1 / 1

Relaying in networks with multiple sources has new aspects:

Noise: Powers. Performance Bounds for the Interference Channel with a Relay. Ivana Mari ć , Ron Dabora and Andrea Goldsmith. Summary. Introduction. Motivation. ACHIEVEMENT DESCRIPTION. Several relaying strategies for forwarding information to a single receiver exist

Download Presentation

Relaying in networks with multiple sources has new aspects:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Noise: Powers Performance Bounds for the Interference Channel with a Relay Ivana Marić, Ron Dabora and Andrea Goldsmith Summary Introduction Motivation ACHIEVEMENT DESCRIPTION Several relaying strategies for forwarding information to a single receiver exist Capacity of networks are still unknown; one of the key obstacles: how to handle and exploit interference? What is the performance when relaying for multiple sources? • We have previously proposed a coding scheme for the ICR and derived achievable rates • We have shown that interference forwarding can improve performance by facilitating interference cancellation • The relay ‘pushes’ a receiver into the strong interference regime where decoding an interfering message is optimal • This can hurt a receiver if increased interference is not strong enough for decoding • Relaying in networks with multiple sources has new aspects: • Relaying messages to one destination increases interference to others • Relays can jointly encode messages from multiple sources • Many relevant encoding strategies exist • Current approach: multihop routing • Time shares between data streams (no joint encoding) • Does not exploit broadcast or interference • We consider smallest such network: the interference channel with a relay (ICR) • Related work: • Sridharan, Vishwanath, Jafar and Shamai [ISIT 2008]: Rates and degrees of freedom when the relay is cognitive • Sahin and Erkip [Asilomar 2007, 2008] • MAIN ACHIEVEMENT: • A new sum-rate outer bound to the performance of the Gaussian interference channel with a relay • HOW IT WORKS: • A genie gives to a receiver minimum information needed for decoding both messages • ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS: • The considered channel model: the interference channel with a relay • The genie cannot be turned-off even when not needed i.e., in strong interference regime. • In relay networks: • Relays forward data for a single source-destination pair • Cooperative strategies improve performance and exploit the broadcast nature of wireless medium • In networks with multiple sources: • The center issue is coping with interference created by simultaneous transmissions • A relay helping one destination can hurt others • Networks with multiple sources contain broadcast, multicast, relay and interference channels • Tighter outer bound than cut-set bound and than existing cognitive ICR bounds • Close to achievable rates in strong interference IMPACT STATUS QUO A genie-added approach for an interference channel outer bound extended to the interference channel with a relay. Genie gives a receiver noisy inputs from sources and the relay. Although inputs are dependent (unlike in interference channels), one can still optimize inputs to obtain a bound. NEW INSIGHTS • Apply interference forwarding and the outer bound approach to larger networks NEXT-PHASE GOALS A sum-rate outer bound for the Gaussian interference channel with a relay developed. Comparisons A New Sum-Rate Outer Bound for Gaussian Channels Channel Model • Extend the approach developed for Gaussian interference channels by [Kramer 2004] • A genie gives to a receiver minimum information about source and relay inputs needed for decoding both messages • We choose parameters so that receiver 1 gets less noisy observation about W2 than receiver2 • Gaussian channels: DMCs: -> When var( Ze )<var( Z2 )receiver 1 can decode (W1,W2) ? • One can show that • Maximized by jointly Gaussian inputs • Two messages: • The sum-rate is upper bounded by • Rates: • The new bound tighter than the cut-set bound for parameter values for which receiver 1 can decode W2 • Encoding: • Receiver 1 can form an estimate: • Decoding: • The new bound tighter than bounds for cognitive ICR • Close to achievable rates in strong interference Capacity Result in Strong Interference Conclusions and Future Work • We define strong interference conditions as: • Also obtained strong interference conditions for our proposed encoding scheme • Proposed encoding scheme: • Gaussian inputs • Encoders split power between sending new data and cooperating with the relay • The relay splits its power to cooperate with both pairs • We obtain strong interference conditions as: • Future work: • Limitation of the approach: both decoders decode both messages • A genie technique recently developed for ICs may overcome this problem • Challenge: determining optimal channel inputs • For ICs: Gaussian inputs are optimal • Apply and analyze interference forwarding and the genie-added approach employed in this outer bound to larger networks (2) • Developed a sum-rate outer bound for Gaussian channels • Demonstrated that the bound can be significantly tighter than the cut-set bound and than the existing cognitive ICR bounds • The bound is close to the achievable rates in the strong interference regime for any distribution p(x1)p(x2)p(x3 |x1x2)p(y1,y2|x1,x2,x3) • Analogous to the strong interference conditions by Costa and El Gamal for interference channels (IC) • (2) imply that the flow of information from each source to the non-intended receiver is better than to the intended receiver • Then, receivers can decode undesired messages (3) • The channel degradedness condition: • Theorem: When (2)-(3) hold, rates (1) are the capacity region. • In strong interference, decoding both messages is optimal

More Related