1: \section{Perfect Transmitter and Receiver Information}\label{se:perfect}
2:
3: In this section, we will derive the diversity-multiplexing tradeoff curve for multiple antenna channels with perfect channel
4: information at both the transmitter and receiver (CSITR). A complementary analysis with only receiver information was first
5: derived in~\cite{ZT03}. It is apparent that receiver only analysis is a lower bound to our finite bit feedback analysis in the
6: next section, and the perfect CSITR analysis in this section yields an upper bound. The transmitter channel information is
7: predominantly employed to perform power control, rate control and/or transmitter beamforming. In this section, we will restrict
8: our attention to methods which no \emph{not} perform rate control, and always send at a constant rate.
9:
10: Both power control and beamforming are examples of adaptive power allocation. In the case of beamforming, only spatial power
11: adaptation is performed while each codeblock receives the same total power and thus there is no temporal adaptation of the total
12: power given to the codewords. In this section, we will compare the asymptotic performance of three methods. The first is the
13: optimal power control which performs a joint temporal and spatial power control, and was derived in~\cite{CTB99,BCT01}. Thus,
14: optimal power control implicitly performs beamforming. The second is purely temporal power control with equal power allocation
15: on each spatial direction. Temporal power control does not require information about eigen-directions and thus needs lesser
16: feedback about the channel state information than optimal power control. Finally, we will consider spatial power control,
17: equivalently beamforming, and thus compare the efficacy of temporal versus spatial opportunism.
18:
19: First, we state the diversity-multiplexing tradeoff with \emph{no} transmitter information and perfect receiver information as
20: derived in~\cite{ZT03}.
21: \begin{thm}[Theorem~2, \cite{ZT03}]
22: Assume that the codeword length $l > m + n -1$. The optimal diversity-multiplexing tradeoff curve $d^*(r)$ is given by the
23: piecewise linear function connecting the points $(r,d^*(r))$, $k=0,1,m$ where
24: %
25: \begin{equation}
26: d^*(r) = (m-r)(n-r)
27: \end{equation}
28: %
29: Recall $n = \max(M,N)$ and $m = \min(M,N)$. \label{th:noCSIT}
30: \end{thm}
31:
32: The diversity multiplexing curve captures the intuitive tradeoff in using the spatial degrees of freedom to increase data rates
33: or reliability or a combination of the two objectives. Without any instantaneous channel information at the transmitter, the
34: transmitter cannot perform any rate, spatial or temporal power control and uses all its power in all spatial directions for all
35: the channel conditions. In the next three theorems, we will explore the efficacy of power control and compare it with
36: Theorem~\ref{th:noCSIT}.
37: \begin{thm}[Optimal Power Control]
38: With the perfect channel information at both transmitter and receiver, the diversity order $d^\dagger(r)$ of optimal power
39: control for multiplexing gain $r$ is given as
40: \begin{eqnarray}
41: d^\dagger(r) = \begin{cases}
42: \infty & r \in [0,m) \\
43: \infty & r = m \mbox{ and } n > 2m.
44: \end{cases}.
45: \end{eqnarray}\label{the-csirt}
46: \end{thm}
47: \noindent {\bf Proof}: See Appendix~\ref{test}.
48:
49: The Theorem~\ref{the-csirt} does not include the case when $m\le n\le 2m$ and $r=m$. We conjecture that when $r=m=n$ the
50: diversity order is zero. The intuition is based on the optimum power control in \cite{CTB99} is which the optimal power control
51: depends on the geometric mean of eigenvalues. Whether the channel parameter is the geometric mean of eigenvalues of any additive
52: or multiplicative function of eigenvalues, in either case the distribution of the parameter is of form $f_\eta(x) = \kappa
53: x^{n-m} e^{-x} q(x)$, \footnote{It is not relevant to the discussion in this paper, but the distribution of
54: $\bar{\lambda}=\left(\prod \lambda_i\right)^{1/m}$ can be found by classical method of finding the distribution of $z =
55: \log\bar{\lambda}$ and it can be shown that the roots of the distribution at origin has the multiplicity of (n-m). Similarly
56: through the convolution argument it can be shown that the distribution of the summation of arbitrary number of eigenvalues
57: including the smallest has roots at origin with multiplicity of no larger than (n-m).} where $\kappa$ is a normalizing constant
58: and $q(x)$ is a polynomial such that $q(0)\ne 0$. Therefore, for $n=m$, the average power constraint $\int_{\gamma_0}^\infty 1/x
59: f_\eta(x) dx = 1$ has a singularity at $x = 0$. That means that $\gamma_0\nrightarrow 0$. In fact $\gamma_0 = c$ for some
60: constant $c$, which in turn implies that the outage probability, $\Pr\{\eta < \gamma_0\}$ is constant. Similarly, when $n>m$,
61: the channel inversion resolved by roots of channel distribution at origin results in outage free power allocation for all
62: channel conditions. Thus, the outage probability is zero and diversity order is infinite.
63:
64: When $r\ne m$ but $n=m$, $\gamma_0$ is still a constant but a function of $\p$ such that as $\p$ approaches infinity, $\gamma_0$
65: goes to zero. Thus, a non-zero diversity order is achievable. On the other hand, when $n>m$ the distribution of the channel
66: parameter has a root at the origin, that is, $f_\eta(0) = 0$, which cancels out the singularity of the channel inversion.
67: Therefore, it is possible to make $\gamma_0$ small and yet not violate the average power constraint. The challenge at $r=m$ is
68: that the equation for average power constraint is independent of $\p$ and hence $\gamma_0$ is a constant. If this constant is
69: zero, then the diversity order is infinity, but if the constant is non-zero, then the outage is constant and the diversity order
70: is zero. The complete solution of $\gamma_0$ depends on the constant $\kappa$ and the polynomial $q(x)$, which make the analysis
71: involved.
72:
73: In general the behavior of systems at highest multiplexing gain $r = m$ is hardest to predict. The rate is growing with SNR as
74: fast as the ergodic capacity does, while the block length is kept fixed. Next theorem shows that when CSI is only available at
75: the receiver, the diversity order at r = m is not achievable.
76: \begin{thm}
77: At highest multiplexing gain $r=m$, the outage probability $\Pi_{CSIR}\nrightarrow 0$ as $\p\rightarrow\infty$. Thus, $r-m$ is
78: not achievable.\label{the-maxmux}
79: \end{thm}
80: {\bf Proof}: See appendix~\ref{app-p1}.\\
81:
82: A comparison of Theorems~\ref{th:noCSIT} and \ref{the-csirt} shows that the transmitter information completely changes the
83: asymptotic decay rate of probability of outage from a finite decay in perfect CSIR system to exponential rate of decay in
84: perfect CSIRT system. The change in decay rate can be completely attributed to optimum power control, which was derived
85: in~\cite{BCT01} and stated below with transmission rate as $r \log(\s)$
86: %
87: \begin{eqnarray}
88: P_i = \left[\left(\frac{2^\frac{r \log\s}{m}}{(\prod_{j=1}^m\lambda_j)^{\frac{1}{m}}} \right) -
89: \frac{1}{\lambda_i}\right]^+.\label{eq-2}
90: \end{eqnarray}
91: %
92: The power $P_i$ is the power allocated to the eigenvector corresponding to eigenvalue $\lambda_i$. Thus, not only there is
93: spatial power control, the total power allocated for a codeword depends on the current channel $H$ leading to temporal power
94: control. In the next theorem, we allocate equal power to each antenna (no spatial power control) which can change from one
95: time-slot to another based on current channel conditions, i.e., temporal power control.
96:
97: \begin{thm}[Temporal Power Control]
98: When temporal power control is performed with same power on all antennas, then the diversity order $d_t(r)$ is given as
99: %
100: \begin{equation}
101: d_t(r) = \begin{cases} \infty & r< m\\
102: 0 & r = m\;,\; n<2m\\
103: \infty & r = m\;,\;n\ge 2m \\
104: \end{cases}
105: \end{equation}
106: \end{thm}
107: {\bf Proof:} Consider a power allocation policy based on the smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_m$. It is well known that the
108: distribution of the smallest eigenvalue is given by \cite{Ede89}
109: \begin{equation}
110: f_{\lambda_m}(x) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(n-m+1)}x^{n-m}e^{-x},\label{eq-3}
111: \end{equation}
112:
113: The outage minimizing power allocation \cite{CTB99} is of the form
114: \begin{equation}
115: P(\lambda_m) = \begin{cases} \frac{2^R-1}{\lambda_m},\;\;\; &\lambda_m>\gamma_0\\
116: 0, &\text{otherwise}
117: \end{cases}
118: \end{equation}
119: where $\gamma_0$ is the boundary of the outage region and is obtained from the relation for average power constraint, i.e.,
120: \begin{equation}
121: \int_{\gamma_0}^\infty m P(x) f_{\lambda_m}(x) dx \le \p.\label{eq-4}
122: \end{equation}
123: Then, the information outage occurs only when there is no transmission,
124: \begin{equation}
125: \Pi_{EP} = \Pr\{\lambda_m<\gamma_0\}.\label{eq-6}
126: \end{equation}
127: Replacing the distribution in (\ref{eq-4}) and solving for $\gamma_0$ we have
128: \begin{equation}
129: \int_{\gamma_0}^\infty m \frac{2^{\frac{r}{m}\log\p}-1}{\Gamma(n-m+1) x}x^{n-m} e^{-x} dx \le \p,
130: \end{equation}
131: which can be simplified to
132: \begin{equation}
133: \int_{\gamma_0}^\infty x^{n-m-1} e^{-x} dx \le \frac{\Gamma(n-m+1)}{m} \p^{1-r/m}.\label{eq-5}
134: \end{equation}
135: For $r<m$, the right hand side of (\ref{eq-5}) goes to infinity as $\p$ goes to infinity, whereas the left hand side of
136: (\ref{eq-5}) is bounded above by $\Gamma(n-m)$ when $\gamma_0 = 0$. Therefore, for $\p>\Gamma(n-m)*m/\Gamma(n-m+1)$, the cutoff
137: threshold $\gamma_0 = 0$ and the outage probability $\Pr\{\lambda_m<\gamma_0\}=0$, which results in an infinite diversity order.
138:
139: For $r=m$, the right hand side of Equation (\ref{eq-5}) is independent of $\p$. Therefore, in order to have diversity order of
140: infinity, we need to have zero outage probability, which is equivalent of $\gamma_0 = 0$. For $\gamma_0 = 0$ inequality
141: (\ref{eq-5}) becomes
142: \begin{eqnarray*}
143: 1 & \le & \frac{\Gamma(n-m+1)}{m\cdot\Gamma(n-m)}\\
144: & = & \frac{n-m}{m},
145: \end{eqnarray*}
146: or equivalently $n\ge 2m$. Therefore, for $n\ge 2m$ the outage probability is zero and diversity order of infinity is achieved
147: at $r=m$. However, for $n<2m$, $\gamma_0 = 0$ can not be the solution to (\ref{eq-4}) and therefore the outage would be
148: non-zero.\footnote{Note that the optimum choice of feedback is an open problem, and a better choice of feedback may change the
149: statement of the theorem.} \QED
150:
151: Thus, the asymptotic behavior for all but maximum multiplexing gain is unchanged. In some cases (such as $n=m$), for the largest
152: multiplexing gain, the diversity order is reduced from $\infty$ to zero, much like in a system with no transmitter information.
153: The reason for such dramatic change is insistence on equal power allocation in all eigenvalue directions. In this case, the
154: diversity order at maximum multiplexing gain is determined by the minimum eigenvalue which leads to a zero diversity gain.
155:
156: \begin{thm}[Spatial Power Control a.k.a.\ Beamforming]
157: When only spatial power control is performed with same total power for all channel realizations, then the diversity order
158: $d_s(r)$ is same as the system with no transmitter information~\cite{ZT03}, and is given by a piecewise linear function between
159: the following points $(r,d_s(r))$ for $ r=0,1,\ldots,m$ where
160: %
161: \begin{equation}
162: d_s(r) = (m-r)(n-r) = d^*(r).
163: \end{equation}
164: \end{thm}
165: {\bf Proof:} The advantage of beamforming at the transmitter is in that signals at the receiver can be combined coherently and
166: hence the total received SNR is improved. The expression for mutual information is given by
167: \begin{equation*}
168: I(X;Y|H) = \log\left(\det I_N + \p HH^\dagger\right).
169: \end{equation*}
170: It is shown in \cite{MMSA02}, that all systems in which the expression for mutual information is of form $\log\det(I+\alpha \p
171: HH^\dagger)$, have the same diversity order. For a system with beamforming at the transmitter $\alpha = 1$, and for a channel
172: model with CSI only at the receiver $\alpha = 1/M$. Therefore, beamforming does not change the diversity order. \QED
173:
174: The above theorem demonstrates that beamforming alone, with no temporal power control, leads to no improvement in asymptotic
175: rates. Thus, while beamforming leads to SNR improvement in outage by coherent combining of the received signals, it has no
176: impact on rate of decay of outage probability with $\s$~\cite{MMSA02}. The above sequence of results demonstrate that temporal
177: power control is better use of channel information than spatial power control. In other words, if there were only a finite bits
178: of information available at the transmitter about the channel, there impact may be highest if all of them are allocated to
179: performing temporal power control. \\
180:
181: \noindent \emph{Example 1}: Consider the case of single-antenna system with $n = m = 1$. With perfect information about the
182: channel, the transmitter action includes a truncated power control and a phase correction at the transmitter. Thus, the received
183: signal is
184: %
185: \begin{eqnarray}
186: y &=& \begin{cases}
187: \left( e^{r\log\s} -1\right) s + w, & |h|^2\geq \gamma_0 \\
188: w, & |h|^2 < \gamma_0
189: \end{cases}.
190: \end{eqnarray}
191: %
192: The threshold $\gamma_0$ is chosen to meet the average power constraint. Note that since $\mathds{E}[1/|h|^2]=\infty$, then in
193: order to have a finite power constraint $\gamma_0>0,$ for all SNR. The outage probability is approximately $\Pi \approx
194: \exp\left( - \s^{1-r} \right)$ for $r \in [0, 1)$, which decays exponentially fast like in Gaussian channels.
195: Thus the diversity order is infinite for all multiplexing gains less than the maximum. \\
196:
197:
198: \noindent \emph{Example 2}: In a $1\times2$ system the channel distribution is slightly different. The channel norm $\|h\|^2$
199: distribution (with maximum ration combining at the receiver) is $f_{\|h\|^2}(x) = x e^{-x}$. Since, $f_{\|h\|^2}(0) = 0$, then
200: $\mathds{E}[1/\|h\|^2]\le c$ for some constant $c$. Thus, for $\p>c$ it is possible to invert all channel conditions and yet
201: meet the average power constraint. Therefore, for all multiplexing gain $r\in[0,1]$, a zero outage and equivalently infinite
202: diversity order is achievable. Note that unlike single
203: antenna case (\emph{Example 1}), diversity order of infinity is achieved at $r=1$.\\
204:
205: For the rest of the paper, we will largely focus our attention on finite feedback based temporal power allocation since it
206: achieves large gains without the need for learning the eigenvectors of the channels (needed by optimal and spatial power control
207: methods).
208:
209: \section{Quantized Power Control \label{ref:quantize}}
210:
211: In this section, we will develop a suboptimal finite bit quantizer to perform temporal power control. The quantizer has a simple
212: form which allows recursive calculation of all quantization thresholds, and simplifies the subsequent analysis of
213: diversity-multiplexing tradeoff.
214:
215: \subsection{Preliminaries}
216:
217:
218: In temporal power control, each eigen-direction receives the same power which varies from codeword to codeword based on current
219: channel conditions. In this case, the mutual information using a full-rank Gaussian space-time code with covariance $\frac{1}{M}
220: I_{M}$ and power $P(H)$ is given by
221: %
222: \begin{equation}
223: I(S;Y|Q(H)) = \log \det \left( I_N + \frac{P(H)}{M} H I_M H^\dagger \right), \label{eq:mi1}
224: \end{equation}
225: %
226: where $I_M$ is $M\times M$ identity matrix and $H^\dagger$ is the Hermitian conjugate of $H$. The power $P(H)$ is the equal
227: power assigned to all the eigenvectors and depends on channel conditions $H$. The mutual information in Equation~(\ref{eq:mi1})
228: can be rewritten as
229: %
230: \begin{eqnarray}
231: I(S;Y|Q(H)) &=& \log \det \left( I_N + \frac{P(H)}{M} H H^\dagger \right), \nonumber \\
232: &\stackrel{(a)}{=}& \log \det \left( I_N + \frac{P(H)}{M} (U \Lambda^{1/2} V^\dagger )(U \Lambda^{1/2} V^\dagger)^\dagger \right), \nonumber \\
233: &=& \log \det \left( I_m + \frac{P(H)}{M} \Lambda \right), \nonumber \\
234: &=& \sum_{i=1}^m \log \left( 1 + \frac{P(H)}{M} \lambda_i \right),\label{eq-mut1}
235: \end{eqnarray}
236: %
237: where (a) is obtained by replacing $H$ with its singular value decomposition, $H = U \Lambda^{1/2} V^\dagger$ and $m =
238: \min(M,N)$. Furthermore, $\left\{ \lambda_i \right\}_{i=1}^m$ are the non-zero eigenvalues of the matrix $HH^\dagger$. Thus for
239: temporal control, the power $P(H)$ is a mapping from the $m$-dimensional eigenvector space $\begin{bmatrix} \lambda_1 &
240: \lambda_2 & \cdots & \lambda_m \end{bmatrix}$ to non-negative real space $\mathbb{R}^+ \cup \{ 0\}$, and is a complex
241: non-linear vector quantization problem.
242:
243: Instead of using a vector quantizer, we will further simplify the quantization problem by focusing on only one of the $m$
244: eigenvalues. The power $P(H)$ is then determined by a single eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ and the functional relationship will be
245: denoted by $P(\lambda_i)$ whenever needed. The simplification reduces the $m$-dimensional vector quantization problem to a
246: single dimensional vector quantization. Next we consider the design of optimal scalar quantizer for a fixed eigenvalue.
247:
248: \subsection{Optimal Single Eigenvalue Quantizer \label{sec:optimal}}
249:
250: A typical continuous and quantized power control is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig-trunc}. The continuous curve in
251: Figure~\ref{fig-trunc} corresponds to channel inversion power allocation, and the piecewise continuous step function is its
252: quantized approximation with $5$ quantization bins. The $x$-axis in Figure~\ref{fig-trunc} represents one of the non-zero
253: eigenvalues of the $HH^\dagger$ matrix, say $\lambda_i$. If the receiver observes that the eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ lies in the
254: interval $[\gamma_2, \gamma_3)$, the index of this interval is fedback to the transmitter. Transmitter in turn allocates power
255: $P_2 = k/\gamma_2, k=(2^{R(P_{av})}-1)$. Since the transmitter does not know the exact value of the channel, it should allocate
256: power based on the worst case scenario such that for all channel conditions in that interval, an outage free communication is
257: guaranteed.
258:
259: The channel quantizer is described by $L$ quantization thresholds $\{ \gamma_1, \gamma_2, \ldots, \gamma_{L-1} \}$ which define
260: $L$ quantization bins $\{ [0,\gamma_1), [\gamma_1, \gamma_2) , \ldots, [\gamma_{L-1}, \infty) \}$, where $L=2^B$. For each
261: quantization bin $[\gamma_j,\gamma_{j+1})$, $j \geq 1$, power $P_j = k/\gamma_j$ with $k = (2^{R(P_{av})}-1)$. Since origin
262: belongs to the first quantization bin, a finite power $P_0$ is assigned to this bin such that the total average power constraint
263: is satisfied. Note that $0 < (\gamma_0 = k/P_0 < \gamma_1$ such that power $P_0$ only guarantees outage free communication for
264: $\lambda_i \geq \gamma_0$. For $\lambda_i < \gamma_0$, the power $P_0$ is not sufficient to prevent outage and thus the
265: probability of outage is given by
266: %
267: \begin{equation}
268: \Pi(R(\p)) = \text{Prob} \left\{ \lambda_i < \gamma_0 \right\}.\label{eq-o1}
269: \end{equation}
270: %
271:
272: First we note that the average power constraint of (\ref{eq-erg}) with quantized power levels is reduced to
273: \begin{equation}
274: {\mathbb E}[P^*(Q^*(\lambda_i))] = P_0 F_{\lambda_i}(0,\gamma_1) + \cdots + P_{L-1} F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_{L-1},\infty)
275: \label{eq-ergq}
276: \end{equation}
277: where $F_{\lambda_i}(\alpha,\beta)~=\int_\alpha^\beta f_{\lambda_i}(x)dx$ is the probability mass concentrated in the interval
278: $[\alpha,\beta]$ and $f_{\lambda_i}(\cdot)$ is the probability distribution of $\lambda_i$.
279:
280: Then the optimum channel quantizer ${Q^*}$ along with the optimum quantized power allocation $P^*(Q^*)$ are solutions to the
281: outage minimization problem
282: \begin{equation}
283: \{P^*(Q^*(\lambda_i)),Q^*(\lambda_i)\} = \arg \min_{\mathds{E}(P(Q(\lambda_i))) \leq \p} \Pi(R(P_{av})). \label{eq-opt1}
284: \end{equation}
285: In \cite{CTB99,BCT01} authors showed that the problem (\ref{eq-opt1}) has a dual which can be expressed by
286: \begin{equation}
287: \{P^*(Q^*(\lambda_i)),{\cal Q}^*(\lambda_i)\} = \arg \min_{\Pi(R(P_{av})) \leq \alpha} {\mathbb E}(P(Q(\lambda_i))).
288: \label{eq-dual}
289: \end{equation}
290:
291: The constraint on outage in dual problem of (\ref{eq-dual}) is the same as saying $\Pr\{\lambda_i<\gamma_0\}\le\alpha$, which
292: can be solved for $\gamma_0$. Knowing $\gamma_0$, power level $P_0 = k/\gamma_0$ is known. Therefore the dual problem
293: (\ref{eq-dual}) is reduced to an unconstrained optimization problem in a space with one less dimension than the original
294: problem. The solution to the reduced optimization problem must satisfy the first order KKT condition, $\vec\nabla_{P(\lambda_i)}
295: {\mathbb E}_{\lambda_i}[P(\lambda_i)]=0$, which leads to the following system of nonlinear equations
296: %\small
297: \begin{equation}
298: \label{eq-soe}\begin{cases}
299: \frac{f_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_1)}{\gamma_0}-\frac{F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)}{\gamma_1^2}-\frac{f_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_1)}{\gamma_1} &= 0\\
300: \frac{f_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_2)}{\gamma_1}-\frac{F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_2,\gamma_3)}{\gamma_2^2}-\frac{f_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_2)}{\gamma_2}&= 0 \\
301: \;\;\;\vdots \hspace*{2em} & \vdots\\
302: \frac{f_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_{L-1})}{\gamma_{L-2}}-\frac{F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_{L-1},\infty)}{\gamma_{L-1}^2}-\frac{f_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_{L-1})}{\gamma_{L-1}}
303: &= 0.\end{cases}
304: \end{equation}
305: %\normalsize
306: The solution to system of equations in (\ref{eq-soe}) does not admit a closed form and includes nonlinear transcendental
307: equations for Rayleigh channels. In next section we find a suboptimum channel quantizer which allocates equal total power to
308: each quantization bin, i.e., the product of power level and probability mass is equal across all quantization bins.
309:
310:
311: \subsection{Equi-Power Quantization \label{sec:equi-power}}
312:
313: Consider the $j$th equation in (\ref{eq-soe}) ($1\le j\leq L-1$, with $\gamma_{L}=\infty$), that is,
314: \begin{equation}
315: \label{eq-ith}
316: \frac{1}{\gamma_{j-1}}f_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_{j})-\frac{1}{\gamma_{j}^2}F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_{j},\gamma_{j+1})-\frac{1}{\gamma_j}f_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_j)=0.
317: \end{equation}
318: We can rewrite~(\ref{eq-ith}) as,
319: \begin{eqnarray}
320: \label{eq-rea}
321: \frac{1}{\gamma_j}(\gamma_{j+1}-\gamma_j)f_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_j)&=&\frac{1}{\gamma_{j+1}}F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_{j+1}, \gamma_{j+2})\nonumber\\
322: P_j(\gamma_{j+1}-\gamma_j)f_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_j) &=& P_{j+1}F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_{j+1}, \gamma_{j+2}).
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: As number of bits in feedback, $B=\log_2(L)$, approaches infinity, the length of quantization bins, $(\gamma_j, \gamma_{j+1})$,
325: approaches zero, and hence by mean value theorem~\cite{FF89}, we can further simplify~(\ref{eq-rea}) when $B\rightarrow\infty$
326: as
327: \begin{equation}
328: \label{eq-rea2} P_j F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_j, \gamma_{j+1}) \approx P_{j+1}F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_{j+1}, \gamma_{j+2}).
329: \end{equation}
330: The term $P_i F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma_j, \gamma_{j+1})$ is the total allocated power to the $j$th bin. Thus from~(\ref{eq-rea2}),
331: it follows that an approximation to the optimal power allocation is to allocate equal total power to each quantization bin. From
332: the above discussion, it also follows that the equal allocation power control is asymptotically (in number of quantization bins
333: $L$) approaches the optimum quantized power. The above approximate solution~(\ref{eq-rea2}) can now be used in the primal
334: problem~(\ref{eq-opt1}). Authors in \cite{CTB99} showed that the solution to~(\ref{eq-opt1}) is on the boundary of constraint
335: set, i.e., at the optimum point, $P^*(Q^*(\lambda_i))$, we have $\mathbb{E}[P^*(Q^*(\lambda_i))]=P_{av}$. More precisely, at
336: $P^*(Q^*(\lambda_i))$ we have
337: \begin{equation}
338: \label{eq-pav} P_0 F_{\lambda_i}(0,\gamma^*_1)+\dots+P_{L-1} F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma^*_{L-1},\infty) = P_{av}.
339: \end{equation}
340: Combining~(\ref{eq-pav}) with~(\ref{eq-rea2}) we get,
341: \begin{equation}
342: \label{eq-eqpower} P_j F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma^*_{j}, \gamma^*_{j+1})=\frac{P_{av}}{L}, \;\;\; \forall\;j\in\{0,2,\dots,L-1\},
343: \end{equation}
344: with $\gamma^*_L=\infty$ and $\gamma^*_0=0$.\footnote{to prevent more complication and only in here, we abuse the notation
345: $\gamma_0=0$ to indicate the left boundary of the left most quantization bin and every where else by $\gamma_0$ we mean the
346: threshold that determines the outage boundary and is equal to $k/P_0$} For $j=(L-1)$ in (\ref{eq-eqpower}) we have
347: \begin{equation}
348: \label{eq-lastbin} P_{L-1} F_{\lambda_i}(\gamma^*_{L-1}, \infty)=\frac{P_{av}}{L}.
349: \end{equation}
350: Also by channel inversion power allocation we have $\gamma^*_{L-1}~=~k/P_{L-1}$. Hence identity~(\ref{eq-lastbin}) is only a
351: function of $P_{L-1}$ (or $\gamma^*_{L-1}$) and we can solve~(\ref{eq-lastbin}) for $P_{L-1}$ (or $\gamma^*_{L-1}$). Replacing
352: the value for $\gamma^*_{L-1}$ in~(\ref{eq-eqpower}) for $j=(L-2)$, we end up with an equation with a single variable $P_{L-2}$
353: (and corresponding threshold $\gamma^*_{L-2}$). By recursively repeating the same procedure, we can obtain all the power levels,
354: $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^{L}$.
355:
356: Figure~\ref{fig-ossnr} compares the performances of systems with quantized feedback, optimal, and equal allocation power
357: control, and a system with perfect CSI at both ends, as a function of SNR. A single transmit and single receive antenna system
358: is considered, and the feedback rate is $B=\log_2(3)$~bits/code-block. Note that the performance of optimal and equi-power
359: schemes are not distinguishable in Figure~\ref{fig-ossnr} indicating that equal power allocation performs very close to optimum
360: for the range of simulated SNRs.
361: %-------------------
362: %
363: % Figure 2
364: %
365: %-------------------
366:
367: Note that as $\p$ approaches infinity all the quantization thresholds $\gamma_i$'s, approach to zero. Therefore, the length of
368: all the quantization bins, $(\gamma_i, \gamma_{i+1}]$ approaches zero, which satisfies the mean value theorem condition applied
369: to (\ref{eq-rea}). Thus, the suboptimum quantizer found in this section is asymptotically optimum as $\p$ approaches infinity,
370: and the diversity order analysis based on the suboptimum power control would be the same with that of the optimum power control
371: based on the optimum quantizer.
372:
373: The derivation of the quantization thresholds in this section is independent of the distribution of the channel parameter, as
374: long as the distribution is continuous and differentiable. In the next section we use the tools developed in here to
375: characterize the outage performance and quantify the diversity order of channel with Rayleigh distribution and finite rate
376: feedback.
377:
378: %------------------------------------------------------
379: