1: \documentclass[conference,twocolumn]{IEEEtran}

2: \usepackage{amsmath, amssymb, amsfonts, latexsym}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: %\usepackage{float}

5: 

6: % Theorems

7: %-----------------------------------------------------------------

8: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}

9: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}

10: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

11: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

12: %\theoremstyle{definition}

13: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}

14: %\theoremstyle{remark}

15: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}

16: 

17: 

18: \def\RR{\mathbb{R}}

19: \def\ZZ{\mathbb{Z}}

20: \def\NN{\mathbb{N}}

21: \def\FF{\mathbb{F}}

22: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left\vert#1\right\vert}

23: \newcommand{\tran}[1]{#1^T}

24: \DeclareMathOperator{\Span}{span}

25: \DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}

26: \DeclareMathOperator{\head}{head}

27: \DeclareMathOperator{\tail}{tail}

28: 

29: \newcommand{\edmonds}{Z}

30: \newcommand{\graph}{\mathcal{G}}

31: \newcommand{\edge}{e}

32: \newcommand{\node}{v}

33: \newcommand{\edges}{\mathcal{\MakeUppercase{\edge}}}

34: \newcommand{\nodes}{\mathcal{\MakeUppercase{\node}}}

35: \newcommand{\numedges}{\MakeUppercase{\edge}}

36: \newcommand{\numnodes}{\MakeUppercase{\node}}

37: \newcommand{\din}[1]{d_{\text{in}}\left(#1\right)}

38: \newcommand{\dout}[1]{d_{\text{out}}\left(#1\right)}

39: 

40: \newcommand{\event}{\mathsf{E}}

41: 

42: %-----------------------------------------------------------------

43: \title{On Random Network Coding for Multicast}

44: \author{

45: \authorblockN{Adrian Tauste Campo}

46: \authorblockA{Universitat Pompeu Fabra\\Barcelona, Spain}

47: \and

48: \authorblockN{Alex Grant}

49: \authorblockA{Institute for Telecommunications Research\\

50:   University of South Australia}

51: }

52: 

53: \begin{document}

54: \maketitle

55: 

56: \begin{abstract}

57:   Random linear network coding is a particularly decentralized

58:   approach to the multicast problem. Use of random network codes

59:   introduces a non-zero probability however that some sinks will not

60:   be able to successfully decode the required sources. One of the main

61:   theoretical motivations for random network codes stems from the

62:   lower bound on the probability of successful decoding reported by Ho

63:   et. al. (2003). This result demonstrates that all sinks in a

64:   linearly solvable network can successfully decode all sources

65:   provided that the random code field size is large enough. This paper

66:   develops a new bound on the probability of successful decoding.

67: \end{abstract}

68: 

69: \section{Introduction}

70: It has been recently proved that network layer coding can increase

71: throughput, particularly for multicast scenarios \cite{AhlCai00}. It

72: is also known that linear network codes \cite{LiYeu03} can achieve

73: max-flow upper bounds on the throughput in a single source multicast

74: network. The algebraic approach of \cite{KoeMed03} is particularly

75: useful in the design and analysis of linear network codes, and we

76: adopt the notation and terminology of that paper. 

77: 

78: Random networks codes \cite{HoMed03,HoKoe03} are linear network codes

79: in which the encoding coefficients are chosen randomly from a finite

80: field. The sink nodes can decode correctly if and only if the overall

81: transfer matrix from the sources to each sink is invertible. One of

82: the main theoretical results for random network codes consists of the

83: following lower bound on the probability of successful decoding

84: \cite{HoMed03}, assuming that the underlying network is linearly

85: solvable over $\FF_q$ (i.e. there exists a linear code which satisfies

86: the multicast requirements).  For a network code in which some of the

87: code coefficients are chosen independently and uniformly from a finite

88: field with cardinality $q$, the probability that all $d$ receivers can

89: decode the source processes is at least

90: \begin{equation}\label{eq:bound}

91:   \left(1-\frac{d}{q}\right)^{\nu}

92: \end{equation}

93: where $\nu$ is the maximum number of links receiving signals with

94: independent random coefficients in any set of links constituting a

95: flow solution from all sources to any receiver \cite{HoKoe03}. 

96: 

97: A looser bound (subject to the same conditions as above) which depends

98: only on $\eta$, the total number of edges receiving signals with

99: independent random coefficients is given by \cite{HoMed03,HoMed}

100: \begin{equation}

101:   \label{eq:bound2}

102:   \left(1-\frac{d}{q}\right)^\eta.

103: \end{equation}

104: 

105: Thus provided a linear solution over $\FF_q$ exists in the first

106: place, the probability of successful decoding can be made as close to

107: one as desired, by increasing the field size $q$. The bounds

108: (\ref{eq:bound}) and (\ref{eq:bound2}) rely on the special structure

109: of the determinant polynomial of the transfer matrix of the network.

110: 

111: This paper develops the following new lower bound.

112: 

113: \begin{theorem}

114:   Consider a network code in which $\eta$ edges receive signals with

115:   independent random coefficients chosen independently and uniformly

116:   from a finite field with cardinality $q$.  If there is some choice

117:   of coefficients for these $\eta$ edges that results in a solution

118:   over $\FF_q$ then the probability that all receivers can decode the

119:   source processes is at least

120:   \begin{equation}

121:     \label{eq:newbound}

122:     \left(1-\frac{1}{q}\right)^{\eta}.

123:   \end{equation}

124: \end{theorem}

125: 

126: Our approach for the proof of this theorem is to identify a critical

127: sub-matrix of the Edmonds matrix whose non-singularity is a necessary

128: and sufficient condition for decoding success. This critical matrix is

129: different for each sink in the network.  The new bound results

130: directly from a nesting property of the critical matrices.

131: 

132: In the new bound, the field size $q$ required to attain a given

133: probability of success depends only on the number of edges with random

134: coefficients, and not on the number of sinks. The resulting $d$-fold

135: reduction in the required $q$ could be significant. We emphasize that

136: (\ref{eq:newbound}), like (\ref{eq:bound}) applies only when the

137: underlying network is solvable over $\FF_q$. This is a consequence of

138: the conditions for applicability of the Schwartz-Zippel inequality,

139: which is used in the proof of both bounds. Thus (\ref{eq:newbound})

140: does \emph{not} imply the universal existence of binary solutions for

141: every network. The bounds (\ref{eq:bound}),  (\ref{eq:bound2}) and

142: (\ref{eq:newbound}) only provide lower bounds for a given $q$ when the

143: network is solvable over $\FF_q$.

144: 

145: We further conjecture that for large random networks satisfying

146: certain properties, the success probability behaves as

147: \begin{equation}

148:   \label{eq:conjecture}

149:   \prod_{i=1}^{\numedges} \left(1-\frac{1}{q^i}\right)

150: \end{equation}

151: where $\numedges$ is the total number of links in the network.

152: 

153: The paper is organized as follows: Section \ref{sec:model} presents

154: our model and introduces some algebraic notation.  Section

155: \ref{sec:newbound} develops the new bound (\ref{eq:newbound}), while

156: Section \ref{sec:random} discusses random graphs, leading to the

157: conjecture (\ref{eq:conjecture}).

158: 

159: \section{Network Coding Model}\label{sec:model}

160: We adopt the model from \cite{KoeMed03}. The network is represented by

161: a directed acyclic graph $\graph=(\nodes,\edges)$ with

162: $\numnodes=|\nodes|$ nodes and $\numedges=|\edges|$ edges. There are

163: $r$ independent, discrete source processes with messages

164: belonging to $\FF_q$, and $d\geq 1$ receivers. Each receiver

165: node has $L\geq r$ incoming edges. The multicast requirement is that

166: each receiver node can decode every source message from the signals on

167: its incident edges.

168: 

169: Each edge $\edge\in\edges$ is incident to node $\node\in\nodes$ if

170: $\node=\head(\edge)$, or is an outgoing edge if $\node=\tail(l)$. The

171: in-degree of a node $\node$ is $\din{\node}$ and the out-degree is

172: $\dout{\node}$. The time unit is chosen such that the capacity of each

173: link is one bit per unit time and edges with larger capacity are

174: modeled as parallel edges.  Without loss of generality, it can be

175: assumed that each source is associated with a source node

176: $s_\alpha\in\nodes$ with $\din{s_\alpha}=0$ and $\dout{s_\alpha}=1$,

177: $\alpha=1,2,\dots,r$ . Similarly, each sink node $t_\beta$ has

178: $\din{t_\beta}=r$ and $\dout{t_\beta}=0$, $\beta=1,2,\dots,d$ (it is

179: always possible to obtain such a graph by introducing auxiliary nodes

180: and edges). It will further be assumed that edges are labeled

181: ancestrally.

182: 

183: A \emph{scalar linear network code} for $G$ is an assignment of linear

184: encoding functions $f_v:\FF_q^{\din{v}}\mapsto\FF_q^{\dout{v}}$ to

185: each node $v\in\nodes$. Such codes are sufficient for the multicast

186: problem on acyclic delay networks.  Following \cite{KoeMed03}, define

187: the \emph{encoding matrix} $F\in\FF_q^{\numedges\times\numedges}$

188: where $F_{ij}$ is the coefficient applied to the symbol incoming on

189: edge $i\in\edges$ for contribution to outgoing edge

190: $j\in\edges$. According to the assumption of ancestral ordering, $F$

191: is strictly upper triangular.  Similarly, the \emph{source matrix}

192: $A\in\FF_q^{r\times\numedges}$ maps messages onto outgoing source

193: edges and the \emph{sink matrix}

194: $B_{\beta}\in\FF_q^{r\times\numedges}$ maps incoming sink edges onto

195: the sinks $t_\beta\in\nodes$, $\beta=1, 2,\dots, d$.

196: % Further define

197: % \begin{equation*}

198: % B =

199: % \begin{bmatrix}

200: %   B_1       \\

201: %   B_2

202: %   \vdots    \\

203: %   B_d

204: % \end{bmatrix}

205: % \end{equation*}

206: 

207: Let $x\in\FF_q^{1\times r}$ be a row vector representing the source

208: messages. Then the received vector of symbols

209: $y_\beta\in\FF_q^{1\times r}$ at sink 

210: $\beta=1,2,\dots,d$ is given by

211: \begin{displaymath}

212:   y_\beta = x M_\beta

213: \end{displaymath}

214: where 

215: \begin{equation*}

216:   M_\beta = A (I-F)^{-1} \tran{B_\beta}.  

217: \end{equation*}

218: Each sink can decode all sources if and only if $\det(A (I-F)^{-1}

219: \tran{B_\beta}) \neq 0$ for every $\beta=1,2,\dots,d$, or equivalently

220: if the Edmonds matrix

221: \begin{equation*}

222:   \edmonds_\beta=

223:   \begin{bmatrix}

224:     A & 0 \\

225:     I-F & \tran{B_\beta}

226:   \end{bmatrix}

227: \end{equation*}

228: is non-singular. 

229: 

230: Considering the entries of $A$, $F$ and $B_\beta$ as variables, the

231: Leibniz determinant formula provides a way of writing $\det

232: \edmonds_\beta$ as a multivariate polynomial $P_\beta$ in the $a_{ij},

233: f_{ij}, b_{ij}$. Furthermore, this multivariate polynomial has degree

234: at most $\nu$ but is linear in each variable individually. Therefore

235: the product

236: \begin{equation}

237:   P=\prod_\beta P_\beta\label{eq:P}

238: \end{equation}

239: has degree $d\nu$, with each variable of degree $d$ or less.

240: 

241: The lower bound (\ref{eq:bound}) results from a modified

242: Schwartz-Zippel bound, which takes into account the individual

243: variable degree constraint of $P_\beta$ \cite[Lemma 1]{HoKoe03}. We

244: reproduce this lemma for reference.

245: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:sz}

246:   Let $P$ be a multivariate polynomial of degree $d\nu$, with the

247:   exponent of any individual variable at most $d$. Let each variable

248:   be chosen uniformly from $\FF_q$. Then if $P$ is not identically

249:   zero,

250:   \begin{equation}\label{eq:sz}

251:     \Pr\left(P\neq0\right) \geq \left(1-\frac{d}{q}\right)^\nu.

252:   \end{equation}

253: \end{lemma}

254: 

255: We make two remarks on this approach. First, application of Lemma

256: \ref{lem:sz} to $P$ as defined in (\ref{eq:P}) implies an independence

257: of the events $P_{\beta_1}=0$ and $P_{\beta_2}=0$. Depending on the

258: structure of the network, these events may be strongly dependent. For

259: example, consider $P_{1}=P_{2}=\dots=P_d$, meaning all sinks have

260: identical incoming signals ($B_1=B_2=\dots=B_d$). Then Lemma

261: \ref{lem:sz} yields a lower bound $(1-d/q)^\nu$, rather than

262: $(1-1/q)^\nu$. Obviously this is an extreme example, yet it

263: illustrates the point that (\ref{eq:bound}) may be loose.

264: 

265: Secondly, the modified Schwartz-Zippel bound itself can be very loose,

266: as the following example shows. Let $H\in\FF_q^{m\times m}$ with each

267: entry $h_{ij}$ chosen independently with a uniform distribution on

268: $\FF_q$. Then it is well known that

269: \begin{equation}

270:   \label{eq:fullexact}

271:   \Pr\left(\det H \neq 0\right) = \pi_m(q) = \prod_{i=1}^m

272:   \left(1-q^{-i}\right). 

273: \end{equation}

274: In contrast, Lemma \ref{lem:sz} gives the lower bound

275: \begin{equation}\label{eq:badbound}

276:   \Pr\left(\det H \neq 0\right) \geq \left(1-q^{-1}\right)^m, 

277: \end{equation}

278: which also could be obtained from (\ref{eq:fullexact}) by lower

279: bounding each term in the product by the minimum term

280: $(1-q^{-1})$. 

281: 

282: We emphasize that (\ref{eq:sz}) applies only when $P$ is not

283: identically zero for every choice of variables (e.g. all coefficients

284: are zero). This precludes application of (\ref{eq:sz}) to non-solvable

285: networks, i.e. networks where every choice of $F$ makes $Z_\beta$

286: singular and hence $P=0$.

287: 

288: In Section \ref{sec:newbound} we partially address the dependency

289: between the $P_\beta$, while in Section \ref{sec:random} we consider

290: large random networks, where we also discuss the extent to which

291: (\ref{eq:fullexact}) improves (\ref{eq:badbound}).

292: 

293: \section{The New Bound} \label{sec:newbound} According to our

294: assumption regarding sources and sinks, and the ancestral ordering of edges,

295: we can further assume without loss of generality that

296: \begin{align*}

297:   A &=

298:   \begin{bmatrix}

299:     I_{r\times r} & 0_{r\times (\numedges-r)}

300:   \end{bmatrix}

301:   \\

302:   B_\beta &=

303:   \begin{bmatrix}

304:     0_{r\times k_\beta} & I_{r\times r} & 0_{r\times(\numedges-r-k_\beta)}

305:   \end{bmatrix}, \beta=1,2,\dots,d

306: \end{align*}

307: where $k_1>r$ and $k_\beta > r+k_{\beta-1}$, $\beta>1$. This means

308: that the sources inject messages into the network via edges

309: $1,2,\dots,r$ and that each sink observes signals on $r$ consecutively

310: numbered edges. No sink shares edges with any other sink or

311: source. See Figure \ref{fig:butterfly} for an example of how to

312: arrive at this formulation.

313: 

314: Then the Edmonds matrix for sink $\beta$ has the following structure:

315: \begin{equation}

316:   Z_\beta =

317:   \begin{bmatrix}

318:     I_{r} & 0   & 0   & 0 & 0      \\

319:     U_1           & W_{11} & W_{12} & W_{13} & 0 \\

320:     0             & U_2 & W_{21} & W_{22} & 0 \\

321:     0             & 0   & U_3     & W_{31} & I_{r} \\

322:     0             & 0   & 0       & U_4   & 0

323:   \end{bmatrix}

324: \end{equation}

325: where the $U_i$ are square, upper triangular with diagonal elements all

326: equal to $1$. The matrices $U_1$ and $U_3$ are  $r\times r$, $U_2$ is

327: $(k_\beta-2r)\times(k_\beta-2r)$ and $U_4$ is

328: $(\numedges-r-k_\beta)\times(\numedges-r-k_\beta)$. 

329: 

330: \begin{definition}

331:   The \emph{critical matrix} for sink $\beta$ is the following

332:   $(k_\beta-r)\times(k_\beta-r)$ principal sub-matrix of $Z_\beta$,

333:   \begin{equation}\label{eq:critical}

334:     C_\beta = \begin{pmatrix}

335:       W_{11} & W_{12} \\

336:       U_2 & W_{21}

337:     \end{pmatrix}.

338:   \end{equation}

339: \end{definition}

340: 

341: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:critical}

342: The determinant of the Edmonds matrix for sink $\beta$ has the same

343: magnitude as the determinant of its critical matrix. 

344: \begin{equation*}

345:   |\det Z_\beta| = |\det C_\beta| 

346: \end{equation*}

347: \end{lemma}

348: \begin{proof}

349:   Straightforward from either the Laplace expansion of $\det Z_\beta$,

350:   or repeated application of the partitioned matrix determinant formula.

351: \end{proof}

352: We can immediately apply Lemma \ref{lem:sz} to $\det C_\beta$ to bound

353: the probability for a given sink

354: \begin{equation}\label{eq:onesink}

355:   \Pr\left(\det Z_\beta\neq 0\right) = \Pr\left(\det C_\beta\neq

356:     0\right) \geq \left(1-\frac{1}{q}\right)^{\eta_\beta},

357: \end{equation}

358: where $\eta_\beta$ is the number of columns in $C_\beta$ with variable

359: terms, i.e. the number of edges in the subset $\{r+1,r+2,\dots,k_\beta\}$

360: receiving signals with random coefficients.

361: 

362: For the $d$ receiver problem, we have the following very useful

363: property of the critical matrices, which is guaranteed by their

364: construction.

365: \begin{lemma}[Nesting of critical matrices]\label{lem:nesting}

366:   $C_{\beta_1}$ is a principal

367:   sub-matrix of $C_{\beta_2}$ for $\beta_2 > \beta_1$.  

368: \end{lemma}

369: Hence each critical matrix $C_\beta$ has as nested principal

370: sub-matrices, all the critical matrices for sinks $1,2,\dots,\beta-1$.

371: 

372: \begin{proof}[Proof of main result (\ref{eq:newbound})]

373:   Let $\event_\beta$, $\beta=1,2,\dots,d$ be the event that sink $\beta$ can

374:   decode. By Lemma \ref{lem:critical}, $\event_\beta \iff

375:   \det Z_\beta \neq 0 \iff \det C_\beta \neq 0$. Now the probability

376:   that all sinks can decode is given by

377:   \begin{equation}\label{eq:chainrule}

378:     \Pr\left(\bigcap_{\beta=1}^d \event_\beta\right) =

379:     \Pr(\event_1) \Pr(\event_2\mid\event_1) \dots

380:     \Pr(\event_\beta\mid\event_1\dots\event_{\beta-1})   

381:   \end{equation}

382:   Now consider $\Pr(\event_m\mid\event_1,\dots,\event_{m-1}) = \Pr(\det

383:   C_m\neq 0 \mid \det C_1 \neq 0,\dots,\det C_{m-1}\neq0)$ for some $2\leq

384:   m\leq\beta$. By Lemma \ref{lem:nesting}, $C_m$ can be partitioned

385:   \begin{equation*}

386:     C_m =

387:     \begin{pmatrix}

388:       C_{m-1} & U \\

389:       V & W

390:     \end{pmatrix}

391:   \end{equation*}

392:   for appropriate choices of $U, V, W$. 

393: 

394:   Conditioned on $\det C_{m-1} \neq 0$, we can use the partitioned

395:   matrix determinant formula to write

396:   \begin{equation}\label{eq:partitiondet}

397:     \det C_m = \det(C_{m-1}) \det\left(W - V C_{m-1}^{-1} U\right),

398:   \end{equation}

399:   which (conditioned on $\det C_{m-1} \neq 0$) is zero if and only if

400:   $\det\left(W - V C_{m-1}^{-1} U\right)=0$.

401: 

402:   Let $\phi_m$ be the multivariate polynomial corresponding to $\det

403:   C_m$, and let $\sigma_{m-1}$ be the multivariate polynomial

404:   corresponding to $\det\left(W - V C_{m-1}^{-1} U\right)$. Then from

405:   (\ref{eq:partitiondet}) $\deg\phi_m = \deg\phi_{m-1} +

406:   \deg\sigma_{m-1}$. This relation also holds for the degree of any

407:   individual variable. From the Leibniz formula and the structure of

408:   the Edmonds matrix (as explained previously for $P_\beta$), we also

409:   know that the individual degree of any variable in $\phi_m$ or

410:   $\phi_{m-1}$ is zero or one.  Hence

411:   \begin{equation*}

412:     \deg\sigma_{m-1} = \deg\phi_m - \deg\phi_{m-1},

413:   \end{equation*}

414:   and the degree of any individual variable in $\sigma_{m-1}$ is at

415:   most 1.  Collecting results so far and applying Lemma \ref{lem:sz},

416:   \begin{align*}

417:     \Pr(\event_m\mid\event_1,\dots,\event_{m-1})

418:     &= \Pr\left(\det\left(W - V C_{m-1}^{-1} U\right)\neq 0 \right) \\

419:       &=

420:     \Pr\left(\sigma_{m-1}\neq 0\right) \\ &\leq

421:     \left(1-\frac{1}{q}\right)^{\deg\phi_m - \deg\phi_{m-1}} 

422:   \end{align*}

423:   

424:   Finally, substitution into (\ref{eq:chainrule}) results in a

425:   telescoping sum for the exponents, $\deg\phi_1 + \deg\phi_2 -

426:   \deg\phi_1 + \deg\phi_3 - \deg\phi_2 + \dots$, leaving only

427:   \begin{equation*}

428:     \Pr\left(\bigcap_{\beta=1}^d \event_\beta\right) \geq \left(1 -

429:       \frac{1}{q}\right)^{\deg\phi_d} 

430:   \end{equation*}

431: 

432:   This directly yields (\ref{eq:newbound}) via $d\nu \leq \eta

433:   \triangleq \deg\phi_d = \eta_d \leq \numedges$.

434: \end{proof}

435: 

436: Let 

437: \begin{equation*}

438:   z(d,q)=\frac{\log(1-d/q)}{\log(1-1/q)}.

439: \end{equation*}

440: Then (\ref{eq:newbound}) is tighter than (\ref{eq:bound}) whenever

441: \begin{equation*}

442:   \eta < \nu\, z(d,q).

443: \end{equation*}

444: Furthermore, $z(d,q)>d$ and

445: \begin{align*}

446:   \lim_{q\rightarrow d}z(d,q)&=\infty \\

447:   \lim_{q\rightarrow\infty}z(d,q)&=d.

448: \end{align*}

449: Roughly speaking, the new bound is tighter for networks with

450: $\numedges = O(\nu d)$ and sufficiently small $q$.

451: 

452: In some instances it may be useful to have a bound which depends only

453: on the total number of edges carrying signals with random

454: coefficients. Replacing $\nu$ with $\eta$ in (\ref{eq:bound}) results

455: in (\ref{eq:bound2}) which is looser than (\ref{eq:newbound}), since

456: \begin{equation*}

457:    \left(1-d/q\right)^\eta < \left(1-1/q\right)^\eta.

458: \end{equation*}

459: 

460: Note that successful decoding at a particular sink $\beta$ in general

461: depends on only part of $C_\beta$. There can be a much smaller

462: sub-matrix that determines singularity, for example, $C_\beta$ might

463: be block diagonal, with successful decoding of sink $\beta$ depending

464: only on one of the blocks (this case arises when there are disjoint

465: paths from the sources to each sink). Thus $C_\beta$ may be larger

466: than strictly required for analysis of sink $\beta$ alone, however

467: defining the critical matrix this way yields the nesting property that

468: results in the new bound.

469: 

470: \section{Example: The Butterfly Network}

471: Figure \ref{fig:butterfly} shows the well-known butterfly network,

472: with additional nodes and edges introduced in order to satisfy our

473: assumptions on sources and sinks. The source $s$ has $r=2$ messages,

474: and the edge labels indicate the edge ordering. Edges $1$ and $2$

475: carry the two messages from the source, while edges $12$ resp. $13$

476: duplicate the signals on edges $5$ resp. $10$, and edges $14$

477: resp. $15$ duplicate $8$ resp. $11$. Supposing that all other edges

478: carry random linear combinations of signals, $\nu=7$ and $\eta = 9$.

479: 

480: \begin{figure}[htbp]

481:   \centering

482:   \includegraphics*[scale=0.7]{butterfly}

483:   \caption{The butterfly network.}

484:   \label{fig:butterfly}

485: \end{figure}

486: 

487: Figure \ref{fig:critical} shows the structure of the Edmonds matrix

488: $Z_1$, and the nested critical matrices $C_1$ and $C_2$. To see how

489: the nesting arises, $B_2$ has been placed alongside. For clarity, most

490: of the zeros have been omitted from each matrix. The solid disks

491: represent random entries of $F$.

492: 

493: \begin{figure}[htbp]

494:   \centering

495:   \includegraphics*[width=0.8\columnwidth]{critical}

496:   \caption{Critical matrices for the butterfly network.}

497:   \label{fig:critical}

498: \end{figure}

499: 

500: Figure \ref{fig:plot} shows the empirically measured probability of

501: decoding success versus the field size $q$ for the network of Figure

502: \ref{fig:butterfly} (filled circles). This was achieved using monte-carlo

503: simulation, selecting each of the coefficients uniformly from $\FF_q$.

504: Results for the first ten prime fields are shown. Also shown are the

505: existing bounds (\ref{eq:bound}), dashed line, (\ref{eq:bound2}), solid

506: line, and the new bound (\ref{eq:newbound}), dot-dashed line. In this

507: case, the new bound is considerably tighter.

508: 

509:  

510: %  The matrices $A$,

511: % $B_1$, $B_2$ and $F$ have the following form.

512: % \begin{align*}

513: %   A &=

514: %   \begin{bmatrix}

515: %     I_2 & 0_{13}

516: %   \end{bmatrix} \\

517: %   B_1 &=

518: %   \begin{bmatrix}

519: %     0_{11} & I_2 & 0_{2}

520: %   \end{bmatrix} \\

521: %   B_2 &=

522: %   \begin{bmatrix}

523: %     0_{13} & I_2 

524: %   \end{bmatrix} \\

525: % I-F &=

526: % \left[

527: % \begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc}

528: %  1&&x&x&&&&&&&&&&& \\

529: %  &1&x&x&&&&&&&&&&& \\

530: %  &&1&&x&x&&&&&&&&& \\

531: %  &&&1&&&x&x&&&&&&& \\

532: %  &&&&1&&&&&&&x&&& \\

533: %  &&&&&1&&&x&&&&&& \\

534: %  &&&&&&1&&x&&&&&& \\

535: %  &&&&&&&1&&&&&&&x \\

536: %  &&&&&&&&1&x&x&&&& \\

537: %  &&&&&&&&&1&&&x&& \\

538: %  &&&&&&&&&&1&&&x& \\

539: %  &&&&&&&&&&&1&&& \\

540: %  &&&&&&&&&&&&1&& \\

541: %  &&&&&&&&&&&&&1& \\

542: % \end{array}\right]

543: % \end{align*}

544: 

545:  

546: \begin{figure}[htbp]

547:   \centering

548:   \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

549:   {\begin{picture}(85,55)

550:     \put(0,0){\includegraphics*[width=0.9\columnwidth]{plot}}

551:     \put(85,0){\makebox(0,0){$q$}}

552:     \put(0,55){\makebox(0,0){$p$}}

553:   \end{picture}}

554:   \caption{Success probability $p$ versus field size $q$ compared to

555:     bounds (\ref{eq:bound}), (\ref{eq:bound2}) and

556:     (\ref{eq:newbound}) for the butterfly network.}

557:   \label{fig:plot}

558: \end{figure}

559: 

560: \section{Random Graphs}\label{sec:random}

561: Successful decoding for a particular sink $\beta$ depends on the

562: non-singularity of its critical matrix $C_\beta$. To obtain

563: (\ref{eq:newbound}) we used Lemma \ref{lem:sz} to bound the

564: probability that this matrix is non-singular. It is interesting to

565: consider however circumstances under which (\ref{eq:fullexact}) might

566: be applicable, providing an even tighter bound.

567: 

568: There are two main obstacles to the application of

569: (\ref{eq:fullexact}) for determination of the probability that $\det

570: C_\beta\neq 0$. Firstly, (\ref{eq:fullexact}) applies to ``full''

571: matrices, with each element chosen independently and uniformly from

572: $\FF_q$.  In contrast, $C_\beta$ is of the form (\ref{eq:critical}),

573: with all elements below the $r$-th diagonal equal to zero (the

574: strictly lower triangular part of $U_2$). Secondly, the non-zero

575: elements in the upper portion (upper triangular part of $U_2$ and all

576: of $W_{11}$, $W_{12}$ and $W_{21}$) of $C_\beta$ are determined by the

577: topology of the network itself. For a sparsely connected network, the

578: proportion of zeros in this part of the matrix will greatly exceed

579: $1/q$.

580: 

581: Assuming that the random network code coefficients are chosen from the

582: non-zero elements of $\FF_q$, the total number of non-zero elements in

583: $F$ is

584: \begin{equation*}

585:   \sigma \triangleq \sum_{\node\in\nodes} \din{\node}\dout{\node} \leq

586:   \numedges^2. 

587: \end{equation*}

588: Let $\rho=\sigma/E^2$ be the proportion of non-zero elements. Ignoring

589: the structure required by (\ref{eq:critical}), generate a random

590: $m\times m$ matrix $C^{(m)}$ with elements identically distributed

591: according to

592: \begin{equation*}

593:   \Pr\left(c_{ij}=f\right) =

594:   \begin{cases}

595:     1-\rho & f=0 \\

596:     \frac{\rho}{q-1} & f \neq 0

597:   \end{cases}

598: \end{equation*}

599: 

600: It is a remarkable fact that provided $\rho$ does not tend to zero or one

601: too quickly with $m$, 

602: \begin{equation*}

603:   \lim_{m\rightarrow\infty} \Pr\left(\det C^{(m)}\neq 0\right) = \pi_m(q).

604: \end{equation*}

605: See \cite{Coo00} for a discussion of this threshold

606: effect. Conditioned on the event that $C^{(m)}$ has no all-zero rows

607: or columns (if it did, the network flow would anyway be infeasible

608: regardless of choice of code), the requirement is

609: \begin{equation*}

610:   \rho > \frac{1}{m}\left(\frac{1}{2}\log m + \log\log m\right).

611: \end{equation*}

612: This result even holds for independent, but non-identically

613: distributed entries, as discussed by Cooper \cite{Coo00}.  

614: 

615: Now for sufficiently small $\rho$, $C^{(m)}$ can be permuted with high

616: probability into the form (\ref{eq:critical}). This leads us to

617: conjecture that there exist conditions on $\sigma$ such that

618: $\pi_m(q)$ is the success probability for a large, randomly generated

619: network with a given degree distribution. The remainder of this

620: section analyzes some properties of $\pi_m(q)$, and demonstrates the

621: improvement that may be obtained compared to (\ref{eq:badbound}).

622: 

623: To guarantee a particular probability $p$ using (\ref{eq:badbound}),

624: the field size $q$ must satisfy

625: \begin{equation*}

626:   q \geq \frac{1}{1-p^{1/m}} =  \frac{1}{2}+ m \log \frac{1}{p} +

627:   O\left(\frac{1}{m}\right).  

628: \end{equation*}

629: Hence the required field size increases linearly with the size of the

630: matrix.

631: 

632: % \begin{equation*}

633: %   \lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\left(1-1/q\right)^m = 0

634: % \end{equation*}

635: 

636: Let $\pi_\infty(q)=\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\pi_m(q)$ then

637: \begin{equation*}

638:   \pi_\infty(q) = \prod_{i=1}^\infty\left(1-q^{-i}\right) = q^{1/24}

639:   \left(\frac{1}{2} 

640:   \vartheta_1'\left(q^{-1/2}\right)\right)^{1/3},

641: \end{equation*}

642: where $\vartheta_1$ is the Jacobi theta function \cite[Equation

643: 8.181.3]{GraRyz94} and

644: \begin{align*}

645:   \vartheta_1'(q) &= \left.\frac{\partial}{\partial

646:       z}\vartheta_1(z,q)\right|_{z=0} \\

647:   &= 2\sum_{i=0}^\infty (-1)^i (1+2i) q^{-\frac{1}{2}(i+\frac{1}{2})^2}.

648: \end{align*}

649: Truncating the latter series gives the following lower bound,

650: \begin{equation*}

651:   \pi_\infty(q) \geq \left(1-\frac{3}{x}\right)^{1/3}.

652: \end{equation*}

653: This lower bound is compared to $\pi_\infty$ for the first 20 primes

654: in Figure \ref{fig:bound}. 

655: \begin{figure}

656:   \centering

657:   \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

658:   {\begin{picture}(80,55)

659:     \put(0,0){\includegraphics*[width=80mm]{fg}}

660:     \put(80,1){\makebox(0,0){$q$}}

661:     \put(1,50){\makebox(0,0){$\pi_\infty$}}

662:   \end{picture}}

663:   \caption{Lower bound (solid line) and $\pi_\infty(q)$ (dots).}

664:   \label{fig:bound}

665: \end{figure}

666: For a given probability $p$ in (\ref{eq:fullexact}), the required

667: field size $q$ for $m\rightarrow\infty$ satisfies

668: \begin{equation*}

669:   q \geq \frac{3}{1-p^3}.

670: \end{equation*}

671: which does not depend on $m$.

672: 

673: \section{Concluding remarks}

674: \label{sec:conclusion}

675: Random network coding is a promising decentralized approach for

676: multicast. One of the main implementation considerations is the size

677: of the finite field required to achieve a specified probability that

678: every sink can decode every source. This paper presented a new bound

679: on the success probability, which in certain circumstances is tighter

680: that the previous bound. We also presented a heuristic argument that

681: motivates the investigation of tighter bounds for large random

682: networks, based on the distribution of rank of large random finite

683: field matrices. 

684: 

685: \section*{Acknowledgments}

686: This work was performed while A. Tauste Campo was visiting the

687: Institute for Telecommunications Research.  This work was supported by

688: the Australian Government under grant DP0557310, and by the Defence

689: Science and Technology Organisation under contracts 4500485167 and

690: 4500550654. The authors would like to thank Ian Grivell and Terence

691: Chan and for helpful discussions.

692: 

693: \bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}

694: \bibliography{network,alex}

695: 

696: \end{document}

697: