# Joint User-Slice Pairing and Association Framework Based on H-NOMA in RAN Slicing
## 5 Results
### Simulation Results
Meanwhile, SBSs serve a relatively small number of users. Accordingly, many MBS-attached users may not be served because of the limited number of resources available in the MBS. In GA, BSs are unconcerned with the UEs' QoS requirements and focus only on achieving a higher overall DL rate system. These are explanations for why MAX-SNR and GA have the worst performance rate compared to other schemes. Figure 7 illustrates various techniques' outage probabilities as the number of uRLLC UEs grows. The outage probability is seen in the light as the likelihood that a uRLLC UE consumes latency processes is more than the maximum DL tolerant delay. It can be observed that, at a high density of uRLLC UEs, the outage probability of our submitted scheme stays very low compared to that of PUNC and OMA technology if applied with any algorithm. Simulation results show promising outage probability achievement for uRLLC traffic at various schemes, as shown in Table 4.  
Figure 8 illustrates the overall DL data rate for eMBB UEs when the number of eMBB UEs grows from 10 to 50 and the number of uRLLC UEs = 50 for two cases \(\Gamma_{bc}^{min}>\Gamma_{bl}^{min}\) and \(\Gamma_{bl}^{min}>\Gamma_{bc}^{min}\), respectively. It can be observed that the total sum rate for eMBB UEs increases if the number of eMBB UEs increases in both cases, but the proposed H-NOMA algorithm demonstrates higher rates if \(\Gamma_{bc}^{min}>\Gamma_{bl}^{min}\) (due to its use of higher power and suffering from slight CCI), as shown in Figure 8. Furthermore, the suggested correlation's performance approach outperforms all other schemes, which affirms the effectiveness of the proposed \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Schemes** & **Outage Probability** \\ \hline DAA-NOMA & 99.04\% \\ DAA-OMA & 97.03\% \\ DAA- PUNC & 98.3\% \\ EAA-NOMA & 98.85\% \\ EAA-OMA & 98.64\% \\ GHA-NOMA & 99.03\% \\ GHA-OMA & 99.42\% \\ MAX-SINR-NOMA & 99.78\% \\ MAX-SINR-OMA & 99.99\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Outage Probability for uRLLC Traffic. Figure 6: The DL average throughput for eMBB UEs versus number of uRLLC UEs. Figure 7: The outage-probability for uRLLC UEs versus number of uRLLC UEs. attachment and pairing approaches because our suggested algorithm considers the type of user, its demands, and intra and inter-isolation constraints. The total sum rate by OMA and Puncturing techniques is lower than that of H-NOMA, indicating that H-NOMA is more sum rate efficient than OMA. The explanations are that, as for the OMA technique, we assume that the transmitted power of an OMA-PRB is \(\frac{1}{2}\) the power of a NOMA-PRB; thus, intra and inter-isolation is achieved using the OMA technique. So, each eMBB slice has a fraction of \(\frac{N_{b}^{2}}{N_{h}}=\frac{4}{5}\) based on [59]; In the Puncturing technique, when uRLLC UEs are overlapped with eMBB UE, it is scheduled on all eMBB's PRBs per one mini slot. Simulation results confirm promising gains of up to 40% DL sum rate improvement for eMBB traffic compared to \"OMA\" and \"Puncturing\" schemes, as presented in Table 5. So, our assumed framework achieves the highest overall DL data rate for both different users, as illustrated in Figures 5 and 8. Figure 9 depicts the outage likelihood of the various approaches estimated as the number of eMBB UEs grows. The outage probability of an eMBB UE is represented as not achieving the minimum required DL rate. It can be observed that, at a high density of users, the outage probability of our suggested scheme stays very low compared to other strategies. Simulation results show promising outage probability improvements for eMBB traffic at various schemes, as shown in Table 6. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Compared Algorithms** & **DL Sum Rate Gains** \\ \hline DAA-OMA & 24.3\% \\ DAA- PUNC & 41.9\% \\ EAA-NOMA & 16.4\% \\ EAA-OMA & 34.3\% \\ GHA-NOMA & 18.3\% \\ GHA-OMA & 32.3\% \\ MAX-SINR-NOMA & 14\% \\ MAX-SINR-OMA & 23.6\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: DL Sum Rate gains for eMBB Traffic.