1: \documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
2: % \documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
3:
4:
5: %\setlength{\topmargin}{-1.0 cm}
6: %\setlength{\textheight}{244mm}
7:
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: \usepackage{amsmath}
10:
11: \interdisplaylinepenalty=2500
12:
13: \usepackage{fixmath}
14: \usepackage{graphicx}
15: \usepackage{psfrag}
16: \usepackage{ifthen}
17: \usepackage[amsmath,thmmarks]{ntheorem}
18: \usepackage{my_theorems}
19: % \usepackage{algorithm}
20:
21: %\usepackage{dblfloatfix}
22: %\usepackage{fix2col}
23:
24: \DeclareMathOperator{\Tr}{T}
25: \DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{tr}
26: \DeclareMathOperator{\He}{H}
27: \DeclareMathOperator{\Expect}{E}
28: \DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
29: \DeclareMathOperator{\Mod}{M}
30: \DeclareMathOperator{\Quant}{Q}
31: \DeclareMathOperator{\Real}{Re}
32: \DeclareMathOperator{\Ord}{O}
33: \DeclareMathOperator{\J}{j}
34: \DeclareMathOperator{\dB}{dB}
35: \DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{argmax}
36:
37: \DeclareMathAlphabet{\mathbit}{OML}{cmr}{bx}{it}
38:
39: \newcommand{\B}[1]{\mathbit{#1}}
40: \newcommand{\R}[1]{\mathrm{#1}}
41: \newcommand{\Bs}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}}
42: \newcommand{\id}{\mathbf{I}}
43: \newcommand{\zero}{\mathbf{0}}
44: \newcommand{\Frob}{\mathrm{F}}
45: \newcommand{\possemdef}{\succcurlyeq}
46: \newcommand{\posdef}{\succ}
47:
48: \newcommand{\Ntx}{N_{\R{Tx}}}
49:
50: \newcommand{\Ptx}{P_{\mathrm{Tx}}}
51: \newcommand{\sumant}{\sum_{k=1}^K r_k}
52: \newcommand{\sumstreams}{\sum_{k=1}^K B_k}
53:
54:
55: \begin{document}
56:
57: \title{An Asymptotic Analysis of the MIMO BC under Linear Filtering}
58:
59: \author{\authorblockN{Raphael Hunger and Michael Joham}
60: \authorblockA{Associate Institute for Signal Processing, Technische
61: Universit{\"a}t
62: M{\"u}nchen,
63: 80290 Munich, Germany\\
64: Telephone: +49 89 289-28508, Fax: +49 89 289-28504,
65: Email: \texttt{hunger@tum.de}}}
66:
67: % \Titlepage{Raphael Hunger, Michael Joham, and Wolfgang Utschick}
68: % {Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers}{November 2007}
69: \maketitle
70:
71: \begin{abstract}
72: We investigate the MIMO broadcast channel in the high SNR regime
73: when linear filtering is applied instead of dirty paper coding.
74: Using a user-wise rate duality where the streams of
75: every single user are not treated as self-interference as
76: in the hitherto existing stream-wise rate dualities for linear filtering,
77: we solve the weighted
78: sum rate maximization problem of the broadcast channel in the dual multiple
79: access channel. Thus, we can exactly quantify the asymptotic rate loss of
80: linear filtering compared to dirty paper coding for any channel realization.
81: Having converted the optimum covariance matrices
82: to the broadcast channel by means of the duality, we observe that
83: the optimal covariance matrices
84: in the broadcast channel feature quite complicated but still closed form
85: expressions although the respective
86: transmit covariance matrices in the dual multiple access channel
87: share a very simple structure. We immediately come
88: to the conclusion that block-diagonalization is the asymptotically
89: optimum transmit strategy in the broadcast channel. Out of the set of
90: block-diagonalizing precoders, we present the one which achieves the
91: largest sum rate and thus corresponds to the optimum solution found
92: in the dual multiple access channel.
93: Additionally, we quantify the ergodic rate loss of linear coding compared
94: to dirty paper coding for Gaussian channels with correlations at the mobiles.
95:
96:
97:
98:
99: \end{abstract}
100:
101: \section{Introduction}
102:
103: While the sum capacity of the single-user MIMO point-to-point link
104: can be expressed semi-analytically in closed form~\cite{Telatar},
105: the simplest multi-user setup with single antenna terminals already
106: allows for the presumption
107: that this will remain infeasible in the broadcast and multiple access channel
108: irrespective of whether linear or nonlinear filtering is considered.
109: Fortunately, the high signal-to-noise ratio regime is an exception
110: to this deflating circumstance, since there, asymptotic results on the sum capacity
111: have been discovered for dirty paper coding and partly for linear
112: filtering.
113:
114: \subsection{Literature Overview}
115:
116: The single user point-to-point MIMO case was treated in~\cite{Salo_PtP,Salo_PtP_journal},
117: where the
118: \emph{Grant-Gauthier} lower bound on the mutual information, that becomes
119: asymptotically tight, was decomposed into
120: a supremum capacity term, an instantaneous SNR effect term, and an
121: instantaneous capacity degradation term due to the eigenvalue spread.
122: Outage capacity and throughput of a fading point-to-point MIMO system are analyzed
123: in~\cite{Prasad_Isit}.
124: The first high-SNR sum capacity analysis of the point-to-multipoint broadcast channel appeared
125: in~\cite{Jindal_single_antennas}, where single-antenna receivers were considered.
126: Therein, the affine approximation of the sum capacity introduced in~\cite{Shamai_affine}
127: and elaborately discussed in~\cite{Lozano}
128: was utilized. First, \cite{Jindal_single_antennas}
129: shows that the single-antenna broadcast channel has the same
130: asymptotic sum-capacity as the corresponding point-to-point MIMO link with cooperating
131: receive antennas, and second, how the power offset term in the broadcast channel looks like.
132: Furthermore,
133: the instantaneous and ergodic spectral efficiency
134: loss of linear zero-forcing beamforming with respect to DPC
135: was derived in~\cite{Jindal_single_antennas},
136: again for single antenna receivers.
137: The extension to multi-antenna receivers was presented in~\cite{DPCvsLin_Lee,Lee_MIMO},
138: where the asymptotic equivalence of the nonlinear dirty paper coding
139: sum capacity in the broadcast channel and
140: the sum capacity of the equivalent point-to-point MIMO link with cooperating receivers
141: was proven to hold in the multi-antenna case.
142: Out of the class of linear precoding schemes, zero-forcing and block-diagonalization
143: are considered. However, only \emph{ergodic} statements for the asymptotic sum rate and
144: the asymptotic rate loss with respect to dirty paper coding are derived, and a very
145: special fading model is a key prerequisite for the presented results.
146: Expressions for the instantaneous rate loss are not possible. Moreover, it is neither
147: known yet, whether block-diagonalization is the asymptotically optimum transmission strategy
148: or not in the broadcast channel when linear filtering is considered, nor
149: how the optimum block-diagonalizing precoder looks like.
150:
151: \subsection{Contributions}
152: %
153: The main contributions of this paper are summarized in the following list:
154: \begin{enumerate}
155: \item The derivation of the maximum weighted sum rate asymptotically achievable with linear filtering.
156: \item A closed form expression for the asymptotic rate loss of linear filtering
157: with respect to dirty paper coding for any antenna configuration at the base and
158: the mobiles.
159: \item A closed form solution of the covariance matrices in the dual uplink achieving this
160: maximum weighted sum rate.
161: \item We prove, that block diagonalization is asymptotically optimum in the broadcast channel.
162: \item Finally, we derive the optimum precoding and transmit covariance matrices in the
163: broadcast channel by means of our rate duality in~\cite{rate_duality_arxiv}.
164:
165: \end{enumerate}
166:
167: %\subsection{Organization}
168: %In Section~\ref{sec:system_model}, the system model underlying the multi-user
169: %scenario is described. The optimum signalling strategy for the weighted sum-rate
170: %maximization with linear filtering is derived in Section~\ref{sec:OS_MAC} in the
171: %dual multiple access channel and afterwards converted to the broadcast channel
172: %in Section~\ref{sec:OS_BC}. Ergodic expressions for the sum capacity under
173: %linear filtering are presented in Section~\ref{sec:ergodic}, numerical examples
174: %in Section~\ref{sec:numerical}, and
175: %Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes this paper.
176:
177:
178: \section{System Model}
179: \label{sec:system_model}
180:
181: We consider the communication between an $N$ antenna base station and
182: $K$ multi antenna terminals, where user~$k$ multiplexes~$B_k$ data streams
183: over his~$r_k$ antennas. For a short notation, we define $r$ as
184: the sum of all antennas at the terminals, i.e., $r=\sum_{k=1}^K r_k$,
185: and $b$ as the sum of all transmitted streams, i.e., $b=\sum_{k=1}^K B_k$.
186: In the MAC, user~$k$ applies a precoding matrix
187: $\B{T}_k\in\mathbb{C}^{r_k\times B_k}$
188: generating his $r_k\times r_k$ transmit covariance matrix $\B{Q}_k=\B{T}_k\B{T}_k^{\He}$.
189: The precoded symbol vector propagates over the
190: channel described by the matrix $\B{H}_k\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times r_k}$.
191: At the receiver side, zero-mean noise $\B{\eta}\in\mathbb{C}^N$ with identity
192: covariance matrix is added and the receive filter for user~$k$ is denoted
193: by $\B{G}_k\in\mathbb{C}^{B_k\times N}$.
194: Due to the reversed signal flow in the BC, we characterize the transmission from the
195: base station to terminal~$k$ by the Hermitian channel~$\B{H}_k^{\He}$
196: in the BC, the precoder dedicated to the $B_k$ streams of user~$k$
197: is denoted by $\B{P}_k\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times B_k}$, and zero-mean
198: noise $\B{\eta}_k\in\mathbb{C}^{r_k}$ with identity covariance matrix
199: is added at user~$k$. Throughout this paper, we assume that the base station has at least as many antennas
200: as the terminals have in sum, i.e., $N\geq r$.
201:
202: \section{Optimum Signalling in the Dual MAC}
203: \label{sec:OS_MAC}
204: %\section{Simulation Results}
205:
206: Introducing the composite channel matrix $\B{H}$ and the
207: composite block-diagonal precoder matrix~$\B{T}$ of all $K$ users via
208: \begin{align*}
209: \B{H} & = [\B{H}_1,\ldots,\B{H}_K] \in \mathbb{C}^{N\times r},
210: % \label{composite_channel}
211: \\
212: \B{T} & =\boldsymbol{\operatorname{blockdiag}}\{\B{T}_k\}_{k=1}^K \in \mathbb{C}^{r\times b},
213: % \label{composite_precoder}
214: \end{align*}
215: the rate of user~$k$ seeing interference from all other users
216: can be expressed as (see~\cite{rate_duality_arxiv})
217: \begin{equation}
218: \begin{aligned}
219: R_k & = \log_2\big|\id_{N}\!+\!\big(\id_N\!+\!\sum_{\ell\neq k}
220: \B{H}_{\ell}\B{Q}_{\ell}\B{H}_{\ell}^{\He}\big)^{-1}
221: \!\B{H}_k\B{Q}_k\B{H}_k^{\He}\big| \\
222: & = -\log_2\big|\id_{B_k} - \B{T}_k^{\He}\B{H}_k^{\He}\B{X}^{-1}\B{H}_k\B{T}_k\big|,
223: \end{aligned}
224: \label{rate_of_user}
225: \end{equation}
226: where the substitution $\B{X}$ reads as
227: \begin{equation*}
228: \B{X} =\id_N \!+\! \sum_{\ell=1}^K\B{H}_\ell\B{Q}_\ell\B{H}_{\ell}^{\He}
229: = \id_N \!+\! \B{H}\B{T}\B{T}^{\He}\B{H}^{\He}.
230: \end{equation*}
231: Reformulating the rate expression (\ref{rate_of_user}), we get
232: \begin{equation}
233: \begin{aligned}
234: R_k & = -\log_2\big|\B{E}_k^{\Tr}\big(\id_b-\B{T}^{\He}\B{H}^{\He}\B{X}^{-1}
235: \B{H}\B{T}\big)\B{E}_k\big| \\
236: & = -\log_2\big|\B{E}_k^{\Tr}\big(\id_b+\B{T}^{\He}\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\B{T}
237: \big)^{-1}\B{E}_k\big|,
238: \end{aligned}
239: \end{equation}
240: where the $k$th block unit matrix is defined via
241: \begin{equation*}
242: \B{E}_k^{\Tr} = [\zero,\ldots,\zero,\id_{B_k},\zero,\ldots,\zero] \in \{0;1\}^{B_k\times b}
243: \end{equation*}
244: with the identity matrix at the $k$th block.
245: Due to the assumption that the base station has more antennas than the terminals in sum,
246: all $r$ streams can be activated leading to square precoders $\B{T}_k$ with $B_k=r_k \ \forall k$.
247: Raising $\Ptx$, all $r$ streams become active, $\B{T}$ becomes full rank, and
248: all eigenvalues of $\B{T}^{\He}\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\B{T}$ become much larger than one.
249: In the asymptotic limit, we obtain
250: \begin{equation}
251: \begin{aligned}
252: R_k & \cong -\log_2 \big|\B{T}_k^{-1}\B{E}_k^{\Tr}
253: \big(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big)^{-1}\B{E}_k\B{T}_k^{-\He} \big| \\
254: & = \ \
255: \log_2\big|\B{Q}_k\big| - \log_2 \big|\B{E}_k^{\Tr}
256: \big(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big)^{-1}\B{E}_k \big|,
257: \end{aligned}
258: \end{equation}
259: since $\B{E}_k^{\Tr}\B{T}^{-1}=\B{T}_k^{-1}\B{E}_k^{\Tr}$.
260: The notation $x\cong y$ means that the difference $x-y$ vanishes when the sum power~$\Ptx$
261: goes to infinity.
262: Interestingly, the rate of user~$k$ depends only on the determinant of
263: his own transmit covariance matrix $\B{Q}_k$, and not on the covariance
264: matrices of the other users! Consequently, the eigenbases of all transmit covariance matrices do not
265: influence the rates of the users, only the powers of the eigenmodes are relevant.
266: Let the eigenvalue decomposition of $\B{Q}_k$ read as $\B{Q}_k=\B{V}_k\B{\Lambda}_k\B{V}_k^{\He}$
267: with unitary $\B{V}_k$ and the diagonal nonnegative power allocation $\B{\Lambda}_k$.
268: Due to the determinant operator, $\B{V}_k$ can be chosen arbitrarily and therefore,
269: we set $\B{V}_k=\id_{r_k} \ \forall k$ without loss of generality. Let the
270: power allocation matrix be composed by the entries
271: $\B{\Lambda}_k=\boldsymbol{\operatorname{diag}}\{\lambda_k^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^{r_k}$.
272: Due to the sum-power constraint, the determinant $|\B{Q}_k|=|\B{\Lambda}_k|$ is then maximized
273: by setting
274: \begin{equation}
275: \lambda_k^{(1)}=\ldots=\lambda_k^{(r_k)} := \lambda_k,
276: \end{equation}
277: i.e., by evenly distributing the power allocated to that user
278: onto his individual modes, so
279: $\B{Q}_k=\lambda_k \id_{r_k} \ \forall k$ with the sum-power constraint
280: %\begin{equation}
281: $\sum_{k=1}^Kr_k\lambda_k = \Ptx$.
282: %\end{equation}
283: Introducing nonnegative weight factors $w_1,\ldots,w_K$ for the rates
284: of the users, the weighted sum rate asymptotically reads as
285: \begin{equation}
286: % \begin{aligned}
287: \sum_{k=1}^K\! w_k R_k\! \cong\! %& \
288: \sum_{k=1}^K\! w_k\! \big(r_k \log_2\!\lambda_k
289: %\\ & \quad
290: \!-\! %\sum_{k=1}^K w_k
291: \log_2\! \big|\B{E}_k^{\Tr}
292: \big(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big)^{-1}\!\B{E}_k \big|\big).
293: % \end{aligned}
294: \label{asym_weighted}
295: \end{equation}
296: Subject to the sum power constraint $\sum_{k=1}^Kr_k\lambda_k = \Ptx$, the weighted sum rate in
297: (\ref{asym_weighted}) is maximized for
298: \begin{equation}
299: \lambda_k = \frac{w_k}{\sum_{\ell=1}^K w_\ell r_\ell}\Ptx,
300: \end{equation}
301: so the power is allocated to the users according to their weights
302: (similar to the single-antenna case proven in~\cite{DPCvsLin_Lee}),
303: and every user evenly distributes his fraction of power onto his modes.
304: In the case of identical weights $w_k=1 \ \forall k$,
305: the conventional sum rate asymptotically reads as
306: \begin{equation}
307: % \begin{aligned}
308: \sum_{k=1}^K R_k \cong %& \
309: r\log_2 \Ptx - r\log_2r% \\
310: % & \quad
311: -\sum_{k=1}^K \log_2 \big|\B{E}_k^{\Tr}
312: \big(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big)^{-1}\B{E}_k \big|,
313: % \end{aligned}
314: \label{asymptotic_rate_final}
315: \end{equation}
316: and is achieved with $\B{Q}_k=\Ptx/r\cdot\id_{r_k} \ \forall k$.
317: So, we are able to quantify the asymptotic sum rate
318: that can be achieved by means of linear filtering for every single channel realization
319: and antenna/user profile
320: in terms of the transmit power~$\Ptx$ and the channel itself.
321: In principle, the ergodic rate and the ergodic rate offset to dirty paper coding can
322: be obtained by averaging corresponding to \emph{any} distribution of the channel.
323: In~\cite{Lee_MIMO}, results on the \emph{ergodic} rate offset with respect to dirty paper coding
324: were presented for the specific case of Rayleigh fading only,
325: where the channel entries of $\B{H}_1,\ldots,\B{H}_K$
326: all have the same distribution. Simple near-far effects with different average
327: channel powers for example cannot be captured
328: due to this restricting assumption. Moreover, the instantaneous rate offset expression is given
329: by means of bases representing null spaces of shortened channel matrices
330: taken from \cite{Spencer_ZF}
331: and not as a function of the channel purely as we do in (\ref{asymptotic_rate_final}).
332:
333: Concerning the asymptotic rate expressions, we have now created a smooth
334: transition from the $r$ single-antenna-users system configuration in~\cite{Jindal_single_antennas} where
335: no cooperation exists between the antenna elements at the terminals, to the
336: single-user point-to-point MIMO link where all $r$ antennas fully cooperate, see~\cite{Telatar} for example.
337: In between, we can now specify any antenna/user profile we want and compute the feasible rate
338: in the asymptotic limit. Using dirty paper coding, the asymptotic sum rate reads as
339: \begin{equation}
340: \sum_{k=1}^K R_k^{\mathrm{DPC}} \cong r\log_2\Ptx - r\log_2 r + \log_2\big|\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big|
341: \label{DPC_rate}
342: \end{equation}
343: and corresponds to the rate of the fully cooperating point-to-point link \cite{Lee_MIMO}.
344: Combining (\ref{DPC_rate}) and (\ref{asymptotic_rate_final}), the rate loss
345: $\Delta R = \sum_{k=1}^K(R_k^{\mathrm{DPC}}-R_k)$ of
346: optimal linear filtering with respect to optimal
347: dirty paper coding reads as
348: \begin{equation}
349: \Delta R\cong \sum_{k=1}^K\log_2\!\big|\B{E}_k^{\Tr}(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H})^{-1}\B{E}_k\big|
350: - \log_2\!\big|(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H})^{-1}\big|,
351: \label{rate_difference}
352: \end{equation}
353: which of course vanishes, if all channels are pairwise orthogonal,
354: i.e., if $\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}$ is block-diagonal.
355: Of course, a block-type Hadamard inequality quickly leads to the inequality
356: \begin{equation*}
357: - \log_2\big|(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H})^{-1}\big| \geq
358: - \sum_{k=1}^K\log_2\big|\B{E}_k^{\Tr}(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H})^{-1}\B{E}_k\big|,
359: \end{equation*}
360: so linear filtering is obviously inferior to dirty paper coding.
361:
362: \section{Optimum Signalling in the BC}
363: \label{sec:OS_BC}
364:
365: Using our rate duality in \cite{rate_duality_arxiv}, we can convert the simple solution
366: for the covariance matrices in the dual MAC to covariance matrices in the BC, where the
367: Hermitian channels are applied. Since this duality explicitly uses the receive filters
368: in the MAC as scaled transmit matrices in the BC,
369: we first compute the MMSE receivers in the dual MAC, as they are optimum and generate
370: sufficient statistics. The receiver $\B{G}_k$ for user~$k$ in the dual MAC reads as
371: \begin{equation*}
372: \B{G}_k = \B{E}_k^{\Tr}\B{T}^{\He}\B{H}^{\He}\big(\id_N+\B{H}\B{T}\B{T}^{\He}\B{H}^{\He}\big)^{-1}.
373: \end{equation*}
374: With the asymptotically optimum precoders $\B{T}_k\!=\!\sqrt{\Ptx/r}\id_{r_k}$, above expression asymptotically converges to
375: \begin{equation}
376: \B{G}_k \cong \sqrt{r/\Ptx}\cdot\B{E}_k^{\Tr}\big(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big)^{-1}\B{H}^{\He}.
377: \label{asymptotic_G}
378: \end{equation}
379: Let $\B{P}_k$ denote the precoder of user~$k$ in the BC, then the $i$th column
380: $\B{p}_{k,i}$ of $\B{P}_k$
381: follows from the conjugate $i$th row $\B{g}_{k,i}^{\prime\Tr}$ of the matrix
382: $\B{G}_k^\prime=\B{W}^{\He}_k\B{G}_k$ via (see~\cite{rate_duality_arxiv})
383: \begin{equation}
384: \B{p}_{k,i} = \alpha_{k,i}\B{g}_{k,i}^{\prime*}
385: = \frac{\alpha_{k,i}}{\sqrt{\Ptx/r}} \cdot\B{H}\big(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big)^{-1}\B{E}_k
386: \B{W}_k\B{e}_i,
387: \label{pki_precoder}
388: \end{equation}
389: where the scaling factor $\alpha_{k,i}$ is obtained by the duality transformation
390: and $\B{W}_k$ is a unitary decorrelation matrix.
391: Since we convert only the asymptotically optimum transmit precoders and receive filters,
392: the duality transformation from the MAC to the BC
393: in~\cite{rate_duality_arxiv} drastically simplifies and can even be computed
394: in closed form. In particular, the matrices $\B{M}_{a,b}$
395: in \cite[Eq.~(23)]{rate_duality_arxiv} vanish
396: for~$a\neq b$ yielding a diagonal matrix~$\B{M}$ and therefore, the scaling factors read as
397: \begin{equation}
398: \alpha_{k,i} = \frac{\sqrt{\Ptx/r}}{\|\B{g}_{k,i}^{\prime}\|_2}.
399: \label{scaling_factor}
400: \end{equation}
401: In combination with (\ref{pki_precoder}), the $i$th column of the precoder associated to user~$k$ reads as
402: \begin{equation*}
403: \B{p}_{k,i} =\sqrt{\Ptx/r}\cdot \frac{ \B{H}\big(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big)^{-1}\B{E}_k\B{W}_k\B{e}_i}
404: {\big\| \B{H}\big(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big)^{-1}\B{E}_k
405: \B{W}_k\B{e}_i\big\|_2},
406: \end{equation*}
407: generating the precoder matrix
408: \begin{equation}
409: \B{P}_k = \sqrt{\Ptx/r} \cdot
410: \B{H}\big(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big)^{-1}\B{E}_k\B{W}_k \B{D}_k^{-1},
411: \label{BC_precoder}
412: \end{equation}
413: where the $i$th diagonal element of the diagonal matrix $\B{D}_k$ is
414: \begin{equation}
415: [\B{D}_k]_{i,i} = \sqrt{\B{e}_i^{\Tr}\B{W}_k^{\He}\B{E}_k^{\Tr}\big(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big)^{-1}
416: \B{E}_k\B{W}_k\B{e}_i}.
417: \label{D_matrix}
418: \end{equation}
419: We can immediately see, that the precoding filters in (\ref{BC_precoder}) lead to a block
420: diagonalization of the transmission, since $\B{H}_{\ell}^{\He}\B{P}_k=\zero$ holds for $k\neq \ell$.
421: Next, the decorrelation matrix $\B{W}_k$ which enables the duality is usually
422: chosen as the eigenbasis of $\B{G}_k\B{H}_k\B{T}_k\cong \id_{r_k}$, which asymptotically coincides with
423: the identity matrix due to~(\ref{asymptotic_G}). Since all eigenvalues are identical to one, the
424: decorrelation matrices $\B{W}_k$ are not given a priori, but can easily be computed such that the BC features the
425: same sum rate as the dual MAC. By means of (\ref{BC_precoder}) and the block diagonalization property of the precoders, we obtain for user $k$'s receive signal
426: \begin{equation}
427: \B{y}_k = \B{H}_k^{\He}\B{P}_k\B{s}_k+\B{\eta}_k = \sqrt{\Ptx/r} \cdot
428: \B{W}_k \B{D}_k^{-1}\B{s}_k + \B{\eta}_k,
429: \label{received_signal_k}
430: \end{equation}
431: where $\B{\eta}_k\in\mathbb{C}^{r_k}$ is the noise
432: and $\B{s}_k$ the symbol vector
433: of user~$k$ both having an identity covariance matrix.
434: From (\ref{received_signal_k}), the rate of user~$k$ achieved in the BC reads as
435: \begin{equation*}
436: R_k = \log_2\Big|\id_{r_k} + \Ptx/r\cdot \B{W}_k\B{D}_k^{-2}\B{W}_k^{\He}\Big|,
437: \end{equation*}
438: which asymptotically converges to
439: \begin{equation}
440: R_k \cong r_k\log_2\Ptx - r_k\log_2 r - \log_2 |\B{D}_k^2|.
441: \label{rate_BC}
442: \end{equation}
443: Above expression is maximized, if we choose $\B{W}_k$ as the unitary eigenbasis of
444: $\B{E}_k^{\Tr}(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H})^{-1}\B{E}_k$, see (\ref{D_matrix}), such that
445: $\B{D}_k^2$ contains the eigenvalues, i.e., the elements of $\B{D}_k^2$ are as different
446: as possible.
447: Thus, the transmit covariance matrix $\B{S}_k=\B{P}_k\B{P}_k^{\He}$ of user~$k$ reads as
448: \begin{equation}
449: \B{S}_k = \frac{\Ptx}{r} \cdot \B{H}^{+\He}\B{E}_k
450: \big(\B{E}_k^{\Tr}(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H})^{-1}\B{E}_k\big)^{-1}\B{E}_k^{\Tr}\B{H}^+
451: \label{BC_covariance}
452: \end{equation}
453: with the channel pseudo-inverse $\B{H}^+=(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H})^{-1}\B{H}^{\He}$.
454: Note that $r_k$ eigenvalues of $\B{S}_k$ are $\Ptx/r$ whereas the remaining $N-r_k$
455: ones are zero. Thus, $\B{S}_k$ is a weighted orthogonal projector.
456: Furthermore, $\tr(\B{S}_k)=\Ptx/r \ \forall k$, so the power is uniformly
457: allocated to the individual users in the broadcast channel as well.
458: Comparing (\ref{BC_covariance}) with the simple solution of the
459: transmit covariance matrix $\B{Q}_k=\Ptx/r\cdot\id_{r_k}$ in the dual MAC,
460: it becomes obvious that the optimum covariance matrices
461: are much more difficult to find directly in the BC without using the rate duality,
462: than in the dual MAC.
463: Plugging the optimum $\B{D}_k^2$ containing the eigenvalues of $\B{E}_k^{\Tr}(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H})^{-1}\B{E}_k$
464: into (\ref{rate_BC}) finally yields
465: \begin{equation}
466: R_k \cong r_k\log_2\Ptx - r_k\log_2 r - \log_2
467: \big|\B{E}_k^{\Tr}(\B{H}^{\He}\B{H})^{-1}\B{E}_k\big|.
468: \nonumber
469: \end{equation}
470: Hence, the maximum sum rate (\ref{asymptotic_rate_final})
471: in the dual MAC is also achieved in the BC.
472:
473: \section{Ergodic Rate Expressions}
474: \label{sec:ergodic}
475:
476: In this section, we derive expressions for the asymptotic sum rate
477: when averaging over the channel realizations. The simple channel model
478: in~\cite{Lee_MIMO,Jindal_single_antennas} is a prerequisite for
479: the application of the ergodic analysis
480: due to the fact that an instantaneous analysis is not possible there.
481: We choose a more realistic channel where
482: near-far effects and channel correlations at the terminals are modeled as well,
483: i.e., the individual users can also have different average channel powers.
484: Thanks to our closed form expression of the
485: maximum asymptotic rate for an instantaneous channel realization,
486: the following ergodic analysis
487: is basically feasible for \emph{any} distribution of the channel
488: coefficients.
489: The channel matrices of the chosen near-far channel model
490: with transmit correlations (in the MAC)
491: are defined by
492: $\B{H}_k = \bar{\B{H}}_k \B{C}_k^{\frac{1}{2}}\ \forall k$, where the elements of
493: $\bar{\B{H}}_k$ are uncorrelated and share a zero-mean i.i.d. Gaussian distribution
494: with variance one, and the Hermitian matrix $\B{C}_k^{\frac{1}{2}}$ contains
495: the correlations. An uncorrelated channel purely modeling the near-far effect
496: can be obtained by setting $\B{C}_k = c_k\id_{r_k}$,
497: where $c_k>0$ is then the inverse path loss of user~$k$.
498: Let the $r\times r$ matrix $\B{C}$ be defined via
499: \begin{equation*}
500: \B{C} = \boldsymbol{\operatorname{blockdiag}}\{\B{C}_k\}_{k=1}^K,
501: \end{equation*}
502: then the frequently arising inverse of $\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}$ reads as
503: \begin{equation*}
504: (\B{H}^{\He}\B{H})^{-1} = \B{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\bar{\B{H}}{}^{\He}\bar{\B{H}})^{-1}
505: \B{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}},
506: \end{equation*}
507: where $\bar{\B{H}}^{\He}\bar{\B{H}}\sim \mathcal{W}_r(N,\id_r)$ has a \emph{Wishart}
508: distribution with $N$ degrees of freedom and
509: $(\bar{\B{H}}{}^{\He}\bar{\B{H}})^{-1}\sim\mathcal{W}^{-1}_r(N,\id_r)$ has an \emph{inverse Wishart}
510: distribution, see~\cite{MV_Statistical,Matrix_Variate}.
511: Thus, the ergodic value for the channel dependent log-summand
512: in the DPC sum rate expression~(\ref{DPC_rate}) reads as~\cite{Random_Matrix}
513: \begin{equation}
514: \Expect\big[\log_2\big|\B{H}^{\He}\B{H}\big|\big] =
515: \frac{1}{\ln 2}\sum_{\ell=0}^{r-1}\psi(N-\ell)
516: + \sum_{k=1}^K \log_2 |\B{C}_k|,
517: \label{DPC_ergodic}
518: \end{equation}
519: where the \emph{Digamma}-function $\psi(\cdot)$ with integer arguments is defined
520: via~\cite{Random_Matrix}
521: \begin{equation}
522: \psi(n+1) = \psi(n) + \frac{1}{n} \ \ \text{if} \ n\in\mathbb{N},\ \ \psi(1) = -\gamma,
523: \label{Digamma}
524: \end{equation}
525: and $\gamma$ is the \emph{Euler-Mascheroni} constant.
526: Note from~(\ref{DPC_ergodic}) that different path losses and correlations in the channel coefficients
527: simply lead to a shift of the
528: asymptotic rate curve.
529: Concerning the rate expressions with linear filtering,
530: we exploit the property that the $k$th main diagonal block
531: of $(\bar{\B{H}}^{\He}\bar{\B{H}})^{-1}$ is also inverse
532: Wishart~\cite{Matrix_Variate}:
533: \begin{equation*}
534: \B{E}_k^{\Tr}(\bar{\B{H}}^{\He}\bar{\B{H}})^{-1}\B{E}_k \sim
535: \mathcal{W}^{-1}_{r_k}(N-r+r_k,\id_{r_k}),
536: \end{equation*}
537: In combination with
538: $\B{E}_k^{\Tr}\B{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\B{C}_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}\B{E}_k^{\Tr}$, this leads
539: to the ergodic expression%~\cite{}
540: \begin{equation}
541: \begin{aligned}
542: & \Expect\big[
543: \log_2\big|\B{C}_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}
544: \B{E}_k^{\Tr}(\bar{\B{H}}^{\He}\bar{\B{H}})^{-1}\B{E}_k\B{C}_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}
545: \big|
546: \big] = \\ & \quad - \log_2 |\B{C}_k|
547: - \frac{1}{\ln 2}
548: \sum_{\ell=0}^{r_k-1} \psi(N-r+r_k-\ell).
549: \end{aligned}
550: \label{linear_ergodic}
551: \end{equation}
552: By means of (\ref{DPC_ergodic}) and (\ref{linear_ergodic}),
553: averaging over the asymptotic rate
554: difference $\Delta R$ in~(\ref{rate_difference}) between
555: linear filtering and DPC yields
556: \begin{equation}
557: \Expect[\Delta R] \cong
558: \frac{1}{\ln 2}\Big[\sum_{\ell=0}^{r-1}\psi(N\!-\!\ell)
559: -\! \sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{\ell=0}^{r_k-1}
560: \psi(N\!-\!r\!+\!r_k\!-\!\ell)\Big],
561: \label{general_erg_loss}
562: \end{equation}
563: from which we can observe that the near-far effect with different path
564: losses and channel correlations does not influence the rate difference, since both
565: DPC and linear filtering are affected in the same way.
566:
567: The general expression (\ref{general_erg_loss})
568: for the ergodic rate loss $\Expect[\Delta R]$
569: can be simplified by means of~(\ref{Digamma}),
570: when all users are equipped with the same number of antennas.
571: For the first special case, assume that each user has $\bar{r}>1$ antennas, i.e.,
572: $r_1=\ldots=r_K=\bar{r}$, such that the total number of antennas therefore
573: is $r=K\bar{r}$. After some manipulations, we obtain
574: \begin{equation}
575: \Expect[\Delta R] \cong \frac{1}{\ln 2}
576: \bigg[\sum_{\ell=1}^{(K-1)\bar{r}}\frac{\ell}{N-\ell}
577: + \sum_{\ell=1}^{\bar{r}-1}\frac{(K-1)\ell}{N-K\bar{r}+\ell} \bigg],
578: \label{equal_ant_ergodic_rateloss}
579: \end{equation}
580: which coincides with the results in~\cite{DPCvsLin_Lee,Lee_MIMO}, but is a different
581: representation. For convenience, we assume that the summation vanishes if the upper limit of
582: a sum is smaller than the lower one, which happens for $\bar{r}=1$.
583: In this second special case with single antenna receivers,
584: i.e., $\bar{r}=1=r_k \ \forall k$ and $r=K$, the second sum
585: in~(\ref{equal_ant_ergodic_rateloss})
586: consequently vanishes, and the ergodic rate loss simplifies to
587: \begin{equation}
588: \Expect[\Delta R] \cong \frac{1}{\ln 2}
589: \sum_{\ell=1}^{K-1} \frac{\ell}{N-\ell},
590: \label{single_ant_ergodic_rateloss}
591: \end{equation}
592: which is also a result of~\cite{Jindal_single_antennas}.
593:
594: \section{Numerical Examples}
595: \label{sec:numerical}
596:
597: In Table~\ref{table:erg_loss}, we present the ergodic rate loss of linear filtering
598: with respect to dirty paper coding
599: for different parameters $N$, $K$, $\bar{r}$, $r_1$, and $r_2$, where
600: we employed (\ref{equal_ant_ergodic_rateloss})
601: and (\ref{single_ant_ergodic_rateloss}) for
602: the case $\bar{r}=r_1=\ldots=r_K$ (cf.\ \cite{Jindal_single_antennas,DPCvsLin_Lee,Lee_MIMO})
603: and (\ref{general_erg_loss}) for the case of different numbers of antennas
604: $r_1$, $r_2$.
605: It can be seen that a fully loaded single antenna system with $K=N$ and $\bar{r}=1$
606: has to face a significant rate reduction when switching from nonlinear to linear filtering.
607: Moreover, comparing the $K=2$ and $\bar{r}=3$ system with the one where $K=3$ and $\bar{r}=2$,
608: we observe that the rate loss in the first system is only
609: $65$ percent
610: of the one in the second
611: system for $N=6$. We can infer that fewer terminals with many
612: antennas have to face smaller rate losses than many terminals with only few antennas.
613:
614: Next, we plot the ergodic sum capacity with DPC and the ergodic
615: sum rate when linear filtering is
616: applied versus the transmit power~$\Ptx$ to see how large $\Ptx$ must be to let
617: the asymptotic affine approximations become tight. To this end, we choose a system
618: configuration where $K=2$ users each having $\bar{r}=2$ antennas are served by
619: an $N=5$ antenna base station. Different path losses are modeled by setting
620: $\B{C}_1=\id_2$ and $\B{C}_2=2\cdot\id_2$, i.e., user~$2$ has a stronger channel
621: on average, and we averaged over 1000 channel realizations.
622: While the DPC sum capacity can easily be computed via the algorithms
623: in~\cite{sum_power_iterative} or~\cite{HuScUt07}, an algorithm proven
624: to reach the maximum sum rate under
625: linear filtering does not seem to be available yet. Hence, we utilize
626: our combinatorial approach in~\cite{HuScJo08}, which obtains the
627: best sum rate hitherto known in the case of linear filtering.
628: Fig.~\ref{fig:sum_rate_and_affine_approx}
629: shows that the asymptotic affine approximations become tight already for
630: $\Ptx$ smaller than $20\mathrm{dB}$ and confirms the asymptotic ergodic rate loss
631: $\Expect[\Delta R]\cong 2.04$ from Table~\ref{table:erg_loss} which is
632: independent of the different average channel powers.
633: For a multiplexing gain of $r=4$ as in the chosen system configuration,
634: this translates to an asymptotic power
635: loss of $1.54\mathrm{dB}$ of linear filtering with respect to DPC.
636:
637: \section{Conclusion}
638: \label{sec:conclusion}
639:
640: In this paper, we derived the asymptotic sum capacity which is maximally
641: achievable with \emph{linear} filtering in the broadcast channel by means of our
642: rate duality linking the rate region of the multiple access channel with the
643: broadcast channel rate region.
644: Due to the closed form expression of the asymptotic sum capacity for every single
645: channel realization, the instantaneous rate loss with respect to dirty paper
646: coding was presented, and the ergodic rate loss can quickly
647: be computed or simulated for any distribution of the fading process.
648: As an example, we presented the solution of the ergodic rate loss for
649: a simple fading model incorporating the near-far effect and correlations
650: at the mobiles.
651: Another key result proven is that block-diagonalization is the asymptotically
652: optimum transmission strategy in the broadcast channel.
653: \begin{table}[t]
654: \renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
655: \tabcolsep7pt
656: \centering
657: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
658: \hline
659: $K$,$\bar{r}$ & $N\!=\!2$ & $N\!=\!3$ & $N\!=\!4$ & $N\!=\!5$ & $N\!=\!6$ \\
660: \hline
661: \hline
662: $2,1$ & $1.443$ & $0.721$ & $0.481$ & $0.361$ & $0.289$\\
663: \hline
664: $3,1$ & - & $3.607$ & $1.924$ & $1.322$ & $1.010$\\
665: \hline
666: $4,1$ & - & - & $6.252$ & $3.487$ & $2.453$\\
667: \hline
668: $5,1$ & - & - & - & $9.257$ & $5.338$\\
669: \hline
670: $6,1$ & - & - & - & - & $12.551$\\
671: \hline
672: % $7,1$ & - & - & - & - & - & $16.086$ & $9.728$ \\
673: % \hline
674: % $8,1$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & 19.827\\
675: % \hline
676: $2,2$ & - & - & $3.366$ & $2.044$ & $1.491$\\
677: \hline
678: $2,3$ & - & - & - & - & $5.338$\\
679: \hline
680: % $2,4$ & - & - & - & - & - & - &$7.323$ \\
681: % \hline
682: $3,2$ & - & - & - & - & $8.223$\\
683: \hline
684: % $4,2$ & - & - & - & - & - & - & $14.056$ \\
685: % \hline
686: \hline
687: $r_1,r_2$ & $N\!=\!2$ & $N\!=\!3$ & $N\!=\!4$ & $N\!=\!5$ & $N\!=\!6$\\
688: \hline
689: 1,2 & - & $2.164$ & $1.202$ & $0.842$ & $0.649$\\
690: \hline
691: 1,3 & - & - & $2.645$ & $1.563$ & $1.130$\\
692: \hline
693: 1,4 & - & - & - & $3.006$ & $1.851$\\
694: \hline
695: 2,3 & - & - & - & $4.208$ &$2.693$\\
696: \hline
697: 2,4 & - & - & - & - & $4.857$\\
698: \hline
699:
700: %
701: \end{tabular}
702: \renewcommand\arraystretch{1.0}
703: \tabcolsep6pt
704: \caption{Asymptotic ergodic rate loss $\Expect[\Delta R]$
705: in $\mathrm{bits/s/Hz}$; $N$ antennas at the base,
706: $K$ users, $r_k$ antennas at user $k$.}
707: \label{table:erg_loss}
708: \end{table}
709:
710:
711: \begin{figure}[t]
712: \centering
713: \psfrag{a}[c][c]{$10 \log_{10}\Ptx / \mathrm{dB}$}
714: \psfrag{b}[c][c]{Sum Rate $\cdot \mathrm{Hz\ s/bits}$}
715: \psfrag{c}[c][c]{$\Expect[\Delta R]$}
716:
717: \psfrag{a1}[tr][tr]{{\footnotesize Sum Capacity DPC}}
718: \psfrag{a2}[r][r]{{\footnotesize Sum Rate Linear}}
719: \psfrag{a3}[r][r]{{\footnotesize Affine Approx.\ DPC}}
720: \psfrag{a4}[r][r]{{\footnotesize Affine Approx.\ Linear}}
721:
722: \psfrag{-10}{{\footnotesize -10}}
723: \psfrag{-5}{{\footnotesize -5}}
724: \psfrag{0}{{\footnotesize 0}}
725: \psfrag{5}{{\footnotesize 5}}
726: \psfrag{10}{{\footnotesize 10}}
727: \psfrag{15}{{\footnotesize 15}}
728: \psfrag{20}{{\footnotesize 20}}
729: \psfrag{25}{{\footnotesize 25}}
730: \psfrag{30}{{\footnotesize 30}}
731: \psfrag{35}{{\footnotesize 35}}
732: \psfrag{40}{{\footnotesize 40}}
733:
734:
735:
736:
737:
738: \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{asym_plot.eps}
739: \caption{Ergodic sum rate of linear filtering and DPC and their respective affine approximations
740: with $K=2$, $N=5$, and $r_1=r_2=\bar{r}=2$.}
741: \label{fig:sum_rate_and_affine_approx}
742: \end{figure}
743: \bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
744: \bibliography{IEEEabrv,references}
745:
746:
747:
748: \end{document}
749:
750:
751: