1: %\documentclass[10pt,twocolumn]{IEEEtran}
2: \documentclass[11pt,onecolumn]{IEEEtran}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{subfigure}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \usepackage{amssymb}
7: \usepackage{amsmath}
8: \usepackage{amsfonts}
9:
10: \input{macros}
11: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.91}
12:
13: \begin{document}
14: \title{Bargaining Over the Interference Channel}
15: \author{Amir Leshem and Ephraim Zehavi
16: \thanks{School of Engineering, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, 52900,
17: Israel. Contact Author: Amir Leshem, e-mail:
18: leshema@eng.biu.ac.il. }}
19: \date{}
20: \maketitle
21: \begin{abstract}
22: In this paper we analyze the interference channel as a conflict situation.
23: This viewpoint implies that certain points in the rate region are unreasonable
24: to one of the players. Therefore these points cannot be considered achievable
25: based on game theoretic considerations.
26: We then propose to use Nash bargaining solution as a tool that provides
27: preferred points on the boundary of the game theoretic rate region. We provide
28: analysis for the 2x2 intereference channel using the FDM achievable rate
29: region. We also outline how to generalize our results to other achievable
30: rate regions for the interference channel as well as the multiple access
31: channel.
32:
33: Keywords: Spectrum optimization, distributed coordination, game
34: theory, interference channel, multiple access channel.
35: \end{abstract}
36: \section{Introduction}
37: Computing the capacity region of the interference channel is an open problem in information
38: theory \cite{cover}.
39: A good overview of the results until 1985 is given by van der Meulen \cite{Meulen94}
40: and the references therein. The capacity region of general interference case
41: is not known yet. However, in the last forty five years of research some
42: progress has been made. Ahslswede \cite{ahlswede73}, derived a general
43: formula for the capacity region of a discrete memoryless Interference
44: Channel (IC) using a limiting expression which is computationally infeasible.
45: Cheng, and Verdu \cite{cheng93} proved that the
46: limiting expression cannot be written in general by a single-letter formula
47: and the restriction to Gaussian inputs provides only an inner bound to the
48: capacity region of the IC. The best known achievable region for the general
49: interference channel is due to Han and Kobayashi \cite{han81}. However the
50: computation of the Han and Kobayashi formula for a general discrete memoryless
51: channel is in general too complex. Sason \cite{sason2004} describes certain improvement over the Han Kobayashi rate region in certain cases.
52: In this paper we focus on the 2x2 memoryless
53: Gaussian interference channel. A 2x2 Gaussian interference channel
54: in standard form (after suitable normalization) is given by:
55: \beq
56: \label{standard_IC}
57: \vx=\mH \vs +\vn
58: \eeq
59: where
60: \[
61: \mH=\left[
62: \bea{cc}
63: 1 & \ga \\
64: \gb & 1
65: \ena
66: \right]
67: \]
68: $\vs=[s_1,s_2]^T$, and $\vx=[x_1,x_2]^T$ are sampled values of the input and
69: output signals, respectively. The noise vector $\vn$ represents the
70: additive Gaussian noises with zero mean and unit variance. The powers of the
71: input signals are constrained to be less than $P_1,P_2$ respectively. The off-diagonal elements of $\mH$, $\ga,\gb$ represent the degree of interference
72: present. The capacity region of the Gaussain interference channel with very
73: strong interference (i.e., $\ga \ge 1+P_1$, $\gb \ge 1+P_2$ )
74: was found by Carleial
75: given by
76: \beq
77: \label{VSI_RR}
78: R_i \le \log_2(1+P_i), \ \ i=1,2.
79: \eeq
80: This surprising result shows that very strong interference dose not reduces the capacity.
81: A Gaussian interference channel is said to
82: have strong interference if $\min\{\ga,\gb\}>1$. Sato
83: \cite{sato81} derived an achievable capacity region (inner bound) of Gaussian
84: interference channel as intersection of two multiple access gaussian capacity
85: regions embedded in the interference channel. The achievable region is the
86: subset of the rate pair of the rectangular region of the very strong
87: interference (1
88: \ref{VSI_RR}) and the region
89: \beq
90: R_1+R_2 \le \log_2\left(\min\left\{1+P_1+\ga P_2,1+P_2+\gb P_1\right\} \right)
91: \eeq
92: A recent progress for the case of Gaussian interference is described by Sason \cite{sason2004}.
93: Sason derived an achievable rate region based on a modified time- (or frequency-) division
94: multiplexing approach which was originated by Sato for the degraded Gaussian IC. The achievable
95: rate region includes the rate region which is achieved by time/frequency division multiplexing
96: (TDM/ FDM), and it also includes the rate region which is obtained by time sharing between the
97: two rate pairs where one of the transmitters sends its data reliably at the maximal possible
98: rate (i.e., the maximum rate it can achieve in the absence of interference), and the other
99: transmitter decreases its data rate to the point where both receivers can reliably decode their messages.
100:
101: In this paper we limit ourselves to the frequency-division multiplexing (FDM) scheme
102: where an assignment of disjoint portions of the frequency band to the several transmitters is
103: made. This technique is widely used in practice because simple filtering can be used at the
104: receivers to eliminate interference. The results equivalently apply to time-division multiplexing (TDM). In both cases we use the non-naive version, where all power is used in the frequency/time slice allocated for a given user.
105:
106: While information theoretical considerations allow all points in the rate region, we argue that
107: the interference channel is a conflict situation
108: between the interfering links. Each link is considered a player in a
109: general interference game. As such it has been shown that non-cooperative
110: solutions such as the iterative water-filling, which leads to good solutions
111: for the multiple access channel (MAC) and the broadcast channel \cite{yu04}
112: can be highly suboptimal in interference channel scenarios \cite{laufer2005},
113: \cite{laufer2005a}. To solve this problem
114: there are several possible approaches. One that has gained popularity in
115: recent years is through the use of competitive strategies in repeated games
116: \cite{etkin2005}, \cite{clemens2005}. Our approach is significantly
117: different and is based on general bargaining theory originally developed by
118: Nash. We claim that while all points on the boundary of the interference
119: channel are achievable from the strict informational point of view, most of
120: them will never be achieved since one of the players will refuse to use coding
121: strategies leading to these points.
122: The rates of interest are only rates that are higher than the rates
123: that each user can achieve, independently of the other user coding strategy.
124: Such a rate pair must form a Nash equilibrium \cite{nash51}.
125: This implies that not all the rates achievable from pure information theoretic
126: point of view are indeed achievable from game theoretic prespective. Hence we define the game theoretic
127: rate region.
128: \bdf
129: Let $\cR$ be an achievable information theoretic rate region. The game theoretic rate region ${\cR}^G$ is given by
130: \beq
131: \cR^G=\left \{
132: (R_1,R_2)\in \cR: R^c_i \le R_i, \ \ i=1,2 \right\}
133: \eeq
134: where $R^c_i$ is the rate achievable by user $i$ in a non-cooperative
135: interference game.
136: \edf
137: To see what are the pair rates that can be achieved by negotiation of the two
138: users we resort
139: to a well known solution termed the Nash bargaining
140: solution. In his seminal papers \cite{nash50}, \cite{nash53}, Nash proposed 4 axioms that a
141: solution to a bargaining problem should satisfy. He then proves that there
142: exists a unique solution satisfying these axioms. We will analyze the
143: application of Nash bargaining solution (NBS) to the interference game, and
144: show that there exists a unique point on the boundary of the capacity region
145: which is the solution to the bargaining problem as posed by Nash.
146:
147: The fact that the Nash solution can be computed independently by users, using
148: only channel state information, provides a good method for managing
149: multi-user ad-hoc networks operating in an unregulated environment.
150:
151: Due to space limitations the paper considers only the Gaussian interference
152: channel and FDM strategy suitable for medium interference \cite{costa85}.
153: However extensions to other achievable rate regions of the interference channels will appear in a subsequent paper.
154:
155: Application of Nash bargaining to OFDMA has been proposed by
156: \cite{han2005}. However in that paper the solution was used only as a measure
157: of fairness. Therefore $R^c_i$ was not taken as the Nash equilibrium for the
158: competitive game, but an arbitrary $R^{\min}_i$. This can result in
159: non-feasible problem, and the proposed algorithm might be unstable. Furthermore
160: our approach can be extended to other coding strategies such as in
161: \cite{sason2004}.
162:
163: \section{Nash equilibrium vs. Nash Bargaining solution}
164: In this section we describe to solution concepts for 2 players games. The
165: first notion is that of Nash equilibrium. The second is the Nash bargaining
166: solution (NBS).
167: In order to simplify the notation we specifically concentrate on the Gaussian
168: interference game.
169:
170:
171: \subsection{The Gaussian interference game}
172: \label{sec:GI_game} In this section we define the Gaussian
173: interference game, and provide some simplifications for dealing with
174: discrete frequencies. For a general background on non-cooperative
175: games we refer the reader to \cite{owen} and \cite{basar82}.
176: The Gaussian interference game was defined in
177: \cite{yu2002}. In this paper we use the discrete approximation
178: game. Let $f_0 < \cdots <f_K$ be an increasing sequence of
179: frequencies. Let $I_k$ be the closed interval be given by
180: $I_k=[f_{k-1},f_k]$. We now define the approximate Gaussian
181: interference game denoted by $GI_{\{I_1, \ldots, I_K\}}$.
182:
183: Let the players $1,\ldots,N$ operate over separate channels. Assume
184: that the $N$ channels have crosstalk coupling functions $h_{ij}(k)$.
185: Assume that user $i$'th is allowed to transmit a total power of
186: $P_i$. Each player can transmit a power vector $\vp_i=\left(
187: p_i(1),\ldots,p_i(K) \right) \in [0,P_i]^K$ such that $p_i(k)$ is
188: the power transmitted in the interval $I_k$. Therefore we have $
189: \sum_{k=1}^K p_i(k)=P_i$. The equality follows from the fact that in
190: non-cooperative scenario all users will use the maximal power they
191: can use. This implies that the set of power distributions for all
192: users is a closed convex subset of the cube $\prod_{i=1}^N
193: [0,P_i]^K$ given by: \beq \label{eq_strategies} \mB=\prod_{i=1}^N
194: \mB_i \eeq where $\mB_i$ is the set of admissible power
195: distributions for player $i$ is \beq \mB_i=[0,P_i]^K\cap
196: \left\{\left(p(1),\ldots,p(K)\right): \sum_{k=1}^K p(k)=P_i \right\}
197: \eeq Each player chooses a PSD $\vp_i=\left<p_i(k): 1\le k \le N
198: \right > \in \mB_i$. Let the payoff for user $i$ be given by: \beq
199: %\bea{l}
200: \label{eq_capacity}
201: C^i\left(\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N\right)= \\
202: \sum_{k=1}^{K}\log_2\left(1+\frac{|h_i(k)|^2p_i(k)}{\sum
203: |h_{ij}(k)|^2 p_j(k)+\vn(k)}\right)
204: %\ena
205: \eeq where $C^i$ is the capacity available to player $i$ given power
206: distributions $\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N$, channel responses $h_i(f)$,
207: crosstalk coupling functions $h_{ij}(k)$ and $n_i(k)>0$ is external
208: noise present at the $i$'th channel receiver at frequency $k$. In
209: cases where $n_i(k)=0$ capacities might become infinite using FDM
210: strategies, however this is non-physical situation due to the
211: receiver noise that is always present, even if small. Each $C^i$ is
212: continuous on all variables.
213:
214: \begin{definition}
215: The Gaussian Interference game $GI_{\{I_1,\ldots,I_k\}}=\left\{\mC,\mB\right\}$ is the N
216: players non-cooperative game with payoff vector
217: $\mC=\left(C^1,\ldots,C^N \right)$ where $C^i$ are defined in
218: (\ref{eq_capacity}) and $\mB$ is the strategy set defined by (\ref{eq_strategies}).
219: \end{definition}
220: The interference game is a special case of non-cooperative N-persons
221: game.
222: \subsection{Nash equilibrium in non-cooperative games}
223: An important notion in game theory is that of a Nash
224: equilibrium.
225: \bdf
226: An $N$-tuple of strategies $\left<\vp_1,\ldots,\vp_N\right>$ for
227: players $1,\ldots,N$ respectively
228: is called a Nash equilibrium iff for all $n$ and for all $\vp$ ($\vp$ a
229: strategy for player $n$)
230: \[
231: C^n\left(\vp_1,...,\vp_{n-1},\vp,\vp_{n+1},\ldots,\vp_N \right)<
232: C^n\left(\vp_1,...,\vp_{N} \right)
233: \]
234: i.e., given that all other players $i \neq n$ use strategies $\vp_i$, player
235: $n$ best response is $\vp_n$.
236: \edf
237: The proof of existence of Nash equilibrium in the general interference
238: game follows from an easy adaptation of the proof of the this result
239: for convex games \cite{nikaido55}.
240: A much harder problem is the uniqueness of Nash equilibrium points in
241: the water-filling game. This is very important to the stability of the
242: waterfilling strategies. A first result in this direction has been
243: given in \cite{chung2002}. A more general analysis of the convergence
244: (although it still does not cover the case of arbitrary channels) has
245: been given in \cite{luo2005}.
246:
247: \subsection{Nash bargaining solution for the interference game}
248: Nash equilibria are inevitable whenever non-cooperative zero sum
249: game is played. However they can lead to substantial loss to all players,
250: compared to a cooperative strategy in the non-zero sum case, where players
251: can cooperate. Such a situation is called the prisoner's dilemma.
252: The main issue in this case is how to achieve the cooperation in a stable
253: manner and what rates can be achieved through cooperation.
254:
255: In this section we present the Nash bargaining solution \cite{nash50},
256: \cite{nash53}. The underlying structure for a Nash bargaining in an $N$
257: players game is a set of outcomes of the bargaining process $S$ which is compact and convex. $S$ can be considered as a set of possible joint strategies or
258: states, a designated
259: disagreement outcome $d$ (which represents the agreement to disagree and solve
260: the problem competitively) and a multiuser utility function
261: $
262: U:S \cup \{d\} \rarrow {\bm R}^N.
263: $
264: The Nash bargaining is a function $F$ which assigns to each pair
265: $\left(S \cup \{d\},U \right)$ as above an element of $S \cup \{d\}$.
266: Furthermore, the Nash solution is unique. In order to obtain the solution, Nash
267: assumed four axioms:
268: \bds
269: \item[]{\em Linearity}. This means that if we perform the same
270: linear transformation on the utilities of all players than the solution is
271: transformed accordingly.
272: \item[]{\em Independence of irrelevant alternatives}. This axiom states that
273: if the bargaining solution of a large game $T \cup \{d\}$ is obtained in a
274: small
275: set $S$. Then the bargaining solution assigns the same solution to the smaller game, i.e., The irrelevant alternatives in $T \backslash S$ do not affect the outcome of the bargaining.
276: \item[]{\em Symmetry}. If two players are identical than renaming them will not
277: change the outcome and both will get the same utility.
278: \item[]{\em Pareto optimality}. If $s$ is the outcome of the bargaining then no other state $t$ exists such that $U(s)<U(t)$ (coordinate wise).
279: \eds
280: A good discussion of these axioms can be found in \cite{owen}.
281: Nash proved that there exists a unique solution to the bargaining problem
282: satisfying these 4 axioms. The solution is obtained by maximizing
283: \beq
284: s= \arg \max_{s\in S \cup \{d\}} \prod_{n=1}^N \left(U_i(s)-U_i(d) \right)
285: \eeq
286: Typically one assumes that there exist at least one feasible
287: $s \in S$ such that $U(d)<U(s)$ coordinatewise, but otherwise we can assume that the bargaining solution is $d$.
288: In our case the utility for user $i$ is given by the rate $R_i$,
289: and $U_i(d)$ is the competitive Nash equilibrium, obtained by
290: iterative waterfilling for general ISI channels.
291:
292: \section{Existence and uniqueness of Nash bargaining solution for the two
293: players interference game}
294: In this section we outline the proof that a Nash bargaining solution always
295: exists for utility function given by capacity for any achievable rate region
296: for the 2x2 interference channel.
297:
298: An achievable rate region can always be
299: defined by the following equations:
300: \beq
301: \label{RR_constraint}
302: \bea{l}
303: 0 \le R_1 \le R^1_{\max} \\
304: 0 \le R_2 \le f(R_1)
305: \ena
306: \eeq
307: where $f(R)$ is a monotonically decreasing concave function of $R_1$.
308: The monotonicity is obvious and the concavity follows from a standard time
309: sharing argument.
310: \bthm
311: \label{uniqueness}
312: Assume that we are given an achievable rate region for the interference channel
313: described by (\ref{RR_constraint}).
314: Let $U_i(R)=R$ be the utility of the $i$'th user, and let $R^c_i$ be the
315: achievable rate at the competitive Nash equilibrium point for the $i$'th
316: channel. Then there is a unique point $\left(R^{NBS}_1,R^{NBS}_2 \right)$
317: that is the Nash bargaining solution using the encoding strategies of the
318: given achievable rate region for the interference channel. This point is
319: Pareto optimal and therefore on
320: the boundary of the rate region, i.e., $R_2=f(R_1)$.
321: \ethm
322: Note that by concavity $f$ is strictly decreasing, except on an initial
323: segment of rates for player I.
324: Due to space limitations, full proof of this theorem will be provided in an
325: extended version of this paper. However the following example provides the
326: intuition
327: underlying theorem \ref{uniqueness}, the relation between the competitive
328: solution, the NBS and
329: the game theoretic rate region $\cR^G$ we have chosen $\SNR_1=20$ dB,
330: $\SNR_2=15$ dB,
331: and $\ga=0.4, \gb=0.7$.
332: Figure \ref{rate_region} presents the FDM rate region, the Nash equilibrium point denoted by
333: $\*$, and a contour plot of $F(\gr)$. It can be seen that the convexity of $F(\gr)$ together
334: with the concavity of the function defining the upper oundary of the rate region implies that at
335: there is a unique contour tangent to the rate region. The tangent point is the Nash bargaining
336: solution. We can see that the NBS achieves rates that are 1.6 and 4 times higher than the
337: rates of the competitive Nash equilibrium rates for player I and player II respectively.
338: The game theoretic rate region is the intersection of
339: the information theoretic rate region with the quadrant above the dotted lines.
340: \begin{figure}
341: \begin{center}
342: \mbox{\psfig{figure=figures/NBS_figure.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}}
343: \end{center}
344: \caption{FDM rate region (thick line), Nash equilibrium $*$, Nash bargaining solution and the contours of $F(\gr)$. $\SNR_1=20$ dB, $\SNR_2=15$ dB,
345: and $\ga=0.4, \gb=0.7$ }
346: \label{rate_region}
347: \end{figure}
348: Finally we comment that this theorem can be generalized to $N$ players with higher notational complexity.
349: \section{Bargaining for the two players interference game}
350: In this section we analyze the two players interference game, with TDM/FDM
351: strategies. We provide conditions under which the bargaining solution provides
352: improvement over the competitive solution. This extends the work of
353: \cite{laufer2005} where it is characterized when does FDM solution outperforms
354: the competitive IWF solution for symmetric 2x2 interference game. We assume
355: that the utility of player $i$ is given by $U_i=R_i$, the achievable rate.
356: To that end lets consider the general 2x2 interference channel (in
357: non-standard form). The received signal vector $\vx$ is given by
358: \beq
359: \vx=\mH \vs + \vn
360: \eeq
361: where $\vx=[x_1,x_2]^T$ is the received signal,
362: \beq
363: \mH=\left[
364: \bea{cc}
365: h_{11} & h_{12} \\
366: h_{21} & h_{22}
367: \ena
368: \right]
369: \eeq
370: is the channel matrix and $\vs=[s_1,s_2]^T$ is the vector of transmited signals.
371: Note that in our cases both transmission and reception are performed
372: independently, and the vector formulation is for notational simplicity only.
373: Similarly to the analysis of \cite{laufer2005} the competitive strategies in
374: the interference game are given by flat power allocation resulting in rates:
375: \beq
376: \bea{l}
377: R^c_{1}=\frac{W}{2}
378: \log_2 \left(1+\frac{|h_{11}|^2 P_{1}}{WN_0/2+|h_{12}|^2 P_{2}}\right) \\
379: R^c_2=\frac{W}{2}\log_2 \left(1+\frac{|h_{22}|^2 P_{2}}{WN_0/2+|h_{21}|^2P_{1}} \right)
380: \ena
381: \eeq
382: Dividing by the noise power $WN_0/2$ we obtain
383: \beq
384: \label{competitive}
385: \bea{l}
386: R^c_1=\frac{W}{2}\log_2 \left(1+\frac{\SNR_1}{1+\ga\SNR_2} \right) \\
387: R^c_2=\frac{W}{2}\log_2 \left(1+\frac{\SNR_2}{1+\gb\SNR_1} \right)
388: \ena
389: \eeq
390: where
391: \[
392: \bea{lclcl}
393: \SNR_i=\frac{|h_{ii}|^2 P_i}{WN_0/2},&\ \ &
394: \ga=\frac{|h_{12}|^2}{|h_{22}|^2},& \ \ &
395: \gb=\frac{|h_{21}|^2}{|h_{11}|^2}
396: \ena
397: \]
398: This is equivalent ot the standard channel (\ref{standard_IC}), with $P_i=\SNR_i$.
399: Since the rates $R^c_i$ are achieved by competitive strategy, player $i$ would not cooperate unless he will obtain a rate higher than $R^c_i$. Therefore the game theoretic rate region is defined by pair rates higher that $R_i^c$ of equation (\ref{competitive}).
400:
401: Since we are interested in FDM cooperative strategies assume that player I uses a fraction of
402: $0 \le \gr \le 1$ of the band and user II uses a fraction $1-\gr$. The rates obtained by the two users are given by
403: \beq
404: \label{def_Rrho}
405: \bea{l}
406: R_1(\gr)=\frac{\gr W}{2} \log_2 \left(1+\frac{\SNR_1}{\gr} \right) \\
407: R_2(1-\gr)=\frac{(1-\gr) W}{2} \log_2 \left(1+\frac{\SNR_2}{1-\gr} \right)
408: \ena
409: \eeq
410: The two users will benefit from FDM type of cooperation as long as
411: \beq
412: \bea{l}
413: R^c_i \le R_i(\gr_i), \ \ \ i=1,2 \\
414: \gr_1+\gr_2 \le 1
415: \ena
416: \eeq
417: For each $0<x,y$ define $f(x,y)$ as the minimal $\gr$ that solves the equation
418: \beq
419: \label{eq:def_f}
420: \left(1+\frac{x}{\gr} \right)^\gr=1+\frac{x}{1+y}
421: \eeq
422: \bcl
423: $f(x,y)$ is a well defined function for $x,y \in {{\bm R}^+}$.
424: \ecl
425: Proof: Let
426: \[
427: g(x,y,\gr)=\left(1+\frac{x}{\gr} \right)^\gr-1-\frac{x}{1+y}
428: \]
429: For every $x,y$, $g(x,y,\gr)$ is a continuous and monotonic function in $\gr$.
430: Furthermore, for any $0 \le x,y$, $g(x,y,1)>0$, while
431: \[
432: \lim_{\gr \rarrow 0} g(x,y,\gr)<0.
433: \]
434: so there is a unique solution to (\ref{eq:def_f}).
435: \bcl
436: Assume now that
437: \beq
438: \label{FDM_better}
439: f(\SNR_1,\ga \SNR_2)+f(\SNR_2,\gb \SNR_1) \le 1.
440: \eeq
441: Then an FDM Nash bargaining solution exists. The NBS is given by solving the problem
442: \beq
443: \max_\gr F(\gr)=\max_{\gr}
444: \eeq
445: where
446: \beq
447: \label{def_F}
448: F(\gr)=\left(R_1(\gr)-R^c_1 \right) \left(R_2(1-\gr)-R^c_2 \right)
449: \eeq
450: and $R_i(\gr)$ are defined by (\ref{def_Rrho}).
451: \ecl
452: Proof: Let $\gr_1=f(\SNR_1,\ga \SNR_2),\gr_2=f(\SNR_2,\gb \SNR_1)$.
453: By definition of $f$ player $i$ has the same rate as the competitive rate if he can use
454: a $\gr_i$, fraction of the bandwidth. Since (\ref{FDM_better}) implies that
455: $\gr_1+\gr_2 \le 1$ FDM is preferable to the competitive solution.
456:
457: A special case can now be derived:
458: \bcl
459: Assume that $\SNR_1 \ge \frac{1}{2} \left( \ga^2 \gb^4\right)^{-1/3}$ and
460: $\SNR_2 \ge \frac{1}{2} \left( \gb^2 \ga^4\right)^{-1/3}$. Then there is a Nash bargaining solution that is better than the competitive solution.
461: \ecl
462: The proof of the claim follows directly by substituting $\gr_1=\gr_2=1/2$.
463:
464: We also provide without proof the asymptotic performance as $\SNR_i$
465: increases to infinity
466: \bcl
467: For each $i$ and for any fixed $z$, $\lim_{SNR_i \rarrow \infty}f(\SNR_i,z)=0$.
468: \ecl
469: This implies that if one of the users has sufficiently high $\SNR$ than
470: FDM strategy is preferable to competitive strategy.
471: This fact will be evident from the simulations in the next section.
472: \section{Simulations}
473: In this section we compare in simulations the Bargaining solution to the
474: competitive solution for various situations with medium interference.
475: We have tested the gain of the Nash bargaining solution relative to the Nash
476: equilibrium competitive rate pair as a function of channel coefficients as
477: well as signal to noise ratio. To that end we define the minimum relative
478: improvement by:
479: \beq
480: \label{min_delta}
481: \gD_{\min}=\min\left\{
482: \frac{R^{NBS}_1}{R^c_1},\frac{R^{NBS}_2}{R^c_2}
483: \right\}
484: \eeq
485: and the sum rate improvement by
486: \beq
487: \label{sum_delta}
488: \gD_{sum}=\frac{R^{NBS}_1+R^{NBS}_2}{R^c_1+R^c_2}
489: \eeq
490: In the first set of experiments we have fixed $\ga,\gb$ and
491: varied $\SNR_1,\SNR_2$ from 0 to 40 dB in steps of 0.25dB.
492: Figure \ref{snra7b7} presents $\gD_{\min}$ for an
493: interference channel with $\ga=\gb=0.7$. We can see that for high
494: SNR we obtain significant improvement. Figure \ref{sum_rate_SNRa7b7}
495: presents the relative sum rate improvement $\gD_{sum}$ for the same channel.
496: We can see that the achieved rates are 5.5 times those of the competitive
497: solution.
498: \begin{figure}
499: \begin{center}
500: \mbox{\psfig{figure=figures/NBS_SNRa7b7.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}}
501: \end{center}
502: \caption{Minimal relative improvement. $\ga=\gb=0.7$.}
503: \label{snra7b7}
504: \end{figure}
505: \begin{figure}
506: \begin{center}
507: \mbox{\psfig{figure=figures/NBS_sum_rateSNRa7b7.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}}
508: \end{center}
509: \caption{sum rate relative improvement. $\ga=\gb=0.7$.}
510: \label{sum_rate_SNRa7b7}
511: \end{figure}
512: We have now studied the effect of the interference coefficients on the Nash
513: Bargaining solution. We have set the signal to additive white Gaussian noise
514: ratio for both users to 20 dB, and varied $\ga$ and $\gb$ between $0$ and $1$.
515: Similarly to the previous case we present the minimal improvement
516: $\gD_{\min}$ and the sum rate improvement $\gD_{sum}$. The results are shown
517: in figures \ref{snr_minCH20},\ref{sum_rate_snrCH20}.
518: \begin{figure}
519: \begin{center}
520: \mbox{\psfig{figure=figures/NBS_minCH_SNR20.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}}
521: \end{center}
522: \caption{Minimal relative improvement. SNR=20 dB.}
523: \label{snr_minCH20}
524: \end{figure}
525: \begin{figure}
526: \begin{center}
527: \mbox{\psfig{figure=figures/NBS_sum_rate_CH_SNR20.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}} \end{center}
528: \caption{Sum rate relative improvement. SNR=20 dB.}
529: \label{sum_rate_snrCH20}
530: \end{figure}
531:
532:
533:
534:
535: %\section{Extension to the multiple access game}
536: \section{Conclusions}
537: In this paper we have defined the game theoretic rate region for the
538: interference channel. The region is a subset of the rate region of the
539: interference channel. We have shown that a specific point in the rate region
540: given by the Nash bargaining solution is better than other points in the context of bargaining theory. We have shown conditions for the existence of such a
541: point in the case of the FDM rate region. Finally we have demonstrated through
542: simulations the significant improvement of the cooperative solution over the
543: competitive Nash equilibrium.
544:
545: \bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
546: % \bibliography{DSLbib,cioffi_bib,interference}
547: \newcommand{\noopsort}[1]{} \newcommand{\printfirst}[2]{#1}
548: \newcommand{\singleletter}[1]{#1} \newcommand{\switchargs}[2]{#2#1}
549: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
550:
551: \bibitem{cover}
552: T.M. Cover and J.~A. Thomas, {\em Elements of Information Theory}.
553: \newblock New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1991.
554:
555: \bibitem{Meulen94}
556: E.C. {van der Meulen}, ``Some reflections on the interference channel,'' in
557: {\em Communications and Cryptography: Two Sides of One Tapestry} (R.E.
558: Blahut, D.~J. Costell, and T.~Mittelholzer, eds.), pp.~409--421, Kluwer,
559: 1994.
560:
561: \bibitem{ahlswede73}
562: R.~Ahlswede, ``Multi-way communication channels,'' in {\em Proceedings of 2nd
563: International Symposium on Information Theory}, pp.~23--52, Sept. 1973.
564:
565: \bibitem{cheng93}
566: R.S. Cheng and S.~Verdu, ``On limiting characterizations of memoryless
567: multiuser capacity regions,'' {\em IEEE Trans. on Information Theory},
568: vol.~39, pp.~609--612, Mar. 1993.
569:
570: \bibitem{han81}
571: T.S. Han and K.~Kobayashi, ``A new achievable rate region for the interference
572: channel,'' {\em IEEE Trans. on Information Theory}, vol.~27, pp.~49--60, Jan.
573: 1981.
574:
575: \bibitem{sato81}
576: H.~Sato, ``The capacity of the {G}aussian interference channel under strong
577: interference,'' {\em IEEE Trans. on Information Theory}, vol.~27,
578: pp.~786--788, nov 1981.
579:
580: \bibitem{sason2004}
581: I.~Sason, ``On achievable rate regions for the {G}aussian interference
582: channel,'' {\em IEEE Trans. on Information Theory}, vol.~50, pp.~1345--1356,
583: June 2004.
584:
585: \bibitem{yu04}
586: W.~Yu, W.~Rhee, S.~Boyd, and J.M. Cioffi, ``Iterative waterfilling for
587: {G}aussian vector multiple-access channels,'' {\em IEEE Transactions on
588: Information Theory}, vol.~50, no.~1, pp.~145--152, 2004.
589:
590: \bibitem{laufer2005}
591: A.~Laufer and A.~Leshem, ``Distributed coordination of spectrum and the
592: prisoner's dilemma,'' in {\em Proc. of the First IEEE International Symposium
593: on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks - DySPAN 2005}, pp.~94
594: -- 100, 2005.
595:
596: \bibitem{laufer2005a}
597: A.~Laufer, A.~Leshem, and H.~Messer, ``Game theoretic aspects of distributed
598: spectral coordination with application to {DSL} networks,'' {\em IEEE Trans.
599: on Informatiom Theory}, 2005.
600: \newblock Submitted.
601:
602: \bibitem{etkin2005}
603: R.~Etkin, A.~Parekh, and D.~Tse, ``Spectrum sharing for unlicensed bands,'' in
604: {\em Proc. of the First IEEE International Symposium on New Frontiers in
605: Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks - DySPAN 2005}, pp.~251 -- 258, 2005.
606:
607: \bibitem{clemens2005}
608: N.~Clemens and C.~Rose, ``Intelligent power allocation strategies in an
609: unlicensed spectrum,'' in {\em Proc. of the First IEEE International
610: Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks - DySPAN
611: 2005}, pp.~37--42, 2005.
612:
613: \bibitem{nash51}
614: J.~Nash, ``Non-cooperative games,'' {\em The Annals of Mathematics}, vol.~54,
615: pp.~286--295, Sept. 1951.
616:
617: \bibitem{nash50}
618: J.~Nash, ``The bargaining problem,'' {\em Econometrica}, vol.~18, pp.~155--162,
619: Apr. 1950.
620:
621: \bibitem{nash53}
622: J.~Nash, ``Two-person cooperative games,'' {\em Econometrica}, vol.~21,
623: pp.~128--140, Jan. 1953.
624:
625: \bibitem{costa85}
626: M.H.M. Costa, ``On the {G}aussian interference channel,'' {\em IEEE Trans. on
627: Information Theory}, vol.~31, pp.~607--615, Sept. 1985.
628:
629: \bibitem{han2005}
630: Z.~Han, Z.~Ji, and K.J.R. Liu, ``Fair multiuser channel allocation for {OFDMA}
631: networks using the {N}ash bargaining solutions and coalitions,'' {\em IEEE
632: Trans. on Communications}, vol.~53, pp.~1366--1376, Aug. 2005.
633:
634: \bibitem{owen}
635: G.~Owen, {\em Game theory}.
636: \newblock Academic Press, third~ed., 1995.
637:
638: \bibitem{basar82}
639: T.~Basar and G.J. Olsder, {\em Dynamic non-cooperative game theory}.
640: \newblock Academic Press, 1982.
641:
642: \bibitem{yu2002}
643: W.~Yu, G.~Ginis, and J.M. Cioffi, ``Distributed multiuser power control for
644: digital subscriber lines,'' {\em IEEE Journal on Selected areas in
645: Communications}, vol.~20, pp.~1105--1115, june 2002.
646:
647: \bibitem{nikaido55}
648: H.~Nikaido and K.~Isoida, ``Note on non-cooperative convex games,'' {\em
649: Pacific Journal of Matematics}, vol.~5, pp.~807--815, 1955.
650:
651: \bibitem{chung2002}
652: S.T. Chung, J.~Lee, S.J. Kim, and J.M. Cioffi, ``On the convergence of
653: iterative waterfilling in the frequency selective {G}aussian interference
654: channel,'' {\em Preprint}, 2002.
655:
656: \bibitem{luo2005}
657: Z.-Q. Luo and J.-S. Pang, ``Analysis of iterative waterfilling algorithm for
658: multiuser power control in digital subscriber lines,'' {\em EURASIP Journal
659: on Applied Signal Processing on Advanced Signal Processing Techniques for
660: Digital Subscriber Lines}.
661:
662: \end{thebibliography}
663:
664: \end{document}
665: