1:
2: %\documentclass[11pt,onecolumn,draftcls,dvips]{IEEEtran}
3: \documentclass[10pt,twocolumn,final]{IEEEtran}
4: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,epsfig,color}
5: \usepackage[breaklinks=true,colorlinks=true,linkcolor=black,urlcolor=dblue,citecolor=black,pdfpagemode=None,pdfstartview=FitH]{hyperref}
6: \usepackage{graphicx,verbatim}
7:
8: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
9: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
10: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
11: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
12: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
13: \newtheorem{remark}{Comment}[section]
14: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
15: \definecolor{gray}{cmyk}{.2,0.2,.3,.1}
16: \definecolor{dread}{cmyk}{0,0.9,0.4,0.3}
17: \definecolor{dblue}{rgb}{0,0,0.5}
18: \definecolor{dgreen}{rgb}{0,0.3,0}
19: \definecolor{dgray}{rgb}{0.3,0.3,0}
20:
21: %\pagestyle{plain}
22:
23:
24: \newcommand{\xvec}{{\bf x}}
25: \newcommand{\yvec}{{\bf y}}
26: \newcommand{\uvec}{{\bf u}}
27: \newcommand{\vvec}{{\bf v}}
28: \newcommand{\Rgood}{R_{x1}}
29: \newcommand{\Rbad}{R_{x2}}
30: \newcommand{\typ}{A_{\epsilon}^{(n)}}
31: \newcommand{\styp}{A_{\epsilon}^{*(n)}}
32: \newcommand{\stypd}{A_{\delta}^{*(n)}}
33: \newcommand{\wveci}{w_{1,i},w_{2,i}}
34: \newcommand{\wbadii}{w_{2,i-1}}
35: \newcommand{\tw}{\tilde{w}}
36: \newcommand{\tS}{\widetilde{S}}
37: \newcommand{\ts}{\widetilde{s}}
38: \newcommand{\tuvec}{\widetilde{\bf{u}}}
39: \newcommand{\wvecvar}{{\bf W}}
40: \newcommand{\mC}{\mathcal{C}}
41: \newcommand{\mU}{\mathcal{U}}
42: \newcommand{\mhU}{\mathcal{\hat{U}}}
43: \newcommand{\mX}{\mathcal{X}}
44: \newcommand{\mY}{\mathcal{Y}}
45: \newcommand{\mV}{\mathcal{V}}
46: \newcommand{\mhV}{\mathcal{\hat{V}}}
47: \newcommand{\mD}{\mathcal{D}}
48: \newcommand{\mW}{\mathcal{W}}
49: \newcommand{\mL}{\mathcal{L}}
50: \newcommand{\mZ}{\mathcal{Z}}
51: \newcommand{\Iu}{I\left(U;Y_1,\hat{U}\right)}
52: \newcommand{\Iv}{I\left(V;Y_2,\hat{V}\right)}
53: \newcommand{\Iuv}{I\left(U;V\right)}
54: \newcommand{\hW}{\hat{W}}
55: \newcommand{\hU}{\hat{U}}
56: \newcommand{\hV}{\hat{V}}
57: \newcommand{\hu}{\hat{u}}
58: \newcommand{\hv}{\hat{v}}
59: \newcommand{\hz}{\hat{z}}
60: \newcommand{\huvec}{\hat{{\bf u}}}
61: \newcommand{\hvvec}{\hat{{\bf v}}}
62: \newcommand{\hyvec}{\hat{{\bf y}}}
63: \newcommand{\Perr}{P_e^{(n)}}
64: \newcommand{\magD}{\left|\left|\mD_{ij}\right|\right|}
65: \newcommand{\magDone}{\left|\left|\mD_{11}\right|\right|}
66: \newcommand{\de}{\delta \left(\epsilon\right)}
67: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}
68: \newcommand{\hw}{\hat{w}}
69: \newcommand{\rend}{\hfill$\square$}
70: \newcommand{\tend}{\hfill$\blacksquare$}
71:
72:
73: \setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
74:
75:
76:
77: \title{Broadcast Channels with Cooperating Decoders
78: \thanks{The authors are with the School of Electrical and Computer
79: Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. URL:
80: \href{http://cn.ece.cornell.edu}{{\tt http://cn.ece.cornell.edu/}}. Parts of this
81: work were presented at the International Symposium on Information Theory, Chicago, 2004 and
82: the International Symposium on Information Theory, Adelaide, Australia, 2005.
83: Work supported by the National Science Foundation, under awards
84: CCR-0238271 (CAREER), CCR-0330059, and ANR-0325556.}}
85: \author{Ron Dabora \hspace{2cm} Sergio D.\ Servetto}
86:
87: \begin{document}
88: \maketitle
89:
90: \begin{picture}(0,0)
91: \put(0,42){\tt\small To appear in the IEEE Transactions on Information
92: Theory, December 2006.}
93: \end{picture}
94:
95:
96: \begin{abstract}
97: We consider the problem of communicating over the general discrete memoryless broadcast channel
98: (BC) with partially cooperating receivers. In our setup, receivers
99: are able to exchange messages over noiseless conference links of
100: finite capacities, prior to decoding the messages sent from the
101: transmitter.
102: In this paper we formulate the general problem of
103: broadcast with cooperation. We first find the capacity region for the
104: case where the BC is physically degraded. Then, we give
105: achievability results for the general broadcast
106: channel, for both the two independent messages case and the single common message case.
107:
108: \end{abstract}
109:
110: \begin{keywords}
111: Broadcast channels, cooperative broadcast, relay channels, channel capacity, network information
112: theory.
113: \end{keywords}
114:
115:
116:
117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
118: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
119:
120:
121:
122: \section{introduction}
123: \label{sec:intro}
124:
125:
126: \subsection{Motivation}
127: In the classic broadcast scenario the receivers decode their
128: messages independently of each other. However, the increasing interest in
129: networking motivates the consideration of broadcast scenarios in
130: which each node in the network, besides decoding its own
131: information, tries to help other nodes in decoding. This problem
132: comes up naturally in sensor networks, where a transmitter external
133: to the sensor network wants to download data into the network, e.g.,
134: to configure the sensor array. The concept of cooperation among
135: receivers is also relevant to general ad-hoc networks, since such
136: cooperation provides a method for increasing the rates without
137: increasing the spectrum allocation. Therefore, this motivates the
138: study of the effect of receiver cooperation on the rates for the
139: broadcast channel.
140:
141:
142:
143: \subsection{The Discrete Memoryless Broadcast Channel (DMBC)}
144: \label{sec:generalBCintro}
145:
146: The broadcast channel was introduced by Cover in~\cite{Cover:72}.
147: Following this initial work, Bergmans proved an achievability result
148: for the degraded BC,~\cite{Bergmans:73}, and also a partial converse
149: that holds only for the Gaussian broadcast
150: channel~\cite{Bergmans:74}; in~\cite{Gallager:74} Gallager
151: established a converse that holds for any discrete memoryless
152: degraded broadcast channel. In \cite{ElGamal:79} El-Gamal
153: generalized the capacity result for the degraded broadcast channel
154: to the ``more capable" case, and in \cite{ElGamal:78} and
155: \cite{ElGamal:81} he showed that feedback does not increase the
156: capacity region for the physically degraded case. Several other
157: classes of broadcast channels were studied in the following years.
158: For example, the sum and product of two degraded broadcast channels
159: were considered in \cite{ElGamal:80}, and in \cite{Han:81},
160: \cite{Pinsker:78} and \cite{Gelfand:77} the deterministic broadcast
161: channel was analyzed.
162:
163: For the general broadcast channel, Cover derived an achievable rate region for the case of two independent
164: senders in \cite{Cover:75}.
165: In \cite{KornerMarton:77} Korner and Marton considered the capacity of
166: general broadcast channels with degraded message
167: sets. The best achievable region and the best upper bound for the two independent senders case
168: were derived by Marton in~\cite{Marton:79}, and a
169: simple proof of Marton's achievable region appeared later in~\cite{ElGamalM:81}.
170: Another upper bound for the general broadcast channel, the so-called degraded, same-marginals (DSM) bound,
171: was presented in \cite{DSM:2002}. This bound is weaker than the upper bound in \cite{Marton:79} but stronger
172: than Sato's upper bound previously presented in \cite{Sato:78}.
173: We note, however, that while Marton's upper bound is the strongest, it is valid only for the two-receiver case,
174: while Sato's bound and the DSM bound can be extended to more than two receivers.
175: The effect of feedback on the capacity of the Gaussian broadcast channel was studied in \cite{Ozarow:84} and
176: \cite{Elia:2004}, and in \cite{HanCosta:87} the case of correlated sources was considered.
177: A survey on the topic, with extensive references to
178: previous work, can be found in \cite{Cover:98}.
179: In recent years the Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) Gaussian broadcast channel
180: has attracted a lot of attention. Initially, the sum-rate capacity was characterized in \cite{CaireShamai:03},
181: \cite{VishTse:03}, \cite{JindalGoldsmith:04}, \cite{YuCioffi:04}, and finally, in \cite{Yossi:04} the capacity region
182: was obtained.
183:
184: None of the early work on the DMBC considered {\em direct} cooperation between the
185: receivers.
186: \begin{figure}[ht]
187: \center\scalebox{0.48}{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}}
188: \caption{\small Broadcast channel with two private messages and cooperating receivers.}
189: \label{fig:broadcast-cooperation-twousers}
190: \end{figure}
191: In the cooperative broadcast scenario, a single transmitter sends
192: two messages to two receivers encoded in a single channel codeword
193: $X^n$, where the superscript $n$ denotes the length of a vector.
194: Each of the receivers gets a noisy version of the codeword,
195: $Y_1^n$ at $\Rgood$ and $Y_2^n$ at $\Rbad$. After reception, the
196: receivers exchange messages over noiseless conference links of
197: finite capacities $C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$, as depicted in Figure
198: \ref{fig:broadcast-cooperation-twousers}.
199: %\footnote{The links are
200: %termed ``finite capacity and noiseless" since a finite capacity link
201: %is not necessarily noiseless, thus channel coding is required to achieve
202: %capacity. In the model considered here, treating the links as noiseless implies that
203: % messages can be exchanged over the links
204: %with zero probability of error without the use of coding, as long as the rate is below capacity. Such
205: %model is used for example in \cite{DraperFK:03}, \cite{Zhang:88} and \cite{Willems:83}.}.
206: The conference messages are, in general, functions of $Y_1^n$ (at $\Rgood$),
207: $Y_2^n$ (at $\Rbad$), and the previous messages received from the
208: other decoder. After conferencing, each receiver decodes its own message.
209:
210: We note that in a recent work,~\cite{DraperFK:03}, the authors consider
211: the problem of interactive decoding of a single broadcast message over
212: the independent broadcast channel by a group of cooperating users. In our work
213: we extend this scenario to the general channel and also consider the two independent senders~case.
214:
215:
216:
217: \subsection{Cooperative Broadcast: A Combination of Broadcasting and Relaying}
218: The scenario
219: in which one transceiver helps a second transceiver in decoding a
220: message is clearly a {\em relay} scenario. Hence, cooperative
221: broadcast can be viewed as a generalization of the broadcast and
222: relay scenarios into a hybrid broadcast/relay system, which better
223: describes future communication networks.
224:
225: Scenarios of this type have attracted considerable attention recently both from the practical
226: and the theoretical aspects. From the practical aspect,
227: new protocols are proposed for the collaborative broadcast scenario. For example in
228: \cite{Willke:2004} the authors present a protocol for collaborative
229: decision making involving broadcasting and relaying.
230: From the theoretical aspect, there is a considerable effort invested in characterizing
231: the capacity of an entire network. This work started with \cite{Meulen:71} and recent
232: results appear in \cite{GuptaKumar:2000} and the following
233: work \cite{GastparV:2005}, \cite{GuptaKumar:2003} and \cite{XieKumar:2004}. This work focuses on the Gaussian
234: case. A complementing approach for studying the performance of a network is to combine the basic
235: building blocks of a network, namely multiple access, relaying and broadcasting and study the
236: capacity of these combinations. The recent work on relaying focuses on extending the single relay
237: results derived in \cite{CoverG:79} to the MIMO case (see for example \cite{WangZhang:2005}) and to the multiple
238: level case \cite{XieKumar:2005}, \cite{KramerGupta:2003}. Another recent result
239: was introduced in \cite{MOT:05} where joint decoding was applied to the combined decode-and-forward and
240: estimate-and-forward scheme of \cite[theorem 7]{CoverG:79}. A third approach for studying the
241: performance of an entire network is the network coding approach sparked by the work of \cite{NetCod:2000},
242: which focuses on encoding at the nodes for maximizing the network throughput, separately from the
243: channel coding.
244:
245: In this paper we focus on the combination of broadcast and relay.
246: A relevant work in this context is \cite{Zhang:88},
247: in which the capacity of a class of independent relay channels with noiseless
248: relay is derived. Note that the case of
249: noiseless relay is also related to the Wyner-Ziv problem
250: \cite{WynerZiv:76}. This relationship will be highlighted in the
251: sequel. Lastly, we note that a recent work, \cite{Liang:04}, presented an achievability
252: result for the general DMBC with a single wireless cooperation channel from
253: one receiver to the second receiver. This achievable rate region is shown to be the capacity
254: region for the physically degraded broadcast/relay channel.
255:
256:
257:
258:
259:
260: \subsection{Main Contributions and Organization}
261:
262: In the following we summarize the main contributions of this work.
263: \begin{itemize}
264: \item We initially study a special case of the general setup
265: formulated in Section~\ref{sec:generalBCintro}: the case of the
266: physically degraded broadcast channel. Although the physically
267: degraded BC is of little practical interest, it is useful in
268: developing the coding concept for the general BC with cooperation.
269: For the physically degraded BC, we present both an achievability
270: result and a converse. Together, these two results give the capacity region for this setup.
271: Furthermore, this new region is shown to be a strict enlargement
272: of the classical region without cooperation~\cite{Cover:98}.
273: \item Next, we give an achievability result for the general BC with
274: cooperating receivers. This region is also greater, in general,
275: than the classic achievable region given in~\cite{Marton:79} for
276: the broadcast channel.
277: % We introduce here {\em joint} decoding of source and relay messages at the destination
278: % rather than decoding them sequentially as in \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79}. We show that the region obtained in
279: % this manner is larger than the one obtained by application of \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79} to our
280: % channel model. We note here that although \cite{MOT:05} used joint decoding in the relay setup, their application did not modify the EAF rate itself, so when specialized to EAF, \cite{MOT:05} recovers \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79}. In our work, we apply joint decoding to the EAF itself (for the noiseless relay case), therefore we improve the EAF rate compared to \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79}.
281: \item We also consider
282: the case where a single common message is transmitted to both
283: receivers. We consider two different cooperation strategies and
284: derive the achievable rates for each of them. We also derive an
285: upper bound on the achievable rates for this scenario.
286: Here we provide results that explicitly link the available
287: cooperation capacity to the increase in the rate of information.
288: Lastly, we show that for a special case of the general BC, namely
289: when one channel is distinctly better than the other, the upper
290: and lower bounds coincide, resulting in the capacity for that
291: case.
292: \end{itemize}
293:
294: The rest of this paper is structured as follows: in
295: section~\ref{sec:defs} we define the mathematical framework. In
296: section~\ref{sec:degraded} we analyze the physically degraded BC,
297: and derive the capacity region for that case, and in
298: section~\ref{sec:generalBC} we present an achievability result for the general broadcast channel
299: with cooperating receivers.
300: %Section \ref{sec:general_upper_bound} follows with an upper bound the general channel.
301: Next, section \ref{sec:commonmsg} presents
302: %and \ref{sec:upper_bound_common} present an
303: achievability results and an upper bound on the rates for the case where only a single common message is
304: transmitted. Concluding remarks are provided in section~\ref{sec:conclude}.
305:
306:
307:
308:
309:
310:
311:
312:
313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
314: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
315:
316:
317:
318:
319:
320:
321:
322: \section{Definitions and Notations}
323: \label{sec:defs}
324:
325: First, a word about notation: in the following we use $H(\cdot)$ to
326: denote the entropy of a discrete random variable (RV), and
327: $I(\cdot;\cdot)$ to denote the mutual information between two
328: discrete random variables, as defined in \cite[Ch. 2]{cover-thomas:it-book}.
329: We denote random variables with capital
330: letters -- $X$, $Y$, etc., and vectors with boldface letters, e.g.,
331: $\xvec$, $\yvec$. We denote by $\typ(X)$ the weakly typical set for
332: the (possibly vector) random variable $X$, see \cite[Ch. 3]{cover-thomas:it-book}
333: for the definition of $\typ(X)$. When
334: referring to a typical set we may omit the random variables from the
335: notation, when these variables are clear from the context. We denote
336: the cardinality of the finite set $\mathcal{A}$ with
337: $||\mathcal{A}||$. We use $\mX$ to denote the (discrete and finite) range of $X$. Finally, we
338: denote the probability distribution of the RV $X$ over $\mX$ with $p(x)$
339: and the conditional distribution of $X$ given $Y$ with $p(x|y)$.
340:
341:
342:
343: \begin{definition}
344: A {\em discrete broadcast channel} is a channel with discrete input alphabet
345: $\mathcal{X}$, two discrete output alphabets, $\mathcal{Y}_1$ and
346: $\mathcal{Y}_2$, and a probability transition function, $p(y_1,y_2|x)$. We denote
347: this channel by the triplet $\left(\mathcal{X}, p(y_1,y_2|x), \mathcal{Y}_1 \times \mathcal{Y}_2\right)$.
348: \end{definition}
349:
350: \begin{definition}
351: A {\em memoryless} broadcast channel is a broadcast channel for which
352: the probability transition function of a sequence of $n$ symbols
353: is given by $p(y_1^n,y_2^n|x^n) = \prod_{i=1}^np(y_{1,i},y_{2,i}|x_i)$,
354: where $y_k^n = (y_{k,1}, y_{k,2},...,y_{k,n})$, $k \in \left\{1,2\right\}$, and
355: $x^n = (x_{1}, x_{2},...,x_{n})$.
356: \end{definition}
357:
358: We shall assume the channel to be {\em discrete} and {\em memoryless}.
359:
360: \begin{definition}
361: The {\em physically degraded broadcast channel} is a broadcast channel in which the probability transition function
362: can be decomposed as $p(y_1,y_2|x) = p(y_1|x)p(y_2|y_1)$. Hence, for the physically
363: degraded BC we have that $X - Y_1 - Y_2$ form a Markov chain.
364: \end{definition}
365:
366: \begin{definition}
367: {\em An $(R_{12},R_{21})$-conference} between $R_{x1}$ and $R_{x2}$ is defined by two conference message sets
368: $\mathcal{W}_{12} = \left\{1,2,...,2^{nR_{12}}\right\}$,
369: $\mathcal{W}_{21} = \left\{1,2,...,2^{nR_{21}}\right\}$, and two mapping
370: functions, $h_{12}$ and $h_{21}$ which map the received sequence of $n$ symbols
371: and the conference messages
372: at one receiver into a message transmitted to the other receiver:
373: \begin{eqnarray*}
374: & h_{12}:& \mathcal{Y}_1^n \times \mW_{21} \mapsto \mathcal{W}_{12}, \\
375: & h_{21}:& \mathcal{Y}_2^n \times \mW_{12} \mapsto \mathcal{W}_{21}.
376: \end{eqnarray*}
377: We note that this is not the most general definition of a conference, see for example
378: \cite{Kaspi:85}, \cite {Willems:83} for a more general form. In this paper we consider only
379: conferences in which each receiver sends at most one message to the other receiver. Note that
380: there are cases where a single conference message is enough to achieve capacity: for example, in section
381: \ref{sec:degraded} a single conference step achieves capacity for the physically degraded broadcast channel, and in
382: \cite {Willems:83} a single conference step achieves capacity for the discrete memoryless multiple access channel
383: counterpart of the setup discussed here.
384: \end{definition}
385:
386:
387:
388: \begin{definition}
389: A {\em $\left(C_{12},C_{21}\right)$-admissible conference} is a conference for which
390: $R_{12} \le C_{12}$ and $R_{21} \le C_{21}$.
391: \end{definition}
392:
393: \begin{definition}
394: \label{def:codes}
395: A $\left(\left(2^{nR_1},2^{nR_2} \right),n,\left(C_{12},C_{21}\right)\right)$ {\em code} for
396: the broadcast channel with cooperating receivers having conference links of capacities
397: $C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$ between them, consists of two sets of integers
398: $\mathcal{W}_1 = \left\{1,2,...,2^{nR_1}\right\}$,
399: $\mathcal{W}_2 = \left\{1,2,...,2^{nR_2}\right\}$, called {\em message
400: sets}, an encoding function
401: \[
402: f:\mathcal{W}_1 \times \mathcal{W}_2 \mapsto \mathcal{X}^n,
403: \]
404: a $\left(C_{12},C_{21}\right)$-admissible conference
405: \begin{eqnarray*}
406: & h_{12}:& \mathcal{Y}_1^n \times \mW_{21} \mapsto \mathcal{W}_{12}, \\
407: & h_{21}:& \mathcal{Y}_2^n \times \mW_{12} \mapsto \mathcal{W}_{21},
408: \end{eqnarray*}
409: and two decoding functions
410: \begin{eqnarray}
411: \label{eqn:g1_coop}
412: & g_1: & \mathcal{W}_{21} \times \mathcal{Y}_1^n \mapsto \mathcal{W}_1, \\
413: \label{eqn:g2_coop}
414: & g_2: & \mathcal{W}_{12} \times \mathcal{Y}_2^n \mapsto \mathcal{W}_2.
415: \end{eqnarray}
416: \end{definition}
417:
418: \begin{definition}
419: \label{def:perr}
420: The {\em average probability of error} is defined as the probability that
421: the decoded message pair is different from the transmitted message pair:
422: \[
423: P_e^{(n)} = \mbox{Pr}\left(g_1(W_{21},Y_1^n) \ne W_1\;\; \mbox{or}
424: \;\; g_2(W_{12},Y_2^n) \ne W_2 \right).
425: \]
426: We also define the average probability of error for each receiver as:
427: \begin{eqnarray}
428: \label{eqn:def_pe1_II}
429: P_{e1}^{(n)} & = & \mbox{Pr}\left(g_1\left(W_{21},Y_1^n\right) \ne W_1\right), \\
430: \label{eqn:def_pe2_II}
431: P_{e2}^{(n)} & = & \mbox{Pr}\left(g_2\left(W_{12},Y_2^n\right) \ne W_2\right),
432: \end{eqnarray}
433: where %$Y_i^k$ denotes the vector $\left(Y_{i,1},Y_{i,2},...,Y_{i,k}\right)$,
434: %$i\in \{1,2\}$, and
435: we assume transmission of $n$ symbols for each codeword.
436: By the union bound we have that $ \max\left\{P_{e1}^{(n)},P_{e2}^{(n)}\right\} \le \Perr \le P_{e1}^{(n)} + P_{e2}^{(n)}$.
437: Hence,
438: $\Perr \rightarrow 0$ implies that both $P_{e1}^{(n)} \rightarrow 0$ and
439: $P_{e2}^{(n)} \rightarrow 0$, and when both individual error probabilities go to zero then $\Perr$ goes
440: to zero as well.
441:
442: In the analysis that follows, we assume that user 1 and user 2 select their respective
443: messages $W_1$ and $W_2$ independently and uniformly over their respective message sets.
444: \end{definition}
445:
446: \begin{definition}
447: A rate pair $\left(R_1,R_2\right)$ is said to be {\em achievable},
448: if there exists a sequence of
449: $\left( \left(2^{nR_1},2^{nR_2} \right),n, \left(C_{12},C_{21}\right) \right)$ codes with
450: $P_e^{(n)} \rightarrow 0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$. Obviously, this is satisfied if both
451: $P_{e1}^{(n)} \rightarrow 0$ and $P_{e2}^{(n)} \rightarrow 0$ as $n$ increases.
452: \end{definition}
453:
454: \begin{definition}
455: The {\em capacity region} for the discrete memoryless broadcast
456: channel with cooperating receivers is the convex hull of all achievable rates.
457: \end{definition}
458:
459:
460:
461:
462:
463:
464:
465:
466: \section{Capacity Region for the Physically Degraded Broadcast Channel with Cooperating Receivers}
467: \label{sec:degraded}
468:
469: We consider the physically degraded broadcast channel with three independent messages: a private message
470: to each receiver and a common message to both.
471: We note that for the physically degraded channel, following the argument
472: in \cite[theorem 14.6.4]{cover-thomas:it-book}, we can incorporate a common rate to both receivers
473: by replacing $R_2$, the private rate to the bad receiver, obtained for the two private messages case with $R_0 + R_2$,
474: where $R_0$ denotes the rate of the common information.
475: Without cooperation, the capacity region for the physically degraded BC $X - Y_1 - Y_2$ given in
476: \cite[theorem 14.6.4]{cover-thomas:it-book}, is the convex hull of all the rate
477: triplets $(R_0,R_1,R_2)$ that satisfy
478: \begin{eqnarray}
479: \label{eqn:Degraded_NoCoope_1}
480: R_1 & \le & I(X;Y_1|U),\\
481: \label{eqn:Degraded_NoCoope_2}
482: R_0 + R_2 & \le & I(U;Y_2),
483: \end{eqnarray}
484: for some joint distribution $p(u)p(x|u)p(y_1|x)p(y_2|y_1)$, where
485: \begin{equation}
486: \label{eqn:U_bound_no_coop_degradd}
487: ||\mU|| \le \min\left\{ ||\mX||, ||\mY_1||, ||\mY_2||\right\}.
488: \end{equation}
489:
490: Next, consider cooperation between receivers over the physically degraded BC.
491: First note that for this
492: case, the link from $\Rbad$ to $\Rgood$ does not
493: contribute to increasing the rates due to
494: cooperation, and that only the link from $\Rgood$ to $\Rbad$ does.
495: This is due to the data processing inequality (see \cite[theorem 2.8.1]{cover-thomas:it-book}): since $X - Y_1 -
496: Y_2$ form a Markov chain, any information about $X$ contained in
497: $Y_2$ will also be contained in $Y_1$, and thus conferencing
498: cannot help:
499: \[
500: I(X;Y_1,Y_2) = I(X;Y_1) + \underbrace{I(X;Y_2|Y_1)}_{=\;\;0} = I(X;Y_1).
501: \]
502: For the rest of this section then,
503: we shall consider only a communication link from the good receiver $R_{x1}$,
504: to the bad receiver $R_{x2}$ (i.e. we set $C_{21} = 0$).
505: This implies that $W_{21}$ is a constant and we can thus omit it from the analysis.
506: We begin with a statement of the theorem:
507:
508: \begin{theorem}
509: \label{thm:converse}
510: \it
511: The capacity region
512: for sending independent information over the discrete memoryless physically
513: degraded broadcast channel
514: $X - Y_1 - Y_2$, with cooperating receivers having a noiseless conference link of capacity $C_{12}$,
515: as defined in Section~\ref{sec:defs}, is the convex hull of all rate triplets $(R_0,R_1,R_2)$ that satisfy
516: \begin{eqnarray}
517: \label{eqn:phy_deg_coop_R1}
518: R_1 & \le & I(X;Y_{1}|U), \\
519: \label{eqn:phy_deg_coop_R2}
520: R_0 + R_2 & \le & \min\big(I(U;Y_1),I(U;Y_{2}) + C_{12}\big),
521: \end{eqnarray}
522: for some joint distribution $p(u)p(x|u)p(y_1,y_2|x)$, where the
523: auxiliary random variable $U$ has cardinality bounded by
524: $||\mathcal{U}||\le \min\left\{||\mathcal{X}||,||\mathcal{Y}_1||\right\}$.
525: \end{theorem}
526:
527: We note that this result presented in \cite{RonSer:2004} was simultaneously derived in \cite{Liang:04} for
528: the case of a wireless relay.
529: %We note that this result, originally presented in \cite{RonSer:2004} was independently derived in \cite{Liang:04} for
530: %the case of a wireless relay.
531: %We discuss the proof of theorem \ref{thm:converse} here for two reasons: the
532: %first is that the benefits of cooperation for this setup are easily seen in the rate constraint for the bad receiver,
533: %and the second is that the techniques presented in this proof will be used also in the rest of this paper.
534:
535: \subsection{Achievability Proof}
536: \label{sec:achieve}
537:
538: In this section, we show that the rate triplets of theorem~\ref{thm:converse}
539: are indeed achievable. We will show that the region defined by (\ref{eqn:phy_deg_coop_R1}) and
540: (\ref{eqn:phy_deg_coop_R2}) with $R_0 = 0$ is achievable. Incorporating $R_0 > 0$ easily follows as explained
541: earlier.
542:
543: \subsubsection{Overview of Coding Strategy}
544:
545: The coding strategy is a combination of a broadcast code as an ``outer" code
546: used to split the rate between $R_{x1}$ and $R_{x2}$, and
547: an ``inner" code for $R_{x2}$, using the code construction for the physically
548: degraded relay channel, described in~\cite[theorem 1]{CoverG:79}.
549: We first generate codewords $U^n$ for $R_{x2}$, according to the
550: relay channel code construction. Then, the codewords for $R_{x2}$ are used as ``cloud centers" for the
551: codewords transmitted to $R_{x1}$ (which are also the output to the channel).
552: Upon reception, $R_{x1}$ decodes both its own message and the
553: message for $R_{x2}$, and then uses the relay code selection to select the message relayed to
554: $R_{x2}$. $R_{x2}$ uses its received signal, $Y_2^n$, to generate a list of possible $U^n$ candidates, and then
555: uses the information from $\Rgood$ to resolve for the correct codeword.
556:
557: \subsubsection{Details of Coding Strategy}
558:
559: \paragraph{Code Generation}
560: \begin{enumerate}
561: \item Consider first the set of $M_R = 2^{nC_{12}}$ relay messages.
562: These are the messages that the relay $R_{x1}$ transmits to $R_{x2}$ through the
563: noiseless finite capacity conference link between the two receivers. Index these messages by $s$, where
564: $s \in \left\{1,2,...,M_R\right\}$.
565:
566: Next, fix $p(u)$ and $p(x|u)$.
567:
568: \item For each index $s \in [1,M_R]$, generate $2^{nR_2}$ conditionally independent codewords
569: ${\bf u}(w_2|s) \sim \prod_{i=1}^n p(u_i)$, where $w_2 \in \left\{1,2,...,2^{nR_2}\right\}$.
570:
571: \item For each codeword $\uvec(w_2|s)$ generate $2^{nR_1}$ conditionally independent
572: codewords ${\bf x}(w_1,w_2|s) \triangleq
573: {\bf x}(w_1|\uvec(w_2|s)) \sim \prod_{i=1}^n p(x_i|u_i(w_2|s))$, where $w_1 \in \left\{1,2,...,2^{nR_1}\right\}$.
574:
575: \item Randomly partition the message set for $R_{x2}$, $\left\{1,2,...,2^{nR_2} \right\}$,
576: into $M_R$ sets $\left\{S_1, S_2,...,S_{M_R}\right\}$,
577: by independently and uniformly assigning to each message an index in $\left[1,M_R\right]$.
578:
579: \end{enumerate}
580:
581:
582: \paragraph{Encoding Procedure}
583:
584: Consider transmission of $B$ blocks, each block transmitted using $n$ channel symbols. Here
585: we use $nB$ symbol transmissions to transmit $B-1$ message pairs
586: $\left(w_{1,i},w_{2,i} \right) \in \left[1,2^{nR_1}\right]\times \left[1,2^{nR_2}\right]$, $i=1,2,\dots,B-1$.
587: As $B\rightarrow \infty$ we have that the rate $(R_1,R_2)\frac{B-1}{B} \rightarrow (R_1,R_2)$. Hence, any rate pair achievable
588: without blocking can be approached arbitrarily close with blocking as well.
589: Let $w_{1,i}$ and $w_{2,i}$ be the messages intended for $R_{x1}$ and $R_{x2}$ respectively, at the $i$'th block, and
590: also assume that $w_{2,i-1} \in S_{s_i}$. $R_{x1}$ has an estimate $\hat{\hat{w}}_{2,i-1}$ of the message sent to
591: $R_{x2}$ at block $i-1$. Let $\hat{\hat{w}}_{2,i-1} \in S_{\hat{\hat{s}}_i}$.
592: At the $i$'th block the transmitter outputs the codeword ${\bf x}(w_{1,i},w_{2,i}|s_i)$, and
593: $R_{x1}$ sends the index $\hat{\hat{s}}_i$ to $R_{x2}$ through the noiseless conference link.
594:
595: \paragraph{Decoding Procedure}
596: Assume first that up to the end of the $(i-1)$'th block there was no decoding error. Hence,
597: at the end of the $(i-1)$'th block, $R_{x1}$ knows $\left(w_{1,1},w_{1,2},...,w_{1,i-1}\right)$,
598: $\left(w_{2,1},w_{2,2},...,w_{2,i-1}\right)$ and $\left(s_{1},s_{2},...,s_{i}\right)$, and $R_{x2}$
599: knows $\left(w_{2,1},w_{2,2},...,w_{2,i-2}\right)$ and $\left(s_{1},s_{2},...,s_{i-1}\right)$. The
600: decoding at block $i$ proceeds as follows:
601: \begin{enumerate}
602: \item $R_{x1}$ knows $s_i$ from $w_{2,i-1}$. Hence, $R_{x1}$ determines uniquely $(\hw_{1,i},\: \hw_{2,i})$ s.t. \\
603: $\big(\uvec(\hw_{2,i}|s_i), {\bf x}(\hw_{1,i},\hw_{2,i}|s_i), {\bf y}_1(i)\big) \in A_{\epsilon}^{(n)}$. If there is
604: none or there is more than one, an error is declared.
605: \item $R_{x2}$ receives $s_i$ from $R_{x1}$. From knowledge of $s_{i-1}$ and ${\bf y}_2(i-1)$, $R_{x2}$ forms a
606: list of possible messages, $\mathcal{L}(i-1) = \left\{w_{2}: \left({\bf y}_2(i-1), {\bf u}(w_{2}|s_{i-1})\right)
607: \in A_{\epsilon}^{(n)}\right\}$. Now, $R_{x2}$ uses $s_i$ to find a unique $\hw_{2,i-1} \in S_{s_i} \bigcap
608: \mathcal{L}(i-1)$. If there is none or there is more than one, an error is declared.
609: \end{enumerate}
610:
611: \subsubsection{Analysis of the Probability of Error}
612: \label{sec:Pe_analysis_phy_deg}
613:
614:
615: The achievable rate to $\Rbad$ can be proved using the same technique as in \cite[theorem 1]{CoverG:79}.
616: For the ease of description assume that $\Rgood$ is connected via an orthogonal channel to $\Rbad$ and let $X'$ denote
617: the channel input from $\Rgood$ and $Y'$ the corresponding channel output to $\Rbad$. Thus,
618: $\Rbad$ has combined input $(Y_2,Y')$. The overall transition matrix is given by
619: \begin{equation}
620: \label{eqn:Phy-deg-Markov-chain}
621: p(y_1,y_2,y'|x,x') = p(y_1,y_2|x)p(y'|x').
622: \end{equation}
623: Additionally, we select the transition matrix $p(y'|x')$ and the
624: input and output alphabets $\mX'$, $\mY'$ such that the capacity of
625: the orthogonal channel $X' - Y'$ is $C_{12}$. An example for such a
626: selection is letting $\mX'$ = $\mY'$ = $\left\{0,1,...,2^{\lceil C_{12} \rceil}-1\right\}$, where
627: $\lceil \cdot \rceil$ is denotes the ceil function.
628: Letting $[a]$ denotes the integer part of the real number $a$, we set the channel transition function to be
629: \begin{eqnarray*}
630: p(Y'|X') = \left\{
631: \begin{array}{cl}
632: 1- \alpha & ,Y' = X' \\
633: \alpha & ,Y' = \mod\left(X' + 2^{[C_{12}]},2^{\lceil C_{12} \rceil}\right),
634: \end{array}
635: \right.
636: \end{eqnarray*}
637: with $\alpha$ selected such that $H(Y'|X') = \lceil C_{12} \rceil - C_{12}$.
638: The capacity of this channel is $C_{12}$ and is achieved by letting $p(x') = \frac{1}{2^{\lceil C_{12} \rceil}}$,
639: $\forall x' \in \mX'$.
640: This setup is equivalent to the original setup described in section \ref{sec:generalBCintro}.
641:
642: Now consider the rate to $\Rbad$. The Markov chain $U - X - (Y_1,Y_2)$ combined with the condition in
643: (\ref{eqn:Phy-deg-Markov-chain}) implies the following probability distribution function (p.d.f.)
644: \[
645: p(u,y_1,y_2,y',x') = p(y_1,y_2|u)p(y'|x')p(u,x').
646: \]
647: Now, applying \cite[theorem 1]{CoverG:79}, with $p(u,x') = p(u)p(x')$, we have that (see also \cite{GuptaKumar:2003})
648: \begin{eqnarray*}
649: R_2 & \le & \min\left\{I(U,X';Y_2,Y'),I(U;Y_1|X') \right\}\\
650: & = & \min\left\{I(U,X';Y') + I(U,X';Y_2|Y') , I(U;Y_1) \right\}\\
651: & = & \min\left\{I(X';Y') + I(U;Y'|X') + I(U;Y_2|Y') \right.\\
652: & & \qquad \qquad \left.+I(X';Y_2|Y',U) , I(U;Y_1)\right\}\\
653: & = & \min\left\{C_{12} + I(U;Y_2), I(U;Y_1)\right\}.
654: \end{eqnarray*}
655: Next, consider the rate to $\Rgood$. From the proof of \cite[theorem 1]{CoverG:79} we have that
656: $\Rgood$ decodes $W_2$. Therefore, $\Rgood$ can now use successive decoding similar to the decoding
657: at $\Rgood$ in \cite[Ch. 14.6.2]{cover-thomas:it-book}, which imply that the achievable rate to $\Rgood$ is given by
658: $R_1 \le I(X;Y_1|U)$. Combining both bounds we get the rate constraints of theorem~\ref{thm:converse}.
659:
660: \subsection{Converse Proof}
661: \label{sec:converse}
662:
663: In this section we prove that for $\Perr \rightarrow 0$, the rates
664: must satisfy the constraints in theorem \ref{thm:converse}. First,
665: note that for the case of the physically degraded broadcast channel
666: with cooperating receivers we have the following Markov chain:
667: \begin{equation}
668: \label{eqn:markov_chain}
669: X^n - Y^n_1 - \big(W_{12}(Y^n_1),Y^n_2\big).
670: \end{equation}
671:
672: Considering the definition of the decoders
673: in~(\ref{eqn:g1_coop}) and~(\ref{eqn:g2_coop}), and the definition
674: of the probability of error for each of the receivers
675: in~(\ref{eqn:def_pe1_II}) and~(\ref{eqn:def_pe2_II}), we have from Fano's
676: inequality (\cite[Ch. 2.11]{cover-thomas:it-book}) that
677: \begin{eqnarray}
678: \label{eqn:fano1}
679: H(W_1|Y_1^n) \!\!
680: & \le & \!\!P_{e1}^{(n)}\log_2\left(2^{nR_1}-1\right) + h(P_{e1}^{(n)}) \\
681: & & \triangleq n\delta(P_{e1}^{(n)}),\nonumber\\
682: \label{eqn:fano2}
683: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!H(W_2|Y_2^n,W_{12}(Y_1^n))
684: \!\!& \le &\!\! P_{e2}^{(n)}\log_2\left(2^{nR_2}-1\right) + h(P_{e2}^{(n)}) \\
685: & & \triangleq n\delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}),\nonumber
686: \end{eqnarray}
687: where $h(P)$ is the entropy of a Bernoulli RV with parameter $P$.
688: Note that when
689: $P_{e1}^{(n)} \rightarrow 0$ then $\delta(P_{e1}^{(n)})
690: \rightarrow 0$ and when $P_{e2}^{(n)} \rightarrow 0$ then
691: $\delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}) \rightarrow 0$.
692:
693: Now, for $\Rgood$ we have that
694: \begin{eqnarray}
695: nR_1 & = & H(W_1) = I(W_1;Y_1^n) + H(W_1|Y_1^n) \nonumber.
696: \end{eqnarray}
697: Applying inequality (\ref{eqn:fano1}), and then proceeding as in
698: \cite{Gallager:74} we get the bound on $R_1$ as
699:
700: \[
701: nR_1 \le \sum_{k=1}^n I(X_k;Y_{1,k}|U_k) + n\delta(P_{e1}^{(n)}),
702: \]
703: where $U_k \triangleq \left(Y_{1,1}, Y_{1,2},...,Y_{1,k-1},W_2\right)$.
704:
705: For $R_{x2}$ we can write
706: \begin{eqnarray}
707: nR_2 & = & H(W_2) \nonumber \\
708: % & = & H(W_2) - H(W_2|Y_2^n,W_{12}(Y_1^n)) + H(W_2|Y_2^n,W_{12}(Y_1^n))\nonumber\\
709: \label{eqn:R2_trns_3}
710: & \stackrel{(a)}{\le} & I(W_2;Y_2^n,W_{12}(Y_1^n)) + n\delta(P_{e2}^{(n)})\\
711: & = & I(W_2;Y_2^n) + I(W_2;W_{12}(Y_1^n)|Y_2^n) + n\delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}),
712: \nonumber
713: \end{eqnarray}
714: where the inequality in~(a) is due to (\ref{eqn:fano2}).
715: Proceeding as in \cite{Gallager:74}, we bound $I(W_2;Y_2^n) \le \sum_{k=1}^nI(U_k;Y_{2,k})$. % resulting in
716: %\[
717: % nR_2 \le \sum_{k=1}^nI(U_k;Y_{2,k}) + I(W_2;W_{12}(Y_1^n)|Y_2^n)
718: % + n\delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}).
719: %\]
720: Next, we bound $I(W_2;W_{12}(Y_1^n)|Y_2^n)$ as follows:
721: \begin{eqnarray}
722: \label{eqn:coop_rate_bound}
723: I(W_{12}(Y_1^n);W_2|Y_2^n) & \le & H(W_{12}(Y_1^n)|Y_2^n)\nonumber\\
724: & \le & H(W_{12}(Y_1^n))\nonumber\\
725: & \le & nC_{12},
726: \end{eqnarray}
727: where the first inequality follows from the definition of mutual information, the second
728: is due to removing the conditioning and the third is due to the admissibility of the
729: conference. Combining both bounds we get that
730: \begin{equation}
731: \label{eqn:R2_rate_sec1}
732: nR_2 \le \sum_{k=1}^nI(U_k;Y_{2,k}) + nC_{12} + n\delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}).
733: \end{equation}
734:
735: The bound on $R_2$ can be developed in an alternative way. Begin
736: with~(\ref{eqn:R2_trns_3}):
737: %\setlength\arraycolsep{0pt}
738: \begin{eqnarray}
739: \!\!\!\!\!\!nR_2
740: & \le & I(W_2;Y_2^n,W_{12}(Y_1^n)) + n\delta(P_{e2}^{(n)})\nonumber\\
741: & \stackrel{(a)}{\le} & I(W_2;Y_2^n,Y_1^n)+n\delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}) \nonumber\\
742: \label{eqn:r2_trans_5}
743: & = & \sum_{k=1}^n I(W_2; Y_{1,k},Y_{2,k}|Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1})
744: + n\delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}),
745: \end{eqnarray}
746: %\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
747: where (a) follows from the fact that
748: $(W_1,W_2) - (Y_1^n,Y_2^n) - (W_{12},Y_2^n)$ is a Markov relation and
749: from the data processing inequality. Next, we can write
750: \begin{eqnarray}
751: & &I(W_2; Y_{1,k}, Y_{2,k} |Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1})\nonumber\\
752: % & = & H(Y_{1,k},Y_{2,k}|Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1}) - H(Y_{1,k},Y_{2,k}|Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1},W_2) \nonumber \\
753: % & = & H(Y_{1,k}|Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1}) + H(Y_{2,k}|Y_{1,k},Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1}) \nonumber \\
754: % & & \quad - H(Y_{1,k}|Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1},W_2) - H(Y_{2,k}|Y_{1,k},Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1},W_2)\nonumber \\
755: & & \qquad \stackrel{(a)}{ = }I(W_2; Y_{1,k} |Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1})\nonumber \\
756: & & \qquad = H(Y_{1,k}|Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1})
757: - H(Y_{1,k}|Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1},W_2) \nonumber\\
758: % \label{eqn:trans_7}
759: & & \qquad \stackrel{(b)}{\le} H(Y_{1,k}) - H(Y_{1,k}|Y_1^{k-1},Y_2^{k-1},W_2)\nonumber\\
760: & & \qquad \stackrel{(c)}{=} H(Y_{1,k}) - H(Y_{1,k}|Y_1^{k-1},W_2)\nonumber\\
761: & & \qquad = I(Y_{1,k};Y_1^{k-1},W_2) \nonumber \\
762: & & \qquad = I(Y_{1,k};U_k),
763: \end{eqnarray}
764: where the equality in~(a) is due to the physical degradedness and memorylessness of the channel,
765: (b) is due to removing the conditioning, and~(c) is because the Markov chain makes
766: $Y_{1,k}$ independent of $Y_2^{k-1}$ given $Y_1^{k-1}$.
767: Plugging this into~(\ref{eqn:r2_trans_5}), we get a second bound
768: on $R_2$:
769: \[
770: nR_2 \le \sum_{k=1}^n I(U_k;Y_{1,k}) + n\delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}).
771: \]
772:
773: Collecting the three bounds we have:
774: \begin{eqnarray}
775: \label{eqn:sum_covrs_1}
776: R_1 & \le & \frac 1 n\sum_{k=1}^n I(X_k;Y_{1,k}|U_k)+\delta(P_{e1}^{(n)}), \\
777: R_2 & \le & \frac 1 n\sum_{k=1}^nI(U_k;Y_{2,k}) + C_{12}
778: + \delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}), \\
779: \label{eqn:sum_covrs_2}
780: R_2 & \le & \frac 1 n\sum_{k=1}^n I(U_k;Y_{1,k}) + \delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}).
781: % R_1 + R_2 & \le & \frac 1 n\sum_{k=1}^nI(X_k;Y_{1,k})
782: % + (\delta(P_{e1}^{(n)}) + \delta(P_{e2}^{(n)}))
783: \end{eqnarray}
784: Using the standard time-sharing argument as in~\cite[Ch.\ 14.3]{cover-thomas:it-book}, we can write the averages
785: in~(\ref{eqn:sum_covrs_1}) - (\ref{eqn:sum_covrs_2}) by introducing an appropriate time sharing variable, with cardinality
786: upper bounded by $4$. Therefore, if $P_{e1}^{(n)} \rightarrow 0$ and $P_{e2}^{(n)} \rightarrow 0$ as
787: $n \rightarrow \infty$, the convex hull of this region can be shown to be equivalent
788: to the convex hull of the region defined by
789: \begin{eqnarray}
790: \label{eqn:converse_1r}
791: R_1 & \le & I(X;Y_1|U), \\
792: \label{eqn:converse_2r}
793: R_2 & \le & I(U;Y_2) + C_{12}, \\
794: \label{eqn:converse_three_r}
795: R_2 & \le & I(U;Y_1).
796: \end{eqnarray}
797:
798:
799: Finally, the bound on the cardinality of $\mU$ follows from the same arguments as in the
800: converse for the non-cooperative case in~\cite{Gallager:74}. Note however, that
801: $|| \mY_2 ||$ is absent from the minimization on the cardinality (cf.
802: equation (\ref{eqn:U_bound_no_coop_degradd}) for the non-cooperative case).
803: The reason is that even when $|| \mY_2 || = 1$, information to $\Rbad$ (represented
804: by the random variable $U$), can be sent through the conference link between the two receivers. \tend
805:
806:
807:
808:
809:
810:
811: \subsection{Discussion}
812: To illustrate the implications of theorem \ref{thm:converse}, consider the physically degraded binary symmetric
813: broadcast channel (BSBC) depicted in figure \ref{fig:broadcast-degraded_channel}.
814: \begin{figure}[h]
815: \centering
816: \scalebox{0.62}{\includegraphics{fig2.eps}}
817: \caption{\small The physically degraded BSBC. $p_U$, $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the transition probabilities
818: at the left, middle and right segments respectively.}
819: \label{fig:broadcast-degraded_channel}
820: \end{figure}
821: For this channel, theorem \ref{thm:converse} implies that $||\mU|| = 2$. Due to the symmetry of the channel,
822: the probability distribution of $U$ which maximizes the rates, is a symmetric binary distribution,
823: $\Pr(U=0) = \Pr(U=1) = \frac{1}{2}$. The resulting capacity region for this case is depicted in
824: figure \ref{fig:broadcast-degraded_example} for the case where $R_0 = 0$.
825: In the figure, the bottom line (dash) is the non-cooperative capacity region, and the top line (dash-dot)
826: is the maximum possible sum rate, which requires that $C_{12} \ge h(p_{12}) - h(p_1)$, where
827: \begin{eqnarray*}
828: h(p) & = & -p\log_2(p) - (1-p)\log_2(1-p),\\
829: p_{12} & = & p_1(1-p_2) + p_2(1-p_1).
830: \end{eqnarray*}
831: This maximum sum-rate of $I(X;Y_1)$ is obtained by summing the rate to $\Rgood$ given by (\ref{eqn:converse_1r}) and
832: the maximum possible rate for $\Rbad$ given by (\ref{eqn:converse_three_r}), and using the
833: Markov chain relation $U - X - Y_1$.
834: \begin{figure}[ht]
835: \centering
836: \includegraphics[width = 0.42\textwidth]{fig3.eps}
837: \caption{\small The capacity region for the physically degraded BSBC. Top, middle and bottom lines
838: correspond to maximum possible cooperation, partial cooperation and no-cooperation scenarios respectively.}
839: \label{fig:broadcast-degraded_example}
840: \end{figure}
841: The middle line (solid) is the capacity region for the partial cooperation case where $0 < C_{12} < h(p_{12}) - h(p_1)$.
842:
843: As can be seen from this example, the capacity region derived in this section is strictly
844: larger than the capacity region for the non-cooperation case.
845: Indeed, summing the constraints on $R_0$, $R_1$ and $R_2$ without
846: cooperation (equations (\ref{eqn:Degraded_NoCoope_1}),
847: (\ref{eqn:Degraded_NoCoope_2})), results in a maximum achievable
848: sum-rate of
849: \begin{equation}
850: \label{eqnLsum_rate_deg_no_coop}
851: R_0 + R_1 + R_2 \le I(X;Y_1) - (I(U;Y_1) - I(U;Y_2)),
852: \end{equation}
853: where the second term is always positive due to the Markov chain
854: $U-X-Y_1-Y_2$ (assuming the degrading channel
855: is non-invertible\footnote{It can be shown that $I(U;Y_1) - I(U;Y_2) = 0$ for the degraded channel setup
856: implies that if $R_0 + R_2 > 0$ then $H(Y_1|Y_2) = 0$, i.e. the channel from $\Rgood$ to $\Rbad$ is invertible.
857: Under these circumstances, this setup can be replaced by an equivalent setup in which
858: both receivers get $Y_1$, but such a degenerate setup is not interesting.}).
859: In this setup, the maximum possible sum-rate,
860: $I(X;Y_1)$, is achieved only when $U$ is a constant, and thus no
861: information is sent to $R_{x2}$. When $R_0 + R_2 > 0$, because of the relationship
862: $R_0 + R_2 \le I(U;Y_2) < I(U;Y_1)$, we cannot achieve the
863: maximum sum-rate of $I(X;Y_1)$ to
864: $R_{x1}$.
865: %The loss in sum-rate is exactly this positive difference, $I(U;Y_1) - I(U;Y_2)$.
866: However, summing~(\ref{eqn:converse_2r})
867: or~(\ref{eqn:converse_three_r}) with~(\ref{eqn:converse_1r}),
868: results in a maximum achievable sum-rate with cooperating receivers of
869: \begin{eqnarray}
870: & & R_0 + R_1 + R_2 \le I(X;Y_1)\nonumber\\
871: & & \phantom{xxxxxxx}+\min\left\{0,C_{12}-(I(U;Y_1)-I(U;Y_2))\right\}.
872: \end{eqnarray}
873: Comparing this to non-cooperative sum-rate given by (\ref{eqnLsum_rate_deg_no_coop}),
874: it is clear that cooperation allows a net increase in the sum-rate, by at most $C_{12}$.
875:
876:
877:
878:
879:
880:
881:
882:
883: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
885: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
886:
887:
888:
889:
890: \section{Achievable Rates for the General Broadcast Channel with Cooperating Receivers}
891: \label{sec:generalBC}
892:
893: For the classic general BC scenario, the best achievability result was derived
894: by Marton in \cite{Marton:79}. This result states that for the general BC,
895: any rate pair $(R_1,R_2)$ satisfying
896: \begin{eqnarray}
897: \label{eqn:marton_R1}
898: R_1 & \le & I(U;Y_1),\\
899: \label{eqn:Marton_R2}
900: R_2 & \le & I(V;Y_2),\\
901: \label{eqn:Marton_SumRate}
902: R_1 + R_2 & \le & I(U;Y_1) + I(V;Y_2) - I(U;V),
903: \end{eqnarray}
904: for some joint distribution $p(u,v,x,y_1,y_2)=p(u,v,x)p(y_1,y_2|x)$,
905: is achievable.
906:
907: We note that Marton's largest region contains three auxiliary RVs,
908: $(W,U,V)$, where $W$ represents information decoded by both receivers. Here we
909: use a simplified version, where $W$ is set to a constant.
910:
911: We now consider cooperation between the receivers. We begin with a statement of the theorem:
912: \begin{theorem}
913: \label{thm:achieve}
914: \it
915: Let $\left(\mathcal{X}, p(y_1,y_2|x), \mathcal{Y}_1 \times \mathcal{Y}_2\right)$ be any discrete memoryless
916: broadcast channel, with cooperating
917: receivers having noiseless conference links of finite capacities $C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$, as defined in Section~\ref{sec:defs}.
918: Then, for sending independent information, any rate pair $\left(R_1,R_2 \right)$ satisfying
919: \begin{eqnarray*}
920: R_1 & \le & R(U),\\
921: R_2 & \le & R(V),\\
922: R_1 + R_2 & \le & R(U) + R(V) - I(U;V),
923: \end{eqnarray*}
924: subject to,
925: \begin{eqnarray}
926: \label{eqn:C21_rate conbtraint_Rev}
927: C_{21} & \ge & I(\hat{U};Y_2) - I(\hU;Y_1),\\
928: \label{eqn:C12_rate conbtraint_Rev}
929: C_{12} & \ge & I(\hat{V};Y_1) - I(\hV;Y_2),
930: \end{eqnarray}
931: where,
932: \begin{eqnarray}
933: \label{eqn:def_RU}
934: R(U) & = & I(U;Y_1,\hU),\\
935: \label{eqn:def_RV}
936: R(V) & = & I(V;Y_2,\hV),
937: \end{eqnarray}
938: for some joint distribution $p(u,v,x,y_1,y_2,\hat{u},\hat{v}) =
939: p(u,v,x)p(y_1,y_2|x)p(\hat{u}|y_2)p(\hat{v}|y_1)$, is achievable,
940: with $u \in \mU, v \in \mV, \hu \in \mhU, \hv \in \mhV$, $||\mhU||
941: \le ||\mY_2||+1$ and $||\mhV|| \le ||\mY_1||+1$.
942: \end{theorem}
943: %\smallskip
944: In the next subsections we provide the proof of this theorem.
945:
946:
947: \subsection{Overview of Coding Strategy}
948: As in the achievability part of theorem \ref{thm:converse}, the proposed code is a hybrid broadcast-relay code.
949: Here, we combine the relay code construction of \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79} and the broadcast code construction of
950: \cite{ElGamalM:81}. The fact that in these two theorems the channel encoding and the relay operation
951: are performed independently, allows to easily combine them into a hybrid coding scheme.
952: The encoder generates broadcast codewords, each selected from a codebook constructed similarly to the
953: construction of \cite{ElGamalM:81}. This codebook splits the rate between
954: the two users. Next, each relay ($R_{x1}$ acts as a relay for
955: $R_{x2}$ and vice-versa) generates its codebook according to the
956: construction of \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79}. In the decoding
957: step, using the received signal ($Y_1^n$ at $\Rgood$ and $Y_2^n$
958: at $\Rbad$), each receiver generates a list of the possible
959: transmitted relay messages and uses the conference message from the next time interval to
960: resolve for the relay massage. Then, each receiver uses the decoded relay
961: message and its received channel output to decode its own message.
962: %In our decoding scheme,
963: %after receiving the conference message the receiver decodes the source message by looking for a source
964: %sequence ($U^n$ for $\Rgood$ and $V^n$ for $\Rbad$) such that it is jointly typical with its channel
965: %input and with at least one of the relay sequences in the set received from the other receiver.
966: %We show that this results in an increased feasible region, see comment \ref{cmt:increased_region}.
967:
968:
969: \subsection{Encoding at the Transmitter}
970: \begin{enumerate}
971: \item Let $\epsilon > 0$ and $n \ge 1$ be given. Fix $p(u,v,x)$, $p(\hu|y_2)$ and $p(\hv|y_1)$, and let
972: $\delta > 0$ be a positive number, whose selection is described in the next item.
973: Let $\stypd(U)$ denote the set of strongly typical i.i.d. sequences of length $n$, $\uvec \in \mU^n$,
974: as defined in \cite[Ch. 13.6]{cover-thomas:it-book}.
975: Let $\stypd(V)$ denote the set of strongly typical i.i.d. sequences of length $n$, $\vvec \in \mV^n$.
976: Let $S_{[U]\delta}^{(n)}$ denote the set of all sequences $\uvec \in \stypd(U)$, such that $\stypd(V|\uvec)$
977: is nonempty as defined in \cite[corollary 5.11]{YeungBook},
978: and similarly define $S_{[V]\delta}^{(n)}$ for the sequences $\vvec \in \stypd(V)$.
979:
980: \item Select $2^{n\left(R(U) - \epsilon\right)}$ strongly typical sequences $\uvec$ in an i.i.d. manner,
981: according to the probability
982: \begin{eqnarray*}
983: p\left(\uvec\right) = \left\{
984: \begin{array}{cl}
985: \frac{1}{||S_{[U]\delta}^{(n)}||} &, \uvec \in S_{[U]\delta}^{(n)}\\
986: 0 &, \mbox{otherwise}.
987: \end{array}
988: \right.
989: \end{eqnarray*}
990: %%$p(\uvec) = \prod_{i=1}^n p(u_i)$.
991: %where $||A||$ denotes the cardinality of set $A$.
992: Label these sequences by $\uvec(k), \; k\in\Big[1, 2^{n\left(R(U)-\epsilon\right)}\Big]$.
993: %\footnote{
994: %note that $\Iu = H(U)-H\left(U|Y_1,\hat{U}\right) \le H(U)$, so we can find the required number of sequences}.
995: Select $2^{n\left(R(V) - \epsilon\right)}$ strongly typical sequences $\vvec$ in an i.i.d. manner,
996: according to the probability
997: \begin{eqnarray*}
998: p\left(\vvec\right) = \left\{
999: \begin{array}{cl}
1000: \frac{1}{||S_{[V]\delta}^{(n)}||} &, \vvec \in S_{[V]\delta}^{(n)}\\
1001: 0 &, \mbox{otherwise}.
1002: \end{array}
1003: \right.
1004: \end{eqnarray*}
1005: %$p(\vvec) = \prod_{i=1}^n p(v_i)$.
1006: Label these sequences by $\vvec(l), \; l\in\left[1,2^{n\left(R(V)-\epsilon\right)}\right]$.
1007: Note that from \cite[corollary 5.11]{YeungBook} we have that $||S_{[U]\delta}^{(n)}|| \ge (1-\delta)2^{n(H(U) - \psi)}$,
1008: where $\psi \rightarrow 0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ and $\delta \rightarrow 0$, so for any $\eps > 0$ we can always
1009: find $0 < \delta \le \eps$ such that for $n$ large enough we obtain $||S_{[U]\delta}^{(n)}|| > 2^{n\left(\Iu - \epsilon\right)}$
1010: and $||S_{[V]\delta}^{(n)}|| > 2^{n\left(\Iv - \epsilon\right)}$.
1011: %and $R(U) \le \Iu$. Similarly this restriction
1012: %does not impede on the selection of the $\vvec$ sequences.
1013:
1014: \item Define the cells $B_i = \left[(i-1)2^{n\left(R(U) - R_1 - \epsilon\right)}+1,
1015: i 2^{n\left(R(U) - R_1 - \epsilon\right)} \right]$, $i \in \left[1,2^{nR_1}\right]$.
1016: This is a partition of the $\uvec$ sequences into $2^{nR_1}$ sets. Define the cells \\
1017: $C_j = \left[(j-1)2^{n\left(R(V) - R_2 - \epsilon\right)}+1,
1018: j 2^{n\left(R(V) - R_2 - \epsilon\right)} \right]$, $j \in \left[1,2^{nR_2}\right]$, which form a
1019: partition of the $\vvec$ sequences into $2^{nR_2}$ sets.
1020:
1021: \item For every pair of integers $(w_1,w_2) \in \left[1,2^{nR_1} \right]\times \left[1,2^{nR_2} \right]$,
1022: define the set
1023: %\begin{eqnarray*}
1024: $\mD_{w_1,w_2} = \Big\{ \left(\uvec(k), \vvec(l)\right): k \in B_{w_1}, l\in C_{w_2}, %\\
1025: \left. \left( \uvec(k), \vvec(l)\right) \in \styp(U,V) \right\}.$
1026: %\end{eqnarray*}
1027: % containing the strongly joint typical pairs $(\uvec,\vvec)$ in
1028: %$B_{w_1} \times C_{w_2}$.
1029: Here, $\styp (U,V)$ denotes the strongly typical set for the random
1030: variables $U$ and $V$ as defined in \cite[Ch. 13.6]{cover-thomas:it-book}.
1031: In the following we may omit the random variables when referring to the strongly typical set,
1032: when these variables are clear from the context.
1033: We now have the following (slightly modified) lemma from \cite{ElGamalM:81}:
1034: \begin{lemma}
1035: \label{lemma:lemma_1}
1036: {\it
1037: For any 2-D cell $B_i \times C_j$, $\epsilon > 0$, and $n$ large enough, we have that
1038: $\mbox{Pr}\left(||\mD_{ij}|| = 0 \right) \le \epsilon$,
1039: provided that
1040: \begin{eqnarray}
1041: \label{eqn:lemma1}
1042: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! R_1 + R_2 & < & R(U) + R(V) -I(U;V) - 2\epsilon - \epsilon_1,
1043: \end{eqnarray}
1044: where $\epsilon_1 \rightarrow 0$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ and $n \rightarrow \infty$.}
1045: \end{lemma}
1046: \begin{proof}
1047: The proof of this lemma is obtained by direct application of the
1048: technique used to prove \cite[Lemma in pg.\ 121]{ElGamalM:81}, and therefore will not be repeated here.
1049: \end{proof}
1050:
1051:
1052: \item For each message pair $(w_1,w_2)$, select one pair $(\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}), \vvec(l_{w_1,w_2}))\in \mD_{w_1,w_2}$. For
1053: each of the selected pairs (one pair for each message pair), generate a codeword according to
1054: $\xvec(w_1,w_2) \sim \prod_{i=1}^n p\left(x_i | u_i(k_{w_1,w_2}), v_i(l_{w_1,w_2})\right)$.
1055:
1056: \item To transmit the message pair $(w_1,w_2)$ the transmitter outputs $\xvec(w_1,w_2)$.
1057: \end{enumerate}
1058:
1059: \subsection{Encoding the Relay Messages}
1060: Consider first the relay encoding at $R_{x2}$, which acts as a relay for $R_{x1}$.
1061: \begin{enumerate}
1062: \item $R_{x2}$-relay has a set of $2^{nC_{21}}$ relay messages indexed by $s' \in \left[1,2^{nC_{21}}\right]$.
1063: For each index $s'$, generate $2^{nR'}$ i.i.d. sequences $\huvec$, each with probability $p(\huvec) = \prod_{i=1}^n p(\hu_i)$, \\
1064: $p(\hu) = \sum_{\mX, \mY_1, \mY_2} p(\hu|y_2)p(y_1,y_2|x)p(x)$, and
1065: $p(x) = \sum_{\mU, \mV} p(u,v,x)$. Label these codewords $\huvec(z'|s')$, $s' \in \left[1,2^{nC_{21}}\right]$,
1066: $z' \in [1,2^{nR'} ]$.
1067:
1068: \item Randomly and uniformly partition the message set $[1,2^{nR'} ]$ into $2^{nC_{21}}$ sets $S'_{s'}$,
1069: $s' \in \left[1,2^{nC_{21}}\right]$.
1070:
1071: \item \underline{Encoding}: Assume that after receiving $\yvec_2(i-1)$
1072: %the channel output sequence for the $(i-1)$'th codeword %out of the $B-1$ codewords,
1073: we have
1074: at $R_{x2}$ that $\left( \huvec(z_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}'), \yvec_2(i-1) \right) \in \styp$, and that $z_{i-1}' \in S'_{s_i'}$
1075: ($s_{i-1}'$ is known from the previous transmission of $z_{i-2}'$).
1076: Then, at the $i$'th transmission interval the relay transmits the index $s_i'$ to $R_{x1}$.
1077: \end{enumerate}
1078: Relay encoding at $R_{x1}$ is performed in a symmetric manner to the relay encoding at
1079: $R_{x2}$. The corresponding variables for $\Rgood$ are $S''_{s''}$ and $\hvvec(z''|s'')$,
1080: $s'' \in \left[1,2^{nC_{12}}\right]$, $z'' \in [1,2^{nR''}]$.
1081:
1082: \subsection{Decoding the Relay Messages at the Relays}
1083: \label{sec:dec_rly_2}
1084: Consider decoding the relay message at $R_{x2}$.
1085: The relay decoder at $R_{x2}$ uses its channel input $\yvec_2(i)$, and its previously decoded $s_i'$
1086: to generate the relay message $z_i'$ as follows:
1087: upon receiving $\yvec_2(i)$, the relay $R_{x2}$ decides that the message $z_i'$ was received at time $i$ if
1088: $\left(\huvec\left(z_i'|s_i'\right), \yvec_2(i)\right) \in \styp$.
1089: Following the argument in \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79} (see
1090: also the proof in \cite[Ch. 13.6]{cover-thomas:it-book}), there exists such $z_i'$ with
1091: probability that is arbitrarily close to one as long as
1092: \begin{equation}
1093: \label{eqn:dec_ar_rly}
1094: R' \ge I\left(\hU;Y_2\right),
1095: \end{equation}
1096: and $n$ is sufficiently large.
1097: Relay decoding at $R_{x1}$ is done in a symmetric manner to the relay decoding at $R_{x2}$.
1098:
1099:
1100:
1101:
1102:
1103:
1104:
1105:
1106:
1107:
1108:
1109:
1110:
1111:
1112:
1113:
1114:
1115:
1116:
1117:
1118: \subsection{Decoding at the Receivers}
1119: \label{sec:dec_rx_1} We first find the rate constraint for decoding
1120: at $\Rgood$. $R_{x1}$ decodes its message $w_{1,i-1}$ based on its
1121: channel input $\yvec_1(i-1)$ and the relay indices $s_i'$ and $s_{i-1}'$:
1122: \begin{enumerate}
1123: \item From knowledge of $s_{i-1}'$ and $\yvec_1(i-1)$, $R_{x1}$ calculates the set $\mL_1(i-1)$ such that
1124: \begin{eqnarray*}
1125: \mL_1(i-1) & = & \Big\{z' \in [1,2^{nR'} ]: \\
1126: & & \qquad\left(\huvec\left(z'|s_{i-1}'\right),\yvec_1(i-1)\right) \in \styp \Big\}.
1127: \end{eqnarray*}
1128: \item At the time interval of the $i$'th codeword, $R_{x1}$ receives the relayed
1129: $s_i'$. Since $s_i'$ is selected from a set of $2^{nC_{21}}$
1130: possible messages, it can be transmitted over the noiseless conference
1131: link without error.
1132:
1133: \item $R_{x1}$ now chooses $\hz_{i-1}'$ as the relay message at time $i-1$ if and only if there exists a unique
1134: $\hz_{i-1}' \in S'_{s_i'} \bigcap \mL_1(i-1)$. Again, following the reasoning in \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79},
1135: %(see also the derivation leading to equation (\ref{eqn:R2_second_bound_K}) in section \ref{sec:pe_bad_degraded})
1136: this can be done with an arbitrarily small probability of error as long as
1137: \begin{equation}
1138: \label{eqn:upper_bound_Rprime}
1139: R' \le I(\hU;Y_1) + C_{21},
1140: \end{equation}
1141: and $n$ is large enough.
1142: Combining this with inequality (\ref{eqn:dec_ar_rly}) we get the constraint on the relay information rate:
1143: \begin{equation}
1144: \label{eqn:C_two_one_constr}
1145: C_{21} \ge I(\hU;Y_2) - I(\hU;Y_1).
1146: \end{equation}
1147: This expression is similar to the Wyner-Ziv expression for the rate required to transmit $Y_2$ to receiver $\Rgood$
1148: up to a given distortion, determined by $p(\hu|y_2)$ and a decoder.
1149: Here the performance of the decoder are implied in the mutual information $I(U;Y_1,\hU)$.
1150: The compressed $Y_2^n$ is then used by $\Rgood$ to assist in decoding $W_1$.
1151:
1152: \item Lastly, $R_{x1}$ decodes $w_{1,i-1}$ (or, equivalently $\uvec(k_{w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}})$) by choosing
1153: $\uvec(k_{\hw_{1,i-1},\hw_{2,i-1}})$
1154: such that
1155: $\left(\uvec(k_{\hw_{1,i-1},\hw_{2,i-1}}), \yvec_1(i-1), \huvec\left(\hz_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}'\right) \right) \in \styp$. From
1156: the point-to-point channel coding theorem (see \cite{ElGamalM:81}) we have that
1157: $\hat{w}_{1,i-1} = w_{1,i-1}$ with probability that is arbitrarily close to one, as long as $z_{i-1}'$ was correctly
1158: decoded at $\Rgood$ and
1159: \begin{equation}
1160: R_1 \le R(U) \triangleq \Iu,
1161: \end{equation}
1162: for sufficiently large $n$.
1163: Combining this with equation (\ref{eqn:C_two_one_constr}) yields the rate constraint on $R_1$:
1164: \begin{eqnarray}
1165: \label{eqn:rate_r1_eq1}
1166: R_1 & \le & R(U), \\
1167: \label{eqn:rate_r1_eq2}
1168: & & \mbox{as long as }C_{21} \ge I(\hU;Y_2) - I(\hU;Y_1).
1169: \end{eqnarray}
1170: \end{enumerate}
1171:
1172: Using symmetric arguments to those
1173: presented for decoding at $\Rgood$ we find the rate constraint for $R_{x2}$ to be
1174: \begin{eqnarray}
1175: \label{eqn:rate_r2_eq1}
1176: R_2 & \le & R(V), \\
1177: \label{eqn:rate_r2_eq2}
1178: & & \mbox{as long as }C_{12} \ge I(\hV;Y_1) - I(\hV;Y_2).
1179: \end{eqnarray}
1180:
1181: \begin{comment}
1182: \item $R_{x1}$ calculates the set
1183: \[
1184: \mL_1(i-1) = \left\{k_{w_1,w_2} \in \left[1,2^{n(R(U)-\eps)}\right]: (w_1,w_2) \in \mW_1\times \mW_2, \left(\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}),\yvec_1(i-1)\right) \in \styp \right\}.
1185: \]
1186: \item At the time interval of the $i$'th codeword, $R_{x1}$ receives the relayed
1187: $s_i'$. Since $s_i'$ is selected from a set of $2^{nC_{21}}$
1188: possible messages, it can be transmitted over the noiseless relay
1189: link without error. Similarly, from the transmission at time $i-1$ $\Rgood$ obtains $s_{i-1}'$.
1190:
1191: \item $R_{x1}$ decodes $w_{1,i-1}$ by choosing $k_{\hw_{1,i-1},w_2} \in \mL_1(i-1)$
1192: such that\\
1193: $\left(\uvec(k_{\hw_{1,i-1},w_2}), \yvec_1(i-1), \huvec\left(z'|s_{i-1}'\right) \right) \in \styp$ for at least
1194: one $z' \in S'_{s'_i}$. If there is none or there is more than one $\hw_{1,i-1}$, an error is declared.
1195: In appendix \ref{appndx:proof-of-thm-two-indp} we show that if
1196: \begin{eqnarray}
1197: \label{eqn:indp_bound_1}
1198: R(U) & \le & I(U;Y_1) - H(\hU | Y_1, U) + H(\hU|Y_1)\\
1199: \label{eqn:indp_bound_2_sec2}
1200: R(U) & \le & I(U;Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_1,U) + C_{21}-R'+H(\hU) \\
1201: \label{eqn:indp_bound_2_on_Cap}
1202: R' & \le & C_{21} - H(\hU|Y_1,U) + H(\hU),
1203: \end{eqnarray}
1204: then we can decode $w_{1,i-1}$ with an arbitrarily small probability of error by taking $n$ large enough.
1205: Combining (\ref{eqn:dec_ar_rly}) and (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_2_on_Cap}) we get the feasible region
1206: \begin{equation}
1207: \label{eqn:R_prime_region}
1208: I(\hU;Y_2) \le R' \le C_{21} - H(\hU|Y_1,U) + H(\hU),
1209: \end{equation}
1210: and for this region to be non-empty we need
1211: \begin{eqnarray}
1212: C_{21} & \ge & I(\hU;Y_2) + H(\hU|Y_1,U) - H(\hU)\nonumber\\
1213: & = & H(\hU|Y_1,U) - H(\hU|Y_2)\nonumber\\
1214: \label{eqn:C21_constr_R}
1215: & = & I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1,U).
1216: \end{eqnarray}
1217: Now, when (\ref{eqn:C21_constr_R}) is satisfied we can use the lower bound in (\ref{eqn:R_prime_region})
1218: to maximize the rate in (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_2_sec2}). Combining with (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_1}) we get that
1219: we can decode $w_{1,i-1}$ with an arbitrarily small probability of error if
1220: \begin{eqnarray}
1221: \label{eqn:rate_r1_eq1}
1222: R(U) & \le & I(U;Y_1) - I(\hU;Y_2|U,Y_1) + \min\left(C_{21}, H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_2)\right)\\
1223: \label{eqn:rate_r1_eq2}
1224: & & \mbox{as long as }C_{21} \ge I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1,U).
1225: \end{eqnarray}
1226: Using symmetric arguments to those
1227: presented for decoding at $\Rgood$ we find the rate constraint for $R_{x2}$ to be
1228: \begin{eqnarray}
1229: \label{eqn:rate_r2_eq1}
1230: R(V) & \le & I(V;Y_2) - I(\hV;Y_1|V,Y_2) +\min\left(C_{12}, H(\hV|Y_2) - H(\hV|Y_1)\right)\\
1231: \label{eqn:rate_r2_eq2}
1232: & & \mbox{as long as }C_{12} \ge I(\hat{V};Y_1|V,Y_2) .
1233: \end{eqnarray}
1234:
1235: \end{comment}
1236:
1237:
1238:
1239:
1240:
1241: Combining equations (\ref{eqn:lemma1}),
1242: (\ref{eqn:rate_r1_eq1}), (\ref{eqn:rate_r1_eq2}), (\ref{eqn:rate_r2_eq1}) and (\ref{eqn:rate_r2_eq2}), gives the
1243: conditions in theorem \ref{thm:achieve}.
1244:
1245:
1246:
1247:
1248:
1249:
1250:
1251:
1252:
1253:
1254:
1255:
1256:
1257:
1258:
1259:
1260:
1261:
1262:
1263:
1264:
1265:
1266:
1267:
1268:
1269:
1270: \subsection{Error Events}
1271: \label{sec:error_event_two_indep}
1272: In the scheme described above we have to account for the following error events for decoding $(w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1})$:
1273: \begin{enumerate}
1274: \item Encoding at the transmitter fails: \\
1275: $E_{D,i} = \left\{||\mD_{w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}}|| = 0 \right\}$.
1276:
1277: \item Joint typicality decoding fails:\\
1278: $E_{0,i} = \Big\{\big( \uvec(k_{w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}}), \vvec(l_{w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}}),$\phantom{xxxxxxxx}\\
1279: \phantom{xxxxx}$\xvec(w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}),\yvec_1(i-1), \yvec_2(i-1)
1280: \big) \notin \styp \Big\}$.
1281: \item Decoding at the relays fails: $E_{1,i} = E_{11,i} \bigcup E_{12,i}$, \\
1282: $E_{11,i} = \Big\{\nexists z' \in [1,2^{nR'}] \; \mbox{s.t.} $ \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}\\
1283: \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxx} $\; \left(\huvec\left(z'|s_{i-1}'\right), \yvec_2(i-1) \right) \in \styp \Big\}$,\\
1284: $E_{12,i} = \Big\{\nexists z'' \in [1,2^{nR''}] \; \mbox{s.t.}$ \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}\\
1285: \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxx} $\; \left(\hvvec\left(z''|s_{i-1}''\right), \yvec_1(i-1) \right) \in \styp \Big\}$.
1286:
1287:
1288: %\item Decoding at the receivers fails: $E_{2,i} = E_{21,i} \bigcup E_{22,i}$, where
1289: % $E_{21,i} = E_{20,i}'\bigcup E_{21,i}' \bigcup E_{21,i}''$ and $E_{22,i} = E_{20,i}'' \bigcup E_{22,i}' \bigcup E_{22,i}''$,\\
1290: % $E_{20,i}' = \left\{\big(\uvec(k_{w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}}),\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}')\big)\notin\styp\right\}$,\\
1291: % $E_{20,i}'' = \left\{\big(\vvec(l_{w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}}),\yvec_2(i-1),\hvvec(z_{i-1}''|s_{i-1}'')\big)\notin\styp\right\}$,\\
1292: % $E_{21,i}' = \left\{ \nexists z' \in S'_{s_i'} \mbox{ s.t. } \big(\uvec(k_{w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}}),\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z'|s_{i-1}')\big)\in\styp\right\}$,\\
1293: % $E_{21,i}''= \left\{ \exists z' \in S'_{s_i'}, \exists k_{w_1,w_2} \in \mL_1(i-1), w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1} \mbox{ s.t. }
1294: % \big(\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}),\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z'|s_{i-1}')\big)\in\styp\right\}$,\\
1295: % $E_{22,i}' = \left\{ \nexists z'' \in S''_{s_i''} \mbox{ s.t. } \big(\vvec(l_{w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}}),\yvec_2(i-1),\hvvec(z''|s_{i-1}'')\big)\in\styp\right\}$,\\
1296: % $E_{22,i}''= \left\{ \exists z'' \in S''_{s_i''}, \exists l_{w_1,w_2} \in \mL_2(i-1), w_2 \ne w_{2,i-1} \mbox{ s.t. }
1297: % \big(\vvec(l_{w_1,w_2}),\yvec_2(i-1),\hvvec(z''|s_{i-1}'')\big) \in\styp\right\}$,\\
1298: % and $\mL_2(i-1) = \left\{l_{w_1,w_2} \in \left[1,2^{n(R(V)-\eps)}\right]: (w_1,w_2) \in \mW_1 \times \mW_2, \left(\vvec(l_{w_1,w_2}),\yvec_2(i-1)\right) \in \styp \right\}$.
1299:
1300:
1301:
1302:
1303: %We therefore replace $E_{21,i}$ and $E_{22,i}$
1304: % of section \ref{sec:error_event_two_indep} with the following events
1305: %\begin{enumerate}
1306: \item Decoding the relay message at the receivers fails: $E_{2,i} = E_{21,i} \bigcup E_{22,i}$, where
1307: $E_{21,i} = E_{21,i}' \bigcup E_{21,i}''$ and $E_{22,i} = E_{22,i}' \bigcup E_{22,i}''$,\\
1308: $E_{21,i}' = \left\{ z_{i-1}' \notin S'_{s_i'} \bigcap \mL_1(i-1) \right\}$,\\
1309: $E_{21,i}''= \left\{ \exists \tilde{z}' \ne z_{i-1}' \; \mbox{s.t.} \; \tilde{z}'
1310: \in S'_{s_i'} \bigcap \mL_1(i-1)\right\}$,\\
1311: $E_{22,i}' = \left\{ z_{i-1}'' \notin S''_{s_i''} \bigcap \mL_2(i-1) \right\}$,\\
1312: $E_{22,i}''= \left\{ \exists \tilde{z}'' \ne z_{i-1}'' \; \mbox{s.t.} \; \tilde{z}''
1313: \in S''_{s_i''} \bigcap \mL_2(i-1)\right\}$,\\
1314: $\mL_2(i-1) \triangleq \Big\{z''\in [1,2^{nR''}]:$\phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}\\
1315: \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxx} $\left(\hvvec\left(z''|s_{i-1}''\right),\yvec_2(i-1)\right) \in \styp \Big\}$.
1316:
1317: \item Final decoding at the receivers fails:\\
1318: $E_{3,i} = E_{31,i} \bigcup E_{32,i}$, where,\\
1319: $E_{31,i} = \Big\{\big(\uvec(k_{w_{1,i-1}, w_{2,i-1}}),\yvec_1(i-1),$\phantom{xxxxxxxxx}
1320: $\huvec(z_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}')\big)\notin\styp \Big\}$
1321: $\!\!\!\bigcup\Big\{ \exists w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1} \; \mbox{s.t.} $
1322: $\phantom{XXX}\left(\uvec(k_{w_1, w_2}) ,\yvec_1(i-1),
1323: \huvec(z_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}') \right) \in \styp\Big\}$, \\
1324: $E_{32,i} = \Big\{\big(\vvec(l_{w_{1,i-1}, w_{2,i-1}}),\yvec_2(i-1),$\phantom{xxxxxxxxx}
1325: $\hvvec(z_{i-1}''|s_{i-1}'')\big)\notin\styp \Big\}$
1326: $\!\!\! \bigcup\Big\{ \exists w_2 \ne w_{2,i-1}\; \mbox{s.t.}$
1327: $\phantom{XXX}\left(\vvec(l_{w_1,w_2}) ,\yvec_2(i-1), \hvvec(z_{i-1}''|s_{i-1}'') \right) \in \styp\Big\}$.
1328: %\end{enumerate}
1329:
1330:
1331:
1332: \end{enumerate}
1333: We now bound the probability of the error events at time $i$. Note that at time $i$ both $\Rgood$ and $\Rbad$ share the same
1334: $s_{i-1}'$ and $s_{i-1}''$ irrespective whether the decoding at the relays was correct at time $i-1$. Hence, a
1335: decoding error at time $i-1$ does not affect the decoding at time $i$. Now,
1336: from lemma \ref{lemma:lemma_1} it follows that by taking $n$ large enough the probability
1337: of $E_{D,i}$ can be made arbitrarily small, as long as (\ref{eqn:lemma1}) is satisfied. Additionally, by taking $n$
1338: large enough, the probability $\Pr(E_{0,i}\bigcap E_{D,i}^c)$ can be made arbitrarily small by the properties
1339: of strongly typical sequences, see \cite[lemma 13.6.2]{cover-thomas:it-book}.
1340: The probability $\Pr(E_{1,i})$ can be made arbitrarily small as long as
1341: (\ref{eqn:rate_r1_eq2}) and (\ref{eqn:rate_r2_eq2}) are satisfied, as explained is section \ref{sec:dec_rly_2}.
1342: Next, the Markov lemma \cite[lemma 4.2]{BetgerLecNotes} and the Markov chains $Y_1 - Y_2 - \hU$ and
1343: $Y_2 - Y_1 - \hV$, imply that $\Pr(E_{21,i}' \bigcap E_{1,i}^c\bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$ and
1344: $\Pr(E_{22,i}' \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$ can be
1345: made arbitrarily small by taking $n$ large enough, and
1346: $\Pr(E_{21,i}'' \bigcap E_{i,1}^c)$ and $\Pr(E_{22,i}'' \bigcap E_{i,1}^c)$ can be made arbitrarily small
1347: by taking $n$ large enough as long as \eqref{eqn:rate_r1_eq2} and \eqref{eqn:rate_r2_eq2} are satisfied.
1348: Finally, $\Pr(E_{31,i} \bigcap E_{2,i}^c \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c \bigcap E_{D,i}^c)$ and
1349: $\Pr(E_{32,i} \bigcap E_{2,i}^c \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c \bigcap E_{D,i}^c)$ can be made arbitrarily
1350: small by taking $n$ large enough by the Markov lemma and the chains $U,Y_1 - Y_2 - \hU$ and $V,Y_2 - Y_1 - \hV$,
1351: and as long as \eqref{eqn:rate_r1_eq1} and \eqref{eqn:rate_r2_eq1} are satisfied.
1352:
1353:
1354: %$\Pr(E_{20,i}' \bigcup E_{20,i}'' \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$ can be made
1355: %arbitrarily small by taking $n$ large enough.
1356: %We also have that $\Pr(E_{21,i}'\bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$
1357: %$ = \Pr(E_{22,i}'\bigcap E_{20,i}^{''c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c) = 0$ since $E_{1,i}^c$ implies
1358: %successful decoding at the relay at time $i-1$ and by construction $z_{i-1}' \in S'_{s_i'}$ and
1359: %$z_{i-1}'' \in S''_{s''_i}$. Finally, appendix \ref{appndx:proof-of-thm-two-indp} shows that
1360: %(\ref{eqn:rate_r1_eq1}), (\ref{eqn:rate_r1_eq2}), (\ref{eqn:rate_r2_eq1}) and (\ref{eqn:rate_r2_eq2}) guarantee that
1361: %$\Pr(E_{21,i}''\bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$ and
1362: %$\Pr(E_{22,i}''\bigcap E_{20,i}^{''c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$ can be made arbitrarily small by
1363: %taking $n$ large enough.
1364:
1365:
1366: This concludes the proof of theorem \ref{thm:achieve}. \tend
1367: %Finally, $\Pr(E_{3,i}\bigcap E_{2,i}^c \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$ can
1368: %be made arbitrarily small as long as (\ref{eqn:rate_r1_eq1}) and (\ref{eqn:rate_r2_eq1}) are satisfied.
1369:
1370:
1371:
1372:
1373:
1374:
1375:
1376:
1377:
1378:
1379:
1380:
1381:
1382:
1383: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1384: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1385:
1386:
1387: \subsection{An Upper Bound}
1388: \label{sec:general_upper_bound}
1389: \begin{proposition}
1390: \label{thm:upper_bound}
1391: \it
1392: Assume the broadcast channel setup of theorem \ref{thm:achieve}.
1393: Then, for sending independent information, any achievable rate pair $(R_1,R_2)$ must satisfy
1394: \begin{eqnarray*}
1395: R_1 & \le & I(X;Y_1) + C_{21},\\
1396: R_2 & \le & I(X;Y_2) + C_{12},\\
1397: R_1 + R_2 & \le & I(X;Y_1,Y_2),
1398: \end{eqnarray*}
1399: for some distribution $p(x)$ on $\mX$.
1400: \end{proposition}
1401: \smallskip
1402:
1403: \begin{proof}
1404: The proof uses the cut-set bound \cite[theorem 14.10.1]{cover-thomas:it-book}. First we define an equivalent
1405: system by introducing two orthogonal channels $X_2' - Y_1'$ from $\Rbad$ to $\Rgood$ and $X_1' - Y_2'$ from
1406: $\Rgood$ to $\Rbad$. The joint probability distribution function then becomes
1407: \[
1408: p\left((y_1,y_1'), (y_2,y_2') | x,x_1',x_2'\right) = p(y_1,y_2|x)p(y_1'|x_2')p(y_2'|x_1'),
1409: \]
1410: where the signal received at $\Rgood$ is $(Y_1,Y_1')$ and the signal received at $\Rbad$ is $(Y_2,Y_2')$.
1411: As in the proof in section \ref{sec:Pe_analysis_phy_deg}, we select $\mX_1'$, $\mX_2'$,
1412: $\mY_1'$, $\mY_2'$, $p(x_1')$, $p(x_2')$,
1413: $p(y_1'|x_2')$ and $p(y_2'|x_1')$ such that the capacities of the channels
1414: $X_2' - Y_1'$ and $X_1' - Y_2'$ are $C_{21}$ and $C_{12}$ respectively. Additionally, the codewords
1415: for the conference transmissions are determined independently from the source codebook so we set
1416: $p(x,x_1',x_2') = p(x)p(x_1')p(x_2')$.
1417: Now, from the cut-set bound, letting the transmitter and $\Rbad$ form one group and $\Rgood$ the second group,
1418: we have
1419: \begin{eqnarray*}
1420: R_1 & \le & I(X,X_2';Y_1,Y_1'|X_1') \\
1421: & = & I(X_2';Y_1,Y_1'|X_1') + I(X;Y_1,Y_1'|X_1',X_2')\\
1422: & = & I(X_2';Y_1'|X_1') + I(X_2';Y_1|X_1',Y_1') \\
1423: & & \phantom{xxxxxx} +I(X;Y_1'|X_1',X_2') + I(X;Y_1|X_1',X_2',Y_1')\\
1424: & = & I(X_2';Y_1') + I(X;Y_1)\\
1425: & = & C_{21} + I(X;Y_1),
1426: \end{eqnarray*}
1427: where $I(X_2';Y_1|X_1',Y_1') = I(X;Y_1'|X_1',X_2') = 0$ follows from direct application of the distribution
1428: function. Similarly we obtain the rate constraint on $R_2$. Lastly, for the sum-rate consider the transmitter
1429: in one group and the receivers in the second. Then, the cut-set bound results in
1430: \begin{eqnarray*}
1431: R_1 + R_2 & \le & I(X;Y_1,Y_2,Y_1',Y_2'|X_1',X_2')\\
1432: & = & I(X;Y_1,Y_2|X_1',X_2') \\
1433: & & \phantom{xxxxxxxx}+ I(X;Y_1',Y_2'|X_1',X_2',Y_1,Y_2)\\
1434: & = & I(X;Y_1,Y_2),
1435: \end{eqnarray*}
1436: yielding the last constraint in the proposition.
1437: \end{proof}
1438:
1439:
1440:
1441:
1442: \subsection{Remarks}
1443: \begin{comment}
1444: \begin{remark}
1445: \label{cmt:increased_region}
1446: Lemma \ref{lemma:achieve_CEG} below gives the rates obtained when
1447: using Cover \& El-Gamal's three-step decoding scheme of \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79}:
1448: \begin{lemma}
1449: \label{lemma:achieve_CEG}
1450: \it
1451: %Let $\left(\mathcal{X}, p(y_1,y_2|x), \mathcal{Y}_1 \times \mathcal{Y}_2\right)$ be any discrete memoryless
1452: %broadcast channel, with cooperating
1453: %receivers having noiseless conference links of finite capacities $C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$, as defined in Section~\ref{sec:defs}.
1454: Assume the broadcast channel setup of theorem \ref{thm:achieve}.
1455: Then, for sending independent information, any rate pair $\left(R_1,R_2 \right)$ satisfying
1456: \begin{eqnarray*}
1457: R_1 & \le & I(U;Y_1,\hat{U}),\\
1458: R_2 & \le & I(V;Y_2,\hat{V}),\\
1459: R_1 + R_2 & \le & I(U;Y_1,\hat{U}) + I(V;Y_2,\hat{V}) - I(U;V),
1460: \end{eqnarray*}
1461: subject to,
1462: \begin{eqnarray*}
1463: C_{21} & \ge & I\left(\hat{U};Y_2\right) - I\left(\hat{U};Y_1\right),\\
1464: C_{12} & \ge & I\left(\hat{V};Y_1\right) - I\left(\hat{V};Y_2\right),
1465: \end{eqnarray*}
1466: for some joint distribution $p(u,v,x,y_1,y_2,\hat{u},\hat{v}) = p(u,v,x)p(y_1,y_2|x)p(\hat{u}|y_2)p(\hat{v}|y_1)$,
1467: is achievable, with $u \in \mU, v \in \mV, \hu \in \mhU, \hv \in \mhV$,
1468: $||\mhU|| \le ||\mY_2||+1$, and $||\mhV|| \le ||\mY_1||+1$.
1469: \end{lemma}
1470: The proof for this lemma is provided in appendix \ref{appndx:proof_CEG}.
1471:
1472: Comparing this to theorem \ref{thm:achieve} we see that when $C_{21} \ge I(\hU;Y_2) - I(\hU;Y_1)$ the
1473: rate to $\Rgood$ is the same in both cases. However when
1474: \[
1475: I(\hU;Y_2|U,Y_1) \le C_{21} < I(\hU;Y_2) - I(\hU;Y_1),
1476: \]
1477: our scheme in theorem \ref{thm:achieve} provides non-zero rates while lemma \ref{lemma:achieve_CEG} does not.
1478: Note that this region is not empty unless $H(\hU|Y_1) = H(\hU|Y_1,U)$, or equivalently, $H(U|Y_1) = H(U|Y_1,\hU).$
1479: However, this means that $\hU$ does not add any information
1480: on $Y_1$ for decoding $U$, which is a very poor choice of a relay.
1481: \end{remark}
1482: \end{comment}
1483: \begin{remark}
1484: Observing the rate constraints in theorem \ref{thm:achieve}
1485: %to the rate constraints without cooperation
1486: %in equations (\ref{eqn:marton_R1}) - (\ref{eqn:Marton_SumRate}) we can see that cooperation in general increases
1487: %the available rate.
1488: we can see that when (\ref{eqn:C21_rate conbtraint_Rev}) and (\ref{eqn:C12_rate conbtraint_Rev}) are satisfied
1489: then the cooperative rates are greater than the non-cooperative rates due to the (generally) positive terms adding to $I(U;Y_1)$
1490: and $I(V;Y_2)$.
1491: %
1492: %
1493: %Indeed, comparing the rate constraints for $\Rgood$ we have
1494: %from theorem \ref{thm:achieve_CEG} that
1495: %\begin{eqnarray}
1496: % R_1 & \le & I(U;Y_1,\hU) \nonumber\\
1497: %\label{eqn:2nd_form_of_R1_constr}
1498: % & = & I(U;Y_1) + I(U;\hU|Y_1).
1499: %\end{eqnarray}
1500: %The additive term $I(U;\hU|Y_1)$ is non-zero as long as $U - Y_1 - \hU$ do not form a Markov chain, i.e.,
1501: %$\hU$ contains information on $U$ which does not appear already in $Y_1$. This can be done as long as
1502: %$Y_2$ is not a degraded version of $Y_1$.
1503: \end{remark}
1504: \begin{remark}
1505: \label{cmt:card_bound}
1506: We note that although we present a single letter characterization of the rates, we are not able to apply
1507: standard cardinality bounding techniques such as those used in \cite{HajekPursley:79} or \cite{Salehi:78} for
1508: bounding $||\mU||$ and $||\mV||$. The
1509: method of \cite{HajekPursley:79} cannot be applied since it relies on the fact that the auxiliary random variables are
1510: independent, which is not the case here. The method of \cite{Salehi:78} cannot be applied as explained in the
1511: comment for theorem 2 in \cite{HanCosta:87}. The cardinality bounds on $||\mhU||$ and $||\mhV||$ are trivial since they
1512: are transmitted over noiseless links.
1513: \end{remark}
1514: \begin{remark}
1515: The relay strategies can be divided into two general classes. The first class is referred to as {\em
1516: decode-and-forward} (DAF). In this strategy, the relay first decodes the message intended for the destination and
1517: then generates a relay message based on the decoded information. The second class is referred to as
1518: {\em estimate-and-forward} (EAF). In this class the relay does not decode the message intended for the destination
1519: but transmits an estimate of its channel input to the destination.
1520: For the physically degraded BC we used DAF, based on \cite[theorem 1]{CoverG:79},
1521: to derive theorem \ref{thm:converse},
1522: and for the general BC we used the EAF scheme of \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79}, to derive theorem
1523: \ref{thm:achieve}. Of course, one can also combine
1524: both strategies and perform partial decoding at each receiver of the other receiver's message before conferencing,
1525: following \cite[theorem 7]{CoverG:79}. This combination will, in general, result in an increased achievable rate region.
1526: \end{remark}
1527:
1528:
1529: \subsection{Special Cases}
1530: \subsubsection{No Cooperation: $C_{12} = C_{21} = 0$}
1531: Consider first cooperation from $\Rbad$ to $\Rgood$. Setting $C_{21} = 0$ in theorem \ref{thm:achieve}
1532: %implies that $\hU$ must satisfy $I(\hU;Y_2|U,Y_1) = 0$.
1533: %This condition is equivalent to setting
1534: implies that
1535: \begin{equation}
1536: \label{eqn:special_no_coop}
1537: H(\hU|Y_1) = H(\hU|Y_2).
1538: \end{equation}
1539: From equation (\ref{eqn:def_RU}), the constraint on $R_1$ can be
1540: written in the form
1541: \begin{eqnarray*}
1542: R_1 & \le & I(U;Y_1) + I(U;\hU|Y_1).
1543: \end{eqnarray*}
1544: Now we find $I(U;\hU|Y_1)$:
1545: \begin{eqnarray}
1546: I(U;\hU|Y_1) & = & H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_1,U) \nonumber\\
1547: & \stackrel{(a)}{=} & H(\hU|Y_2) - H(\hU|Y_1,U) \nonumber\\
1548: \label{eqn:example_no}
1549: & \stackrel{(b)}{=} & H(\hU|Y_2,Y_1,U) - H(\hU|Y_1,U) \\
1550: & = & -I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1,U).\nonumber
1551: \end{eqnarray}
1552: where (a) is due to (\ref{eqn:special_no_coop}), and (b) is due to the Markov chain
1553: $U - (U,V) - X - (Y_1,Y_2) - Y_2 - \hU$, which implies that given $Y_2$, $\hU$ is independent of
1554: $Y_1$ and $U$.
1555: Now, since mutual information is non-negative, we conclude that $I(U;\hU|Y_1)= 0$.
1556: %Therefore, the minimum in (\ref{eqn:rate_r1_eq1}) is zero and
1557: Hence, the rate constraint on $R_1$ becomes
1558: \[
1559: R_1 \le I(U;Y_1).
1560: \]
1561: Similarly, the maximum rate $R_2$ is given by $I(V;Y_2)$, and in conclusion when $C_{12} = C_{21} = 0$ we
1562: resort back to the rate region without cooperation derived in \cite{Marton:79} (with a constant $W$).
1563:
1564:
1565:
1566:
1567: \subsubsection{Full Cooperation: $C_{12}=H(Y_1|Y_2)$, $C_{21}=H(Y_2|Y_1)$}
1568: When $C_{12} = H(Y_1|Y_2)$, we get from (\ref{eqn:C12_rate conbtraint_Rev}) that
1569: %at the maximal cooperation rate
1570: \begin{eqnarray*}
1571: H(Y_1|Y_2) = C_{12} & \ge & I(\hV;Y_1) - I(\hV;Y_2)\\
1572: & = & H(\hV|Y_2) - H(\hV|Y_1),
1573: \end{eqnarray*}
1574: which is satisfied when $\hV = Y_1$.
1575: Plugging this into (\ref{eqn:def_RV}), we get that
1576: when full cooperation from $\Rgood$ to $\Rbad$ is available, the rate constraint for $\Rbad$ becomes
1577: \[
1578: R_2 \le I(V;Y_2,Y_1).
1579: \]
1580: Using the same reasoning we conclude that when full cooperation from $\Rbad$ to $\Rgood$ is available,
1581: the rate constraint for $\Rgood$ becomes
1582: %\[
1583: $R_1 \le I(U;Y_1,Y_2)$.
1584: %\]
1585:
1586:
1587:
1588:
1589: \subsubsection{Partial Cooperation}
1590: When %using the maximum possible cooperation rate for the
1591: %method of theorem \ref{thm:achieve}, while
1592: $0 < C_{12} < H(Y_1|Y_2)$ and $0 < C_{21} < H(Y_2|Y_1)$, we get that
1593: \begin{eqnarray}
1594: C_{21} & \ge & H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_2)\nonumber\\
1595: \label{eqn:C21_special}
1596: \Rightarrow H(\hU|Y_1) & \le & C_{21} + H(\hU|Y_2).
1597: \end{eqnarray}
1598: %We now have the following proposition:
1599: %\begin{proposition}
1600: % \label{prop:equality}
1601: % For every $0 \le C_{21} \le H(Y_2|Y_1)$ there exists some probability distribution $p(\hu|y_2)$ such that
1602: % $C_{21} = H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_2)$.
1603: %\end{proposition}
1604: %The proof for this proposition is given in appendix \ref{appndx:proof_prop}.
1605: %
1606: %Similarly there exists some $p(\hv|y_2)$ such that
1607: %%\[
1608: % $C_{12} = H(\hV|Y_2) - H(\hV|Y_1)$.
1609: %%\]
1610: %Under these conditions,
1611: Hence,
1612: the achievable rate to $\Rgood$ is upper bounded by
1613: \begin{eqnarray}
1614: R_1 & \le & I(U;Y_1,\hU) \nonumber \\
1615: & = & I(U;Y_1) + I(U;\hU|Y_1) \nonumber\\
1616: & = & I(U;Y_1) + H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|U,Y_1) \nonumber\\
1617: & \stackrel{(a)}{\le} & I(U;Y_1) + H(\hU|Y_2) - H(\hU|U,Y_1) + C_{21} \nonumber\\
1618: & \stackrel{(b)}{=} & I(U;Y_1) + H(\hU|Y_2,Y_1,U) - H(\hU|U,Y_1) + C_{21} \nonumber\\
1619: \label{eqn:partial_coop_explicit}
1620: R_1 & \le & I(U;Y_1) + C_{21} - I(\hU;Y_2|U,Y_1).
1621: \end{eqnarray}
1622: where (a) is due to (\ref{eqn:C21_special}) and (b) follow from the same reasoning leading to
1623: equation (\ref{eqn:example_no}).
1624: %%relationship $p(\hu|u,v,x,y_1,y_) = p(\hu|y_2)$ defined in theorem \ref{thm:achieve_CEG}.
1625: Similarly, $R_2 \le I(V;Y_2) + C_{12} - I(\hV;Y_1|V,Y_2)$.
1626: %Note that there is not benefit to increasing $C_{21}$ beyond $I(\hU;Y_2) - I(\hU;Y_1)$.
1627:
1628:
1629:
1630: %\begin{remark}
1631: %\label{cmt:upper_general}
1632: %Assume that $C_{ij} < I(Y_i;X|Y_j)$. Note that there exists a gap of $I(\hU;Y_2|U,Y_1)$ and
1633: Note that there exist negative terms $-I(\hU;Y_2|U,Y_1)$ and $-I(\hV;Y_1|V,Y_2)$
1634: %between the achievable rates and their respective upper bounds.
1635: in the achievable rate upper bounds.
1636: This can be explained as follows: the mutual information $I(\hU;Y_2|U,Y_1)$ can be considered as a type of
1637: ``ancillary'' information that $\hU$ contains, since this information is contained in $\hU$ while $U$ and $Y_1$
1638: are already known - therefore, this information is a ``noise'' part of $Y_2$ which does not include
1639: any helpful information for decoding $U$ at $\Rgood$. Thus, for cooperating in the optimal way, $\hU$ has
1640: to be a type of ``sufficient and complete'' cooperation information.
1641: %\end{remark}
1642: \begin{comment}
1643: \begin{remark}
1644: Combining theorem \ref{thm:achieve_CEG} and proposition \ref{prop:equality} we can obtain the following rate expressions:
1645: \begin{corollary}
1646: Assume the broadcast channel setup of theorem \ref{thm:achieve_CEG}. Then, there exist mapping functions
1647: $p(\hu|y_2)$ and $p(\hv|y_1)$ such that the rate pair
1648: \begin{eqnarray*}
1649: R_1 & \le & I(U;Y_1) + C_{21} - I(\hU;Y_2|U,Y_1),\\
1650: R_2 & \le & I(V;Y_2) + C_{12} - I(\hV;Y_1|V,Y_2),
1651: \end{eqnarray*}
1652: and
1653: \[
1654: C_{12} = I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2), \qquad C_{21} = I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1),
1655: \]
1656: where the joint distribution $p(u,v,x,y_1,y_2,\hu,\hv) = p(u,v,x)p(y_1,y_2|x)p(\hu|y_2)p(\hv|y_1)$, and
1657: $||\mhV|| \le ||\mY_1||$, $||\mhU|| \le ||\mY_2||$, is achievable.
1658: \end{corollary}
1659: \end{remark}
1660: \begin{remark}
1661: Note that the equality in proposition \ref{prop:equality} should be understood in the asymptotic sense: we
1662: can approach the value arbitrarily close.
1663: \end{remark}
1664:
1665: \end{comment}
1666:
1667:
1668:
1669:
1670:
1671:
1672:
1673:
1674:
1675:
1676:
1677:
1678:
1679:
1680:
1681:
1682:
1683:
1684:
1685:
1686:
1687:
1688:
1689:
1690:
1691:
1692:
1693:
1694:
1695: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1697: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1698:
1699:
1700:
1701: \section{The General Broadcast Channel with a Single Common Message}
1702: \label{sec:commonmsg}
1703:
1704: We now consider the case where only a single message, rather than two independent
1705: messages, is transmitted to both receivers. The main motivation for considering this case is that in the two
1706: independent messages
1707: case it is difficult to specify an explicit cooperation scheme, and we therefore have to represent cooperation
1708: through auxiliary random variables. %, for which we are not able to derive cardinality bounds.
1709: Hence, we cannot identify directly the gain from cooperation,
1710: except in the case of full cooperation, and we also cannot evaluate the achievable region.
1711: For the single common message case, we are able to derive results for partial cooperation without auxiliary variables,
1712: {\em which make this region explicitly computable}.
1713: This scenario is depicted in figure \ref{fig:broadcast-cooperation}. %\footnote{Note that in
1714: %figure \ref{fig:broadcast-cooperation} we abuse notation: since each receiver produces its own estimate $\hat{W}$ of $W$,
1715: %both $\hat{W}$'s are not necessarily the same.}.
1716: \begin{figure}[ht]
1717: \center\scalebox{0.48}{\includegraphics{fig4.eps}}
1718: %\centerline{\psfig{file=Broadcast_Channel_Common.eps,width=10.5cm,height=3.75cm}}
1719: \caption{\small The single message broadcast channel with cooperating receivers. $\hW$ and
1720: $\hat{\hW}$ are the estimates of $W$ at $\Rgood$ and $\Rbad$ respectively.}
1721: \label{fig:broadcast-cooperation}
1722: \end{figure}
1723:
1724:
1725:
1726: For this scenario we need to specialize the definitions of a code and the average probability of error as follows:
1727:
1728: %\begin{definition}
1729: %\label{def:CommonCode}
1730: \begin{itemize}
1731: \item A $\left(2^{nR},n,(C_{12},C_{21})\right)$ {\em code} for sending a common message
1732: over the broadcast channel with cooperating receivers having conference links
1733: of capacities $C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$ between them,
1734: %consists of a message set $\mW = \left\{1,2,...,2^{nR}\right\}$, an encoding function
1735: %\[
1736: % f: \mW \mapsto \mX^n,
1737: %\]
1738: %a $\left(C_{12},C_{21}\right)$-admissible conference
1739: %\begin{eqnarray*}
1740: % & h_{12} : & \mY_1^n \times \mW_{21} \mapsto \mW_{12},\\
1741: % & h_{21} : & \mY_2^n \times \mW_{12} \mapsto \mW_{21},
1742: %\end{eqnarray*}
1743: %and two decoding functions
1744: %\begin{eqnarray*}
1745: % & g_1 : & \mW_{21} \times \mY_1^n \mapsto \mW,\\
1746: % & g_2 : & \mW_{12} \times \mY_2^n \mapsto \mW.
1747: %\end{eqnarray*}
1748: is defined in a similar manner to definition \ref{def:codes} with $\mW_1$, $\mW_2$ and $\mW_1 \times \mW_2$ all replaced
1749: with $\mW = \left\{1, 2, ...,2^{nR}\right\}$.
1750: %\end{definition}
1751:
1752: %\begin{definition}
1753: %\label{def:perrCommon}
1754: \item The {\em average probability of error} is defined
1755: similarly to definition \ref{def:perr} with $W_1$ and $W_2$ replaced with $W$.
1756: %as the
1757: %probability that at least one of the receivers does not correctly decode the message:
1758: %\[
1759: % \Perr = \Pr\left( g_1(W_{21},Y_1^n) \ne W \;\; \mbox{or} \;\; g_2(W_{12},Y_2^n) \ne W\right).
1760: %\]
1761: %We also define the average probability of error for each of the receivers
1762: %as:
1763: %\begin{eqnarray}
1764: %\label{eqn:def_pe1}
1765: % P_{e1}^{(n)} & = & \mbox{Pr}\left(g_1\left(W_{21},Y_1^n\right) \ne W\right), \\
1766: %\label{eqn:def_pe2}
1767: % P_{e2}^{(n)} & = & \mbox{Pr}\left(g_2\left(W_{12},Y_2^n\right) \ne W\right).
1768: %\end{eqnarray}
1769: %\end{definition}
1770:
1771: \end{itemize}
1772:
1773: The capacity for the non-cooperative single message scenario is given in \cite{ElGamal:79} by
1774: \begin{equation}
1775: C = \sup_{p(x)} \Big\{ \min \big( I(X;Y_1) , I(X;Y_2) \big) \Big\}.
1776: \end{equation}
1777: In the following we consider two cooperation schemes, referred to as a single-step scheme and
1778: a two-step scheme. These schemes are described in figure \ref{fig:conference}.
1779: In the single-step scheme, after reception each receiver generates a single cooperation
1780: message based on its channel input. In the two-step scheme, after reception one receiver generates a
1781: cooperation message based only on its channel input, as in the previous case, but the second receiver generates
1782: its cooperation message only after decoding (which is done with the help of the conference message from
1783: the first receiver).
1784: In both cases each receiver generates a single conference message, however in the single-step conference
1785: the emphasis is on low delay, while in the two-step conference we sacrifice delay in order to gain rate.
1786: \begin{figure}[ht]
1787: \center\scalebox{0.36}{\includegraphics{fig5.eps}}
1788: % \centering {\includegraphics[width = 0.75\textwidth]{OneTwoConference.eps}}
1789: \caption{\small Schematic description of the single-step and the two-step conference schemes.}
1790: \label{fig:conference}
1791: \end{figure}
1792:
1793:
1794:
1795:
1796:
1797: \subsection{Decoding with a Single-Step Cooperation}
1798: \label{subsec:one_delay}
1799: In this section we constrain both decoders to output their decoded messages
1800: after a conference that consists of a single message from each receiver, based only on its received
1801: channel input. For this case, we can specialize the derivation of theorem \ref{thm:achieve}
1802: and get the following achievable rate for the broadcast channel with partially cooperating
1803: receivers:
1804: %\footnote{We note that in this setup, since the
1805: %receivers use noiseless conference links for cooperation, the delays over these links can be much smaller than the
1806: %delays for the wireless channel. However, since we view this setup as an initial step preceding the study of a
1807: %fully wireless system, we keep the delay considerations as if we would be using wireless cooperation links.}
1808:
1809:
1810: %In theorem \ref{thm:achieve_CEG_special}, the cooperation gain is
1811: %given in terms of the auxiliary random variables $\hU$ and $\hV$.
1812: %However, by explicitly specifying a cooperation scheme, we can
1813: %obtain achievability results in which the capacities of the
1814: %cooperation links appear as linear additive terms in the bounds on
1815: %the rates:
1816: \begin{comment}
1817: \begin{theorem}
1818: \label{thm:onedelay}
1819: \it
1820: Let $\left(\mX, p(y_1,y_2|x), \mY_1 \times \mY_2\right)$ be any discrete memoryless broadcast
1821: channel, with cooperating receivers having noiseless conference links of finite capacities
1822: $C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$, as defined in section~\ref{sec:defs}.
1823: %Assume the broadcast channel setup of theorem \ref{lemma:achieve_CEG_special}.
1824: Then, for sending a common message
1825: to both receivers, any rate $R$ satisfying
1826: \begin{eqnarray*}
1827: R & \le & \sup_{p(x)} \Big\{\min \big\{ R_1(p(x)), R_2(p(x))\big\}\Big\},\\
1828: R_1(p(x)) & \triangleq & \max \big(I(X;Y_1), I(X;Y_1) - I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1,X) + \min\big(C_{21},H(\hU|Y_1)-H(\hU|Y_2)\big) \big), \\
1829: R_2(p(x)) & \triangleq & \max\big(I(X;Y_2), I(X;Y_2) - I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2,X) + \min\big(C_{12},H(\hV|Y_2)-H(\hV|Y_1)\big)\big) ,
1830: \end{eqnarray*}
1831: for some $p(x,y_1,y_2,\hu,\hv) = p(x)p(y_1,y_2|x)p(\hu|y_2)p(\hv|y_1)$ is achievable, with $||\mhU|| \le ||\mY_2||$
1832: and $||\mhV|| \le ||\mY_1||$.
1833: \end{theorem}
1834: \end{comment}
1835: %
1836: \begin{theorem}
1837: \label{thm:onedelay}
1838: \it
1839: Let $\left(\mX, p(y_1,y_2|x), \mY_1 \times \mY_2\right)$ be any discrete memoryless broadcast
1840: channel, with cooperating receivers having noiseless conference links of finite capacities
1841: $C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$, as defined in section~\ref{sec:defs}.
1842: %Assume the broadcast channel setup of theorem \ref{lemma:achieve_CEG_special}.
1843: Then, for sending a common message
1844: to both receivers, any rate $R$ satisfying
1845: \begin{eqnarray*}
1846: R & \le & \sup_{p(x)} \Big\{\min \big\{ I(X;Y_1,\hU), I(X;Y_2,\hV)\big\}\Big\},
1847: \end{eqnarray*}
1848: subject to
1849: \begin{eqnarray*}
1850: C_{21} & \ge & I(\hat{U};Y_2) - I(\hU;Y_1),\\
1851: C_{12} & \ge & I(\hat{V};Y_1) - I(\hV;Y_2),
1852: \end{eqnarray*}
1853: for some joint distribution $p(x,y_1,y_2,\hu,\hv) =
1854: p(x)p(y_1,y_2|x)p(\hu|y_2)p(\hv|y_1)$ is achievable, with $||\mhU||
1855: \le ||\mY_2||+1$ and $||\mhV|| \le ||\mY_1||+1$.
1856: \end{theorem}
1857:
1858: \smallskip
1859:
1860: The proof of theorem \ref{thm:onedelay} follows the same lines of the proof of theorem
1861: \ref{thm:achieve} and will not be repeated here.
1862: %is provided in appendix \ref{appndx:proof-of-lemma-single-step-common}.
1863: %%Note that this result is very intuitive: the usage of $\hU$ in the decoding increases the probability of
1864: %%error due to the uncertainty in $Y_2$ even when $X$ and $Y_1$ are known. This uncertainty is compensated
1865: %%by the cooperation information from the other receiver, contributing to an increase in the rate.
1866: We next show how we can increase the rates by introducing the two-step conference.
1867:
1868: \subsection{Decoding with a Two-Step Cooperation}
1869: We consider a two-step conference: at the first step only one receiver decodes the message. The second receiver
1870: decodes after the second step. Therefore, after the first receiver decodes the message, relaying
1871: to the second receiver reduces to the decode-and-forward relay situation of \cite[theorem 1]{CoverG:79}.
1872: The rates achievable with a two step conference
1873: are given in the following theorem:
1874: \begin{theorem}
1875: \label{thm:two_delay}
1876: \it
1877: %Let $\left(\mX, p(y_1,y_2|x), \mY_1 \times \mY_2\right)$ be any discrete memoryless broadcast
1878: %channel, with cooperating receivers having noiseless conference links of finite capacities
1879: %$C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$, as defined in section \ref{sec:defs}.
1880: Assume the broadcast channel setup of theorem \ref{thm:onedelay}.
1881: Then, for sending a common message
1882: to both receivers, any rate $R$ satisfying
1883: \begin{eqnarray*}
1884: R & \le & \sup_{p(x)}\Bigg[ \max\Big\{ R^{12}(p(x)), R^{21}(p(x)) \Big\} \Bigg]\\
1885: R^{12}(p(x)) & \triangleq & \min \bigg( I(X;Y_1) + C_{21} , \\
1886: & & \qquad I(X;Y_2) - I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2,X) \\
1887: & & \qquad + \min\big(C_{12},H(\hV|Y_2)-H(\hV|Y_1)\big) \bigg),
1888: \end{eqnarray*}
1889: \begin{eqnarray*}
1890: R^{21}(p(x)) & \triangleq & \min \bigg( I(X;Y_2) + C_{12} , \\
1891: & & \qquad I(X;Y_1) - I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1,X) \\
1892: & & \qquad + \min\big(C_{21},H(\hU|Y_1)-H(\hU|Y_2)\big) \bigg),
1893: \end{eqnarray*}
1894: for some joint distribution $p(x,y_1,y_2,\hu,\hv) =
1895: p(x)p(y_1,y_2|x)p(\hu|y_2)p(\hv|y_1)$ is achievable, with $||\mhU||
1896: \le ||\mY_2||+1$ and $||\mhV|| \le ||\mY_1||+1$, and with the
1897: appropriate $C_{12} \ge I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2,X)$ or $C_{21} \ge
1898: I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1,X)$ (the one used for the first cooperation step).
1899: \end{theorem}
1900: \smallskip
1901: \begin{proof}
1902: \subsubsection{Overview of Coding Strategy}
1903: The scheme described in theorem \ref{thm:onedelay} uses a single-step conference for
1904: both decoders. However, if we let one receiver use a two-step conference,
1905: then that receiver, instead of using conference information derived from the raw input of the other receiver,
1906: can use information generated
1907: by the second receiver after it already decoded the message. This conference information
1908: is less noisy, and thus the rate to the first receiver can be increased.
1909:
1910: To put this in more concrete terms,
1911: assume that at time $i+1$, $\Rgood$ sends to $\Rbad$ the index $s'_{i+1}$
1912: of the partition into which its relay message at time $i$, denoted $z_{\hv,i}$, belongs. In appendix
1913: \ref{appndx:proof-of-lemma-single-step-common} we show that
1914: $\Rbad$ can decode the message $w_{0,i}$ with an arbitrarily small probability of error as long as
1915: \begin{eqnarray}
1916: \label{eqn:rate_bound_for_first_step}
1917: R & \le & I(X;Y_2) - I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2,X)\nonumber\\
1918: & & \qquad + \min\left(C_{12},H(\hV|Y_2)-H(\hV|Y_1)\right),
1919: \end{eqnarray}
1920: and
1921: \begin{equation}
1922: \label{eqn:capacity _constraint_for_first_step}
1923: C_{12} \ge I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2,X).
1924: \end{equation}
1925: %Recall that a successful decoding at $\Rbad$ implies that
1926: %$\left(\xvec(w_{0,i}),\yvec_1,\yvec_2(i)\right) \in \typ(X,Y_1,Y_2)$,
1927: %for some $\yvec_1 \in S'_{s'_{i+1}}$. In section \ref{subsec:one_delay} we required that
1928: %$\Rbad$ only decodes $w_{0,i}$. However, in the modified scheme
1929: %we require that $\Rbad$ correctly decodes the pair $(\xvec(w_{0,i}),\yvec_1(i))$.
1930: % We show that this does not impose additional rate constraints. In fact,
1931: % reducing the rate by $H(Y_1|Y_2,X)$ is the loss we suffer in order to
1932: %be able to decode $Y_1^n$ at $\Rbad$. This loss is acceptable only if we can
1933: %compensate for it through the cooperation.
1934: %Therefore, after decoding at $\Rbad$, both $\Rbad$ and $\Rgood$ know $\yvec_1(i)$, and
1935: %thus both know the set $\typ\left(X|\yvec_1(i)\right) \triangleq
1936: %\left\{\xvec \in \mX^n: (\xvec, \yvec_1(i)) \in \typ(X,Y_1)\right\}$ to which $\xvec(w_{0,i})$ belongs.
1937:
1938: We now introduce the following modifications to the scheme used
1939: in theorem \ref{thm:onedelay}:
1940: \subsubsection{Relay Sets Generation at $\Rbad$}
1941: $\Rbad$ partitions the message set $\mW$ into $2^{nC_{21}}$ subsets in a uniform and independent manner.
1942: Denote these subsets with $\tS''_{\ts''}, \: \ts'' \in \left[1,2^{nC_{21}}\right]$.
1943: \subsubsection{Relay Encoding at $\Rbad$}
1944: $\Rbad$ has an estimate $\hat{\hw}_{0,i}$ of the message $w_{0,i}$. Now, $\Rbad$ looks for the partition into which
1945: $\hat{\hw}_{0,i}$ belongs and sends the index of this partition, denoted $\ts''_{i+2}$, to $\Rgood$ at time $i+2$.
1946: \subsubsection{Decoding at $\Rgood$}
1947: Upon reception of $\yvec_1(i)$, $\Rgood$ generates the set $\mL_1(i) = \left\{w \in \mW : \left(\xvec(w), \yvec_1(i)\right)
1948: \in \styp(X,Y_1)\right\}$. At time $i+2$, upon reception of $\ts''_{i+2}$, $\Rgood$ looks for an index $w$ such that
1949: $w \in \mL_1(i) \bigcap \tS''_{\ts''_{i+2}}$. If a unique such $w$ exists
1950: then $\Rgood$ sets $\hw_{0,i} = w$, otherwise an error is declared.
1951: \subsubsection{Bounding the Probability of Error}
1952: Using the proof technique in \cite[theorem 1]{CoverG:79}, it can be easily shown that assuming correct decoding
1953: at $\Rbad$, then any rate $R \le I(X;Y_1) + C_{21}$ is achievable to $\Rgood$.
1954:
1955: Combining the bounds derived above, we conclude that with a two-step conference at $\Rgood$,
1956: any rate satisfying
1957: \begin{eqnarray*}
1958: R & \le & \min \bigg( I(X;Y_1) + C_{21} , I(X;Y_2) - I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2,X) \\
1959: & & \qquad \qquad + \min\big(C_{12},H(\hV|Y_2)-H(\hV|Y_1)\big) \bigg),\\
1960: C_{12} & \ge & I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2,X),
1961: \end{eqnarray*}
1962: ia achievable. Repeating the same derivation when $\Rbad$ uses a two-step conference, and combining with
1963: the previous case proves theorem \ref{thm:two_delay}.
1964: \end{proof}
1965:
1966: Setting $\hU = Y_2$, $\hV = Y_1$ in theorem \ref{thm:two_delay} we obtain the following achievable
1967: region:
1968: \begin{corollary}
1969: \label{thm:_cor_two_delay}
1970: { \it
1971: %\it Let $\left(\mX, p(y_1,y_2|x), \mY_1 \times \mY_2\right)$ be any discrete memoryless broadcast channel, with
1972: %cooperating receivers having noiseless conference links of finite
1973: %capacities $C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$, as defined in section \ref{sec:defs}.
1974: Assume the broadcast channel setup of theorem \ref{thm:onedelay}.
1975: Then, for sending a common message to both receivers, any rate $R$
1976: satisfying
1977: \begin{eqnarray*}
1978: R & \le & \sup_{p(x)}\Bigg[ \max\Big\{ R^{12}(p(x)), R^{21}(p(x)) \Big\} \Bigg]\\
1979: R^{12}(p(x))\!\! & \triangleq & \!\!\min \bigg(\! I(X;Y_1) + C_{21} , I(X;Y_2) - H(Y_1|Y_2,X)\\
1980: & & \phantom{xxxxxxx} + \min\big(C_{12},H(Y_1|Y_2)\big) \bigg),\\
1981: R^{21}(p(x))\!\! & \triangleq &\!\! \min \bigg(\! I(X;Y_2) + C_{12} , I(X;Y_1)
1982: - H(Y_2|Y_1,X) \\
1983: & & \phantom{xxxxxxx} + \min\big(C_{21},H(Y_2|Y_1)\big) \bigg),
1984: \end{eqnarray*}
1985: with the appropriate $C_{12} > H(Y_1|Y_2,X)$ or $C_{21} >
1986: H(Y_2|Y_1,X)$ (the one used for the first cooperation step), is
1987: achievable.}
1988: \end{corollary}
1989: This gives a partial cooperation result without auxiliary random variables.
1990:
1991:
1992:
1993: \subsection{An Example for Corollary \ref{thm:_cor_two_delay}}
1994: %\subsubsection{Example for Lemma \ref{lemma:onedelay}}
1995: \label{sec:example_1_common}
1996: Consider two independent, identical, BSBCs with transition probability $p$, and cooperation
1997: links of capacities $C_{12} = C_{21} = C$. For this case, corollary \ref{thm:_cor_two_delay}
1998: gives the following maximum achievable rate:
1999: \begin{eqnarray*}
2000: R & = & \sup_{p_0} \bigg\{ \min\Big[H(Y_1) - h(p) + C,\\
2001: & & \qquad\qquad \quad \min\left(H(Y_1) + C , H(Y_1,Y_2) \right) - 2h(p) \Big] \bigg\},\\
2002: & = & \sup_{p_0} \bigg\{ \min\Big[H(Y_1) - 2h(p) + C, H(Y_1,Y_2) - 2h(p) \Big] \bigg\},
2003: \end{eqnarray*}
2004: for $C \ge h(p)$, where $\mY_1 = \mY_2 = \mX = \left\{0,1\right\}$, $p_0 = \Pr(X = 0)$, and
2005: \begin{eqnarray*}
2006: \Pr(y_1,y_2) & = &\left\{
2007: \begin{array}{cl}
2008: (1-p)^2p_0 + p^2(1-p_0), & y_1 = y_2 = 0\\
2009: p(1-p), & y_1 \ne y_2\\
2010: p^2p_0 + (1-p)^2(1-p_0), & y_1 = y_2 = 1
2011: \end{array}
2012: \right.\\
2013: \Pr(y_1) & = & \left\{
2014: \begin{array}{cl}
2015: (1-p)p_0 + p(1-p_0), & y_1 = 0\\
2016: pp_0 + (1-p)(1-p_0), & y_1 = 1.
2017: \end{array}
2018: \right.
2019: \end{eqnarray*}
2020: Solving for the supremum for each value of $C$, we get the achievable rates depicted in figure \ref{fig:common_example}.
2021: \begin{figure}[ht]
2022: \centering
2023: {\includegraphics[width = 0.42\textwidth]{fig6.eps}}
2024: \caption{\small Achievable rate vs. C, for the two independent, identical, BSBCs with a single common message,
2025: resulting from corollary \ref{thm:_cor_two_delay}.}
2026: \label{fig:common_example}
2027: \end{figure}
2028: Note the linear increase in the achievable rate for $H(Y_2|Y_1,X) < C < H(Y_2|Y_1)$.
2029:
2030:
2031:
2032:
2033: \subsection{An Upper Bound}
2034: \label{sec:upper_bound_common}
2035: The upper bound for the single common message case can be obtained from the bound for the two independent messages
2036: case in proposition \ref{thm:upper_bound}:
2037: \begin{corollary}
2038: \label{thm:upper_bound_common}
2039: \it
2040: Let $\left(\mX, p(y_1,y_2|x), \mY_1 \times \mY_2\right)$ be any discrete memoryless broadcast
2041: channel, with cooperating receivers having noiseless conference links of finite capacities
2042: $C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$, as defined in section~\ref{sec:defs}.
2043: %Assume the broadcast channel setting of theorem \ref{thm:achieve_CEG_special}.
2044: Then, for sending a common message to both receivers, any rate $R$ must satisfy
2045: \begin{eqnarray*}
2046: R & \le & \sup_{p(x)} \Big\{ \min \big( I(X;Y_1) + C_{21}, I(X;Y_2) + C_{12}, \\
2047: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad I(X;Y_1,Y_2) \big) \Big\}.
2048: \end{eqnarray*}
2049: \end{corollary}
2050: \begin{proof}
2051: Follows directly from proposition \ref{thm:upper_bound} by noting that the common rate has to satisfy all three
2052: constraints: the individual rates and the sum rate.
2053: \end{proof}
2054: \subsection{Remarks}
2055: \begin{comment}
2056: \begin{remark}
2057: Using the three-step decoding of \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79} we obtain the following lemma:
2058: \begin{lemma}
2059: \label{lemma:achieve_CEG_special}
2060: \it
2061: Let $\left(\mathcal{X}, p(y_1,y_2|x), \mathcal{Y}_1 \times \mathcal{Y}_2\right)$ be any discrete memoryless
2062: broadcast channel, with cooperating
2063: receivers having noiseless conference links of finite capacities $C_{12}$ and $C_{21}$, as defined in
2064: section~\ref{sec:defs}. Then, for sending a common message
2065: to both receivers, any rate $R$ satisfying
2066: \begin{eqnarray*}
2067: R & \le & \min \left(I(X;Y_1,\hU), I(X;Y_2,\hV) \right),
2068: \end{eqnarray*}
2069: subject to,
2070: \begin{eqnarray}
2071: \label{eqn:coop_constr_single_msg}
2072: C_{21} & \ge & I\left(\hat{U};Y_2\right) - I\left(\hat{U};Y_1\right),\\
2073: C_{12} & \ge & I\left(\hat{V};Y_1\right) - I\left(\hat{V};Y_2\right),
2074: \end{eqnarray}
2075: for some joint distribution $p(x,y_1,y_2,\hat{u},\hat{v}) = p(x)p(y_1,y_2|x)p(\hat{u}|y_2)p(\hat{v}|y_1)$,
2076: where $\hu \in \mhU, \hv \in \mhV$, $||\mhU|| \le ||\mY_2||$, $||\mhV|| \le ||\mY_1||$, is achievable.
2077: \end{lemma}
2078: \smallskip
2079: Lemma \ref{lemma:achieve_CEG_special} follows easily by specializing the proof of lemma \ref{lemma:achieve_CEG}.
2080: This is because the relay encoding is done independently from the broadcast encoding, and
2081: depends only on the
2082: %marginal distribution of the
2083: received signal at each receiver: $Y^n_1$ at $\Rgood$ and
2084: $Y^n_2$ at $\Rbad$.
2085:
2086:
2087: Note that the region of theorem \ref{thm:onedelay} is larger than the one given in lemma
2088: \ref{lemma:achieve_CEG_special}. The reason
2089: is that we use joint decoding at the receiver, rather than decoding the relay message first and then the
2090: source message. For $C_{21} > H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_2)$ we get the joint decoding bound
2091: $R_1 \le I(X;Y_1,\hU)$, but also in the region
2092: \[
2093: 0 \le I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1,X) = H(\hU|Y_1,X) - H(\hU|Y_2) \le C_{21} \le H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_2),
2094: \]
2095: we obtain rate increase over the rate of lemma \ref{lemma:achieve_CEG_special}.
2096: \end{remark}
2097: \begin{remark}
2098: Using the cooperation scheme of theorem \ref{thm:onedelay} and theorem \ref{thm:two_delay} we are also able to
2099: identify directly the benefit of cooperation: the cooperation link capacity appears as an additive
2100: constant to the rate without cooperation. Hence, when $C_{12} > I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2,X)$, any additional rate available
2101: for cooperation, beyond $I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2,X)$ translates directly to a linear increase in the information rate $R$.
2102: Note that when $C_{21} = H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_2)$ and
2103: $C_{12} = H(\hV|Y_2) - H(\hV|Y_1)$ we converge to the case of sequential decoding.
2104: %Note that this is achieved without decoding $\yvec_2(i)$ directly at $\Rgood$ (for lemma \ref{lemma:onedelay}).
2105: When $C_{21} = C_{12} = 0$ we resort back to the non-cooperative case.
2106: \end{remark}
2107: %\begin{remark}
2108: %The achievable rate region of theorem \ref{thm:two_delay} is larger in general than
2109: %the rate region achievable using lemma \ref{lemma:onedelay}.
2110: %%This is demonstrated via the example in section \ref{sec:exmaple_5_6}.
2111: %\end{remark}
2112: \end{comment}
2113: \begin{remark}
2114: Note that there are special cases where the lower bound of corollary \ref{thm:_cor_two_delay} coincides with
2115: the upper bound of corollary \ref{thm:upper_bound_common}, yielding the capacity for these cases.
2116: For example, assume a strong version of the ``more capable" condition of \cite{ElGamal:79}:
2117: $I(X;Y_1) >> I(X;Y_2)$\footnote{The precise condition
2118: requires that $I(X;Y_1) > I(X;Y_2) + C_{12} - C_{21} + H(Y_2|Y_1,X)$ for all input distributions $p(x)$.}
2119: for all input distributions $p(x)$ on $\mX$ .
2120: Assume also that $H(Y_2|Y_1,X) < C_{21} < H(Y_2|Y_1)$ and
2121: $H(Y_1|Y_2,X) < C_{12} < H(Y_1|Y_2)$.
2122: Under these conditions, we have that $I(X;Y_1) + C_{21} > I(X;Y_2) + C_{12} - H(Y_1|Y_2,X)$.
2123: Thus, if $\Rgood$ is helping $\Rbad$ first, the achievable rate is $I(X;Y_2) + C_{12} - H(Y_1|Y_2,X)$.
2124: If $\Rbad$ is helping $\Rgood$ first, then the achievable rate is $I(X;Y_2) + C_{12}$.
2125: Since $C_{12} - H(Y_1|Y_2,X) < C_{12}$, this cooperation scheme achieves the upper bound
2126: $R = \sup_{p(x)} \left\{I(X;Y_2) + C_{12}\right\}$.
2127: \end{remark}
2128: \begin{remark}
2129: Note that the capacity region for the deterministic broadcast channel with cooperating receivers follows from
2130: corollary \ref{thm:_cor_two_delay} and corollary \ref{thm:upper_bound_common}. This region was derived in \cite{Draper:ISIT04}.
2131: For this case we have that
2132: $H(Y_1|X) = H(Y_2|X) = 0$ hence $I(X;Y_i) = H(Y_i)$, $i=1,2$.
2133: %Setting $\hU = Y_2$ and $\hV = Y_1$ in lemma \ref{lemma:onedelay}
2134: The achievable rate (from corollary \ref{thm:_cor_two_delay}) is given by
2135: \begin{eqnarray*}
2136: R & \le & \min\left\{ H(Y_2) + C_{12}, H(Y_1) + \min\left( C_{21}, H(Y_2|Y_1) \right) \right\}\\
2137: & = & \min \left\{H(Y_2) + C_{12} , H(Y_1) + C_{21}, H(Y_1,Y_2)\right\},
2138: \end{eqnarray*}
2139: and the same from corollary \ref{thm:upper_bound_common}.
2140: \end{remark}
2141:
2142: \begin{remark}
2143: We note that although the expressions in \eqref{eqn:rate_bound_for_first_step} and
2144: \eqref{eqn:capacity _constraint_for_first_step} seem different from the EAF expression of \cite[theorem 6]{CoverG:79},
2145: given in theorem \ref{thm:onedelay}
2146: (cf. $R \le I(X;Y_2,\hV), \mbox{ subject to } C_{12} \ge I(\hat{V};Y_1) - I(\hV;Y_2)$), this does not improve on
2147: the achievable rate of the standard EAF. The reason is that every rate achievable according to
2148: \eqref{eqn:rate_bound_for_first_step}-\eqref{eqn:capacity _constraint_for_first_step} can also be
2149: achieved with the standard EAF using the same mapping of the auxiliary RV and an appropriate time-sharing\footnote{This
2150: observation is due to Shlomo Shamai and Gerhard Kramer.}.
2151: However, when considering {\em a specific, fixed assignment of the auxiliary random variable} (such as in corollary
2152: \ref{thm:_cor_two_delay}) then the rate achievable with \eqref{eqn:rate_bound_for_first_step}-\eqref{eqn:capacity _constraint_for_first_step}
2153: is indeed greater than the classic EAF with the same assignment.
2154:
2155: \end{remark}
2156:
2157:
2158:
2159:
2160:
2161:
2162: \section{Conclusions}
2163: \label{sec:conclude}
2164: In this paper we investigated the effect of cooperation between receivers on the rates for the broadcast channel.
2165: As communication networks evolve, it can be expected that in future networks, nodes that are close enough to be able
2166: to communicate directly, will use this ability to help each other in reception.
2167: Accommodating this characteristic, we extended the traditional
2168: broadcast scenario, in which each decoder is assumed to operate independently, into a scenario where
2169: the receivers have finite capacity links used for cooperation.
2170: We analyzed three related scenarios: the physically degraded BC - for which we derived the capacity region,
2171: the general BC for which we presented an achievability result, and the single common message
2172: case. For the last case we identified a special case where capacity can be achieved.
2173: We note that it is not trivial to extend these results to more than two steps, since the intermediate
2174: steps need to extract information from partial relay information. Although this can be done by introducing additional auxiliary
2175: variables, obtaining a computable region is not a simple task.
2176: This study is an initial step in this investigation and future work includes several extensions:
2177: a natural first extension is to consider a fully wireless system, and extend the analysis to the Gaussian case.
2178: Another extension is to consider the interaction between the Wyner-Ziv compression and the achievable rates for the general channel.
2179:
2180:
2181:
2182:
2183: \section*{Acknowledgements}
2184: The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and their useful suggestions.
2185:
2186:
2187: \useRomanappendicesfalse
2188: \appendices
2189: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2190: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
2191:
2192:
2193: \section{Background Results}
2194: \label{Appndx_BoundSet}
2195: Consider the construction in section \ref{sec:achieve}.
2196: Let $\mathcal{L}(i-1) = \left\{w_{2}: \left({\bf y}_2(i-1), {\bf u}(w_{2}|s_{i-1})\right)
2197: \in A_{\epsilon}^{(n)}\right\}$.
2198: We bound $E_{\yvec_2}\left\{||\mathcal{L}(i-1)|| \right\}$. Let,
2199: \begin{displaymath}
2200: \psi\left(w_2 \left|\yvec_2(i-1) \right.\right) = \left\{
2201: \begin{array}{cc}
2202: 1, & \left(\uvec(w_2|s_{i-1}), \yvec_2(i-1) \right) \in \typ \\
2203: 0, & \mbox{otherwise.}
2204: \end{array}
2205: \right.
2206: \end{displaymath}
2207: Hence, as in \cite[theorem 1]{CoverG:79}, we can write the random variable $||\mL(i-1)||$ as a sum of random
2208: variables:
2209: \[
2210: ||\mathcal{L}(i-1)|| = \sum_{w_2 = 1}^{2^{nR_2}} \psi\left(w_2 \left|\yvec_2(i-1) \right.\right),
2211: \]
2212: and therefore
2213: \begin{eqnarray*}
2214: E_{\yvec_2}\Big\{||\mathcal{L}(i-1)|| \Big\} & = & E_{\yvec_2}\left\{\psi\left(w_{2,i-1} \left|\yvec_2(i-1) \right.\right)
2215: \right\}\\
2216: & & \phantom{x} +\!\!\! \sum_{\substack{w_2=1 \\w_2\ne w_{2,i-1}}}^{2^{nR_2}} E_{\yvec_2}\left\{\psi\left(w_2 \left|\yvec_2(i-1) \right.\right)\right\}.
2217: \end{eqnarray*}
2218: When $w_2 \ne w_{2,i-1}$ we get from the properties of independent sequence
2219: (\cite[theorem 8.6.1]{cover-thomas:it-book}) that
2220: %as long as $s_{i-1}$ is correct, then
2221: \begin{eqnarray*}
2222: E_{\yvec_2}\left\{\psi\left(w_2 \left|\yvec_2(i-1) \right.\right)\right\}
2223: & = & \Pr\left\{\psi\left(w_2 \left|\yvec_2(i-1) \right.\right)=1\right\}\\
2224: & \le & 2^{-n\left(I(U;Y_2)-3\epsilon \right)},
2225: \end{eqnarray*}
2226: thus,
2227: \begin{equation}
2228: \label{eqn:Dec_set_bound}
2229: E_{\yvec_2}\Big\{||\mathcal{L}(i-1)|| \Big\} \le 1+ 2^{nR_2} 2^{-n\left(I(U;Y_2)-3\epsilon \right)}.
2230: \end{equation}
2231: Note that this result holds also when considering the strongly typical set rather than the weakly typical
2232: set.
2233:
2234: \begin{comment}
2235: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2236: \section{Proof of proposition \ref{prop:equality}}
2237: \label{appndx:proof_prop}
2238: Fix $p(x)$ and $p(y_1,y_2|x)$. Recall that we have the following joint distribution
2239: \[
2240: p(u,v,x,y_1,y_2,\hu,\hv) = p(u,v,x)p(y_1,y_2|x) p(\hu|y_2)p(\hv|y_1),
2241: \]
2242: and $||\mhU|| \le ||\mY_2||$. Now, we write
2243: \[
2244: C_{21} = H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_2) = H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_2,Y_1) = I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1).
2245: \]
2246: Writing explicitly the conditional mutual information we have
2247: \[
2248: C_{21} = \sum_{\mY_1} p(y_1)I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1 = y_1).
2249: \]
2250: Consider now $I(Y_2;\hU|y_1)$. The distribution $p(y_2|y_1)$ on $\mY_2$ is determined solely by $p(y_1,y_2|x)$ and
2251: $p(x)$ and is independent of $p(\hu|y_2)$. We think on this as
2252: the "input distribution". The distribution $p(\hu|y_1,y_2)$ on $\mY_2 \times \mhU$ is the "channel" connecting
2253: the input $Y_2$ to the output $\hU$. By \cite[theorem 2.7.4]{cover-thomas:it-book}, the mutual information
2254: $I(Y_2;\hU|y_1)$ is a convex function of $p(\hu|y_2,y_1) = p(\hu|y_2)$. Therefore, $I(Y_2;\hU|Y_1)$ is a
2255: weighted sum of convex function and is therefore convex as well.
2256: Now, setting
2257: \[
2258: p_1(\hu|y_2) = \delta_{y_2}(\hu) \triangleq \left\{
2259: \begin{array}{cl}
2260: 1 & ,\hu = y_2,\\
2261: 0 & ,\hu \ne y_2.
2262: \end{array}
2263: \right.
2264: \]
2265: we get $I(Y_2;\hU|Y_1) = H(Y_2|Y_1)$. On the other hand, setting $p_0(\hu|y_2) = p(\hu)$ we get that
2266: $I(Y_2;\hU|Y_1) = 0$. Therefore, by convexity, there can be only one of two situations: either the function
2267: $I(Y_2;\hU|Y_1)$ has discontinuity at $p_1(\hu|y_2)$ where it goes directly from $H(Y_2|Y_1)$ to $0$, or it is
2268: continuous and non-increasing between these two points. The fact that it does not go
2269: directly to zero can be easily verified by direct substitution of the distribution
2270: \[
2271: \tilde{p}(\hu|y_2) = \left\{
2272: \begin{array}{cl}
2273: q & ,\hu = y_2,\\
2274: \frac{1-q}{||\mY_2||-1} & ,\hu \ne y_2,
2275: \end{array}
2276: \right.
2277: \]
2278: with $0.5 < q < 1$. Hence, we conclude that $I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1)$ is continuously non-increasing from $H(Y_2|Y_1)$ to $0$ and
2279: thus for every value of $0 \le C_{21} \le H(Y_2|Y_1)$ there exists some $p(\hu|y_2)$ such that
2280: \[
2281: C_{21} = I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1) = H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_2).
2282: \]
2283:
2284: \end{comment}
2285:
2286:
2287:
2288:
2289:
2290:
2291:
2292: \begin{comment}
2293:
2294: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2295: \section{Bounding $\Pr(E''_{21,i} \bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$ for Theorem \ref{thm:achieve}}
2296: \label{appndx:proof-of-thm-two-indp}
2297:
2298:
2299:
2300: %\subsubsection{Analysis of the Probability of Error}
2301:
2302: %\paragraph{Bounding $\Pr(E''_{21,i} \bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$}
2303: The probability of $E''_{21,i} \bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c$ can be written as
2304: {
2305: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0mm}
2306: \begin{eqnarray*}
2307: & & \Pr(E''_{21,i}\bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c) \\
2308: & &\; = \Pr\Big(\Big\{\exists z' \in S'_{s'_{i}}, \exists w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}, k_{w_1,w_2}\in\mL_1(i-1),\\
2309: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \left(\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}), \yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z'|s_{i-1}')\right)
2310: \in \styp(U,Y_1,\hU)\Big\} \bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c\Big)\\
2311: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2312: & & \;\stackrel{(a)}{=} \Pr\Big(\Big\{\exists w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}, k_{w_1,w_2}\in\mL_1(i-1),
2313: \left(\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}), \yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z'_{i-1}|s'_{i-1})\right)\in \styp(U,Y_1,\hU)\Big\}\\
2314: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c\bigcap E_{0,i}^c\Big)\\
2315: & & \;\;\; + \Pr\Big( \Big\{\exists w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}, k_{w_1,w_2}\in\mL_1(i-1), \exists z' \in S'_{s'_{i}},
2316: z' \ne z'_{i-1},\\
2317: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \left(\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}), \yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z'|s_{i-1}')\right)\in \styp(U,Y_1,\hU)\Big\}
2318: \bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c\bigcap E_{0,i}^c\Big)\\
2319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2320: & & \;\triangleq \Pr(E''_{2,a,i}) + \Pr(E''_{2,b,i}),
2321: \end{eqnarray*}
2322: }
2323: where (a) is because the elements of $S'_{s'_{i}}$ are selected in an independent manner.
2324:
2325: Next, we bound $\Pr\left(E_{2,a,i}'' \right)$ as follows:
2326: {\setlength\arraycolsep{0.0cm}
2327: \begin{eqnarray}
2328: & & \Pr(E''_{2,a,i}) = \nonumber\\
2329: & & \; \sum_{\mL_1(i-1)}\Pr\Big( \Big\{\exists w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}, k_{w_1,w_2} \in \mL_1(i-1),
2330: \left(\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}),\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z'_{i-1}|s'_{i-1})\right) \in \styp(U,Y_1,\hU)\Big\}\nonumber\\
2331: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c\Big| \mL_1(i-1)\Big) \Pr\left(\mL_1(i-1)\right)\nonumber\\
2332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2333: & & \stackrel{(a)}{\le} \;
2334: % \sum_{\yvec_1(i)}\sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_1(i) \\ w \ne w_{0,i}}}
2335: % \Pr\Big( \Big\{ \left(\xvec(w),\yvec_1(i),\yvec_2(i)\right)\in \\
2336: % & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \typ(X,Y_1,Y_2) \Big\} \bigcap E_0^c \Big| \yvec_1(i)\Big) \Pr\left(\yvec_1(i)\right)\\
2337: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2338: E_{\yvec_1}\Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{k_{w_1,w_2} \in \mL_1(i-1) \\ w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}}}\Pr\Big(
2339: \Big\{\left(\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}),\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}')\right)\in \styp(U,Y_1,\hU)\Big\}\nonumber\\
2340: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c\Big| \yvec_1(i-1)\Big)\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
2341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2342: & & \stackrel{(b)}{=} E_{\yvec_1}\left\{ \sum_{\substack{k_{w_1,w_2} \in \mL_1(i-1) \\ w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}}}
2343: \sum_{\substack{\huvec \in \\
2344: \styp(\hU|\yvec_1(i-1),\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}))}}\Pr\left(\huvec|\yvec_1(i-1),\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2})\right)\right\}\nonumber\\
2345: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2346: & & \stackrel{(c)}{=} E_{\yvec_1}\left\{ \sum_{\substack{k_{w_1,w_2} \in \mL_1(i-1) \\ w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}}}
2347: \sum_{\huvec \in \styp(\hU|\yvec_1(i-1),\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}))}
2348: \Pr\left(\huvec|\yvec_1(i-1)\right)\right\}\nonumber\\
2349: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2350: & & \le E_{\yvec_1}\left\{ \sum_{\substack{k_{w_1,w_2} \in \mL_1(i-1) \\ w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}}} ||\styp(\hU|\yvec_1(i-1),\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}))||\times\right.
2351: \left.\max_{\substack{\huvec: \\ \left(\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec\right)\in\styp(Y_1,\hU)}}
2352: \Big\{\Pr\left(\huvec|\yvec_1(i-1)\right)\Big\}\right\}\nonumber\\
2353: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2354: & & \stackrel{(d)}{\le} E_{\yvec_1}\left\{ \sum_{\substack{k_{w_1,w_2} \in \mL_1(i-1) \\ w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}}} 2^{n(H(\hU | Y_1, U) + 2\eta)}2^{-n\left(H(\hU|Y_1)-2\eta\right)}\right\}\nonumber\\
2355: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2356: \label{eqn:bound_pE3ai}
2357: & & \le E_{\yvec_1}\left\{||\mL_1(i-1)||\right\} 2^{-n\left(H(\hU|Y_1) - H(\hU | Y_1, U) - 4\eta\right)},
2358: \end{eqnarray}
2359: }
2360: %where (a) is due to the union bound,
2361: where (a) is because $\mL_1(i-1)$ is a deterministic function of
2362: $\yvec_1(i-1)$ and we also applied the union bound, (b) is because the summation and the
2363: conditioning fix $\yvec_1(i-1)$ and $\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2})$ and (c) is because
2364: $\huvec(z_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}')$ is
2365: independent of $\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2})$ for $w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}$. The bounds in (d) on the size of the conditionally typical set and
2366: the maximum conditional probability follow from \cite[theorem 5.2]{YeungBook},
2367: assuming that $n$ is large enough. Here $\eta \rightarrow 0$ as $\eps \rightarrow 0$.
2368: Lastly we note that here
2369: \[
2370: \Pr(\yvec_1(i-1)) \triangleq \Pr\left(\yvec_1(i-1)\;\mbox{received}\; \big|\; \xvec(w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}) \;\mbox{transmitted}\right).
2371: \]
2372: Next, applying the same technique to bound the expectation of $||\mL_1(i-1)||$ as in \cite[theorem 1]{CoverG:79} (see also
2373: derivation of equation (\ref{eqn:Dec_set_bound})), we
2374: get that for $n$ large,
2375: \begin{equation}
2376: \label{eqn:Dec_set_bound_L1}
2377: E_{\yvec_1}\left\{||\mL_1(i-1)||\right\} \le 1 + 2^{n\left(R(U) - I(U;Y_1) + 3\eta\right)}.
2378: \end{equation}
2379: Plugging this back into the bound on $\Pr\left(E''_{2,a,i}\right)$ we get that
2380: {
2381: %\setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.25pt}
2382: \begin{eqnarray}
2383: \Pr\left(E''_{2,a,i}\right) & \le & 2^{-n\left(I\left(U;\hU|Y_1\right)-4\eta\right)}
2384: + 2^{n\left(R(U) - I(U;Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_1) + H(\hU | Y_1, U) + 7\eta\right)},
2385: \end{eqnarray}
2386: }
2387: which can be made less than any arbitrary $\eps > 0$ by taking $n$ large enough,
2388: as long as\footnote{We assume that $I(U;\hU|Y_1)>0$ otherwise the relay message does not help in decoding $U$.}
2389: \begin{equation}
2390: \label{eqn:sep_bound_1}
2391: R(U) \le I(U;Y_1) - H(\hU | Y_1, U) + H(\hU|Y_1).
2392: \end{equation}
2393: For bounding $\Pr(E''_{2,b,i})$ we
2394: begin essentially in the same manner and get that
2395: {%\setlength\arraycolsep{0.0cm}
2396: \begin{eqnarray}
2397: & & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \Pr(E''_{2,b,i}) \nonumber\\
2398: & & \stackrel{(a)}{\le} E_{\yvec_1,\huvec}
2399: \Bigg\{ \Pr\left(\Big\{\exists w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}, k_{w_1,w_2}\in \mL_1(i-1), \exists z' \in S'_{s'_{i}},z' \ne z'_{i-1},\right.\nonumber\\
2400: & & \qquad \qquad
2401: \left. \left. \left(\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}),\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z'|s_{i-1}')\right) \in \styp(U,Y_1,\hU)\Big\} \right|\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}')\right) \Bigg\}\nonumber\\
2402: %& & \; \stackrel{(b)}{\le} E_{\yvec_1,\yvec_2}\Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{\yvec_2 \in S''_{s''_{i+1}} \\ \yvec_2 \ne \yvec_2(i)}}
2403: % \Pr\Big(\exists w \ne w_0, w\in \mL_1(i), \\
2404: %& & \qquad \quad \left.\left.\left(\xvec(w),\yvec_1(i),\yvec_2\right) \in \typ(X,Y_1,Y_2) \right|\yvec_1(i),\yvec_2(i)\right)\Bigg\}\\
2405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2406: & & \stackrel{(b)}{\le} E_{\yvec_1,\huvec}\Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{z' \in S'_{s'_i} \\ z' \ne z'_{i-1}}}
2407: \sum_{\substack{k_{w_1,w_2} \in \mL_1(i-1) \\ w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}}}
2408: \Pr\Big(\left(\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}),\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z'|s_{i-1}')\right)\in \styp(U,Y_1,\hU) \Big| \nonumber\\
2409: & & \qquad \qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \qquad\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z'_{i-1}|s_{i-1}')\Big)\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
2410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2411: %& & \; \le E_{\yvec_1,\yvec_2}\Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{\yvec_2 \in S''_{s''_{i+1}} \\ \yvec_2 \ne \yvec_2(i)}}
2412: % \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_1(i) \\ w \ne w_0}} \sum_{\substack{\yvec_2 \in \\ \typ(Y_2| \\ \yvec_1(i),\xvec(w))}}
2413: % \Pr\left(\yvec_2|\yvec_1(i),\xvec(w)\right)\Bigg\}\\
2414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2415: & & \stackrel{(c)}{=}
2416: E_{\yvec_1,\huvec}\Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{z' \in S'_{s'_{i}} \\ z' \ne z'_{i-1}}}
2417: \sum_{\substack{k_{w_1,w_2} \in \mL_1(i-1) \\ w_1 \ne w_{1,i-1}}} \sum_{\huvec \in \styp(\hU|\yvec_1(i-1),\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2}))}
2418: \Pr\left(\huvec\right)\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
2419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2420: %& & \; \le E_{\yvec_1,\yvec_2}\left\{ \sum_{\substack{\yvec_2 \in S''_{s''_{i+1}} \\ \yvec_2 \ne \yvec_2(i)}}
2421: % \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_1(i) \\ w \ne w_0}} 2^{n\left(H(Y_2|Y_1,X)+2\eps\right)}2^{-n\left(H(Y_2)-\eps\right)}\right\}\\
2422: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2423: & & \stackrel{(d)}{\le} E_{\huvec}\left\{||S'_{s'_{i}} ||\right\} E_{\yvec_1}\left\{||\mL_1(i-1)||\right\}2^{-n\left(H(\hU) - H(\hU|Y_1,U)-3\eta\right)}\nonumber\\
2424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2425: & & \stackrel{(e)}{\le} \left( 1 + 2^{n\left(R' - C_{21} \right)}\right)\left(1 + 2^{n\left(R(U) - I(U;Y_1) + 3\eta\right)}\right)
2426: 2^{-n\left(H(\hU) - H(\hU|Y_1,U)-3\eta\right)}\nonumber\\
2427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2428: %& & \; = 2^{-n\left(C_{21} - H(Y_2|Y_1,X)-4\eps\right)}\left(1 + 2^{n\left(R - I(X;Y_1) + 3\eps\right)}\right)\\
2429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2430: \label{eqn:bound_E2bi}
2431: & & = 2^{-n\left(C_{21} + H(\hU) - R' - H(\hU|Y_1,U)-3\eta\right)} + 2^{n\left(R(U) - I(U;Y_1) - I(\hU;Y_1,U)+ 6\eta\right)} +\nonumber\\
2432: & & \; \phantom{XX} 2^{-n\left(I(\hU;Y_1,U)-3\eta\right)} + 2^{n\left(R(U) - I(U;Y_1) - C_{21} + R' - H(\hU) + H(\hU|Y_1,U) + 6\eta\right)},
2433: \end{eqnarray}
2434: }
2435: where (a) is because we dropped the intersection with $E_{20,i}^{'c}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c$, (b) is due to the union bound,
2436: (c) is because $\huvec(z'|s_{i-1}')$ is independent of $\uvec(k_{w_1,w_2})$ and $\yvec_1(i-1)$ when $z' \ne z'_{i-1}$, and (d)
2437: is because
2438: \begin{eqnarray*}
2439: E_{\yvec_1,\huvec}\big\{||\mL_1(i-1)||\cdot||S'_{s'_{i}}|| \big\}
2440: & = & E_{\yvec_1}\Big\{E_{\huvec|\yvec_1}\big\{||\mL_1(i-1)||\cdot||S'_{s'_{i}}||\big\}\Big\}\\
2441: & \stackrel{(f)}{=} & E_{\yvec_1}\Big\{||\mL_1(i-1)||E_{\huvec|\yvec_1}\big\{||S'_{s'_{i}}|| \big\}\Big\}\\
2442: & \stackrel{(g)}{=} & E_{\yvec_1}\Big\{||\mL_1(i-1)||E_{\huvec}\big\{||S'_{s'_{i}}|| \big\}\Big\}\\
2443: & = & E_{\yvec_1}\Big\{||\mL_1(i-1)||\Big\}E_{\huvec}\Big\{||S'_{s'_{i}}||\Big\},
2444: \end{eqnarray*}
2445: where (f) is because the size of $\mL_1(i-1)$ does not depend on $\huvec(z_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}')$ when $\yvec_1(i-1)$
2446: is fixed, and (g) is because the average size of $S'_{s'_{i}}$ does not depend of $\yvec_1(i-1)$.
2447: The bounds
2448: on $\Pr(\huvec)$ and $||\styp(\hU|\yvec_1,\uvec)||$ in (d) follow from \cite[Ch. 5]{YeungBook}, with $\eta \rightarrow 0$
2449: as $\eps \rightarrow 0$.
2450: The bound on $E_{\yvec_1}\left\{||\mL_1(i-1)||\right\}$ in (e) follows from equation (\ref{eqn:Dec_set_bound_L1}).
2451: We note that here
2452: \[
2453: \Pr(\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}')) \triangleq \Pr\left(\left(\yvec_1(i-1),\huvec(z_{i-1}'|s_{i-1}')\right) \;\mbox{received}\;
2454: \big|\; \xvec(w_{1,i-1},w_{2,i-1}) \;\mbox{transmitted}\right).
2455: \]
2456: We now prove the bound on $E_{\huvec}\left\{||S'_{s'_{i}} ||\right\}$ in (e). Define %first
2457: \[
2458: \varphi_m(z') = \left\{
2459: \begin{array}{cc}
2460: 1, & z' \in S_m'\\
2461: 0, & z' \notin S_m'.
2462: \end{array}
2463: \right.
2464: \]
2465: Then, $||S_i'|| = \sum_{z' = 1}^{2^{nR'}} \varphi_i(z')$, and therefore,
2466: \begin{eqnarray*}
2467: E_{\huvec}\left\{||S'_{s'_{i}} ||\right\}
2468: & = & \sum_{z' =1}^{2^{nR'}}
2469: E_{\huvec}\left\{\varphi_{s'_{i}}(z')\right\}\\
2470: & = & 1 + \sum_{\substack{z' =1, z' \ne z'_{i-1}}}^{2^{nR'}} \Pr\left(z' \in S_{s'_{i}}'\right)\\
2471: & \le & 1 + 2^{nR'}2^{-nC_{21}}.
2472: % & = & 1 + 2^{n(R_2' - C_{21})},
2473: \end{eqnarray*}
2474: We conclude that $\Pr\left(E_{2,b,i}''\right)$ can be made smaller than any $\eps > 0$ by taking $n$ large enough,
2475: as long as
2476: \begin{eqnarray}
2477: \label{eqn:indp_bound_2}
2478: R(U) & \le & I(U;Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_1,U) + C_{21}-R'+H(\hU) \\
2479: \label{eqn:indp_bound_2_on_C}
2480: R' & \le & C_{21} - H(\hU|Y_1,U) + H(\hU)\\
2481: %\label{eqn:indp_bound_3_on_C}
2482: % R' & \ge & I(\hU;Y_2).
2483: \label{eqn:indp_bound_2_on_R}
2484: R(U) & \le & I(U;Y_1) + I(\hU;Y_1,U).
2485: \end{eqnarray}
2486: Next, note that making both $\Pr(E''_{2,a,i})$ and $\Pr(E''_{2,b,i})$ arbitrarily small by taking $n$ large enough
2487: requires that (\ref{eqn:sep_bound_1}) is also satisfied. Observe that (\ref{eqn:sep_bound_1}) guarantees (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_2_on_R}).
2488: Therefore when (\ref{eqn:sep_bound_1}), (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_2})
2489: and (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_2_on_C}) are satisfied $\Pr(E''_{21,i} \bigcap E_{20,i}^{'c} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$
2490: can be made arbitrarily small by taking $n$ large enough.
2491:
2492:
2493: % The maximum rate is achieved from the minimal $R'$, therefore we plug $R' = I(\hU;Y_2)$ in
2494: % (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_2}) and combining (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_1}) we obtain the following achievable rate
2495: % \begin{equation}
2496: % \label{eqn:indp_bound_4_on_C}
2497: % R(U) \le I(U;Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_1,U) + \min\left(C_{21} + H(\hU|Y_2)),H(\hU|Y_1)\right)
2498: % \end{equation}
2499: % and from the combination of (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_2_on_C}) and (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_3_on_C}), we conclude
2500: % that this is achievable as long as
2501: % \begin{equation}
2502: % \label{eqn:indp_bound_5_on_C}
2503: % C_{21} \ge I(\hU;Y_2) + H(\hU|Y_1,U) - H(\hU) = H(\hU|Y_1,U) - H(\hU|Y_2) = I(\hU;Y_2|U,Y_1).
2504: % \end{equation}
2505:
2506: % Equations (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_4_on_C}) and (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_5_on_C}) give us the condition for the
2507: % message $W_1$ to be decoded at $\Rgood$ with arbitrarily small probability of error by
2508: % taking $n$ large enough.
2509:
2510: % Note that the requirement in (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_5_on_C}) implies that when
2511: % $C_{21} < I(\hU;Y_2|Y_1,U)$, $\Rbad$ cannot use this cooperation scheme, and the rate to $\Rgood$ is bounded
2512: % by $I(U;Y_1)$.
2513: % %Combining this with equation (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_4_on_C}) and equation (\ref{eqn:indp_bound_1}) yields the rate expression for
2514: % %$R(U))$ in theorem \ref{thm:achieve}.
2515: \end{comment}
2516:
2517:
2518:
2519:
2520:
2521:
2522:
2523:
2524:
2525:
2526:
2527:
2528:
2529:
2530:
2531:
2532:
2533:
2534:
2535:
2536:
2537:
2538:
2539:
2540:
2541:
2542:
2543:
2544:
2545:
2546:
2547: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2548: \section{Proof of the Achievable Rate to the First Decoder in Theorem \ref{thm:two_delay} (equations \eqref{eqn:rate_bound_for_first_step}
2549: and \eqref{eqn:capacity _constraint_for_first_step})}
2550: \label{appndx:proof-of-lemma-single-step-common}
2551:
2552: \subsection{Overview of Coding Strategy}
2553: The encoder generates a single codebook in a random and independent manner. Next, the first relay partitions
2554: its collection of relay codewords ($\mZ(\hV)$ for $\Rgood$) % or $\mZ(\hU)$ for $\Rbad$)
2555: into disjoint sets. When a channel
2556: input is received, the first relay finds the index of the partition set which contains a relay codeword
2557: jointly typical with its channel input, and
2558: transmits it over the noiseless conference link to the second receiver. Then, the second receiver looks for
2559: a unique source codeword that is jointly typical with its channel input, and with at least one of the relay codewords
2560: in the set of possible codewords received from the first relay.
2561: %Note that here we use {\em joint} decoding and therefore obtain superior rates.
2562:
2563: In the following analysis we assume that $\Rgood$ is the first relay and $\Rbad$ decodes first.
2564:
2565: \subsection{Codebook Generation and Encoding at the Transmitter}
2566: Fix $p(x)$ and
2567: generate $2^{nR}$ i.i.d. codewords $\xvec$, with
2568: $p(\xvec(w)) = \prod_{i=1}^n p(x_i(w))$, $w \in \mW = \left\{1,2,..., 2^{nR}\right\}$.
2569: %Denote this codebook by $\mC$.
2570: %
2571: %\subsubsection{Encoding at the Transmitter}
2572: For transmitting the message $w_{0,i}$ at time $i$, the transmitter outputs $\xvec(w_{0,i})$ to the channel.
2573:
2574:
2575:
2576:
2577:
2578:
2579:
2580:
2581:
2582:
2583:
2584: \subsection{Relay Sets Generation}
2585: Fix $p(\hv|y_1)$.
2586: \begin{itemize}
2587: \item Consider the p.d.f. $p(\hv) = \sum_{\mX, \mY_1, \mY_2} p(\hv|y_1)p(y_1,y_2|x)p(x)$ on $\mhV$.
2588: \item $\Rgood$ generates $2^{n R_1'}$ $\hvvec$ sequences in an i.i.d. manner according
2589: to $p(\hvvec(z_{\hv})) = \prod_{i=1}^n p(\hv_i(z_{\hv}))$, $z_{\hv} \in \mZ(\hV) = \left\{1,2,...,2^{nR_1'}\right\}$.
2590:
2591: \item $\Rgood$ partitions the message set $\mZ(\hV)$ into $2^{nC_{12}}$ sets, by assigning an
2592: index between $\left[1, 2^{nC_{12}}\right]$ to each $z_{\hv} \in \mZ(\hV)$, in a random, independent
2593: and uniform manner over $\left[1, 2^{nC_{12}}\right]$. Denote these sets by $S'_{s'}$,
2594: $s' \in \left[1, 2^{nC_{12}}\right]$.
2595: %\item $\Rbad$ partitions the set of typical $Y_2^n$ sequences, $\typ(Y_2)$, into $2^{nC_{21}}$ sets, by assigning an
2596: %index between $\left[1, 2^{nC_{21}}\right]$ to each typical $\yvec_2 \in \typ(Y_2)$, in a random, independent
2597: %and uniform manner over $\left[1, 2^{nC_{21}}\right]$. Denote these sets by $S''_{s''}$,
2598: %$s'' \in \left[1, 2^{nC_{21}}\right]$.
2599: \end{itemize}
2600: %The generation of the set of $\huvec$ relay codewords for $\Rbad$ (indexed by $z_{\hu} \in \mZ(\hU)$) and its partition (denoted $S''_{s''}$) is done in
2601: %a parallel manner to that described for $\Rgood$, w.r.t. the probability $p(\hu)$ on $\mhU$.
2602: \subsection{Decoding and Encoding at the Relay ($\Rgood$)}
2603: \begin{itemize}
2604: \item Upon reception of $\yvec_1(i)$, the relay $\Rgood$ decides that $z_{\hv,i}\in \mZ(\hV)$ was received if
2605: $\left(\hvvec(z_{\hv,i}),\yvec_1(i)\right) \in \styp(\hV,Y_1)$. Now, $\Rgood$
2606: finds the index $s_{i+1}'$ of the set
2607: $S_{s_{i+1}'}'$ s.t. $z_{\hv,i} \in S_{s_{i+1}'}'$. Then, at time
2608: $i+1$, $\Rgood$ transmits $s_{i+1}'$ to $\Rbad$ through the finite
2609: capacity noiseless conference link. If there is no $z_{\hv} \in \mZ(\hV)$ such that $\hvvec(z_{\hv})$ is jointly typical
2610: with $\yvec_1(i)$, an error is declared.
2611: %\item Upon reception of $\yvec_2(i-1)$, the relay $\Rbad$ finds the index $s_i''$ of the set
2612: %$S_{s_i''}''$ s.t. $\yvec_2(i-1) \in S_{s_i''}''$. Then, at time $i$, $\Rbad$ transmits $s_i''$ to
2613: %$\Rgood$ over the finite capacity noiseless conference link. If $\yvec_2(i-1) \notin \typ(Y_2)$, an error
2614: %is declared.
2615: \end{itemize}
2616: %The relay decoding and encoding at $\Rbad$ is done in a parallel manner to that at $\Rgood$.
2617:
2618: \subsection{Decoding the Source Message at $\Rbad$}
2619: At the $i$'th transmission interval $\Rbad$ generates the set
2620: $\mL_2(i) = \left\{w \in \mW:
2621: \left(\xvec(w),\yvec_2(i)\right) \in \styp(X,Y_2)\right\}$. At the
2622: $(i+1)$'th transmission interval, $\Rbad$ receives $s'_{i+1}$
2623: from $\Rgood$ through the noiseless conference link. $\Rbad$ then
2624: looks for a unique $\hw_0$ s.t. $\hw_0 \in \mL_2(i)$ and
2625: $\exists z_{\hv} \in S'_{s'_{i+1}}$, for which
2626: $\left(\xvec(\hw_0),\yvec_2(i), \hvvec(z_{\hv}) \right) \in
2627: \styp(X,Y_2,\hV)$. If such unique $\hw_0$ exists, then
2628: $\hw_0$ is the decoded message at time $i$. If there is none, or
2629: there is more than one, an error is declared.
2630: %%\subsubsection{Decoding at $\Rbad$}
2631: %%At the $i$'th transmission interval, $\Rbad$ receives $s'_i$ from $\Rgood$ through the noiseless conference link.
2632: %%$\Rbad$ then looks for a unique $\xvec(\hw_0)$ s.t. $\exists \yvec_1 \in S'_{s'_i}$, for which
2633: %%$\left(\xvec(\hw_0), \yvec_1, \yvec_2(i-1) \right) \in \typ(X,Y_1,Y_2)$.
2634: %%If such a unique $\xvec(\hw_0)$ exists, then $\hw_0$ is the decoded message. If there is none, or there is more than
2635: %%one, an error is declared.
2636: %Decoding at $\Rbad$ is done in a parallel manner to the decoding at
2637: %$\Rgood$.
2638:
2639:
2640: \subsection{Analysis of the Probability of Error}
2641: %We now analyze the average probability of error for this scheme.
2642:
2643: \subsubsection{Error Events}
2644: The error events for the scheme described above, for decoding the message $w_{0,i}$, are:
2645: \begin{enumerate}
2646: \item Relay decoding fails: \\%$E_{0,i} = E_{0,i}' \bigcup E_{0,i}''$\\
2647: % $E'_{0,i} = \left\{\nexists z_{\hu} \in \mZ(\hU) \mbox{ s.t. } (\huvec(z_{\hu}), \yvec_2(i)) \in \styp(\hU,Y_2) \right\}$,\\
2648: $E_{0,i} = \Big\{\nexists z_{\hv} \in \mZ(\hV) \mbox{ s.t. }$ \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxx}\\
2649: \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxx} $ (\hvvec(z_{\hv}), \yvec_1(i)) \in \styp(\hV,Y_1) \Big\}$.
2650: \item Joint typicality decoding fails: Let $E_{1,i} = E'_{1,i} \bigcup E''_{1,i}$, where\\
2651: $E'_{1,i} = \left\{\left(\xvec(w_{0,i}), \yvec_1(i), \yvec_2(i) \right) \notin \styp(X,Y_1,Y_2)\right\}$,\\
2652: % $E''_{1,i} = \left\{\left(\xvec(w_{0,i}), \yvec_1(i), \huvec(z_{\hu,i}) \right) \notin \styp(X,Y_1,\hU)\right\}$,\\
2653: $E''_{1,i} = \left\{\left(\xvec(w_{0,i}), \hvvec(z_{\hv,i}), \yvec_2(i) \right) \notin \styp(X,\hV,Y_2)\right\}$.
2654: %\item Decoding at $\Rgood$ fails:\\
2655: % $E_{2,i} = E_{2,i}' \bigcup E_{2,i}''$,\\
2656: % $E_{2,i}' = \left\{ \nexists z_{\hu} \in S''_{s''_{i+1}} \; \mbox{for which} \; \left(\xvec(w_{0,i}), \yvec_1(i), \huvec(z_{\hu})\right) \in \right. $
2657: % $ \left. \styp(X,Y_1,\hU) \right\},$\\
2658: % $E_{2,i}'' = \left\{\exists w \ne w_{0,i}, w\in \mL_1(i) \; \mbox{s.t.} \; \exists z_{\hu} \in S''_{s''_{i+1}}, \right. $
2659: % $\left. \left(\xvec(w),\yvec_1(i), \huvec(z_{\hu}) \right) \in \styp(X,Y_1,\hU)\right\}$.
2660: \item Decoding at $\Rbad$ fails:
2661: $E_{2,i} = E_{2,i}' \bigcup E_{2,i}''$,\\
2662: $E_{2,i}' = \Big\{ \nexists z_{\hv} \in S'_{s'_{i+1}} \; \mbox{for which}$\phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxx}\\
2663: \phantom{xxxxxxxx} $ \; \left(\xvec(w_{0,i}), \hvvec(z_{\hv}), \yvec_2(i)\right) \in \styp(X,\hV,Y_2) \Big\},$\\
2664: $E_{2,i}'' = \Big\{\exists w \ne w_{0,i}, w \in \mL_2(i) \; \mbox{s.t.} \; \exists z_{\hv} \in S'_{s'_{i+1}}, $\phantom{xxxxx}\\
2665: \phantom{xxxxxxxxxx} $ \left(\xvec(w),\hvvec(z_{\hv}), \yvec_2(i) \right) \in\styp(X,\hV,Y_2)\Big\}$.
2666: \end{enumerate}
2667: %where $w_{0,i}$ denotes the message transmitted at time $i$, and
2668: %$\mL_2(i) = \left\{w: \left(\xvec(w),\yvec_2(i)\right) \in \styp(X,Y_2)\right\}$.
2669: Next, applying the union bound we get that
2670: \begin{eqnarray*}
2671: \Perr & = & \Pr\left(\bigcup_{k=0}^2 E_{k,i} \right) \\
2672: & = & \Pr(E_{0,i}) + \Pr\left(E_{1,i}\bigcap E_{0,i}^c\right)\\
2673: & & \phantom{xxxxxxxxx} + \Pr\left(E_{2,i}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c\bigcap E_{0,i}^c\right).
2674: \end{eqnarray*}
2675: %where the inequality is due to the union bound.
2676:
2677:
2678:
2679: \subsubsection{Bounding the Probabilities of the Error Events}
2680: \label{subsec:bounds_pe_common}
2681: Following the same argument as in section \ref{sec:dec_rly_2},
2682: %$R_2' \ge I(\hU;Y_2)$ implies that we can make $\Pr(E'_{0,i}) \le \frac{\eps}{2}$ for
2683: %arbitrarily small $\eps > 0$, by taking $n$ large enough. Similarly,
2684: $R_1' \ge I(\hV;Y_1)$ implies that
2685: taking $n$ large enough,
2686: we can make %$\Pr(E_{0,i}) \le \frac{\eps}{2}$ and hence
2687: $\Pr(E_{0,i}) \le \eps$.
2688: Next, from the properties of strongly typical sequences (see \cite[lemma 13.6.1]{cover-thomas:it-book}),
2689: by taking $n$ large enough, we can make $\Pr(E'_{1,i}) \le \frac{\eps}{2}$. Additionally, the
2690: Markov lemma, \cite[lemma 4.2]{BetgerLecNotes} implies that we can make
2691: $\Pr(E''_{1,i} \bigcap E_{1,i}'^{c}\bigcap E_{0,i}^{c}) \le \frac{\eps}{2}$
2692: % and $\Pr(E'''_{1,i} \bigcap E_{0,i}^{''c}) \le \frac{\eps}{3}$
2693: for any arbitrary $\eps >0$ by taking $n$ large enough.
2694: Therefore, by the union bound, $\Pr(E_{1,i}\bigcap E_{0,i}^{c}) \le \eps$.
2695: We also have that $\Pr(E'_{2,i} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c) = 0$
2696: because under $E_{1,i}^c\bigcap E_{0,i}^c$ we have that $\xvec(w_{0,i}),\yvec_2(i)$ and $\hvvec(z_{\hv,i})$ are jointly typical, and
2697: by construction, $z_{\hv,i} \in S'_{s'_{i+1}}$.
2698: %Following the same reasoning, we also have that $\Pr(E'_{3,i} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c) = 0$.
2699: Hence, we need to show that the probability $\Pr(E''_{2,i}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$
2700: %and $\Pr(E''_{3,i} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$
2701: can be made
2702: arbitrarily small. Note that due to the symmetry of the construction, the probability of error does not depend
2703: on the specific message $w_{0,i}$ transmitted.
2704:
2705:
2706: \subsubsection{Bounding $\Pr(E''_{2,i} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$}
2707: The probability of $E''_{2,i} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c$ can be written as
2708: {
2709: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0mm}
2710: \begin{eqnarray*}
2711: & & \Pr(E''_{2,i}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c) \\
2712: & &\; = \Pr\Big(\Big\{\exists z_{\hv} \in S'_{s'_{i+1}}, \exists w \ne w_{0,i}, w\in\mL_2(i),\\
2713: & & \phantom{llll} \left(\xvec(w), \yvec_2(i),\hvvec(z_{\hv})\right)\in \styp(X,Y_2,\hV)\Big\}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c\Big)\\
2714: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2715: & & \;\stackrel{(a)}{=} \Pr\Big(\Big\{\exists w \ne w_{0,i}, w\in\mL_2(i),\\
2716: & & \phantom{lll} \left(\xvec(w), \yvec_2(i),\hvvec(z_{\hv,i})\right)\in \styp(X,Y_2,\hV)\Big\}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c\bigcap E_{0,i}^c\Big)\\
2717: & & \phantom{xxx} + \Pr\Big( \Big\{\exists w \ne w_{0,i}, w\in\mL_2(i), \exists z_{\hv} \in S'_{s'_{i+1}},
2718: z_{\hv} \ne z_{\hv,i},\\
2719: & & \phantom{xlll} \left(\xvec(w), \yvec_2(i),\hvvec(z_{\hv})\right)\in \styp(X,Y_2,\hV)\Big\}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c\bigcap E_{0,i}^c\Big)\\
2720: & & \;\triangleq \Pr(E''_{2,1,i}) + \Pr(E''_{2,2,i}),
2721: \end{eqnarray*}
2722: }
2723: where (a) is because the elements of $S'_{s'_{i+1}}$ are selected in an independent manner.
2724:
2725: We first bound $\Pr\left(E_{2,1,i}'' \right)$
2726: %Repeating essentially the same steps leading to (\ref{eqn:bound_pE3ai}) we obtain
2727: as follows:
2728: {\setlength\arraycolsep{0.0cm}
2729: \begin{eqnarray*}
2730: & & \Pr(E''_{2,1,i}) = \\
2731: & & \; \sum_{\mL_2(i)}\Pr\Big( \Big\{\exists w \ne w_{0,i}, w \in \mL_2(i), \left(\xvec(w),\yvec_2(i),\hvvec(z_{\hv,i})\right)\\
2732: & & \qquad \quad \in \styp(X,Y_2,\hV)\Big\} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c\Big| \mL_2(i)\Big) \Pr\left(\mL_2(i)\right)\\
2733: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2734: & & \stackrel{(a)}{\le} \;
2735: % \sum_{\yvec_1(i)}\sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_1(i) \\ w \ne w_{0,i}}}
2736: % \Pr\Big( \Big\{ \left(\xvec(w),\yvec_1(i),\yvec_2(i)\right)\in \\
2737: % & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \typ(X,Y_1,Y_2) \Big\} \bigcap E_0^c \Big| \yvec_1(i)\Big) \Pr\left(\yvec_1(i)\right)\\
2738: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2739: E_{\yvec_2}\Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_2(i) \\ w \ne w_{0,i}}}\Pr\Big( \Big\{\left(\xvec(w),\yvec_2(i),\hvvec(z_{\hv,i})\right)\in\\
2740: & &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \styp(X,Y_2,\hV)\Big\} \bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c\Big| \yvec_2(i)\Big)\Bigg\}\\
2741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2742: & & = E_{\yvec_2}\left\{ \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_2(i) \\ w \ne w_{0,i}}} \sum_{\substack{\hvvec \in \\
2743: \styp(\hV|\yvec_2(i),\xvec(w))}}\Pr\left(\hvvec|\yvec_2(i),\xvec(w)\right)\right\}\\
2744: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2745: & & \stackrel{(b)}{=} E_{\yvec_2}\left\{ \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_2(i) \\ w \ne w_{0,i}}}
2746: \sum_{\hvvec \in \styp(\hV|\yvec_2(i),\xvec(w))}
2747: \Pr\left(\hvvec|\yvec_2(i)\right)\right\}\\
2748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2749: & & \le E_{\yvec_2}\Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_2(i) \\ w \ne w_{0,i}}} ||\styp(\hV|\yvec_2(i),\xvec(w))||\times\\
2750: & &\qquad \qquad\qquad \qquad\max_{\substack{\hvvec: \\ \left(\yvec_2(i),\hvvec\right)\in\styp(Y_2,\hV)}}
2751: \Big\{\Pr\left(\hvvec|\yvec_2(i)\right)\Big\}\Bigg\}\\
2752: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2753: & & \stackrel{(c)}{\le} E_{\yvec_2}\left\{ \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_2(i) \\ w \ne w_{0,i}}}
2754: 2^{n(H(\hV | Y_2, X) + 2\eta)}2^{-n\left(H(\hV|Y_2)-2\eta\right)}\right\}\\
2755: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2756: & & \le E_{\yvec_2}\left\{||\mL_2(i)||\right\} 2^{-n\left(H(\hV|Y_2) - H(\hV | Y_2, X) - 4\eta\right)},
2757: \end{eqnarray*}
2758: }
2759: where (a) is because $\mL_2(i)$ is a deterministic function of
2760: $\yvec_2(i)$ and we also applied the union bound and (b) is because $\hvvec(z_{\hv,i})$ is
2761: independent of $\xvec(w)$ for $w \ne w_{0,i}$. The bounds in (c) on the size of the conditionally typical set and
2762: the maximum conditional probability follow from \cite[theorem 5.2]{YeungBook}
2763: with $\eta \rightarrow 0$ as $\eps \rightarrow 0$, assuming that $n$ is large enough.
2764: Lastly we note that here
2765: \[
2766: \Pr(\yvec_2(i)) \triangleq \Pr\left(\yvec_2(i)\;\mbox{received}\; \big|\; \xvec(w_{0,i}) \;\mbox{transmitted}\right).
2767: \]
2768: Next, applying the same technique to bound the expectation of $||\mL_2(i)||$ as in \cite[theorem 1]{CoverG:79} (see also
2769: derivation of equation (\ref{eqn:Dec_set_bound})), we
2770: get that for $n$ large enough,
2771: \begin{equation}
2772: \label{eqn:Dec_set_bound_common}
2773: E_{\yvec_2}\left\{||\mL_2(i)||\right\} \le 1 + 2^{n\left(R - I(X;Y_2) + 3\eta\right)}.
2774: \end{equation}
2775: Plugging this back into the bound on $\Pr\left(E''_{2,1,i}\right)$ we get that
2776: {
2777: %\setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.25pt}
2778: \begin{eqnarray}
2779: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\Pr\left(E''_{2,1,i}\right) & \le & 2^{-n\left(I\left(X;\hV|Y_2\right)-4\eta\right)}\nonumber\\
2780: & & + 2^{n\left(R - I(X;Y_2) - H(\hV|Y_2) + H(\hV | Y_2, X) + 7\eta\right)},
2781: \end{eqnarray}
2782: }
2783: which can be made less than any arbitrary $\eps > 0$ by taking $n$ large enough,
2784: as long as\footnote{We assume that $I(X;\hV|Y_2)>0$ otherwise the relay message does not help decoding the source message
2785: at $\Rbad$.}
2786: \begin{equation}
2787: \label{eqn:common_bound_1}
2788: R \le I(X;Y_2) - H(\hV | Y_2, X) + H(\hV|Y_2).
2789: \end{equation}
2790: For bounding $\Pr(E''_{2,2,i})$ we
2791: %follow the same steps leading to (\ref{eqn:bound_E2bi}) and obtain
2792: begin essentially in the same manner and get that
2793: {%\setlength\arraycolsep{0.0cm}
2794: \begin{eqnarray*}
2795: & & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \Pr(E''_{2,2,i}) \\
2796: & \stackrel{(a)}{\le} & E_{\yvec_2,\hvvec}
2797: \Bigg\{ \Pr\left(\Big\{\exists w \ne w_{0,i}, w\in \mL_2(i), \exists z_{\hv} \in S'_{s'_{i+1}},\right.\\
2798: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad
2799: z_{\hv} \ne z_{\hv,i},\left(\xvec(w),\yvec_2(i),\hvvec(z_{\hv})\right) \in \\
2800: & & \qquad\qquad \qquad \qquad \styp(X,Y_2,\hV)\Big\} \Big|\yvec_2(i),\hvvec(z_{\hv,i})\Big) \Bigg\}\\
2801: %& & \; \stackrel{(b)}{\le} E_{\yvec_1,\yvec_2}\Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{\yvec_2 \in S''_{s''_{i+1}} \\ \yvec_2 \ne \yvec_2(i)}}
2802: % \Pr\Big(\exists w \ne w_0, w\in \mL_1(i), \\
2803: %& & \qquad \quad \left.\left.\left(\xvec(w),\yvec_1(i),\yvec_2\right) \in \typ(X,Y_1,Y_2) \right|\yvec_1(i),\yvec_2(i)\right)\Bigg\}\\
2804: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2805: & \stackrel{(b)}{\le} & E_{\yvec_2,\hvvec}
2806: \Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{z_{\hv} \in S'_{s'_{i+1}} \\ z_{\hv} \ne z_{\hv,i}}}
2807: \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_2(i) \\ w \ne w_{0,i}}}
2808: \Pr\Big(\left(\xvec(w),\yvec_2(i),\hvvec(z_{\hv})\right)\in \\
2809: & & \qquad\qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \styp(X,Y_2,\hV) \Big| \yvec_2(i),\hvvec(z_{\hv,i})\Big)\Bigg\}\\
2810: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2811: %& & \; \le E_{\yvec_1,\yvec_2}\Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{\yvec_2 \in S''_{s''_{i+1}} \\ \yvec_2 \ne \yvec_2(i)}}
2812: % \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_1(i) \\ w \ne w_0}} \sum_{\substack{\yvec_2 \in \\ \typ(Y_2| \\ \yvec_1(i),\xvec(w))}}
2813: % \Pr\left(\yvec_2|\yvec_1(i),\xvec(w)\right)\Bigg\}\\
2814: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2815: & \stackrel{(c)}{=} &
2816: E_{\yvec_2,\hvvec}\Bigg\{ \sum_{\substack{z_{\hv} \in S'_{s'_{i+1}} \\ z_{\hv} \ne z_{\hv,i}}}
2817: \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_2(i) \\ w \ne w_{0,i}}} \sum_{\hvvec \in \styp(\hV|\yvec_2(i),\xvec(w))}
2818: \Pr\left(\hvvec\right)\Bigg\}\\
2819: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2820: %& & \; \le E_{\yvec_1,\yvec_2}\left\{ \sum_{\substack{\yvec_2 \in S''_{s''_{i+1}} \\ \yvec_2 \ne \yvec_2(i)}}
2821: % \sum_{\substack{w \in \mL_1(i) \\ w \ne w_0}} 2^{n\left(H(Y_2|Y_1,X)+2\eps\right)}2^{-n\left(H(Y_2)-\eps\right)}\right\}\\
2822: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2823: & \stackrel{(d)}{\le} & E_{\hvvec}\left\{||S'_{s'_{i+1}} ||\right\} E_{\yvec_2}\left\{||\mL_2(i)||\right\}2^{-n\left(H(\hV) - H(\hV|Y_2,X)-3\eta\right)}\\
2824: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2825: & \stackrel{(e)}{\le}& \left( 1 + 2^{n\left(R_1' - C_{12} \right)}\right)\left(1 + 2^{n\left(R - I(X;Y_2) + 3\eta\right)}\right)\times\\
2826: & & \qquad\qquad\qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \quad 2^{-n\left(H(\hV) - H(\hV|Y_2,X)-3\eta\right)}\\
2827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2828: %& & \; = 2^{-n\left(C_{21} - H(Y_2|Y_1,X)-4\eps\right)}\left(1 + 2^{n\left(R - I(X;Y_1) + 3\eps\right)}\right)\\
2829: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2830: & \le &2^{-n\left(C_{12} + H(\hV) - R_1' - H(\hV|Y_2,X)-3\eta\right)} \\
2831: & & \phantom{xx}+ 2^{n\left(R - I(X;Y_2) - I(\hV;Y_2,X)+ 6\eta\right)} + 2^{-n\left(I(\hV;Y_2,X)-3\eta\right)}\\
2832: & & \; \phantom{XX} + 2^{n\left(R - I(X;Y_2) - C_{12} + R_1' - H(\hV) + H(\hV|Y_2,X) + 6\eta\right)},
2833: \end{eqnarray*}
2834: }
2835: where (a) is because we dropped the intersection with $E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c$,
2836: (b) is due to the union bound,
2837: (c) is because $\hvvec(z_{\hv})$ is independent of $\xvec(w)$ and $\yvec_2(i)$ when $z_{\hv} \ne z_{\hv,i}$, and (d)
2838: is because
2839: \begin{eqnarray*}
2840: & & E_{\yvec_2,\hvvec}\big\{||\mL_2(i)||\cdot||S'_{s'_{i+1}}|| \big\}\\
2841: & & \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxx} = E_{\yvec_2}\Big\{E_{\hvvec|\yvec_2}\big\{||\mL_2(i)||\cdot||S'_{s'_{i+1}}||\big\}\Big\}\\
2842: & & \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxx} \stackrel{(f)}{=} E_{\yvec_2}\Big\{||\mL_2(i)||E_{\hvvec|\yvec_2}\big\{||S'_{s'_{i+1}}|| \big\}\Big\}\\
2843: & & \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxx} \stackrel{(g)}{=} E_{\yvec_2}\Big\{||\mL_2(i)||E_{\hvvec}\big\{||S'_{s'_{i+1}}|| \big\}\Big\}\\
2844: & & \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxx} = E_{\yvec_2}\Big\{||\mL_2(i)||\Big\}E_{\hvvec}\Big\{||S'_{s'_{i+1}}||\Big\},
2845: \end{eqnarray*}
2846: where (f) is because the average size of $\mL_2(i)$ does not depend on $\hvvec(z_{\hv,i})$ when $\yvec_2(i)$ is given, and
2847: (g) is because the average size of $S'_{s'_{i+1}}$ does not depend of $\yvec_2(i)$.
2848: The bounds
2849: on $\Pr(\hvvec)$ and $||\styp(\hV|\yvec_2,\xvec)||$ in (d) follow from \cite[Ch. 5]{YeungBook}.
2850: The bound on $E_{\yvec_2}\left\{||\mL_2(i)||\right\}$ in (e) follows from equation (\ref{eqn:Dec_set_bound_common}).
2851: We note that here
2852: \begin{eqnarray*}
2853: & & \!\!\!\!\!\Pr(\yvec_2(i),\hvvec(z_{\hv,i})) \triangleq \Pr\Big(\left(\yvec_2(i), \hvvec(z_{\hv,i})\right) \;\mbox{received}\;
2854: \big|\; \xvec(w_{0,i})\\
2855: & & \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}\;\mbox{transmitted}\Big).
2856: \end{eqnarray*}
2857: \begin{comment}
2858: We now prove the bound on $E_{\huvec}\left\{||S''_{s''_{i+1}} ||\right\}$ in (e). Define %first
2859: \[
2860: \varphi_m(z_{\hu}) = \left\{
2861: \begin{array}{cc}
2862: 1, & z_{\hu} \in S_m''\\
2863: 0, & z_{\hu} \notin S_m''.
2864: \end{array}
2865: \right.
2866: \]
2867: Then, $||S_i''|| = \sum_{z_{\hu}=1}^{2^{nR_2'}} \varphi_i(\huvec)$, and therefore,
2868: \begin{eqnarray*}
2869: E\left\{||S''_{s''_{i+1}} ||\right\}
2870: & = & \sum_{z_{\hu}=1}^{2^{nR_2'}}
2871: E\left\{\varphi_{s''_{i+1}}(z_{\hu})\right\}\\
2872: & = & 1 + \sum_{\substack{z_{\hu} =1, z_{\hu} \ne z_{\hu,i}}}^{2^{nR_2'}} \Pr\left(z_{\hu} \in S_{s''_{i+1}}''\right)\\
2873: % & \le & 1 + ||\mZ(\hU)||2^{-nC_{21}}\\
2874: & \le & 1 + 2^{n(R_2' - C_{21})},
2875: \end{eqnarray*}
2876: %where in the last equality we used $||\mZ(\hU)|| = 2^{nR'}$.
2877: \end{comment}
2878: We conclude that $\Pr\left(E_{2,2,i}''\right)$ can be made smaller than any $\eps > 0$ by taking $n$ large enough,
2879: as long as
2880: \begin{eqnarray}
2881: \label{eqn:common_bound_2}
2882: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! R & \le & I(X;Y_2) - H(\hV|Y_2,X) + C_{12}-R_1'+H(\hV) \\
2883: \label{eqn:common_bound_2_on_C}
2884: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! R_1' & \le & C_{12} - H(\hV|Y_2,X) + H(\hV)\\
2885: \label{eqn:common_bound_2.5_on_C}
2886: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! R & \le & I(X;Y_2) + I(\hV;Y_2,X)\\
2887: \label{eqn:common_bound_3_on_C}
2888: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! R_1' & \ge & I(\hV;Y_1),
2889: \end{eqnarray}
2890: where (\ref{eqn:common_bound_3_on_C}) follows from appendix \ref{subsec:bounds_pe_common}.
2891:
2892: Now note that making $\Pr(E''_{2,i}\bigcap E_{1,i}^c \bigcap E_{0,i}^c)$ arbitrarily small requires making both
2893: $\Pr(E''_{2,1,i})$ and $\Pr(E''_{2,2,i})$ arbitrarily small. Thus we also need to satisfy (\ref{eqn:common_bound_1}).
2894: Combining with (\ref{eqn:common_bound_2.5_on_C}) we see that (\ref{eqn:common_bound_1}) guarantees (\ref{eqn:common_bound_2.5_on_C})
2895: and we are left with (\ref{eqn:common_bound_1}), (\ref{eqn:common_bound_2}), (\ref{eqn:common_bound_2_on_C}) and (\ref{eqn:common_bound_3_on_C}).
2896:
2897: The maximum rate is achieved for the minimal $R_1'$, therefore we plug $R_1' = I(\hV;Y_1)$ in
2898: (\ref{eqn:common_bound_2}) and combining with (\ref{eqn:common_bound_1}) we obtain the following achievable rate
2899: \begin{eqnarray}
2900: \label{eqn:common_bound_4_on_C}
2901: R & \le & I(X;Y_2) - H(\hV|Y_2,X) \nonumber\\
2902: & & \qquad \quad + \min\left(C_{12} + H(\hV|Y_1),H(\hV|Y_2)\right).
2903: \end{eqnarray}
2904: From the combination of (\ref{eqn:common_bound_2_on_C}) and (\ref{eqn:common_bound_3_on_C}), we conclude
2905: that this is achievable as long as
2906: \begin{eqnarray}
2907: \label{eqn:common_bound_5_on_C}
2908: C_{12} &\ge & I(\hV;Y_1) + H(\hV|Y_2,X) - H(\hV)\nonumber\\
2909: & = & H(\hV|Y_2,X) - H(\hV|Y_1)\nonumber\\
2910: & = & I(\hV;Y_1|X,Y_2).
2911: \end{eqnarray}
2912: %Using similar considerations we can bound $\Pr\left(E''_{2,1,i}\right)$ by\footnote{
2913: %Full details of the derivation will
2914: %appear in the journal version of this paper.}
2915: %\begin{eqnarray}
2916: %\Pr\left(E''_{2,1,i}\right) & \le & 2^{-n\left(I\left(X;Y_2|Y_1\right)-4\eps\right)} \nonumber\\
2917: %& & + 2^{n\left(R - I(X;Y_1) - H(Y_2|Y_1) + H(Y_2 | Y_1, X) + 7\eps\right)},
2918: %\end{eqnarray}
2919: %which can be made less than any arbitrary $\eps > 0$ by taking $n$ large enough,
2920: %as long as\footnote{We assume that $I(X;Y_2|Y_1)>0$ otherwise the channel is degraded.}
2921: %\begin{equation}
2922: %\label{eqn:common_bound_1}
2923: % R \le I(X;Y_1) + H(Y_2|Y_1) - H(Y_2 | Y_1, X).
2924: %\end{equation}
2925: Equations (\ref{eqn:common_bound_4_on_C}) and (\ref{eqn:common_bound_5_on_C}) give the conditions for the
2926: message $W$ to be decoded at $\Rbad$ with an arbitrarily small probability of error by
2927: taking $n$ large enough.
2928: %, as long as
2929: %\begin{equation}
2930: %\label{eqn:common_rate_combined_bound}
2931: % R \le I(X;Y_1) - H(\hU|Y_1,X) + \min\left(C_{21} , H(\hU | Y_1)\right).
2932: %\end{equation}
2933: %%But then, if this rate is less than the rate without cooperation (that is, if in order to resolve
2934: %%the uncertainty caused by not knowing the received $\yvec_2(i)$, we need to transmit more cooperation information
2935: %%than what can be supported by the finite capacity conference link, i.e. $C_{21} < H(Y_2|Y_1,X)$),
2936: %%we better not use cooperation at all. In this case the maximum allowed rate to $\Rgood$ is bounded by $I(X;Y_1)$.
2937: %%Combining this observation with (\ref{eqn:common_rate_combined_bound}) we get the first term in the minimum
2938: %% in lemma \ref{lemma:onedelay}.
2939: Note that the requirement in (\ref{eqn:common_bound_5_on_C}) implies that when
2940: $C_{12} < I(\hV;Y_1|Y_2,X)$, $\Rgood$ cannot use this cooperation scheme, and the rate to $\Rbad$ is simply
2941: $I(X;Y_2)$. Combining this with equation (\ref{eqn:common_bound_4_on_C}) yields the rate expression
2942: in \eqref{eqn:rate_bound_for_first_step} and \eqref{eqn:capacity _constraint_for_first_step}.
2943: % for $R_1(p(x))$ in theorem~\ref{thm:onedelay}.
2944:
2945: %Repeating these considerations for $\Rbad$, we get the expression for $R_2(p(x))$.
2946: %The maximum achievable rate is then the supremum over all possible distributions
2947: % $p(x)$.
2948:
2949:
2950:
2951:
2952:
2953:
2954:
2955:
2956:
2957:
2958: %%\bibliographystyle{plain}
2959: %%\bibliography{library}
2960: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
2961:
2962:
2963:
2964: \bibitem{Cover:72}
2965: T.~M. Cover.
2966: \newblock {``Broadcast Channels"}.
2967: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-18(1):2--14, 1972.
2968:
2969: \bibitem{Bergmans:73}
2970: P.~P. Bergmans.
2971: \newblock {``Random Coding Theorem for Broadcast Channels with Degraded
2972: Components"}.
2973: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-19(2):197--207, 1973.
2974:
2975: \bibitem{Bergmans:74}
2976: P.~P. Bergmans.
2977: \newblock {``A Simple Converse for Broadcast Channels with Additive White
2978: Gaussian Noise"}.
2979: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-20(2):279--280, 1974.
2980:
2981: \bibitem{Gallager:74}
2982: R.~G. Gallager.
2983: \newblock {``Capacity and Coding for Degraded Broadcast Channels"}.
2984: \newblock {\em Problemy Peredachi Informatsii}, vol. 10(3):3--14, 1974.
2985:
2986: \bibitem{ElGamal:79}
2987: A.~A. El Gamal.
2988: \newblock {``The Capacity of a Class of Broadcast Channels"}.
2989: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-25(2):166--169, 1979.
2990:
2991: \bibitem{ElGamal:78}
2992: A.~A. El Gamal.
2993: \newblock {``Broadcast Channels with and without Feedback"}.
2994: \newblock {\em Proc. 11th Annual Conf. on Circuits Systems and Computers}, Pacific Grove, CA, 1978, pp. 180--183.
2995:
2996: \bibitem{ElGamal:81}
2997: A.~A. El Gamal.
2998: \newblock {``The Capacity of the Physically Degraded Gaussian Broadcast Channel with Feedback"}.
2999: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-27(4):508--511, 1981.
3000:
3001:
3002: \bibitem{ElGamal:80}
3003: A.~A. El Gamal.
3004: \newblock {``The Capacity of the Product and Sum of Two Unmatched Broadcast Channels"}.
3005: \newblock{\em Problemy Peredachi Informatsii}, vol. 16(1):3--23, 1980.
3006:
3007:
3008: \bibitem{Han:81}
3009: T.~S. Han.
3010: \newblock{``The Capacity Region of the Deterministic Broadcast Channel with a Common Message"}.
3011: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-27(1):122--125, 1981.
3012:
3013: \bibitem{Pinsker:78}
3014: M. Pinsker.
3015: \newblock{``Capacity of Noiseless Broadcast Channels"}.
3016: \newblock{\em Problemy Peredachi Informatsii}, vol. 14(2):28--34, 1978.
3017:
3018:
3019: \bibitem{Gelfand:77}
3020: S.~I. Gelfand.
3021: \newblock{``Capacity of One Broadcast Channel"}.
3022: \newblock{\em Problemy Peredachi Informatsii}, vol. 13(3):106--108, 1978.
3023:
3024: \bibitem{Cover:75}
3025: T.~M. Cover.
3026: \newblock{``An Achievable Rate Region for the Broadcast Channel"}.
3027: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-21(4):399--404, 1975.
3028:
3029: \bibitem{KornerMarton:77}
3030: J.~ Korner and K.~Marton.
3031: \newblock {``General Broadcast Channels with Degraded Message Sets"}.
3032: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-23(1):60--64, 1977.
3033:
3034:
3035: \bibitem{Marton:79}
3036: K.~Marton.
3037: \newblock {``A Coding Theorem for the Discrete Memoryless Broadcast Channel"}.
3038: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-25(3):306--311, 1979.
3039:
3040: \bibitem{ElGamalM:81}
3041: A.~A. {El Gamal} and E.~C. van~der Meulen.
3042: \newblock {``A Proof of Marton's Coding Theorem for the Discrete Memoryless
3043: Broadcast Channel"}.
3044: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-27(1):120--122, 1981.
3045:
3046: \bibitem{DSM:2002}
3047: S. Vishwanath, G. Kramer, S. Shamai, S. Jafar, and A. Goldsmith.
3048: \newblock{``Capacity Bounds for Gaussian Vector Broadcast Channels"}.
3049: \newblock{\em DIMACS Series in Multiantenna Channels: Capacity, Coding and Signal Processing, eds.
3050: G.~J.~Foschini and S.~Verdu }, vol. 62, pp. 107--122, 2003.
3051:
3052:
3053: \bibitem{Sato:78}
3054: H. Sato.
3055: \newblock {``An Outer Bound to the Capacity Region of Broadcast Channels"}.
3056: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-24(3):374--377, 1978.
3057:
3058: \bibitem{Ozarow:84}
3059: L. H. Ozarow and S.K. Leung-Yan-Cheong.
3060: \newblock{``An Achievable Region and Outer Bound for the Gaussian Broadcast Channel with Feedback"}.
3061: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-30(4):667--671, 1984.
3062:
3063: \bibitem{Elia:2004}
3064: N. Elia.
3065: \newblock{``When Bode Meets Shannon: Control-Oriented Feedback Communication Schemes"}.
3066: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Autom. Control} AC-49(9):1477--1487, 2004.
3067:
3068: \bibitem{HanCosta:87}
3069: T.~S. Han and M.~H.~M. Costa.
3070: \newblock {``Broadcast Channels with Arbitrarily Correlated Sources"}.
3071: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-33(5):641--650, 1987.
3072:
3073: \bibitem{Cover:98}
3074: T.~M. Cover.
3075: \newblock {``Comments on Broadcast Channels"}.
3076: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-44(6):2524--2530, 1998.
3077:
3078:
3079: \bibitem{CaireShamai:03}
3080: G. Caire and S. Shamai.
3081: \newblock {``On the Achievable Throughtput of a Multiantenna Gaussian Broadcast Channel"}.
3082: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-49(7):1691--1705, 2003.
3083:
3084:
3085: \bibitem{VishTse:03}
3086: P. Viswanath and D.N.C. Tse.
3087: \newblock {``Sum Capacity of the Vector Gaussian Broadcast Channel"}.
3088: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-49(8):1691--1705, 2003.
3089:
3090:
3091: \bibitem{JindalGoldsmith:04}
3092: S. Vishwanath, N. Jindal and A. Goldsmith.
3093: \newblock {``Duality, Achievable Rates, and Sum-Rate Capacity of Gaussian MIMO Broadcast Channels"}.
3094: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-49(10):2658--2668, 2003.
3095:
3096: \bibitem{YuCioffi:04}
3097: W. Yu and J.~M. Cioffi.
3098: \newblock{``Sum Capacity of Gaussian Vector Broadcast Channels"}.
3099: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-50(9):1875--1892, 2004.
3100:
3101: \bibitem{Yossi:04}
3102: H.~Weingarten, Y.~Steinberg, and S.~Shamai.
3103: \newblock {``The Capacity Region of the Gaussian MIMO Broadcast Channel"}.
3104: \newblock {\em Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory (ISIT)}, Chicago, IL, 2004, p. 174.
3105:
3106: \bibitem{DraperFK:03}
3107: S.~C. Draper, B.~J. Frey, and F.~R. Kschischang.
3108: \newblock {``Interactive Decoding of a Broadcast Message"}.
3109: \newblock {\em Proc. 41st Allerton Conf. on Communication, Control and
3110: Computing}, Monticello, IL, 2003.
3111:
3112: \bibitem{Willke:2004}
3113: T.~L.~Willke and N.~T.~Maxemchuk.
3114: \newblock{``Relieble Collaborative Decision Making in Moble Ad Hoc Networks"}.
3115: \newblock{\em Proc. 7th IFIP/IEEE Int. Conf. Management of Multimedia Networks and Services (MMNS)}, San Diego, CA, 2004.
3116:
3117: \bibitem{Meulen:71}
3118: E. C. van der Meulen.
3119: \newblock {``Transmission of Information in a T-Terminal Discrete Memoryless Channel"}.
3120: \newblock {Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. California, Berkeley, 1968.}
3121:
3122: \bibitem{GuptaKumar:2000}
3123: P. Gupta and P.~R. Kumar.
3124: \newblock{``The Capacity of Wireless Networks"}.
3125: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-46(2):388--404, 2000.
3126:
3127:
3128:
3129: \bibitem{GastparV:2005}
3130: M. Gastpar and M. Vetterli.
3131: \newblock{``On the Capacity of Large Gaussian Relay Networks"}.
3132: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-51(3):765--779, 2005.
3133:
3134: \bibitem{GuptaKumar:2003}
3135: P. Gupta and P.~R. Kumar.
3136: \newblock{``Towards an Information Theory of Large Networks: An Achievable Rate Region"}.
3137: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-49(8):1877--1894, 2003.
3138:
3139: \bibitem{XieKumar:2004}
3140: L.~L. Xie and P.~R. Kumar.
3141: \newblock{``A Network Information Theory for Wireless Communication: Scaling Laws and Optimal Operation"}.
3142: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-50(5):748--767, 2004.
3143:
3144: \bibitem{CoverG:79}
3145: T.~M. Cover and A.~A. {El Gamal}.
3146: \newblock {``Capacity Theorems for the Relay Channel"}.
3147: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-25(5):572--584, 1979.
3148:
3149: \bibitem{WangZhang:2005}
3150: B. Wang, J. Zhang and A. Host-Madsen.
3151: \newblock{``On the Capacity of MIMO Relay Channels"}.
3152: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-51(1):29--43, 2005.
3153:
3154: \bibitem{XieKumar:2005}
3155: L.~L. Xie and P.~R. Kumar.
3156: \newblock{``An Achievable Rate for the Multiple-Level Relay Channel"}.
3157: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-51(4):1348--1358, 2005.
3158:
3159: \bibitem{KramerGupta:2003}
3160: G. Kramer, M. Gastpar and P. Gupta.
3161: \newblock{``Cooperative Strategies and Capacity Theorems for Relay Networks"}.
3162: \newblock{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-51(9):3037--3063, 2005.
3163:
3164: \bibitem{MOT:05}
3165: H.~F. Chong, M.~Motani, and H.~K. Garg.
3166: \newblock {``New Coding Strategies for the Relay Channel"}.
3167: \newblock In {\em Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory (ISIT)}, Adelaide,
3168: Australia, 2005, pp. 1086--1090.
3169:
3170: \bibitem{NetCod:2000}
3171: R. Ahlswede, N. Cai, S.-Y. R. Li and R. W. Yeung.
3172: \newblock {``Network Information Flow"}.
3173: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-46(4):1204--1216, 2000.
3174:
3175:
3176: \bibitem{Zhang:88}
3177: Z.~Zhang.
3178: \newblock {``Partial Converse for a Relay Channel"}.
3179: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-34(5):1106--1110, 1988.
3180:
3181: \bibitem{WynerZiv:76}
3182: A.~D. Wyner and J. Ziv.
3183: \newblock {``The Rate-Distortion Function for Source Coding with Side Information at the Decoder"}.
3184: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-22(1):1--10, 1976.
3185:
3186:
3187: \bibitem{Liang:04}
3188: Y.~Liang and V.~V.~Veeravalli.
3189: \newblock{``The Impact of Relaying on the Capacity of Broadcast Channels"}.
3190: \newblock{\em Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory (ISIT)}, Chicago, IL, 2004, p. 403.
3191:
3192: \bibitem{cover-thomas:it-book}
3193: T.~M. Cover and J.~Thomas.
3194: \newblock {\em {Elements of Information Theory}}.
3195: \newblock John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1991.
3196:
3197: \bibitem{Kaspi:85}
3198: A.~H. Kaspi.
3199: \newblock{``Two-Way Source Coding with a Fidelity Criterion"}.
3200: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-31(6):735--740, 1985.
3201:
3202: \bibitem{Willems:83}
3203: F.~M.~J. Willems.
3204: \newblock{``The Discrete Memoryless Multiple Access Channel with Partially Cooperating Encoders"}.
3205: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-29(3):441--445, 1983.
3206:
3207: \bibitem{RonSer:2004}
3208: R. Dabora and S. Servetto.
3209: \newblock {``Broadcast Channels with Cooperating Receivers: a Downlink for the Sensor Reachback Problem"}.
3210: \newblock {\em Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory (ISIT)}, Chicago, IL, 2004, p. 176.
3211:
3212: \bibitem{YeungBook}
3213: R.~W. Yeung.
3214: \newblock{\em A First Course in Information Theory}.
3215: \newblock Springer, 2002.
3216:
3217: \bibitem{HajekPursley:79}
3218: B.~E. Hajek and M.~B. Pursley.
3219: \newblock {``Evaluation of an Achievable Rate Region for the Broadcast Channel"}.
3220: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, IT-25(1):36--46, 1979.
3221:
3222: \bibitem{Salehi:78}
3223: M. Salehi.
3224: \newblock {``Cardinality Bounds on Auxiliary Variables in Multiple-User Theory via the Method of Ahlswede and
3225: Korner"}.
3226: \newblock {Technical Report No. 33, Dept. Statistics, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, 1978}.
3227:
3228: \bibitem{BetgerLecNotes}
3229: T. Berger.
3230: \newblock {\em Multiterminal Source Coding}.
3231: \newblock {The Information Theory Approach to Communictions, ed. G. Longo, Springer-Verlag, 1978. }
3232:
3233: %\bibitem{Kramer:2004}
3234: %G. Kramer, M. Gastpar and P. Gupta.
3235: %\newblock {``Cooperative Strategies and Capacity Theorems for Relay Networks"}.
3236: %\newblock Submitted to the {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}.
3237:
3238: \bibitem{Draper:ISIT04}
3239: S.~C. Draper, B.~J. Frey, and F.~R. Kschischang.
3240: \newblock {``On Interacting Encoders and Decoders in Multiuser Settings"}.
3241: \newblock {\em Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory (ISIT)}, Chicago, IL, 2004, p. 118.
3242:
3243:
3244: \end{thebibliography}
3245:
3246: \begin{biography}{Ron Dabora}
3247: received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering in
3248: 1994 and 2000 respectively, from Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv,
3249: Israel. From 1994 to 2000, he was with the Signal Corps of Israel
3250: Defense Forces, and from 2000 to 2003, he was a member of the
3251: Algorithms Development Group, Millimetrix Broadband Networks,
3252: Israel. Since 2003 he is a Ph.D. student at Cornell University,
3253: Ithaca, NY.
3254: \end{biography}
3255:
3256: \begin{biography}{Sergio D. Servetto}
3257: was born in Argentina, on January 18, 1968. He received a
3258: Licenciatura en Inform\'atica from Universidad Nacional de La Plata
3259: (UNLP, Argentina) in 1992, and the M.Sc. degree in Electrical
3260: Engineering and the Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from the
3261: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), in 1996 and 1999.
3262: Between 1999 and 2001, he worked at the \'Ecole Polytechnique
3263: F\'ed\'erale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland. Since Fall
3264: 2001, he has been an Assistant Professor in the School of Electrical
3265: and Computer Engineering at Cornell University, and a member of the
3266: fields of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science. He was the
3267: recipient of the 1998 Ray Ozzie Fellowship, given to ``outstanding
3268: graduate students in Computer Science,'' and of the 1999 David J.\
3269: Kuck Outstanding Thesis Award, for the best doctoral dissertation of
3270: the year, both from the Dept.\ of Computer Science at UIUC. He was
3271: also the recipient of a 2003 NSF CAREER Award. His research
3272: interests are centered around information theoretic aspects of
3273: networked systems, with a current emphasis on problems that arise in
3274: the context of large-scale sensor networks.
3275: \end{biography}
3276: \end{document}
3277: