \(d_{1},d_{2}\) as distances between the BS and the first D2D user and the second one, repetitively. Such distance is normalized as unit. Moreover, Monte Carlo simulation is run in \(10^{6}\) times to compare with analytical results as proved in previous section.  
In Figure 2, the outage probability versus transmit SNR at the BS \(\rho\) is presented in different power allocation parameters. We assume the distance between BS and \(D_{1}\) is \(d_{1}=0.4\), path loss exponent is \(\alpha=2\), channel gain \(\lambda_{2}=d_{2}^{(-\alpha)}\), while \(d_{2}=0.2\), \(\lambda_{h_{1}}=\lambda_{h_{2}}=1,\lambda_{f_{1}}=\lambda_{f_{2}}=0.01\), the number of antenna at BS is \(K=1\). As a clear observation, the exact analytical results and simulation results are in excellent agreement, and the outage probability will be constant at high-SNR regimes. Moreover, as the transmit SNR increases, the outage probability decreases. Another important observation is that the outage probability for User \(2\)\(D_{2}\) outperforms User \(1\)\(D_{1}\). Figure 3 shows outage performance for user \(D_{1}\). The parameters for this case are \(a_{1}=0.7,\lambda_{1}=d_{1}^{(-\alpha)},d_{1}=0.4,\alpha=2,\lambda_{2}=d_{2}^{ (-\alpha)},d_{2}=0.2,\lambda_{h_{1}}=\lambda_{h_{2}}=1,\lambda_{f_{1}}=\lambda _{f_{2}}=0.01,K=1\). It can be seen that lower target rate \(R_{1}\) results in better outage performance. It is intuitively that floor outage values match with analytical curves at high \(\rho\). Such observation confirms our analysis on finding lower bound of outage probability. While asymptotic lines also match with exact lines at several points within the range of considered transmit SNR at the BS.  
In Figure 4, the outage probabilities are shown as a function of the transmit SNR. Reported from the impact of target rate \(R_{2}\), there is a decrease in outage probability for such user as change to lower level of \(R_{2}\). This figure requires several parameters as \(a_{1}=0.7,R_{1}=0.5,\lambda_{1}=d_{1}^{(-\alpha)},d_{1}=0.4,\alpha=2,\lambda_{ 2}=d_{2}^{(-\alpha)},d_{2}=0.2,\lambda_{h_{1}}=\lambda_{h_{2}}=1,\lambda_{f_{1 }}=\lambda_{f_{2}}=0.01,K=1\). Similar trends with Figure 3 in terms of approximate and floor value of outage for \(D_{2}\) can be observed in this figure.  
Figure 5 plots the outage probability versus SNR with the different numbers of transmit antennas at the BS (other parameters as declarations in Figure 5 as \(a_{1}=0.7,R_{1}=0.5,\lambda_{1}=d_{1}^{(-\alpha)},d_{1}=0.4.\alpha=2,\lambda_{ 2}=d_{2}^{(-\alpha)},d_{2}=0.2,\lambda_{h_{1}}=\lambda_{h_{2}}=1,\lambda_{f_{1 }}=\lambda_{f_{2}}=0.01\)). More antennas at the BS indicates better outage probability in such PDMA. \(K=3\) case provides the best performance and an important observation in this study.  
Figure 3: Outage performance of \(D_{1}\) as varying \(R_{1}\).  
Figure 2: Outage performance of \(D_{1}\) and \(D_{2}\) versus \(\rho\) as varying \(a_{1}\).  
Due to self-interference related to FD scheme at users, it need be considered performance of user \(D_{1}\) in four cases of \(\lambda_{f1}\) as observation in Figure 6. In this case, we set \(a_{1}=0.7,R_{1}=0.5,\lambda_{1}=d_{1}^{(-\alpha)},d_{1}=0.4,\alpha=2,\lambda_{2}= d_{2}^{(-\alpha)},d_{2}=0.2,\lambda_{h_{1}}=\lambda_{h_{2}}=1,K=1\) for both Figures 6 and 7. It is noted that \(\lambda_{f2}=0.01,\lambda_{f_{1}}=0.01\) for Figure 6, Figure 7, respectively. Obviously, strong self-interference makes outage performance worse. The main reason is that achievable SNR will be smaller as existence of self-interference and hence outage event easily happens. Similarly, performance of \(D_{2}\) in Figure 7 is changed as varying \(\lambda_{f_{2}}\).  
Figure 4: Outage performance of \(D_{2}\) versus \(\rho\) as varying \(R_{2}\).  
Figure 5: Outage performance of \(D_{1}\) and \(D_{2}\) as varying \(K\).