1: %\documentclass[a4paper,10pt,twocolumn]{IEEEtran}
2: \documentclass[11pt,onecolumn]{IEEEtran}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{subfigure}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \input{macros}
7: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{Game theoretic aspects of distributed spectral coordination
11: with application to DSL networks}
12: \author{Amir Laufer$^{1,2}$, Amir Leshem$^1$ and Hagit Messer$^2$
13: \thanks{$^1$ School of Engineering, Bar-Ilan university, Ramat-Gan, 52900,
14: Israel. $^2$ Department of EE, Tel Aviv
15: University. This research was funded by the EU-FP6 U-BROAD project
16: under contract no. 506790. Contact Author: Amir Leshem, e-mail:
17: leshema@eng.biu.ac.il Part of this paper have been presented at DySpan
18: 2005.}}
19: \date{}
20: \maketitle
21: \begin{abstract}
22: In this paper we use game theoretic techniques to study the value of
23: cooperation in distributed spectrum management problems. We show
24: that the celebrated iterative water-filling algorithm is subject to
25: the prisoner's dilemma and therefore can lead to severe degradation
26: of the achievable rate region in an interference channel
27: environment. We also provide thorough analysis of a simple two bands
28: near-far situation where we are able to provide closed form tight
29: bounds on the rate region of both fixed margin iterative water filling
30: (FM-IWF) and dynamic frequency division multiplexing (DFDM)
31: methods. This is the only case where such analytic expressions are
32: known and all previous studies included only
33: simulated results of the rate region.
34: We then propose an alternative algorithm that
35: alleviates some of the drawbacks of the IWF algorithm in near-far
36: scenarios relevant to DSL access networks. We also provide
37: experimental analysis based on measured DSL channels of both
38: algorithms as well as the centralized optimum spectrum management.
39:
40: Keywords: Spectrum optimization, DSL, distributed coordination, game
41: theory, interference channel.
42: \end{abstract}
43: \section{Introduction}
44: Recent years have shown great advances in digital subscriber line
45: (DSL) spectrum management. The public telephone copper lines network
46: is limited by crosstalk between lines. As such dynamic management of
47: the lines based on the actual crosstalk channels is becoming an
48: important ingredient in enhancing the overall network performance at
49: the physical layer. In a series of papers \cite{Song} \cite{yu01},
50: \cite{yu2002}, \cite{ginis2002} (and the references therein) Cioffi
51: and his group defined several levels of spectral coordination for
52: DSL access networks, where level zero coordination corresponds to no
53: coordination, level one corresponds to distributed spectrum
54: coordination, level two is centralized spectrum management where all
55: spectral allocations are performed by a single spectrum management
56: center (SMC). The third level is actually joint transmission /
57: reception of all lines. To perform level three all signals are
58: vectored into a single vectored signal. DSM level three can be
59: divided into two types of vectoring: Two sided coordination (where
60: all lines are both jointly encoded and jointly decoded) and single
61: sided coordination where a central processing unit at the network
62: side of the lines jointly encodes all the downstream transmission or
63: jointly decodes the upstream transmissions.
64: % (see figure \ref{DSM_architecture}).
65: Two sided coordination is typical to
66: private networks, and is implemented e.g., in gigabit Ethernet and
67: the future 10 Gb Ethernet over copper. Single sided level three
68: coordination is more relevant to public DSL networks where different
69: lines are terminated at different customer houses. However joint
70: transmission over all lines in a binder is still computationally
71: complicated to implement due to several factors. First equipment
72: already deployed uses the single input single output approach, where
73: each line is operated independently assuming interference from other
74: lines to be part of the background noise. Second the unbundling of
75: the copper infrastructure and the deployment of remote terminals
76: makes joint transmission impossible in certain scenarios. It is
77: anticipated that fiber to the basement and fiber to the neighborhood
78: architecture will benefit greatly from level three coordination,
79: while legacy DSL deployment will not be enhanced by these
80: techniques.
81: %\begin{figure}[htbf]
82: %\centering \epsfig{file=figures/PP.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}
83: %\caption{DSM level 3 architectures: Point-to-point (top) versus
84: %point-to-multi-point (bottom).} \label{DSM_architecture}
85: %\end{figure}
86: On the other hand dynamic spectrum management (DSM) levels 1-2 only the power spectral
87: density is optimized to enhance overall network performance is still
88: an important tool for increasing the reach and improving the service
89: of legacy long loops. The major difference between DSM level 1 and
90: level 2 is the existence of a central spectrum management center
91: performing the optimization jointly at level 2, while DSM level 1
92: requires distributed coordination of the lines, where each modem
93: performs its optimization independently of the other lines. The most
94: appealing property of level 1 coordination is the fact that it can be
95: implemented using firmware upgrades to existing DSL modems (which
96: already have a built in power spectral density (PSD) shaping
97: capability), rather than complete replacement of infrastructure.
98:
99: The basic approach to distributed coordination has been proposed in
100: \cite{yu2002}. In this approach each modem is using the
101: iterative waterfilling (IWF) algorithm to optimize its own spectrum.
102: The modem iteratively optimizes its own transmit PSD against the
103: actual noise caused by other modems in the binder. All modems repeat
104: this process until convergence is achieved. There are three
105: basic versions of the IWF algorithm \cite{cioffiDSM}: Rate Adaptive
106: (RA) where the modem uses all the power to maximize the rate, Margin
107: Adaptive (MA) where excessive power is used to increase the margin
108: and Fixed Margin (FM) where the modem minimizes the transmit power
109: subject to a fixed margin and fixed rate constraint. This is done by
110: reducing the power whenever the margin achieved is higher than
111: required. This approach leads to great improvement over the totally
112: selfish strategies of RA-IWF and MA-IWF. However as we shall
113: demonstrate, large improvements can be achieved when the modems use
114: a-priori agreed upon cooperative strategy.
115:
116: Distributed coordination is basically a situation of conflict
117: between the users. Each user would like to improve its rate even at
118: the expense of other users. To gain some insight into the problem we
119: apply game theoretic techniques. The distributed spectrum management
120: process can be viewed as a game which is called the interference
121: game \cite{yu2002}. In this game each user has a pay-off function
122: given by its rate, and its strategies are basically choice of PSD. A
123: fixed point of the IWF process is a Nash equilibrium in the
124: interference game. However Nash equilibrium points can be highly
125: suboptimal due to the well known Prisoner's dilemma \cite{owen}.
126: This suggests that defining a new cooperative game where players can
127: commit to follow certain strategies will improve not only the
128: overall network capacity, but also the individual user capacity (The
129: payoff in the interference game is the achievable rate or capacity).
130: A simple case of the interference game is the two users game. While
131: this game is rather simplistic it captures well the interference
132: environment between two {\em groups} of users: One group served from
133: central office (CO) using legacy equipment such as ADSL
134: or ADSL2+, and a second group served from a remote
135: terminal (RT) over shorter lines and more modern equipment such as
136: VDSL2 modems. It can also model well the case of
137: two remote terminals of different service providers sharing
138: customers in the same binder. These two cases are of great interest
139: from practical point of view. Both cases influence the possible
140: regulation of spectrum in an unbundled binder. Furthermore the case
141: of remote terminals is crucial for maintaining legacy service
142: integrity while expanding the network with remote terminals.
143:
144: The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
145: Section II formalizes the distributed spectrum coordination for
146: Gaussian interference channel in terms of
147: game theory. It is followed by Section III, in which the occurrence
148: of the prisoner's dilemma for a simplified symmetric two players game
149: is analyzed. Section IV is devoted to the application of the previous
150: results to the near-far problem in DSL channels. It provides analytic
151: expression for the region where frequency division multiplexing will
152: improve the rate region over the competitive IWF algorithm. In
153: Section V we propose a simple dynamic frequency domain multiplexing
154: (DFDM) scheme that can outperform the IWF in these cases. The results
155: are also demonstrated on measured VDSL channels provided by France
156: Telecom research labs (Section VI).
157:
158:
159: \section{The Gaussian interference game}
160: \label{sec:GI_game} In this section we define the Gaussian
161: interference game, and provide some simplifications for dealing with
162: discrete frequencies. For a general background on non-cooperative
163: games we refer the reader to \cite{owen} and \cite{basar82}.
164: The Gaussian interference game was defined in
165: \cite{yu2002}. In this paper we use the discrete approximation
166: game. Let $f_0 < \cdots <f_K$ be an increasing sequence of
167: frequencies. Let $I_k$ be the closed interval be given by
168: $I_k=[f_{k-1},f_k]$. We now define the approximate Gaussian
169: interference game denoted by $GI_{\{I_1, \ldots, I_K\}}$.
170:
171: Let the players $1,\ldots,N$ operate over separate channels. Assume
172: that the $N$ channels have crosstalk coupling functions $h_{ij}(k)$.
173: Assume that user $i$'th is allowed to transmit a total power of
174: $P_i$. Each player can transmit a power vector $\vp_i=\left(
175: p_i(1),\ldots,p_i(K) \right) \in [0,P_i]^K$ such that $p_i(k)$ is
176: the power transmitted in the interval $I_k$. Therefore we have $
177: \sum_{k=1}^K p_i(k)=P_i$. The equality follows from the fact that in
178: non-cooperative scenario all users will use the maximal power they
179: can use. This implies that the set of power distributions for all
180: users is a closed convex subset of the cube $\prod_{i=1}^N
181: [0,P_i]^K$ given by: \beq \label{eq_strategies} \mB=\prod_{i=1}^N
182: \mB_i \eeq where $\mB_i$ is the set of admissible power
183: distributions for player $i$ is \beq \mB_i=[0,P_i]^K\cap
184: \left\{\left(p(1),\ldots,p(K)\right): \sum_{k=1}^K p(k)=P_i \right\}
185: \eeq Each player chooses a PSD $\vp_i=\left<p_i(k): 1\le k \le N
186: \right > \in \mB_i$. Let the payoff for user $i$ be given by: \beq
187: %\bea{l}
188: \label{eq_capacity}
189: C^i\left(\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N\right)= \\
190: \sum_{k=1}^{K}\log_2\left(1+\frac{|h_i(k)|^2p_i(k)}{\sum
191: |h_{ij}(k)|^2 p_j(k)+\vn(k)}\right)
192: %\ena
193: \eeq where $C^i$ is the capacity available to player $i$ given power
194: distributions $\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N$, channel responses $h_i(f)$,
195: crosstalk coupling functions $h_{ij}(k)$ and $n_i(k)>0$ is external
196: noise present at the $i$'th channel receiver at frequency $k$. In
197: cases where $n_i(k)=0$ capacities might become infinite using FDM
198: strategies, however this is non-physical situation due to the
199: receiver noise that is always present, even if small. Each $C^i$ is
200: continuous on all variables.
201:
202: \begin{definition}
203: The Gaussian Interference game $GI_{\{I_1,\ldots,I_k\}}=\left\{\mC,\mB\right\}$ is the N
204: players non-cooperative game with payoff vector
205: $\mC=\left(C^1,\ldots,C^N \right)$ where $C^i$ are defined in
206: (\ref{eq_capacity}) and $\mB$ is the strategy set defined by (\ref{eq_strategies}).
207: \end{definition}
208:
209: The interference game is a special case of non-cooperative N-persons
210: game. An important notion in game theory is that of a Nash
211: equilibrium.
212: \bdf
213: An $N$-tuple of strategies $\left<\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N\right>$ for
214: players $1,\ldots,N$ respectively
215: is called a Nash equilibrium iff for all $n$ and for all $\vp$ ($\vp$ a
216: strategy for player $n$)
217: \[
218: C^n\left(\vp_1,...,\vp_{n-1},\vp,\vp_{n+1},\ldots,\vp_N \right)<
219: C^n\left(\vp_1,...,\vp_{N} \right)
220: \]
221: i.e., given that all other players $i \neq n$ use strategies $\vp_i$, player
222: $n$ best response is $\vp_n$.
223: \edf
224: The proof of existence of Nash equilibrium in the general interference
225: game follows from an easy adaptation of the proof of the this result
226: for convex games. In appendix A we demonstrate how the continuity of
227: the joint water-filling strategies is essentially what is needed in order to prove
228: the existence of Nash equilibrium in the interference game. It is an
229: adaptation of the result of \cite{nikaido55} as presented in
230: \cite{basar82}. An alternative proof relying on differentiability has been given by Chung
231: et.al \cite{chung2002a}.
232: A much harder problem is the uniqueness of Nash equilibrium points in
233: the water-filling game. This is very important to the stability of the
234: waterfilling strategies. A first result in this direction has been
235: given in \cite{chung2002}. A more general analysis of the convergence
236: (although it still does not cover the case of arbitrary channels has
237: been given in \cite{luo2005}.
238:
239: While Nash equilibria are inevitable whenever non-cooperative zero sum
240: game is played they can lead to substantial loss to all players, compared to a
241: cooperative strategy in the non-zero sum case. In the next section we demonstrate this
242: phenomena for a simplified channel model.
243:
244: \section{The Prisoner's Dilemma for the 2$\times$2 Symmetric Game}
245: In order to present the benefits of cooperative strategies for
246: spectral management we first focus on a simplified two users two
247: frequency bands symmetric game. The channel matrices of this channel
248: are the follows:
249: \begin{equation}
250: \left|H(1)\right|^2=\left[
251: \begin{array}{cc}
252: 1 & h \\
253: h & 1 \end{array} \right] , \left|H(2)\right|^2=\left[
254: \begin{array}{cc}
255: 1 & h \\
256: h & 1 \end{array} \right]
257: \end{equation}
258: where
259: $H(1)$ and $H(2)$ are the normalized channel matrices for each
260: frequency band, and
261: \[
262: h=|h_{12}(1)|^2=|h_{21}(1)|^2=|h_{12}(2)|^2=|h_{21}(2)|^2
263: \]
264: Since in the DSL environment the crosstalk from other user is
265: smaller than the self channel response (i.e. $h_{ij}(k)<h_i(k)$
266: $\forall i,j,k$ we'll limit the discussion to $0\leq h < 1$.
267:
268: In this section we analyze the symmetric $2 \times 2$ interference game and
269: find the Nash equilibrium which is achieved by both users using the
270: full spectrum. We then provide full characterization of channel-SNR pairs for which
271: IWF is optimal as well as full conditions for the two
272: other situations: (in terms of pairs of channel coefficient and SNR)
273: The first is known as the Prisoner's dilemma (PD) and was discovered by Flood and
274: Dresher \cite{flood52}. The second is the ``chicken'' dilemma game, a
275: termed coined by B. Russel in the context of the missile crisis in
276: Cuba \cite{poundstone92}. We will
277: show that in both these cases cooperative strategies (FDM) outperform the Nash
278: equilibrium achieved by the IWF.
279:
280: In our symmetric game both users have the same power constraint $P$ and the power
281: allocation matrix is defined as
282: \begin{equation}P\cdot \left[
283: \begin{array}{cc}
284: 1-\alpha & \alpha \\
285: \beta & 1-\beta
286: \end{array} \right]
287: \end{equation}
288: %where $0\leq \alpha , \beta\leq 1$.\\
289: The capacity for user I is as follows:
290: \begin{equation}
291: C^1=\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{(1-\alpha)\cdot P}{N+\beta\cdot
292: P\cdot h}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\alpha\cdot
293: P}{N+(1-\beta)\cdot P\cdot h}\right)
294: \end{equation}\\
295: where $N$ is the noise power spectral density.\\
296: The last equation can be rewritten as -
297: \begin{equation}
298: C^1=\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{(1-\alpha)}{SNR^{-1}+\beta\cdot
299: h}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{SNR^{-1}+(1-\beta)\cdot
300: h}\right)
301: \end{equation}
302: where $SNR = P/N$.\\
303: By the definition of the Gaussian interference game, the set of
304: strategies in this simplified game is \beq \label{eq_2x2_strategy}
305: \left\{\alpha, \beta :
306: 0\leq \alpha, \beta \leq 1\right\} \eeq
307: \begin{claim}
308: \label{theorem_nash} In the $2\times 2$ symmetric interference game
309: there is Nash equilibrium point at $\alpha = \beta = \frac{1}{2}$.
310: \end{claim}
311: \begin{proof}
312: An IWF solution for this case will be of the form:
313: \begin{equation}
314: \label{iwf_eq1}
315: (1-\beta_{i-1})h+\alpha_{i}=\beta_{i-1}
316: h+(1-\alpha_{i})
317: \end{equation}
318: \begin{equation}
319: \label{iwf_eq2} (1-\alpha_{i-1})h+\beta_{i}=\alpha_{i-1}
320: h+(1-\beta_{i})
321: \end{equation}
322: which implies that
323: \begin{equation}
324: \label{iwf_eq3} \alpha_{i}=\frac{(2\beta_{i-1}-1)h+1}{2}
325: \end{equation}
326: \begin{equation}
327: \label{iwf_eq4} \beta_{i}=\frac{(2\alpha_{i-1}-1)h+1}{2}
328: \end{equation}
329: The expression in (\ref{iwf_eq1}) is the water filling solution for
330: $\alpha$ in the $i^{th}$ iteration of the IWF as a function of
331: $\beta$ computed in the $(i-1)^{th}$ iteration. Similarly
332: (\ref{iwf_eq2}) is the water filling solution for $\beta$ in the
333: $i^{th}$ iteration as a function of $\alpha$ computed in the
334: $(i-1)^{th}$ iteration. These set of equations will converges when
335: \begin{equation}
336: \label{converges_eq1} \alpha_i = \alpha_{i-1} \equiv \alpha
337: \end{equation}
338: and
339: \begin{equation}
340: \label{converges_eq2} \beta_i = \beta_{i-1} \equiv \beta
341: \end{equation}
342: substituting (\ref{converges_eq1}) and (\ref{converges_eq2}) in
343: (\ref{iwf_eq3}) and (\ref{iwf_eq4}) and solving the two equations we
344: get
345: \begin{equation}
346: \alpha = \beta = \frac{1}{2}
347: \end{equation}
348: since the IWF converges to a Nash equilibrium we conclude
349: that $\alpha = \beta = \frac{1}{2}$ is a Nash equilibrium in this
350: game.
351: \end{proof}
352: We interpret the IWF as the competitive act, since each user
353: maximizes its rate given the other user power allocation, we choose
354: FDM as the cooperative way. Applying FDM (which implies that
355: $\alpha=\beta=0$) means causing no interference to the other user
356: ,by using orthogonal bands for transmission. We want to compare
357: between these two approaches of power allocation, the competitive
358: one (IWF) and the cooperative one (FDM). Instead of comparing these
359: approaches on the "continuous" game (continuous with respect to the
360: set of strategies in the game defined in
361: (\ref{eq_2x2_strategy})), we can discuss and analyze the "discrete"
362: game, which is characterized by having only two strategies followed by a
363: set of four different values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. This
364: reduction is allowed since for two strategies and two users there
365: are four different choices of mutual power allocations:
366: \begin{itemize}
367: \item both users select FDM resulting in $\alpha=\beta=0$
368: \item user I selects FDM while user II selects IWF resulting in $\alpha=0$ ,
369: $\beta=\frac{1-h}{2}$ ($\beta$ is the solution of \ref{iwf_eq4}
370: where $\alpha=0$)
371: \item user I selects IWF while user II selects FDM resulting in $\alpha=\frac{1-h}{2}$ , $\beta=0$ ($\alpha$ is the solution of \ref{iwf_eq3}
372: where $\beta=0$)
373: \item both users select IWF resulting in $\alpha=\beta=\frac{1}{2}$ as we have shown
374: in the theorem
375: \end{itemize}
376: Tables I describes the payoffs of users I at four different levels
377: of mutual cooperation (The payoffs of user II are the same with the
378: inversion of the cooperative/competetive roles).
379: \begin{table}[htbp]
380: \centering \caption{User I payoffs at different levels of mutual
381: cooperation}
382: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
383: \hline
384: &user II is fully cooperative&user II is fully competing\\
385: &$(\beta=0)$&$\left(\beta=\frac{(2\alpha-1)h+1}{2}\right)$\\
386: \hline $\begin{array}{c}
387: $user I is fully cooperative$ \\
388: (\alpha=0)
389: \end{array}$ & $\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}}\right)$&$\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}+\frac{(1-h)}{2}h}\right)$\\
390: \hline $\begin{array}{c}
391: $user I is fully competing$ \\
392: \left(\alpha=\frac{(2\beta-1)h+1}{2}\right)\\
393: \end{array}$ & $\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1+h}{2}}{SNR^{-1}}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1-h}{2}}{SNR^{-1}+h}\right)$&$\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{SNR^{-1}+\frac{1}{2}h}\right)$\\
394: \hline
395: \end{tabular}
396: \label{Table1}
397: \end{table}
398:
399: %\begin{table}[htbp]
400: %\centering \caption{User II payoffs at different levels of mutual
401: %cooperation}
402: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
403: %\hline
404: %&user II is fully cooperative&user II is fully competing\\
405: %&$(\beta=0)$&$\left(\beta=\frac{(2\alpha-1)h+1}{2}\right)$\\
406: %\hline $\begin{array}{c}
407: %$user I is fully cooperative$\\
408: %(\alpha=0)
409: %\end{array}$ & $\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}}\right)$&$\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1+h}{2}}{SNR^{-1}}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1-h}{2}}{SNR^{-1}+h}\right)$\\
410: %\hline $\begin{array}{c}
411: %$user I is fully competing$ \\
412: %\left(\alpha=\frac{(2\beta-1)h+1}{2}\right)
413: %\end{array}$ & $\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}+\frac{(1-h)}{2}h}\right)$&$\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{SNR^{-1}+\frac{1}{2}h}\right)$\\
414: %\hline
415: %\end{tabular}
416: %\label{Table 2}
417: %\end{table}
418:
419: For certain values of the payoff (determined by channel and SNR) in the
420: interference game it might be the case that each user can benefit from
421: other players cooperation, and benefit even more from mutual cooperation. However it
422: is always the case that given cooperative strategy for the other
423: player he always benefits from
424: noncooperation with the others due to the water filling optimality (i.e. given the
425: interference and noise PSD the best way to allocate the power is
426: through water filling which, as before mentioned, don't take into
427: account the influence on other users thus cannot be considered as a
428: cooperative method). In this situation the stable equilibrium is the
429: mutual non-cooperation. If on the other hand mutual cooperation is
430: better for both users over mutual competition we obtain that the
431: stable point is suboptimal for both players. This is a well known situation in game theory
432: termed the Prisoner's Dilemma \cite{owen} (here and after
433: abbreviated PD). For a popular overview of the prisoner's dilemma as
434: well as other basic notions in game theory as well as history of the
435: subject we recommend \cite{poundstone92}.
436:
437: A PD situation is defined by the following payoff
438: relations - $T>R>P>N$, where:
439:
440: \begin{itemize}
441: \item $T$ (Temptation) is one's payoff for defecting while the other
442: cooperates. In our game choosing an IWF while the other player uses FDM.
443: \item $R$ (Reward) is the payoff of each player where both
444: cooperate or mutual choice of FDM.
445: \item $P$ (Penalty) is the payoff of each player when both
446: defects or mutual use of IWF.
447: \item $N$ (Naive) is one's payoff for cooperating while the other
448: defects, i.e., the result of using FDM when the other player uses IWF.
449: \end{itemize}
450: It is easy to show that the Nash equilibrium point in this case is
451: that both players will defect ($P$). This is caused by the fact that
452: given the other user act the best response will be to defect (since
453: $T>R$ and $P>N$). Obviously a better strategy (which makes this game
454: a dilemma) is mutual cooperation (since $R>P$).\\
455:
456: In our symmetric interference game $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can be
457: viewed as the level of mutual cooperation. $\alpha$ determines the
458: level and cooperation of user I with user II, and $\beta$ the level
459: of cooperation of user II with user I. For analyzing this game we
460: can analyze the simplified discrete game. As before mentioned a PD situation is
461: characterized by the following payoff relations: $T > R > P > N$. By
462: examining the relations between the different rates (payoffs) as
463: depicted in table I we can derive a set of conditions on $h$ and
464: $SNR$ for which the given symmetric interference channel game
465: defines a PD situation: \\
466: (a) $T>R$:
467: \begin{equation}
468: \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1+h}{2}}{SNR^{-1}}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1-h}{2}}{SNR^{-1}+h}\right)>\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}}\right)
469: \end{equation}
470: this equation reduces to $h^2-2\cdot h+1>0$ which holds for every
471: $ h \neq 1$.\\
472:
473: (b) $T>P$:
474: \begin{equation}
475: \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1+h}{2}}{SNR^{-1}}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1-h}{2}}{SNR^{-1}+h}\right)>\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{SNR^{-1}+\frac{1}{2}h}\right)
476: \end{equation}
477: simplifying the equation we obtain
478: \begin{equation}
479: SNR^{-2}\left(h+\frac{1}{4}h^2\right)+SNR^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{2}h^3+\frac{3}{4}h^2+\frac{1}{4}h\right)+\left(\frac{1}{16}h^4+\frac{1}{8}h^3+\frac{1}{16}h^2\right)>0
480: \end{equation}
481: since $SNR$ and $h$ are nonnegative the equation always true.\\
482:
483: (c) $R>P$
484: \begin{equation}
485: \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}}\right)>\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{SNR^{-1}+\frac{1}{2}h}\right)
486: \end{equation}
487: simplifying (15) we get
488: \begin{equation}
489: h^2+2hSNR^{-1}-SNR^{-1}>0
490: \end{equation}
491: since $h$ is nonnegative the equation holds for $h>h_{\lim1}$, where
492: \begin{equation}
493: \label{eq_hlim1}
494: h_{\lim1}=SNR^{-1}\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}}}-1\right)
495: \end{equation}\\
496: (d) $R>N$
497: \begin{equation}
498: \frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}}\right)>\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}+\frac{(1-h)}{2}h}\right)
499: \end{equation}
500: which reduces to $\frac{1-h}{2}\cdot h>0$, this equation holds for every $0\leq h < 1$.\\
501: (e) $P>N$
502: \begin{equation}
503: \log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{SNR^{-1}+\frac{1}{2}h}\right)>\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}+\frac{(1-h)}{2}h}\right)
504: \end{equation}
505: or equivalently
506: \begin{equation}
507: \label{eq_p>n}
508: h^3+h^2(0.5+2SNR^{-1})-0.5h-SNR^{-1}<0
509: \end{equation}
510: since $h$ is nonnegative the equation holds for $h<h_{\lim2}$, where
511: $h_{\lim2}$ is the solution for (\ref{eq_p>n}) given by the cubic
512: formula.
513: Another condition arises from the sum-rate perspective is the
514: following - $2R > T+N$. This condition implies that a mixed strategy
515: (i.e. one user is cooperating while the other competing)
516: will not achieve higher sum rate than mutual cooperation - \\
517: (f) $2R > T+N$:
518: \begin{equation}
519: \log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}}\right)>\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1+h}{2}}{SNR^{-1}}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{\frac{1-h}{2}}{SNR^{-1}+h}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\log_2\left(1+\frac{1}{SNR^{-1}+\frac{(1-h)}{2}h}\right)
520: \end{equation}
521: which reduced to
522: \begin{equation}
523: SNR^{-2}\left(6(1-h^2)+8h\right)+SNR^{-1}(9h+h^2)+4h^2(1-h)>0
524: \end{equation}
525: since $h$ and $SNR$ are nonnegative the equation is true in the
526: relevant region of $0\leq h<1$ for every $SNR$.
527: Combining all the relation above we conclude that only three
528: situation are possible:
529: \begin{itemize}
530: \item (A) $T>P>R>N$ , for $h<h_{\lim1}$
531: \item (B) $T>R>P>N$ , for $h_{\lim1}<h<h_{\lim2}$
532: \item (C) $T>R>N>P$ , for $h_{\lim2}<h$
533: \end{itemize}
534: where $h_{\lim1}$ and $h_{\lim2}$ are given above.\\
535: The sum rate is either $2\cdot R$ (when both applying FDM), $2\cdot
536: P$ (when both using IWF) or $T+N$ (when one uses IWF while the other
537: applying FDM). Examining the achieved sum rate for the two
538: strategies (IWF and FDM) yields
539: the following:
540: The payoff relations in (A) corresponds to a game called
541: "Deadlock". In this game there is no dilemma, since as in the PD
542: situation, no matter what the other player does, it is better to
543: defect ($T>R$ and $P>N$), so the Nash equilibrium point is $P$.
544: However in contrast to PD, in this game $P>R$ thus there is no reason to
545: cooperate. The maximum sum rate is also $P$ because $2\cdot R>T+N$
546: and $P>R$. Since applying the IWF strategy equals to $P$ (by our
547: definition of competition), this is the region where the IWF
548: algorithm achieves the maximum sum rate as well as optimal rate for
549: each user.
550:
551: The payoff relations in (B) corresponds to the above discussed PD
552: situation. While the Nash equilibrium point is $P$, the maximum sum
553: rate is achieved by $R$. In this region the FDM strategy will
554: achieve the maximum sum rate.
555:
556: The last payoff relations (C) corresponds to a game called
557: "Chicken". This game has two distinguished Nash
558: equilibrium points, $T$ and $N$. This is caused by the fact that for
559: each of the other player's strategies the opposite response is preferred
560: (if the other cooperates it is better to defect since $T>R$, while
561: if the other defects it is better to cooperate since $N>P$). The
562: maximum rate sum point is still at $R$ (since $R>P$ and $2\cdot
563: R>T+N$) thus, again FDM will achieve the maximum rate sum while IWF
564: will not.
565:
566: An algorithm for distributed power allocation can be derived from
567: this insight for the symmetric interference game. Given a symmetric
568: interference game (i.e. a symmetric channel matrix and $SNR$), if
569: $h<h_{\lim1}$ (where $h_{\lim1}$ is given in (\ref{eq_hlim1})) use
570: the IWF method to allocate the power, else, both players should use
571: the FDM method. Since the channel crosstalk coefficient $h$ is
572: assumed to be known to both users this algorithm can be implemented
573: distributively (with pre agrement on the band used by each user for
574: the FDM). We will return to this strategy in the context of real DSL
575: channels in section \ref{DFDM}
576:
577: It is important to distinguish between the continuous symmetric
578: interference game and the discrete one. Even though the discrete
579: game can have Nash equilibrium other than $\alpha = \beta =
580: \frac{1}{2}$ (as we saw in the chicken game) these equilibrium
581: points are not stable in the continuous game. Hence we are left with only one
582: stable equilibrium as proven in (\ref{theorem_nash}). Nevertheless,
583: our conclusions regarding the benefit of cooperation in the interference game derived from the
584: discrete game remains valid in the continuous one since once
585: continuous strategies are chosen they inevitably lead to
586: $\ga=\gb=0.5$. However when players choose to cooperate the stability issue
587: is not important since IWF is not used.
588: \begin{figure}
589: \begin{center}
590: \mbox{\psfig{figure=figures/games.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}}
591: \end{center}
592: \caption{Graph of $h_{\lim1}$ , $h_{\lim2}$ Vs. SNR, The solid line
593: corresponds to $h_{\lim1}$ and the dashed line corresponds to
594: $h_{\lim2}$} \label{fig 1}
595: \end{figure}
596: Further discussion and examples of the prisoner's dilemma in this case
597: can be found in \cite{laufer2005}.
598: \section{The Near-Far Problem}
599: One of the most important spectral coordination problems in the DSL
600: environment is the near-far problem. This problem has similarity to
601: the power control problem in CDMA network. However the DSL channel
602: is frequency selective (see Figure \ref{figure_H}) and multi-carrier modulation is typically
603: used. Therefore the interference from remote terminal to CO based
604: services is very severe and has properties similar to near end
605: crosstalk (NEXT). This scenario is typical to unbundled loop plants
606: where the incumbent operator is mandated by law to lease CO based
607: lines to competitive operators. Figure \ref{near_far_topology}
608: describes a typical near far interference environment.
609:
610: The problem has also appeared in the upstream direction of VDSL
611: (which is at frequencies above 3MHz). The solution of the VDSL
612: standard is highly suboptimal since the optimization has been done
613: for fixed services under specific noise scenarios. It has been shown
614: that upstream spectral coordination can lead to significant
615: enhancement of upstream rates in real life environments. While DSL
616: channels have relatively complicated frequency response and full
617: analysis is possible only based on computer simulations and measured
618: channels, we provide here an analysis of a simplified near far
619: scenario that captures the essence of distributed cooperation in
620: near far scenarios. In section \ref{simulations} we will provide
621: simulated experiments on measured channels.
622:
623: The analysis in this section is divided into two parts. First a
624: simple symmetric bandwidth near-far game with no option to partition
625: the bands is analyzed and it is proved that an FDM solution is
626: optimal. Then the results are extended to a more general situation
627: with asymmetric bandwidth. In this case we show that a solution
628: minimizing the interference by utilizing only part of the band is
629: preferable to a global FM-IWF. This is done by providing analytic
630: bounds on the rate region for both strategies. Unlike all previous
631: analysis of these strategies we are able to provide analytic bounds
632: on the rate region.
633: \subsection{Symmetric two bands Near-Far problem}
634: Consider the case of two users using two bands with channel matrices
635: given by
636: \begin{equation}
637: \label{ISI_channel}
638: \left|H(1)\right|^2=\left[
639: \begin{array}{cc}
640: \ga & \gb \\
641: \grg & 1 \end{array} \right] ,
642: \left|H(2)\right|^2=\left[
643: \begin{array}{cc}
644: 0 & \gd \\
645: \gre & 1 \end{array} \right]
646: \end{equation}
647: where
648: $H(1)$ and $H(2)$ are the normalized channel matrices for each
649: frequency band. Note that the second band can be used only by the
650: second user which will be termed the strong user. Furthermore we
651: assume that the first band can be used partly by the second user if he
652: chooses a non-naive FDM or non-naive TDM strategies.
653: The first user will be called
654: the weak user.
655: To simplify the discussion we make the following assumptions:
656: \bds
657: \item Both users have transmit power limitation $P$. This is not
658: essential but simplifies notation.
659: \item $\ga<<1$ This is the reason that we refer to the first user as
660: the weak user.
661: \item $N_i$ is the additive Gaussian noise is constant for both
662: receivers and at both bands. This assumption is reasonable since the
663: design of all multi-carrier modems requires low modem noise
664: floor in order to support the high constellations.
665: \item $N_i<<\gb P$ This means that the weak user is limited by the
666: crosstalk from the strong user.
667: \item $\grg P<<N_i<<0.5 P$. Typically the weak lines emerging from the CO
668: generate crosstalk that is negligible into the RT line. This means
669: that basically the strong user sees the same signal to noise ratio
670: across the two bands. This is actually better for the weak user than
671: the real situation where the strong user observes {\em better} SNR
672: on the first band. The second inequality suggest that we work in the
673: bandwidth limited high SNR regime, which is the interesting case for
674: DSL networks.
675: \item User II can perform a voluntary power backoff $\gt$.
676: \eds
677: Under our assumptions user II completely dominates the
678: achievable rate of user I, and user I has no way to force anything on
679: user II. This type of game is called ``The Bully'' game, where the
680: strong user can decide to behave in any manner. We would like to
681: analyze the benefits of a ``polite bully'' that takes whatever it
682: needs, but behaves as polite as possible to other users, by allowing them to
683: use resources he does not need.
684:
685: To that end we analyze the capacity region of the two users under
686: water-filling strategies and under interference minimization strategy
687: of the second user, where
688: the strong user utilizes only partially the joint resource which is
689: the first band. Note that all the strategies are purely distributed
690: since only the agreement to behave politely by the bully player is required.
691: We make several observations regarding the possible strategies:
692: \bcl
693: The weak user will always use all its power in the first band.
694: \ecl
695: This claim follows from the fact that user I has no capacity in the
696: second band.
697:
698: Let the power allocation of user II be $\left(P_1,P_2 \right)$ such
699: that $P_1+P_2=P$.
700: \bcl
701: The rate achievable by user I is given by
702: \[
703: C^1=\log_2\left(1+\frac{\ga P}{\gb P_1+N_1}\right)
704: \]
705: \ecl This claim is implied by our assumptions of Gaussian signalling
706: by both users and independent detection of each user. Typically for
707: the DSL interference channel, the interference to AWGN ratio is
708: insufficient for successive interference cancelation so each user
709: should treat the other users interference as Gaussian noise. It is
710: now easy to compute the optimal rate adaptive strategy for user II.
711: \begin{claim}
712: \label{bully_power_cl}
713: The power allocation for user II under
714: politeness factor $\tau$ is given by
715: \begin{equation}
716: \label{power_IWF}
717: \begin{array}{lcl}
718: P_1 = \frac{P}{2}(\tau-\gamma) & \qquad & P_2 =
719: \frac{P}{2}(\tau+\gamma)
720: \end{array}
721: \end{equation}
722: \end{claim}
723: The proof for claim \ref{bully_power_cl} follows the same lines as
724: the proof of claim \ref{theorem_nash}. The WF solution suggests a
725: constant level of the transmitted power + noise (which includes the
726: interference) for each band. In our case this implies that
727: \begin{equation}
728: P_1+N_2+\gamma P = P_2+N_2
729: \end{equation}
730: since $P_1+P_2=\tau P$ we can rewrite the equation as
731: \begin{equation}
732: 2P_1+\gamma P=\tau P.
733: \end{equation}
734: Solving for $P_1$ we obtain
735: $P_1 = \frac{P}{2}(\tau-\gamma)$ and $P_2 = \frac{P}{2}(\tau+\gamma)$
736: We now obtain the rate for user II.
737: \begin{claim}
738: The rate of user II under FM-IWF with power backoff $\tau$
739: is given by:
740: \begin{equation}
741: C^2=\log_2\left(1+\frac{P_1}{N_2+\gamma P}\right)+\log_2\left(1+\frac{P_2}{N_2}\right)
742: \end{equation}
743: where $P_1$ and $P_2$ are given by (\ref{power_IWF}).
744: \end{claim}
745:
746: An alternative approach for user II can be to minimize the
747: interference to the first band by increasing the
748: power in the second band should it find it useful. This leads to different
749: expression for the capacity region.
750:
751: The expression for the capacities using the cooperative act of
752: user II have the same form as before
753: \begin{equation}
754: \begin{array}{c}
755: C^1=\log_2\left(1+\frac{\alpha P}{N_1+\beta \tilde{P_1}}\right)\\
756: C^2=\log_2\left(1+\frac{\tilde{P_1}}{N_2+\gamma
757: P}\right)+\log_2\left(1+\frac{\tilde{P_2}}{N_2}\right)
758: \end{array}
759: \end{equation}
760: Where $(\tilde{P_1},\tilde{P_2})$ is the new power allocation of
761: user II such that $\tilde{P_1}+\tilde{P_2}=\tilde{\tau} P$
762:
763: In order to find the $(\tilde{P_1},\tilde{P_2})$ we need to choose
764: the minimal $\tilde{P_1}$ such that the following equation holds
765: \begin{equation}
766: \label{fdm_eq} \log_2\left(1+\frac{P_1}{N_2+\gamma
767: P}\right)+\log_2\left(1+\frac{P_2}{N_2}\right)=\log_2\left(1+\frac{\tilde{P_1}}{N_2+\gamma
768: P}\right)+\log_2\left(1+\frac{\tilde{P_2}}{N_2}\right)
769: \end{equation}
770: where $P_1,P_2$ are defined by (\ref{power_IWF}).
771: It is clear that in order to minimize $\tilde{P_1}$ we need to
772: set $\tilde{\tau}$ to 1. By doing so we enable user II to allocate the maximum
773: amount of power on the second band and therefor minimize the power
774: on the first band. Substituting $\tilde{P_2}$ with $P-\tilde{P_1}$
775: and solving (\ref{fdm_eq}) for $\tilde{P_1}$ we get
776: \begin{equation}
777: \tilde{P_1} = \frac{1}{2}P(1-\gamma)\pm
778: \frac{1}{2}\left[P(1-\tau)(P+4N_2+2\gamma P+P\tau
779: )\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
780: \end{equation}
781:
782: Using the minimal solution for $\tilde{P_1}$ and applying some
783: algebra on the expression above we obtain
784: \begin{equation}
785: \tilde{P_1} =
786: \frac{1}{2}P(1-\gamma)-\frac{1}{2}\left[P^2(1-\tau)^2\left(\frac{1+4N_2/P+2\gamma+\tau}{1-\tau}\right
787: )\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
788: \end{equation}
789: which can be rewritten as
790: \begin{equation}
791: \tilde{P_1} =
792: \frac{1}{2}P(1-\gamma)-\frac{1}{2}P(1-\tau)\left(\frac{1+4N_2/P+2\gamma+\tau}{1-\tau}\right
793: )^{\frac{1}{2}}
794: \end{equation}
795: Since the term $\left(\frac{1+4N_2/P+2\gamma+\tau}{1-\tau}\right)$
796: is grater or equal to 1 the square root of this term is also grater
797: or equal to 1. We can write
798: \[
799: 1+\Delta=\sqrt{\frac{1+4N_2/P+2\gamma+\tau}{1-\tau}}
800: \]
801: where $\Delta$ is some positive constant. Therefore we can
802: write
803: \begin{equation}
804: \label{p1_tilda_eq}
805: \tilde{P_1} =
806: \frac{1}{2}P(1-\gamma)-\frac{1}{2}P(1-\tau)(1+\Delta)
807: \end{equation}
808: arranging (\ref{p1_tilda_eq}) we get
809: \begin{equation}
810: \tilde{P_1} = \frac{1}{2}P(\tau-\gamma)-\frac{1}{2}P(1-\tau)\Delta
811: \end{equation}
812: which, by claim \ref{bully_power_cl} becomes
813: \begin{equation}
814: \label{final_p1_tilde_eq}
815: \tilde{P_1} =
816: P_1-\frac{1}{2}P(1-\tau)\Delta
817: \end{equation}
818:
819: If the value of $\tilde{P_1}$ as given in
820: (\ref{final_p1_tilde_eq}) is negative we should fix it to zero. This
821: is the best situation for user I as he sees
822: no interference at all.
823:
824: Since $C^2$ is equal for both methods (guaranteed by (\ref{fdm_eq}))
825: and $\tilde{P_1}\leq P_1$ (i.e. the interference that user I sees
826: using the cooperative method is less than or equal to the one
827: obtained by FM IWF) we conclude that the rate region achieved using
828: the cooperative act contains the rate region related to FM IWF.
829:
830: \subsection{Near-Far problem in the bandwidth limited case}
831: Our next step will be to extend the analysis above to the case where
832: the two bands have non-identical bandwidth, and we work in the
833: bandwidth limited regime, i.e., the spectral efficiency of the
834: transmission is higher than 1 (we transmit more than 1 bit per
835: channel use). In this case the signal to noise ratio at each
836: receiver is positive. This will capture a more realistic ISI limited
837: channel similar to the DSL channel. We shall restrict the analysis
838: to flat attenuation in each band.
839:
840: Assume that the first band has bandwidth $W_1$ and the second band
841: has bandwidth $W_2$. Similarly to the previous case assume that the
842: channel matrices at each band are given by (\ref{ISI_channel}).
843:
844: To simplify the expressions we shall also assume that $\grg P << N_2
845: W_i$, where $N_2$ is the PSD of the AWGN of the second user
846: receiver. This is realistic in typical near far problems in DSL
847: where the FEXT from the CO lines into the RT lines is negligible
848: compared to the AWGN due to the strong loop attenuation of lines
849: originating at the CO. Under our assumptions we prove the following:
850: \bthm \label{RR_IWF} The rate region of the FM-IWF satisfies \beq
851: W_1 \log_2 \left( 1+\frac{\ga P}{\gb P
852: \left(2^{\frac{R_2}{W_1+W_2}-1} \right)/{\bar{ \SNR}}_2 +W_1
853: N_1}\right) \le R_1 \le W_1 \log_2 \left( 1+\frac{\ga P}{\gb P
854: \left(2^{\frac{R_2}{W_1+W_2}+1} \right)/{\bar{ \SNR}}_2 +W_1
855: N_1}\right) \eeq where $\gr=\frac{W_1}{W1+W_2}$ and \beq
856: \label{SNRgeometric} {\bar {\SNR}}_2=\left(\frac{P}{N_2W_1}
857: \right)^{\gr}\left( \frac{P}{N_2 W_2} \right)^{1-\gr} \eeq is a
858: generalized geometric mean of the SNR at the two bands. \ethm The
859: capacity of the two users is now given by\footnote{We will analyze
860: capacity only so the Shannon gap is $\Gamma=1$ (other gaps can be
861: treated similarly with just an extra term $\Gamma$).}:
862: \begin{equation}
863: \label{BW_capacuty}
864: \begin{array}{c}
865: C^1=W_1\log_2\left(1+\frac{\ga P}{N_1 W_1+\beta {P_1}}\right)\\
866: C^2=W_1\log_2\left(1+\frac{{P_1}}{N_2 W_1+\gamma
867: P}\right)+W_2\log_2\left(1+\frac{{P_2}}{N_2 W_2}\right)
868: \ena
869: \end{equation}
870: where again $P_1+P_2=\gt P$.
871: To determine $\gt$ assume that the target rate of the bully player is
872: $R_2$ and ignore $\grg P$ by our assumption.
873: Therefore IWF results in flat transmit PSD for user 2:
874: \[
875: \bea{l}
876: P_1=\gr \gt P \\
877: P_2=(1-\gr) \gt P
878: \ena
879: \]
880: We require that \beq \label{def_R2} R_2=W_1 \log_2\left(1+\frac{{\gr
881: \gt P }}{N_2 W_2}\right)+W_2\log_2\left(1+\frac{(1-\gr)\gt P} {N_2
882: W_2}\right) \eeq Therefore we obtain \beq R_2 \ge W_1
883: \log_2\left(\frac{{\gr \gt P }}{N_2
884: W_1}\right)+W_2\log_2\left(\frac{(1-\gr)\gt P} {N_2 W_2}\right) \eeq
885: Actually using the high SNR approximation we can replace the
886: inequality by approximate equality. Hence \beq 2^{R_2} \ge
887: \left(\frac{\gr \gt P}{N_2 W_1}\right)^{W_1}\left(\frac{(1-\gr) \gt
888: P}{N_2 W_2}\right)^{W_2} \eeq Hence \beq 2^{\frac{R_2}{W_1+W_2}} \ge
889: \left(\frac{\gr \gt P}{N_2 W_1}\right)^{\gr}\left(\frac{(1-\gr) \gt
890: P}{N_2 W_2}\right)^{1-\gr} \eeq Further simplification yields \beq
891: 2^{\frac{R_2}{W_1+W_2}} \ge \frac{\gt P}{N_2 W_1^{\gr} W_2^{1-\gr}}
892: \gr^{\gr} (1-\gr)^{(1-\gr)} \eeq Therefore \beq
893: \label{exact_upper_tao} \gt \le
894: \frac{2^{\frac{R_2}{W_1+W_2}}}{{\bar{\SNR}}_2 \gr^{\gr}
895: (1-\gr)^{(1-\gr)}} \eeq Also note that since $0 < \gr < 1$
896: \[
897: \frac{1}{2} \le \gr^{\gr} (1-\gr)^{(1-\gr)} \le 1
898: \]
899: hence \beq \label{tao_bound} \gt \le
900: \frac{2^{\frac{R_2}{W_1+W_2}+1}} {{\bar{\SNR}}_2} \eeq Substituting
901: (\ref{tao_bound}) into (\ref{BW_capacuty}) we obtain that the rate
902: for user I is bounded by \beq R_1 \le W_1 \log_2 \left( 1+\frac{\ga
903: P}{\gb P \left(2^{\frac{R_2}{W_1+W_2}+1} \right)/{\bar{ \SNR}}_2
904: +W_1 N_1}\right) \eeq
905:
906: This is indeed very satisfying. As we know the bully's power backoff
907: is determined by the required spectral efficiency $R_2/(W_1+W_2)$
908: and the geometric mean SNR of the bully player. Also note that
909: no matter how good the SNR of user II on the second band, the FM-IWF
910: always incurs a loss to user I's capacity, since there is always
911: additional disturbance in the first band. The total rate can be
912: rewritten as \beq \label{FM_IWF_rate} R_1 \le W_1 \log_2 \left(
913: 1+\frac{\ga}{\gb \left(2^{R_2/(W_1+W_2)+1}
914: \right){\bar{\SNR}}_2^{-1}+W_1 \SNR_1^{-1}} \right) \eeq and it is
915: always lower than the rate of interference free situation. On the
916: other hand if the rate of user II satisfies
917: \[
918: R_2\le W_2 \log_2\left(1+\frac{P}{W_2 N_2} \right)
919: \]
920: an FDM strategy will achieve for user I a rate \beq R_1=W_1 \log_2
921: \left( 1+\frac{\ga}{ W_1 SNR_1^{-1}} \right) \eeq which is always
922: higher than the right hand side of (\ref{FM_IWF_rate}).
923:
924: When the signal to noise ratio of user II is positive (BW limited
925: case) we can also obtain a lower bound on the achievable rate of
926: user I. Similarly to the previous case we obtain a lower bound on
927: the rate of user I given a rate $R_2$ for user II. The proof is
928: similar. Start with (\ref{def_R2}) and note that when \beq
929: \label{condition} \frac{{\gt P }}{N_2(W_1+ W_2)} \ge 1 \eeq
930: we have
931: \beq \label{upper_boundR2} R_2 \le W_1 \log_2\left(\frac{{2\gr \gt
932: P }}{N_2 W_1}\right)+W_2\log_2\left(2\frac{(1-\gr)\gt P} {N_2
933: W_2}\right) \eeq since $1+x<2x$ for $x>1$ and since
934: (\ref{condition}) drags $\frac{\gr \gt P}{N_2 W_1} \ge 1$ and
935: $\frac{(1-\gr) \gt P}{N_2 W_2} \ge 1$. Similar derivation now yields
936: \beq \label{tao_bound1} \gt \ge \frac{2^{\frac{R_2}{W_1+W_2}-1}}
937: {{\bar{\SNR}}_2} \eeq Which leads to a lower bound on $R_1$ \beq R_1
938: \ge W_1 \log_2 \left( 1+\frac{\ga P}{\gb P
939: \left(2^{\frac{R_2}{W_1+W_2}-1} \right)/{\bar{ \SNR}}_2 +W_1
940: N_1}\right) \eeq This provides good lower and upper bounds on the
941: rate region as a function of the channel parameters. As noted for
942: high SNR scenarios the upper bound on $\gt$ (\ref{exact_upper_tao}) is
943: tight, which provides accurate estimate
944: of the rate region. This ends the proof of theorem \ref{RR_IWF}.
945:
946: We now provide similar bounds on the rate region of a dynamic FDM,
947: where the bully minimizes the fraction of the first band that he
948: uses.
949: \bthm
950: The rate region of a dynamic FDM strategy where given a rate $R_2$ the strong
951: player minimizes the fraction of the first band he uses is bounded by
952: \beq \label{R1_rate_bound}
953: \bea{lcl}
954: R_1 & \le & (1-\gl_{\min}) W_1 \log_2 \left(
955: 1+\frac{\ga P\left(1+\gl_{\min} W_1 \frac{1}{\gl_{\min}
956: W_1+W_2}\right)}{N_1}\right) \\
957: & + & \gl_{\min} W_1\log_2 \left( 1+\frac{\ga
958: P\left( 1-(1-\gl_{\min}) W_1 \frac{1}{\gl_{\min} W_1+W_2}\right)}{N_1+\gb
959: \frac{P}{\gl W_1+W_2}}\right) \\
960: R_1 & \ge & (1-\gl_{\max}) W_1 \log_2 \left(
961: 1+\frac{\ga P\left(1+\gl_{\max} W_1 \frac{1}{\gl_{\max}
962: W_1+W_2}\right)}{N_1}\right) \\
963: & + & \gl_{\max} W_1\log_2 \left( 1+\frac{\ga
964: P\left( 1-(1-\gl_{\max}) W_1 \frac{1}{\gl_{\max} W_1+W_2}\right)}{N_1+\gb
965: \frac{P}{\gl W_1+W_2}}\right)
966: \ena
967: \eeq
968: where
969: \begin{equation}
970: \label{L_bound}
971: %\beq
972: \bea{lcl}
973: \gl_{\min} =
974: \frac{\frac{R_2}{\log_2(1+\frac{SNR_2}{W_2})}-W_2}{W_1}
975: & \qquad & \gl_{\max} =
976: \frac{\frac{R_2}{\log_2(1+\frac{SNR_2}{(W_1+W_2)})}-W_2}{W_1}
977: \ena
978: \end{equation}
979: \ethm The proof of this theorem is given in appendix B.
980: %\ref{appendixB}.
981: \section{The dynamic FDM coordination algorithm}
982: \label{DFDM}
983: DSL channels have typically higher attenuation at
984: higher frequencies. (see figure \ref{figure_H}). A typical DSL topology
985: including CO and RT deployment is depicted in figure
986: \ref{near_far_topology}. As we can see the users of the RT are the
987: Bully type users which do not typically suffer interference from CO
988: based lines, but do cause substantial interference to the CO based
989: lines.
990:
991: Inspired by our analysis of cooperative strategies presented in the
992: previous sections we propose a cooperative
993: solution for the near-far problem. The dynamic FDM (DFDM) algorithm,
994: first presented in \cite{leshem2003}, allocates the power of the near
995: user not only as a function of the noise PSD on its own line (as the IWF does) but by
996: minimizing the use of the lower part of the spectrum. Since the far
997: user can allocate its power only at the lower part of spectrum, applying the
998: DFDM on the far user power allocation reduces the level of
999: interference to the far user by means of orthogonal transmitting
1000: bands. The idea underlying the approach above is that the far user
1001: uses the lower part of the spectrum (as explained above), and
1002: therefore use of this part of the spectrum should be minimized for
1003: the near user. A variation of this method in the centralized level 2
1004: DSM is the band preference method \cite{cioffi2003}.
1005:
1006: We define $f_c$ to be the cutoff frequency i.e. the minimal
1007: frequency used by the near user. The power allocation method in the
1008: DFDM algorithm is as follows - given $R_d$ the design rate of the
1009: remote terminal user, the RT user allocates its power such that the
1010: rate achieved is equal to $R_d$ along with maximizing $f_c$. More
1011: precisely the algorithm is implemented in two steps: At the first
1012: step the maximal $f_c$ is found (this step is performed by applying
1013: RA-IWF at varying $f_c$ values). The second step is reducing the
1014: total power by applying FM-IWF on the upper part of the spectrum
1015: determined by the former step. The implementation steps of the DFDM
1016: algorithm are summarized in table II. When the signal to noise ratio
1017: is high we can replace the RA-IWF by computing the capacity based on
1018: the measured noise profile (since for all RT based users the channel
1019: and crosstalk are approximately identical).
1020: %\begin{figure}[htbf]
1021: %\centering
1022: %\epsfig{file=figures/H_DSL.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}
1023: %\caption{Typical VDSL2 channel}
1024: %\label{figure_H}
1025: %\end{figure}
1026: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1027: \centerline
1028: {
1029: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/near_far_setup.eps}\label{near_far_topology}}\hfil
1030: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/H_DSL.eps}\label{figure_H}}}
1031: \caption{(\ref{near_far_topology}) Loop topology of the Near-Far
1032: problem in DSL. (\ref{figure_H}) Typical VDSL2 channel}
1033: \end{figure}
1034: \begin{table}[htbp]
1035: \label{DFDM_tab} \centering \caption{DFDM implementation for the
1036: Near-Far scenario}
1037: \begin{tabular}{|l|}
1038: \hline
1039: 1. Let $R_d$ = preassigned target rate for the near user.\\
1040: 2. Estimate the received noise PSD.\\
1041: 3. find $f_c$, the minimal $f$ such that the near user can achieve
1042: rate $R_d$ using frequencies above $f_c$.\\
1043: 4. Allocate the minimal amount of power needed for achieving $R_d$
1044: using only frequencies grater than $f_c$.\\
1045: \hline
1046: \end{tabular}
1047: \end{table}
1048:
1049: \section{Simulations}
1050: \label{simulations} In this section we examine the rate region of
1051: the DFDM algorithm compared to FM-IWF. We have also simulated the
1052: OSM method \cite{cendrillon}, \cite{cendrillon2005} which is a DSM level 2 in order to have
1053: an upper bound on the performance of DSM level 1 techniques. The
1054: channel transfer matrix is a measured binder provided by France
1055: Telecom research labs \cite{karipidis2005a}. The simulations global
1056: parameters are VDSL 998 band plan up to 12 MHz, a maximum power
1057: constraint of $30mW$ (15 dBm) and a white noise PSD of $-140dBm/Hz$.
1058: In addition the frequency Division Duplex (FDD) 998 bandplan is
1059: used. We have simulate two scenarios: \bds
1060: \item Central office / Remote Terminal Downstream.
1061: \item Upstream with non-identical locations.
1062: \eds
1063: The first scenario represent downstream setup where a central office
1064: (CO) with $8\times 3.6$ km ADSL lines is sharing a binder with a remote
1065: terminal (RT) with $8\times 0.9$ km VDSL lines. The RT is located
1066: 2.7 km from the CO as depicted in Figure \ref{downstream}.
1067: In the second simulation set we have studied upstream coordination. We
1068: have used two clusters of VDSL users sharing the same binder transmitting to the
1069: same RT. The far group contained 8 lines located 1.2 km from the
1070: RT while the near group contained 8 lines located just
1071: 600m from the RT, as depicted in Figure \ref{upstream}. Since in the VDSL 998
1072: bandplan the lowest US frequency is 3.75 MHz the near far problem is
1073: much more pronounced than in ADSL.
1074:
1075: Looking at the DS scenario. The achieved rate regions of the three
1076: methods are depicted in Figure \ref{downstream_rr}. We can clearly
1077: see the advantage of the DFDM over the FM-IWF. The PSDs of the DFDM
1078: and the FM IWF methods corresponding to a 60 Mbps service on the RT
1079: lines are shown on Figure \ref{downstream_psd}. For this value of
1080: $R_d$ there is no overlap between the frequencies used by each
1081: cluster of users resulting in no interference to CO users from RT
1082: users. This is the best case for the CO users since actually the
1083: near far problem has vanished and the achieved rate of the average
1084: CO user is the same as the RT was not transmitting at all. Figure
1085: \ref{downstream_sinr_a} shows the received SINR of an average CO
1086: user for both methods. Its implies that for $R_d$ for which $f_c$ is
1087: grater than the maximal frequency used by the CO users the gain
1088: using DFDM has two factors. The first factor is that the DFDM's SINR
1089: is grater or equal (since there is no interference from the RT) than
1090: the FM IWF one. The second is that the CO users available bandwidth
1091: is larger using DFDM than the FM IWF bandwidth. Both originate from
1092: the orthogonality of the transmission bands and both factors have
1093: positive contribute on the achieved rate of the CO users. Where
1094: $R_d$ is close to the RT maximal achievable rate $f_c$ is getting
1095: smaller and the available bandwidth for the CO is decreased. Figure
1096: \ref{downstream_sinr_b} demonstrates this for $R_d=72$ Mbps. This
1097: design rate is almost $0.93\cdot R_{RT,max}$ and thus even by
1098: applying DFDM the RT PSD occupies most of the low frequencies
1099: regime. This causes the bandwidth of the CO users to decrease to 0.6
1100: Mhz and in addition to a degradation in the SINR. As a consequence
1101: for this $R_d$ FM IWF achieves better rate for the CO users than
1102: DFDM. However as can be seen the difference is marginal.
1103:
1104: Turning to the upstream scenario. Figure \ref{upstream_rr} depicts the
1105: rate region achieved by the different DSM methods. Not only the DFDM outperforms the FM IWF
1106: method in this scenario, the rate region obtained by the DFDM method
1107: is very close to the upper bound given by a fully coordinated spectrum
1108: management using the OSM algorithm. Moreover in this scenario the DFDM
1109: is better than or equal to the FM-IWF for all achievable rates of the
1110: strong user.
1111: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1112: \centerline{
1113: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/downstream.eps}\label{downstream}}
1114: \hfil
1115: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/upstream.eps}\label{upstream}}}
1116: \caption{(\ref{downstream}) CO/RT downstream setup. (\ref{upstream})Near-Far upstream setup }
1117: \end{figure}
1118: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1119: \centerline
1120: {
1121: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/CO_RT_rate_region.eps}\label{downstream_rr}}
1122: \hfil
1123: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/CO_RT_psd.eps}\label{downstream_psd}}
1124: }
1125: \caption{(\ref{downstream_rr})Downstream - Rate region for 8 VDSL
1126: based RT and 8 ADSL based CO using FM-IWF and
1127: DFDM. (\ref{downstream_psd}) Downstream PSD for FM-IWF and DFDM.}
1128: \end{figure}
1129:
1130: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1131: \centerline
1132: {
1133: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/CO_RT_sinr.eps}\label{downstream_sinr_a}}
1134: \hfil
1135: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{figures/CO_RT_sinr2.eps}\label{downstream_sinr_b}}
1136: }
1137: \caption{ Average CO user received SINR for
1138: FM-IWF and DFDM for RT user at 60 Mbps (\ref{downstream_sinr_a} ) and 72
1139: Mbps (\ref{downstream_sinr_b} ) .}
1140: \end{figure}
1141:
1142: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1143: \centering \epsfig{file=figures/NF_rate_region.eps,
1144: width=0.45\textwidth} \caption{Upstream - Comparison of the rate
1145: region for 8 Far users and 8 Near users using FM-IWF and DFDM.}
1146: \label{upstream_rr}
1147: \end{figure}
1148: \section{Conclusions}
1149: In this paper we have analyzed the iterative water filling algorithm
1150: for several simple channels using game theoretic techniques. We have
1151: shown that the IWF algorithm is
1152: subject to the prisoner's dilemma by providing explicit
1153: characterization of its rate region for these cases. Based on these
1154: insights we proposed a distributed coordination algorithm
1155: improving the rate region in near-far scenarios. Finally we have
1156: provided experimental analysis of these two algorithms and the optimal
1157: centralized algorithm on measured channels.
1158: \section*{Acknowledgement}
1159: We would like to
1160: thank Dr. Meryem Ouzzif and Dr. Rabah Tarafi and Dr. Hubert Mariotte of France Telecom
1161: R\&D, who conducted the VDSL channel measurements on behalf of France
1162: Telecom R\&D under the auspices of the U-BROAD project.
1163: %\bibliographystyle{plain}
1164: %\bibliography{DSLbib,cioffi_bib}
1165: \begin{thebibliography}{1}
1166: \bibitem{cioffiDSM}
1167: J.M. ~Cioffi ed.
1168: \newblock Dynamic spectrum management report (draft).
1169: \newblock {\em {ANSI} Cont. {NIPP-NAI-2005-0031R1}, San Francisco, {CA}, April},
1170: 2003.
1171: \bibitem{chung2002}
1172: S.~Chung, J.~Lee, S.~Kim, and J.M. ~Cioffi, ``On the convergence of iterative
1173: waterfilling in the frequency selective gaussian interference channel,'' {\em
1174: Preprint}, 2002.
1175:
1176: \bibitem{chung2002a}
1177: S.~Chung, S.~Kim, and J.~Cioffi, ``On the existence and uniqueness of a {N}ash
1178: equilibrium in frequency selective gaussian interference channel,'' {\em
1179: Preprint}, 2002.
1180: \bibitem{chung2003}
1181: S. Chung; Cioffi, J.M.;
1182: \newblock{Rate and power control in a two-user multicarrier channel with no coordination: the optimal scheme versus a suboptimal method}
1183: \newblock IEEE Transactions on Communications, Volume 51, Issue 11, Nov. 2003 Page(s):1768 - 1772
1184: \bibitem{nikaido55}
1185: H.~Nikaido and K.~Isoida, ``Note on non-cooperative convex games,'' {\em
1186: Pacific Journal of Matematics}, vol.~5, pp.~807--815, 1955.
1187: \bibitem{basar82}
1188: T.~Basar and G.~Olsder, {\em Dynamic non-cooperative game theory}.
1189: \newblock Academic Press, 1982.
1190: \bibitem{owen}
1191: G.~Owen, {\em Game theory, third edition}.
1192: \newblock Academic Press, 1995.
1193: \bibitem{yu2002}
1194: W.~Yu, G.~Ginis, and J.~Cioffi, ``Distributed multiuser power control for
1195: digital subscriber lines,'' {\em IEEE Journal on Selected areas in
1196: Communications}, vol.~20, pp.~1105--1115, june 2002.
1197: \bibitem{ginis2002}
1198: G. Ginis and J.M. Cioffi.
1199: \newblock Vectored transmission for digital subscriber line systems.
1200: \newblock {\em IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
1201: 20(5):1085--1104, 2002.
1202: \bibitem{cover91}
1203: T.M. Cover and J.A. Thomas.
1204: \newblock {\em Elements of information theory}.
1205: \newblock Wiley series in telecommunications, 1991.
1206: \bibitem{yu01}
1207: W. Yu, G. Ginis and J.M. Cioffi.
1208: \newblock {An adaptive multiuser power control algorithm for VDSL}
1209: \newblock Global Telecommunications Conference, 2001. GLOBECOM '01. IEEE
1210: Volume 1, 25-29 Nov. 2001 Page(s):394 - 398 vol.1
1211: \bibitem{yu00}
1212: W. Yu and J.M. Cioffi
1213: \newblock{Competitive equilibrium in the Gaussian interference
1214: channel.}
1215: \newblock Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, 2000. 25-30 June 2000 pp.431
1216: \bibitem{Song}
1217: K.B. Song, S. Chung, G.~G.~Ginis, and J.~Cioffi.
1218: \newblock Dynamic spectrum management for next-generation {DSL} systems.
1219: \newblock {\em {IEEE} Comm. Magazine}, 40(10):101--109, 2002.
1220: \bibitem{yu04}
1221: W. Yu and W. Rhee and S. Boyd and J.M. Cioffi.
1222: \newblock{Iterative waterfilling for gaussian vector multiple-access
1223: channels.}
1224: \newblock IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 145-152, 200
1225: \bibitem{luo2005}
1226: Z.-Q. Luo and J.-S. Pang.
1227: \newblock{Analysis of Iterative Waterfilling Algorithm for Multiuser
1228: Power Control in Digital Subscriber Lines}.
1229: \newblock{Submitted to the special issue of EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing on Advanced Signal Processing Techniques for Digital Subscriber Lines.}
1230: \bibitem{flood52}
1231: M.M. Flood.
1232: \newblock{Some experimenatal Games}.
1233: \newblock{Research Memorandum RM-789. Rand corporation. 1952}
1234: \bibitem{poundstone92}
1235: W. Poundstone
1236: \newblock{Prisoner's dilemma}.
1237: \newblock{Random House. 1992}
1238: \bibitem{cendrillon}
1239: R. Cendrillon, W. Yu, M. Moonen, J. Verlinden and T. Bostoen.
1240: \newblock{Optimal multiuser spectrum management for digital
1241: subscriber lines}.
1242: \newblock IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2004,
1243: vol. 1, pp. 1-5
1244: \bibitem{cendrillon2005}
1245: R. Cendrillon, W. Yu, M. Moonen, J. Verliden, T. Bostoen.
1246: \newblock{Optimal Multi-user Spectrum Management for Digital
1247: Subscriber Lines}.
1248: \newblock{To appear in IEEE Transactions on Communications} 2005.
1249:
1250: \bibitem{laufer2005}
1251: A. Laufer and A. Leshem.
1252: \newblock{Distributed coordination of spectrum and the prisoner's dilemma}.
1253: \newblock To appear in IEEE workshop on dynamic spectrum access
1254: networks, DYSPAN 2005. Baltimore, MD. back-off: A simplified DSM
1255: algorithm for coexistence between RT and CO based deployments
1256: \bibitem{leshem2003}
1257: A. Leshem.
1258: \newblock{Dynamic FDM and Dynamic DS power back-off: A simplified DSM
1259: algorithm for coexistence between RT and CO based deployments}.
1260: \newblock ANSI {\em Cont.} T1E1.4/2003-049. Costa Mesa, CA, March 2003.
1261: \bibitem{karipidis2005a}
1262: E. Karipidis, N. sidiropoulos, A. Leshem, L. Youming, R. Tarafi and
1263: M. Ouzzif.
1264: \newblock{Crosstalk models for short VDSL2 lines from measured 30 MHz Data}.
1265: \newblock To be published in European Journal on applied signal processing.
1266: \bibitem{cioffi2003}
1267: J.M. Cioffi and M. Mosheni
1268: \newblock{Band Preference in Water-filling with DSM}.
1269: \newblock{Contribution T1E1.4/2003-321R1. T1E1.4. San Diego, December
1270: 2003}.
1271: \end{thebibliography}
1272:
1273: \section{Appendix A: Proof of the existence of Nash equilibrium}
1274: In this section we prove that for every sequence of intervals
1275: $\{I_1,\ldots,I_k\}$ ,the Gaussian interference game has a Nash
1276: equilibrium point. Our proof is based on the technique of
1277: \cite{nikaido55}, (see also \cite{basar82}), adapted to the
1278: water-filling strategies in the
1279: game GI. While the result follows from standard game theoretic results, it
1280: is interesting to see the continuity of the water-filling
1281: strategy as the reason for the existence of the Nash equilibrium.
1282: \bthm
1283: \label{nash}
1284: For any finite partition $\{I_1,\ldots,I_k\}$ a Nash
1285: equilibrium in the Gaussian interference game
1286: $GI_{\{I_1,\ldots,I_k\}}$ exists.
1287: \ethm
1288: {\bf Proof:} For each player $i$ define the water-filling function
1289: $W_i(\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N): \mB \rarrow \mB_i$, which
1290: is the power distribution that maximizes $C^i$ given that for
1291: every $j \neq i$ player $j$ uses the power distribution
1292: $\vp_j$ subject to the power limitation $P_i$. The value of
1293: $W_i(\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_n)$ is given by water-filling with total power
1294: of $P_i$ against the noise power distribution composed of
1295: \beq
1296: N_i(k)=\frac{1}{|h_i(k)|^2}\left[\sum_{j \neq i} |h_ij(k)|^2 p_j(k)+n_i(k)\right]
1297: \eeq
1298: where for all $k$, $n_i(k)>0$ is the external noise power in the $k$'th band.
1299: \bcl
1300: $W_i(\vx_1,\ldots,\vx_N)$ is a continuous function.
1301: \ecl
1302: {\bf Proof:}
1303: We shall not prove this in detail. However informally this fact is
1304: very intuitive since small variations in the
1305: noise and interference power distributions will lead to small changes in the
1306: waterfilling response.
1307: The proof of theorem \ref{nash} now easily follows from the Brauwer
1308: fixed point theorem. The function $\mW=[W_1,\ldots,W_N]$ maps
1309: $\mB$ into itself. Since $\mB$ is compact subset of a finite
1310: dimensional Euclidean space $\mW$ has a fixed point
1311: $\left[\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N \right]^T$. This means that
1312: \[
1313: \mW(\left[\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N\right]^T)=\left[\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N\right]^T
1314: \]
1315: By the definition of $\mW$ this means that each $\vp_i$ is the result
1316: of player $i$ water-filling its power against the interference
1317: generated by $\{\vp_j : j \neq i\}$
1318: subject to its power constrain . Therefore
1319: $\left[\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N \right]^T$ is a Nash equilibrium for
1320: $GI_{\{I_1,\ldots,I_K\}}$.
1321:
1322:
1323: \section{Appendix B: Bounds on the rate region of dynamic FDM}
1324: \label{appendixB}
1325: \input{near_far_section1}
1326:
1327:
1328: \end{document}
1329: