Professional Documents
Culture Documents
11
b
22
b
2 1
b
2 k
b
1 k
b
2 K
b
1 K
b
relay
Phase 1: users transmit to relay
relay
11
b
12
b
21
b
2 2
b
1 k
b
2 k
b
1 K
b
2 K
b
Phase 2: relay broadcasts to users
12
b
11
b
22
b
2 1
b
2 k
b
1 k
b
2 K
b
1 K
b
relay
Fig. 1. System model.
phase which are shown to converge to the corresponding
unique optimum. Together, the two algorithms produce the
overall minimum power solution. We validate our theoretical
ndings by showing numerical examples where the proposed
joint optimum interference management for the multiuser two-
way system is observed to provide signicant power savings
over designs with a one-way communication perspective.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
We consider a multiuser two-way relaying system shown in
Fig. 1, which consists of K pairs of users and an intermediate
relay node. User i1 and i2 (i [1, K]) are a pair of partners
who wish to communicate with each other via the relay node
indexed as 0. We remark that each node wishes to communi-
cate with one (pre-assigned) partner only and is uninterested
in the remaining transmissions (as in an interference channel).
We assume the users and the relay node are half-duplex and
equipped with single antenna, and there is no direct link
between partners. The information exchange between partners
via the relay is accomplished in two phases. The rst phase
is dedicated to the transmissions from all users to the relay,
and the second phase is dedicated to the transmissions from
the relay to all the users. For clarity of exposition, we assume
a synchronous DS-CDMA system employing non-orthogonal
signatures with spreading gain N.
In the rst phase, all users spread and transmit their symbols
to the relay simultaneously, the ith pair of users, i1 and
i2, using their common signature waveform s
i
(t) [1], with
transmit powers p
i1
and p
i2
, respectively. The channel gain
from user i1 and i2 to the relay are denoted by h
i1
and h
i2
,
and reciprocal channels are assumed. The channel gains stay
constant for the duration of the communication. The received
signal at the relay is given by
r
0
(t) =
K
i=1
(
_
p
i1
h
i1
b
i1
+
_
p
i2
h
i2
b
i2
)s
i
(t) + n
0
(t) (1)
where b
i1
and b
i2
are the symbols of the user i1 and i2, and
n
0
(t) denotes the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at
the relay, with zero mean and power spectral density
2
n0
. We
assume that we have b
i1
,b
i2
{1,+1} with equal probability.
The discrete-time equivalent received signal at the output of
the chip matched lter is
r
0
=
K
i=1
(
_
p
i1
h
i1
b
i1
+
_
p
i2
h
i2
b
i2
)s
i
+n
0
(2)
where s
i
denotes the unit norm spreading sequence, n
0
is the
zero-mean Gaussian random vector with E[n
0
n
0
] =
2
n0
I
N
where ()
i
r
0
and then makes a
hard decision on y
i
to obtain
b
i
, the estimate of b
i
= b
i1
b
i2
for the ith user pair, where represents XOR, the bitwise
exclusive operation. In the second phase, the relay spreads
b
i
with s
i
, for i = 1, ..., K, and broadcasts x
0
=
K
i=1
p
0i
b
i
s
i
to all users, where p
0i
is the transmit power to broadcast
b
i
at
the relay. The received signal at user im in the second phase is
r
im
=
_
h
im
(
K
j=1
p
0j
b
j
s
j
) +n
im
, i = 1, ..., K, m = 1, 2
(3)
where n
im
is the AWGN vector with covariance matrix
2
nim
I
N
. User im applies its linear lter c
im
on r
im
, and ob-
tain
b
im
, the hard decision estimate of
b
i
, from y
im
= c
im
r
im
.
Next, it performs another XOR operation on
b
im
with its own
symbol b
im
to recover its partners symbol. When
b
i
at the
relay and
b
im
at user im are both correct or both wrong, user
im can correctly recover its partners symbol.
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
In this paper, we consider the joint optimization of the
transmit power levels and the receivers for the multiuser
two-way relay network employing JD-XOR-F at the relay
as described in the previous section. We seek to expend the
minimum total transmit power in the system while satisfying
the bit error rate (BER) requirement on both phases of the
communication:
min
{pi1,pi2,p0i,ci,ci1,ci2}
K
i=1
(p
i1
+ p
i2
+ p
0i
) (4)
s.t. Pe1
i
1
i
, Pe2
i1
2
i1
, Pe2
i2
2
i2
(5)
p
i1
0, p
i2
0, p
0i
0 (6)
c
i
R
N
, c
i1
R
N
, c
i2
R
N
, i (7)
where Pe1
i
is the probability in phase one that the relay
makes an incorrect decision on b
i
=b
i1
b
i2
, Pe2
i1
and Pe2
i2
are the error probabilities in phase two that user i1 and
i2 make incorrect decisions on the symbol
b
i
broadcasted
by the relay respectively, and 1
i
, 2
i1
and 2
i2
are the
corresponding system QoS requirements which are given.
Note that the quantities {Pe1
i
}
K
i=1
depend only on the users
transmit power {p
i1
, p
i2
} and the lters {c
i
} in phase one, and
{Pe2
i1
, Pe2
i2
}
K
i=1
depend only on the relay transmit power
{p
0i
} and lters {c
i1
, c
i2
} in phase two. Therefore, the above
problem (4)-(7) can be decoupled into two subproblems, one
for each phase
1
. The rst phase subproblem is:
min
{pi1,pi2,ci}
K
i=1
(p
i1
+ p
i2
) (8)
s.t. Pe1
i
1
i
(9)
p
i1
0, p
i2
0, c
i
R
N
, i (10)
1
We remark that this is a consequence of the detection rule at the relay and
that we need to impose the QoS constraints in both phases.
247
3
and the second phase subproblem is:
min
{p0i,ci1,ci2}
K
i=1
p
0i
(11)
s.t. Pe2
i1
2
i1
, Pe2
i2
2
i2
(12)
p
0i
0, c
i1
R
N
, c
i2
R
N
, i (13)
We next solve these two subproblems.
IV. ITERATIVE INTERFERENCE MANAGEMENT FOR THE
MULTIUSER TWO-WAY RELAY NETWORK
In this section, we investigate the power control and receiver
optimization subproblems for phase one and two respectively.
A. Decision Rule and the BER at the Relay in Phase One
To solve the subproblem for phase one, we rst consider
the ith pair as the desired user pair and x the lter c
i
and
the transmit power of the remainder of the users. The output
of the lter c
i
can be written as
y
i
= c
i
r
0
= (
_
p
i1
h
i1
b
i1
+
_
P
i2
h
i2
b
i2
)c
i
s
i
+
K
j=i
(
_
p
j1
h
j1
b
j1
+
_
p
j2
h
j2
b
j2
)c
i
s
j
+c
i
n
0
(14)
=
q
i1
b
i1
+
q
i2
b
i2
+ N
i
(15)
where q
im
= p
im
h
im
(c
i
s
i
)
2
, m=1,2 denotes the re-
ceived power of user im at the output of the lter,
and N
i
=
K
j=i
(
_
p
j1
h
j1
b
j1
+
_
p
j2
h
j2
b
j2
)c
i
s
j
+c
i
n
0
denotes the interference plus noise term. Let
2
i
=
j=i
(p
j1
h
j1
+p
j2
h
j2
)(c
i
s
j
)
2
+
2
n0
c
i
c
i
be the variance of
N
i
, which we approximate with a Gaussian. This is because
the optimum linear lter, we will observe, as in the case of
one-way communications, is the minimum mean squared error
(MMSE) lter, whose BER can be well approximated by a Q-
function [16].
Estimating b
i
=b
i1
b
i2
is equivalent to making a decision
in favor of one of two hypotheses, i.e., whether b
i1
and b
i2
have the same or opposite sign. It is shown in [1] that the
optimum decision rule does not have a close form solution in
general, which may bring implementation difculties in prac-
tice and the evaluation of the BER may become intractable.
In this paper, we propose that the relay rst jointly detects
(
b
i1
,
b
i2
){(1, 1), (1, 1), (1, 1), (1, 1)} using the max-
imum aposteriori probability (MAP) rule and then generates
b
i
as
b
i
=
b
i1
b
i2
. This way, we obtain a simple decision rule
for
b
i
as
b
i
=
_
1, when y
i
R = {y
i
| y
th
< y
i
< y
th
}
1, when y
i
R
c
(16)
where y
th
=
q
i1
when q
i1
q
i2
, and y
th
=
q
i2
when q
i1
<q
i2
,
and R
c
denotes the complement set of R in R. Under this
decision rule, Pe1
i
, the error probability of estimating b
i
at
the relay, can be obtained as
Pe1
i
=
_
_
Q(
qr
i2
) + 0.5Q(2
qr
i1
qr
i2
)
0.5Q(2
qr
i1
+
qr
i2
), when qr
i1
qr
i2
Q(
qr
i1
) + 0.5Q(2
qr
i2
qr
i1
)
0.5Q(2
qr
i2
+
qr
i1
), when qr
i1
< qr
i2
(17)
where qr
i1
=q
i1
/
2
i
and qr
i2
=q
i2
/
2
i
are the received SIR
of user i1 and i2 at the relay, and the Q-function is
Q(x)=
_
x
1
2
e
t
2
/2
dt. Note that the decision rule in (16)
is near-optimum which has negligible performance loss com-
pared with the optimum one, as we will show in Section V
numerically.
Lemma 1: The error probability function Pe1
i
(qr
i1
, qr
i2
)
is a quasiconvex function of (qr
i1
, qr
i2
) on both R
1
and R
2
,
where R
1
={(qr
i1
, qr
i2
)|qr
i1
> 0, qr
i2
> 0, qr
i1
qr
i2
},
and R
2
={(qr
i1
, qr
i2
)|qr
i1
> 0, qr
i2
> 0, qr
i1
< qr
i2
}
2
.
Proof: First, we prove that Pe1
i
(qr
i1
, qr
i2
) is a qua-
siconvex on R
1
. Let f = Pe1
i
, x
1
= qr
i1
, x
2
= qr
i2
and x = [x
1
, x
2
]
i
s
i
)
2
,
min
{qri1,qri2}
g(qr
i1
, qr
i2
) = (
qri1
hi1
+
qri2
hi2
)
2
i
(c
i
si)
2
(21)
s.t. Pe1
i
1
i
(22)
qr
i1
> 0, qr
i2
> 0 (23)
Note that since Pe1
i
is expressed as a function of (qr
i1
, qr
i2
)
in (17), we replace the variables p
i1
and p
i2
in (8) by qr
i1
and qr
i2
, and let g(qr
i1
, qr
i2
) denote the objective function.
2
Having qr
i1
=0 or qr
i2
=0 leads to Pe1
i
=0.5, which is not a desired
situation in communication systems. Hence, in the sequel, we will exclude
the case qr
i1
=qr
i2
= 0, or equivalently, p
i1
=p
i2
= 0.
248
4
Let the feasible set of the problem in (21)-(23) be
S, which can be partitioned into two sets, S
1
=
{(qr
i1
, qr
i2
)|(qr
i1
, qr
i2
) S, and qr
i1
qr
i2
} and S
2
=
{(qr
i1
, qr
i2
)|(qr
i1
, qr
i2
) S, and qr
i1
< qr
i2
}. Since it
is proved in Lemma 1 that Pe1
i
is quasiconvex on R
1
and
R
2
, the corresponding lower level sets S
1
and S
2
are both
convex sets. Therefore, replacing S by S
1
and S
2
respectively
in problem (21)-(23) leads to two convex problems, each hav-
ing a unique optimum solution, (qr
i1
, qr
i2
) and (qr
i1
, qr
i2
),
respectively, due to the fact that each problem minimizes a
linear objective function g over a convex feasible set. Thus,
the optimum solution of problem (21)-(23), (qr
i1
, qr
i2
), can
be obtained as
(qr
i1
, qr
i2
) = arg min
{qri1,qri2}
_
g(qr
i1
, qr
i2
), g(qr
i1
, qr
i2
)
_
(24)
Next, we dene two quantities
i
and
i
as
i
=
qr
i1
h
i1
+
qr
i2
h
i2
and
i
=
p
i1
p
i2
=
qr
i1
h
i1
h
i2
qr
i2
(25)
Note that (qr
i1
, qr
i2
) depends only on 1
i
and h
i1
/h
i2
, there-
fore,
i
and
i
are functions of (h
i1
, h
i2
, 1
i
) and independent
of (c
i
,
2
i
). We have the following observation.
Observation 1: The error probability constraint in (9),
Pe1
i
(p
i1
, p
i2
) 1
i
, is satised when the transmit power
pair (p
i1
, p
i2
) satises the following condition:
p
i1
+ p
i2
i
2
i
(c
i
s
i
)
2
and p
i1
/p
i2
=
i
(26)
Equivalently, (26) is a sufcient condition for Pe1
i
1
i
,
with the minimum total transmit power requirement on the
ith user pair.
Therefore, we replace Pe1
i
1
i
by (26) in the optimiza-
tion problem (8)-(10) and rewrite it as
min
{pi1,pi2,ci}
K
i=1
(p
i1
+ p
i2
) (27)
s.t. p
i1
+ p
i2
i
2
i
(c
i
si)
2
and p
i1
/p
i2
=
i
(28)
p
i1
> 0, p
i2
> 0, c
i
R
N
, i (29)
Letting p
i1
=
i
p
i2
, h
i
=
i
h
i1
+ h
i2
,
i
=
i
1+i
, and
recalling that
2
i
=
j=i
(p
j1
h
j1
+p
j2
h
j2
)(c
i
s
j
)
2
+
2
n0
c
i
c
i
,
the above optimization problem becomes
min
{pi2,ci}
K
i=1
(1 +
i
)p
i2
(30)
s.t. p
i2
j=i
h
j
pj2(c
i
sj)
2
+
2
n
0
c
i
ci
(c
i
si)
2
(31)
p
i2
> 0, c
i
R
N
, i (32)
We note that this optimization problem is in the similar form
as that in [14]. Therefore, we can now dene
I
i
(p
2
, c
i
) =
j=i
h
j
p
j2
(c
i
s
j
)
2
+
2
n0
c
i
c
i
(c
i
s
i
)
2
(33)
T1
i
(p
2
) = min
ciR
N
I
i
(p
2
, c
i
) (34)
and the iterative power control algorithm
p
2
(n + 1) = T1(p
2
(n)) (35)
where p
2
=[p
12
, ..., p
K2
]
, T1=[T1
1
(p), ..., T1
K
(p)]
, and n
is the iteration index. It is worth emphasizing that h
i
and
i
are calculated prior to the iterative updates, using
i
and
i
in
(25), which are obtained by solving the problem in (21)-(23)
for the ith user pair. For each iteration, the optimum lter c
i
that minimizes I
i
(p
2
, c
i
) is found as
c
i
= (
K
j=1
h
j
p
j2
s
j
s
j
+
2
n0
I)
1
h
i
p
i2
s
i
(36)
which is the MMSE lter that is:
c
i
= arg min
ciR
N
E[((
_
p
i1
h
i1
b
i1
+
_
p
i2
h
i2
b
i2
)c
i
r
0
)
2
] (37)
Finally, p
i1
can be obtained from p
i2
by the relationship
p
i1
=
i
p
i2
. Note that the implementation of this algorithm in
a distributed fashion requires only a pair of partners to know
each others channel gain, but none of the interferers.
C. Power Control and Receiver Optimization in Phase Two
In this section, we investigate the power control and receiver
optimization subproblem in (11)-(13) for the second phase.
The output of the linear lter c
im
at user im is
y
im
=
_
p
0i
h
im
(c
im
s
i
)
b
i
+
j=i
_
p
0j
h
im
(c
im
s
j
)
b
j
+c
im
n
im
,
for i = 1, ..., K, m = 1, 2 (38)
and the received SIR is
SIR
im
=
p
0i
h
im
(c
im
s
i
)
2
j=i
p
0j
h
im
(c
im
s
j
)
2
+
2
nim
c
im
c
im
(39)
The error probability of recovering
b
i
at user im can be well
approximated by Pe2
im
= Q(
SIR
im
) [16]. Hence, the
error probability requirement Pe2
im
2
im
is equivalent
to the SIR requirement SIR
im
im
with
im
satisfying
2
im
= Q(
im
). Therefore, we have
p
0i
T2
im
(p
0
) = min
cimR
N
I
mi
(40)
where p
0
= [p
01
, ..., p
0K
]
and
I
im
=
im
h
im
j=i
p
0j
h
im
(c
im
s
j
)
2
+
2
nim
c
im
c
im
(c
im
s
i
)
2
(41)
The solution of the optimization problem on the RHS in (40)
for xed power levels can be found as
c
im
=
_
_
K
j=1
h
jm
p
0j
s
j
s
j
+
2
nim
I
_
_
1
_
h
im
p
0i
s
i
(42)
which is the MMSE lter at user im that is:
c
im
= arg min
cimR
N
E[(
_
p
0i
h
im
b
i
c
im
r
im
)
2
] (43)
The optimization problem in (27)-(29) is hence equivalent to
min
p0
K
i=1
p
0i
(44)
s.t. p
0i
T2
i
(p
0
) = max(T2
i1
(p
0
), T2
i2
(p
0
)), i(45)
249
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Number of iterations
T
o
t
a
l
u
s
e
r
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
p
o
w
e
r
(
W
a
t
t
s
)
EqTxPower
EqRxPower
Optimum
Fig. 2. Comparison of the total user transmit power among different power
control algorithms in phase one of two-way JD-XOR-F relaying.
It can be shown that T2
i
(p
0
) is a standard interference
function [13], [14]. Therefore, we dene the power control
algorithm for the second phase as
p
0
(n + 1) = T2(p
0
(n)) (46)
where T2(p
0
)=[T2
1
(p
0
), ..., T2
K
(p
0
)]