1: \section{Introduction}
2:
3: % the main setup
4: The importance of channel state information at transmitter has been extensively studied, see for
5: example~\cite{Tel95,GV97,CTB99,NLTW98,MSEA03,LHS03,Raj02}. In fading channels, channel state information at the transmitter
6: leads to significant gains in outage probability over systems with no information at the transmitter. There are many widely
7: used methods to exploit the transmitter channel information like power control and beamforming. However, the comparative
8: performance of these different methods is still unclear. In this paper, we characterize the diversity order in systems with
9: perfect or imperfect channel state information at the transmitter, with the aim of identifying techniques which yield maximum
10: benefit in outage performance.
11:
12: % our main contributions
13:
14: We study systems in which the transmitter has causal channel information and adapts its actions based on the current channel
15: conditions. Our main contributions are four-fold. First, we study the performance with \emph{perfect} channel information at the
16: transmitter and receiver, and show that the diversity order of optimal power control is infinite at all multiplexing gains, for
17: many antenna configurations. To enable fair comparisons with systems which have no or imperfect channel information at the
18: transmitter, the outage definition is generalized to include instances in which no information is transmitted by the sender.
19: Thus, the outage event contains all the cases in which either the transmitter sends no information or the information is sent
20: but corrupted by the channel.
21:
22: Second, we refine our analysis further by decoupling the optimal power control into temporal power control and spatial power
23: control. In temporal power control, all eigenvectors of the channel receive the same equal power, with total power depending on
24: the current channel conditions. And in spatial power control, a short term power constraint is employed leading to same total
25: power for each channel condition but adaptive power allocation along different eigenvectors of the channel. We show that most of
26: the gain of optimal power control stems from temporal power control. In fact, spatial power control has the same
27: diversity-multiplexing tradeoff as the system with no channel information at the transmitter. To achieve the gain from temporal
28: power control, an adaptive power control is critical which adapts based on average condition of forward channel.
29:
30: Third, we derive lower bounds on diversity order for systems where only finite number of feedback bits about the channel are
31: made available to the transmitter. The analysis is limited to only temporal power control since only temporal power control
32: provides increase in diversity (as shown by the above mentioned perfect channel information analysis). To aid closed form
33: analysis, we develop a simple finite bit quantizer which can be computed in a recursive manner. We show that finite bit channel
34: information leads to a substantial (though finite) increase in diversity order for each multiplexing gain, when compared to
35: system with no channel information~\cite{ZT03}. And as the number of feedback bits increase, the diversity order increases
36: unboundedly for all but the maximum multiplexing gain, and approaches the perfect information case. The proof of the finite rate
37: feedback relies on approximations of order statistics of eigenvalues of Gaussian matrices, which are of independent interest.
38:
39: Fourth and last, we also consider joint rate and power control with finite number of feedback bits, and show that a non-zero
40: diversity gain is possible for highest multiplexing gain even with imperfect transmitter information. This contrasts the
41: temporal power control methods with finite rate feedback which have zero diversity order for full multiplexing gain.
42:
43: % other people
44:
45: Several recent works~\cite{OZF05,HG05} have derived the diversity-multiplexing tradeoff with channel information at the
46: transmitter, for beamforming like spatial resource allocation methods. We note that the work in~\cite{GCD05} is closest to our
47: work in spirit with one major difference. In~\cite{GCD05}, authors consider the impact of using $L$-rounds of ARQ in a MIMO
48: channel, and show that additional delay changes the diversity-multiplexing behaviour in much the same way as our results. Each
49: ARQ round provides one-bit information about the channel output and hence $L$-rounds provide $L$ bits of information. In
50: contrast, we consider impact of channel information, not the channel output in this paper. In our opinion, the two works are
51: complementary and could form the basis of answering a more fundamental question. If we can send only $b$-bits of feedback per
52: unit time, then how should those $b$ bits be selected. The obvious options include quantizing the channel and channel output
53: (equivalently decoder state). The difference between the two possibilities is that channel feedback occurs before the data
54: transmission and channel output feedback after the data transmission. A priori it is unclear which form of feedback provides the
55: maximal gain.
56:
57: We further note that work of~\cite{Raj02,RSA04} also identified that additional queuing delay can improve the outage
58: performance. The change of slope of the outage as a function of SNR was observed, though no results regarding actual increase in
59: diversity level were proven. In this paper, we show that queuing delay does increase diversity for all multiplexing gains by
60: simultaneously using rate and power control.
61:
62: The fact that diversity order of the system can be increased beyond the available degrees of freedom is rather
63: counter-intuitive. Part of the elegance of the results in~\cite{ZT03} is that the diversity-multiplexing tradeoff curve
64: completely matches the intuition behind degrees of freedom framework, where each additional d.o.f.\ can be used to increase
65: either throughput or diversity. The degrees of freedom framework is a statistical notion, where the degrees are related to the
66: probability distribution of the channel. When the transmitter has no channel state information, it has to use the \emph{same}
67: action for each state and has no opportunity for adaptation.
68:
69: However, with channel state information, the transmitter has the opportunity to adapt to current channel conditions. Thus, the
70: transmitter can adapt \emph{how} it uses the instantaneous d.o.f. This per state adaptation is key to changing the probability
71: of outage events, saving power in the good states to put more power in the poor channel states and thus increasing the number of
72: states in which a successful transmission occurs.
73:
74: The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{se:problem}, we introduce our channel and feedback model. In
75: Section~\ref{se:perfect}, we provide the results pertaining to the case of perfect channel information at the transmitter, while
76: Section~\ref{ref:quantize} and Section~\ref{sec:div-mux} have the quantized power control and diversity-multiplexing tradeoff
77: bounds, respectively, for finite bit feedback model. Finally, a joint rate and power extension is studied in
78: Section~\ref{sec:discuss}, where we also discuss the system design implications of our proposed power control method. We
79: conclude in Section~\ref{se:conclude}.
80:
81:
82: \section{Problem Formulation\label{se:problem}}
83:
84: In this section, we first describe the channel and feedback system model, followed by the optimization objective of feedback
85: design.
86:
87: \subsection{Channel Model}
88:
89: We consider a multiple antenna channel with $M$ transmit and $N$ receive antennas (Figure~\ref{fig-fm}). When the channel
90: coherence time is larger than the duration of transmission of a codeword, channel can be modeled as a block fading channel with
91: the following input-output relation
92: \begin{equation}
93: Y = H S + W\label{eq-mod1}.
94: \end{equation}
95: In~\ref{eq-mod1}, $S$ is $M\times 1$ transmitted vector, $H$ is the $N\times M$ channel matrix, and $W$ is the $N\times 1$
96: additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). Channel matrix is assumed to have entries $h_{ij}$, that are scalar channel coefficients
97: between the $j^{th}$ transmit and $i^{th}$ receive antenna. Channel coefficients are assumed to be independent complex random
98: variables with circularly symmetric Gaussian distribution with zero mean and unit variance, $[h_{ij}]\in \mathcal{CN}^{N\times
99: M}$. The input signal vector $S\sim\mathcal{CN}^M(0,\Sigma_S)$ and the additive noise
100: $W\sim\mathcal{CN}^N(0,I_N)$.\footnote{$I_t$ is the $t\times t$ identity matrix.} Finally, the transmitter is equipped with a
101: finite average power $\p$ such that $\mathbb{E}[S^\dagger S]\le \p$.
102:
103:
104: \subsection{System Model}
105:
106: The complete feedback system is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig-fm}, where there is fast feedback link between the transmitter and
107: receiver. The receiver is assumed to have perfect knowledge of the MIMO channel $H$, and sends a feedback codeword $Q(H)$ to the
108: transmitter. For the case of perfect information at transmitter $Q(H) = H$ and for finite rate feedback $Q(H): {\mathbb C}^{MN}
109: \rightarrow \{1,\ldots,L\}$. On receiving the feedback codeword $Q(H)$, the transmitter uses the channel information to adapt
110: its transmission scheme for actual transmission of the data. We assume that the feedback is error-free and delay-free. In our
111: recent work, we have also analyzed the impact of feedback errors for a two-way training model~\cite{SKSA05}.
112:
113: The finite bits of feedback about the channel can be used to perform either beamforming~\cite{NLTW98,MSEA03,LHS03}, power
114: control~\cite{KS04,KS05} or rate control~\cite{LYS03,KS04a} among other possible transmission adaptations. In this paper, we
115: will focus mainly on temporal power control (with a discussion of rate control in Section~\ref{sec:discuss}). In temporal power
116: control, all transmit antennas are used simultaneously with the same power $P(Q(H))$ or more concisely $P_Q(H)$. In this case,
117: the transmitted signal $S = P_Q(H)^{1/2} X$ and the received signal can be written as
118: %
119: \begin{equation}
120: Y = H P_Q(H)^{1/2} X + W. \label{eq-mod}
121: \end{equation}
122: %
123: Note that $X$ has a unit power, i.e., $\mbox{tr}\left\{ {\mathbb{E}[XX^\dagger]} \right\} = 1$. If $X$ has iid components, then
124: $\mathbb{E}[XX^\dagger]=I_M/M$. The only constraint imposed is on the long term average power constraint of the transmitted
125: signal $P(Q(H))^{1/2} X$. That is,
126: \begin{equation}
127: \lim_{T\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{T}\sum_{i=1}^T \left[ P_Q(H_i)^{1/2}X_i)\right]^\dagger P_Q(H_i)^{1/2}X_i\le
128: P_{av}\label{eq-tpc1},
129: \end{equation}
130: where $H_i$ and $X_i$ represent the channel and the input signal at time $i$, respectively. Assuming a stationary and ergodic
131: channel and applying the law of large numbers, we can replace the time average with the ensemble average, i.e.,
132: \begin{eqnarray}
133: \lim_{T\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{T}\sum_{i=1}^T \left[ P_Q(H_i)^{1/2}X_i)\right]^\dagger P_Q(H_i)^{1/2}X_i &=& \mathbb{E}[X^\dagger P_Q(H) X]\nonumber\\
134: &\stackrel{a}{=}& \mathbb{E} \left[\text{tr}\left\{P_Q(H) XX^\dagger\right\}\right]\nonumber\\
135: &\stackrel{b}{=}& \frac{1}{M}\text{tr}\left\{\mathbb{E}\left[P_Q(H)\right]\right\}\label{eq-erg},
136: \end{eqnarray}
137: where (a) is obtained by applying $ x^\dagger y = \text{tr} \{y x^\dagger\},\;\forall x,y$ in a vector space $V$, and (b) by
138: having input signal with unit energy, i.e., $\mathbb{E}[XX^\dagger]=\frac{1}{M}I_M$. The expectation in~(\ref{eq-erg}) is taken
139: with respect to the distribution of $H$.
140:
141: \subsection{Objective}
142:
143: Our optimization objective is to attain maximum diversity order $d$ for a fixed multiplexing gain of $r$. The optimum power
144: allocation is known for perfect CSIT, therefore, the optimal diversity-multiplexing curve can be determined. However, the
145: optimal power control with finite feedback is not known, thus our result is a lower bound for the optimal diversity-multiplexing
146: tradeoff. The diversity order of any transmission scheme is defined as the slope at which the probability of outage decays as
147: the function of SNR or equivalently transmit power $\pa$. More formally, it is defined as~\cite{ZT03}
148: %
149: \begin{equation}
150: d = \lim_{\p\rightarrow\infty}-\frac{\log(\ou)}{\log(\p)}.\label{eq-defd}.
151: \end{equation}
152: %
153: where $\ou$ is the probability of outage with power $\p$ and rate $R(\p)$. Note that outage is typically understood as an event
154: in which the transmitter sends a codeword and receiver is unable to decode it correctly \cite{OSW94}. However, with channel
155: state information, the transmitter may choose not to send any codeword in poor channel conditions. In the conventional
156: definition, such an action implies no outage, leading to potentially no outage system. We believe for feedback based system, a
157: more general definition is necessary. We visualize the system as a time slotted system, in which each slot can accommodate a
158: full codeword and the channel state is constant over the whole time-slot. The outage event is then defined as \emph{lack of
159: information} at the receiver at end of each time-slot. Thus the outage event can occur in two possible ways - either the
160: transmitter sends no information or the transmission is in error. In either case, the receiver gets no useful information. We
161: note that this definition is useful when the system is not allowed to queue the packets and each packet is either sent or
162: dropped. If queuing is allowed at the transmitter, then the above outage definition still applies as either a packet drop by the
163: transmitter or erroneous decoding at the receiver~\cite{RSA04}.
164:
165: The complementary metric of multiplexing gain is defined as the rate at which throughput scales as a function of $\log(\pa)$,
166: computed as
167: \begin{equation}
168: r = \lim_{\p\rightarrow\infty}\frac{R(\p)}{\log(\p)}.\label{eq-defd}
169: \end{equation}
170: We note that multiplexing gain, $r$, can not be larger than the rate of growth of ergodic capacity, $m=\min(M,N)$ with any
171: amount of channel information at either transmitter or receiver.
172: