t9 PDF

Opportunistic Communication: Unified View &
New Applications
Aria Nosratinia
IEEE Global Communications Conference (Globecom)
Atlanta, Georgia, 2013
Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 1/ 133
Background and Disclaimers
Pre-requisites: introductory knowledge of wireless channel models,

capacity and mutual information, signaling
Emphasis on results and intuition.
Proofs and detailed explanations omitted.
Disclaimer 1: Tone and coverage reflective of author’s experiences &

style.
Disclaimer 2: Every attempt is made to be inclusive, but coverage is

not exhaustive.

Tutorial Outline
Multiuser Diversity
Antenna Selection
Relay Selection
Generalized Opportunistic Relay Networks
Opportunistic Multiuser Cognitive Radio
Multiuser Diversity

Outline: Multiuser Diversity
Review of uplink and downlink capacity results
Multiuser diversity
Multiuser diversity with limited feedback
Frequency-selective channels
Delay and Fairness
Multiuser diversity: capacity vs. reliability
Uplink Fading Channel with Receive CSI
Sum capacity of a Gaussian multiple-access channel:

X
2
R ≤ log 1 + ρ |hk |
In slow fading with receive CSI:

4 X
Pout = P log 1 + ρ |hk |2 < |S|R for some S ⊂ {1, . . . , K }
k∈S
In fast fading with receive CSI:

X
2
Csum = E log 1 + ρ |hk |

Uplink Fading with Transmit CSI
With transmit CSI, we can do better.

We allow power optimization over many (L) fading intervals.
Channel gain of user k at time ` is hk.`
Sum capacity over L fading intervals is:
L
Pk,` |hk,` |2

1X
max log 1 +
Pk,` L N0
`=1
subject to
1X
Pk,` = P
L
`
Relaxing the power constraint to a sum power constraint:
1 XX
Pk,` = KP
L
k `
Uplink Fading with Transmit CSI
Leads to a parallel-channel problem and the water-filling solution:


 1− N0
λ max |hi ,` |2
|hk,` | = maxi |hi ,` |
Pk,` = i
0 otherwise

Taking the number of coherence periods L → ∞ in an ergodic fading

process, the optimal capacity-achieving capacity is obtained
(waterfilling across time smoothed out):

 1 − N0 if k = arg maxi |hi |
Pk∗ = λ |hk |2
0 otherwise

The sum power constraint is justified by the symmetry of the problem

in the long term with i.i.d. fading
Downlink Fading Channel
Symmetric with CSIR only:
|h|2 P
X
Rk < E log 1 +
N0
k
This is achieved by TDMA.

With full CSI, sum capacity is maximized by transmitting to best user.
P ∗ (h) maxk |hk |2

Csum = E log 1 +
N0
with a waterfilling solution:

+
1 N0
P ∗ (h) = −
λ maxk |hk |2
Multiuser Diversity
h
at
tp
es
ng
ro
St

Exploiting Temporal Variations
rate
User 1
time
rate
User 2
time

rate multiuser diversity
User 1
User 2
time
Multiuser Diversity
Multiuser diversity gain has two sources:

1 Increase in total transmit power for uplink
2 Effective channel gain goes from |h|2 to maxk |hk |2
Multiuser diversity is directly related to CSI
Classical diversity improves reliability, multiuser diversity was

originally devised to improve throughput.
The term multiuser diversity was coined by Knopp and Humblet [1]

Downlink Growth Rates
Capacity of multiuser diversity systems grows as log log k.
Intuition: Choosing the best of k channels gives effective power

P log k, and capacity grows with log of power.
⇒ Multiuser diversity is about power, not degrees of freedom.
log log k rate can be maintained with one-bit feedback

(Sanayei/Nosratinia [2])
With M-antenna base station, we get Csum ∼ M log log k.
Uplink Growth Rates
With a short-term (peak) power constraint P per user:

Transmission by best user only, Csum ∼ log log k.
Superposition transmission by all1 users, Csum ∼ log k.
Long term (average) power constraint: can save and reuse the
off-time power
Transmission by best user Csum ∼ log k.
Superposition Csum ∼ log k.
1
Actually, it is enough for a fixed percentage of users to transmit
Multiuser Diversity and Mobility
If users and objects around them are fixed, there are no channel
variations and no multiuser diversity (if we expect to serve all users).
With low-mobility users, we get the benefit of multi-user diversity.
With very fast users, we lose multiuser diversity because there is

insufficient time for users to estimate their channels and feed that
back.
Feedback is a key issue in multiuser diversity, to be visited next.
Limited Feedback and Multiuser Diversity
Threshold-based channel selection (Gesbert/ Alouini [3])
Gesbert and Alouini send channel gains only if above a threshold.
Choose the best from among those that succeed a threshold
Still requires lots of feedback.
More general: quantizing channel states
A few examples in this tutorial. For an overview of limited feedback

see [4].

Multiuser Diversity with 1-bit Feedback
Method due to Sanayei and Nosratinia [2].
Send one-bit feedback indicating if a user is above threshold
Choose randomly among users exceeding threshold
Works well if threshold chosen carefully.
It is essentially enough to guarantee optimal capacity growth
∆C = Cfull−CSI − C1bit −→ 0
k→∞
Sufficient condition: threshold grows linearly with k.
Limited Feedback Capacity
Sum−rate capacity
7
6
Spectral efficiency (Nats/sec/Hz)
Full CSI, SNR=20 dB

1−bit , SNR=20 dB
1 Full CSI, SNR=10 dB
1−bit , SNR=10 dB
Full CSI, SNR=0 dB
1−bit , SNR=0 dB
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Number of users

Multiuser with Beamforming
beam
best user
Multiuser with Beamforming
When base station has multiple antennas, one may use beamforming
with multiuser diversity.
Question: how to use limited feedback.
Answer: use one bit for significance, rest for beamforming (Sanayei &
Nosratinia [5]).
Each user sends 1 bit to feedback availability of a good channel.
If channel is good, use remaining bits to indicate optimal (quantized)

beamforming vector.
Base station chooses randomly from “good” users, together with

indicated beamforming vector.

Multiuser with Multiple Beams
Multiuser with Multiple Beams
Transmit in random orthogonal directions.
Each user feeds back channel gains
For each beam choose user with a high gain and low cross-gain
Achieves capacity proportional to M log log k, as long as M log k.
Method due to Sharif/Hassibi [6]
Limited feedback methods of Sanayei and N. can also be applied to

multi-beam methods.

Multiuser Diversity in Frequency-Selective Channels
Consider OFDM with L subchannels
Power optimization to users and subchannels is in general coupled,

but complex.
Slightly suboptimal scheme: choose the best user per subchannel,

transmit on all subchannels simultaneously.
Requires KL channel gain feedbacks!
Growth rate Csum ∼ L log log k + L log SNR
In this case also, with 1-bit feedback per subchannel per user
(Sanayei/Nosratinia [7]):
∆C = Cfull−CSI − C1bit −→ 0
k→∞
Normalized sum−rate capacity, SNR=10 dB

Spectral Efficiency per sub−channel (Bits/Sec/Hz)
2
Full CSI, ρ=0
1−Bit , ρ=0
TDMA , ρ=0
1
Full CSI, ρ=0.8
1−Bit , ρ=0.8
TDMA , ρ=0.8
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Number of users
ρ: subchannel correlation
Delay and Fairness
Multiuser diversity requires tolerance of delay and buffering
Delay is a problem when:

Slow fading compared with delay requirements
Too little scattering
Also, if channel statistics are asymmetric, some users may be

under-served
Then, sum-rate may not be a good practical metric
Proportionally Fair Scheduling
Many scheduling algorithms have been proposed for addressing

fairness.
One method is the proportionally fair scheduler. For each user:

1 Calculate average throughput Tk [m] within a time window of time m.
2 The “requested rate” of the user is Rk [m].
Rk
3 Serve the user with largest Tk
4 Update Tk ’s.
This method schedules a user when its instantaneous channel is high

relative to its own average.

Capacity vs. Reliability
Two alternative formulations for multiuser diversity:

Variable rate (implies buffering and delay). Metric: average throughput
Fixed rate. Metric: outage, error, diversity gain
In the context of MAC or broadcast channels, often the first metric is

investigated.
We shall see the second approach in other contexts later in this talk.
Summary of Multiuser Diversity
With full CSI, it is optimal to transmit to the best user.
In the downlink, sum capacity on the order Csum ∼ log(ρ log k).
Can be extended to OFDM
Practical issues:
Channel estimation and feedback
Delay
Fairness
Limited feedback does not significantly reduce the gains.
Several open problems remain in MIMO multiuser diversity.
Acknowledgment: This section borrowed heavily from Tse and Viswanath [8]

Antenna Selection
Rationale for Antenna Selection
MIMO communication can improve both capacity and reliability

compared to SISO.
Cost and power consumption of radios is mostly in the front end (RF
chain).
However, antennas are (often) cheap.
By reducing the number of RF chains and switching antennas, one

may capture some of the MIMO gains with smaller cost.
One can show that all diversity gain can be captured, and a good part
of capacity gains.

Receive Antenna Selection
fading Signal
signals RF Chain Processing Output
and
Decoding
Selection
Diversity Analysis
Framework: fixed rate transmission. Metric: Error probability.

Diversity gain:
4 log Pe
d = − lim
ρ→∞ log ρ
First start with outage:
Po = P{log(1 + ρ max |hi |2 ) < R}

2 2R − 1
= P{max |hi | < }
i ρ
N
Y
2 2R − 1
= P{|hi | < }
ρ
i =1
2R − 1 N 2R − 1 N

= 1 − exp ≈
ρ ρ
where approximation is at high SNR.

Diversity Calculation
Now bound error by outage:
Pe = P(e|o) Po + P(e|o) (1 − Po )
≤ Po + P(e|o)
The second term is upper bounded using a union bound (see [9]). It
can be shown under some mild conditions, it has at least the same
SNR exponent as the first term.
Some works skip the relation between outage and error. This is a
mistake, as sometimes this step may be significant.
Final result: d = N.
No diversity is lost compared with SIMO. But some power is lost,

therefore capacity is smaller than full SIMO.
Transmit Antenna Selection
Signal fading Signal

Processing signals Processing
Input RF Chain RF Chain
and and
Coding Decoding
Selection Feedback

Diversity and Capacity
By similar arguments, transmit antenna selection has diversity

equivalent to number of transmit antennas.
Therefore no diversity is lost compared to full MISO.
Capacity is actually HIGHER than a non-informed MISO transmitter

(because antenna selection signal carries CSI information).
Capacity is smaller than full-CSI MISO system.
Antenna Subset Selection
RF Chain RF Chain
Signal Signal
Input Processing RF H RF Processing Output
and Switch Switch and
Coding Decoding
RF Chain RF Chain
L M M L
T T R R Rx Selection
Tx Selection

Antenna Selection Algorithm
No computationally efficient algorithm is known to produce the

capacity-optimal joint Tx-Rx antenna subset selection.
Incremental Successive Selection Algorithm (ISSA)

(Gharavi-Gershman):
1 Pick largest column of H.
2 For i=2:L
Pick a column of H with largest component outside linear combination
of previously chosen columns.
Complexity O(max{M, N}ML).
The algorithm can be applied decrementally (removing one-by-one,

instead of building one-by-one).
Can also be applied to rows of H for receive antenna selection.

Joint Tx and Rx Antenna Selection
Exhaustive search has complexity O(M Lt N Lr ).
ISSA can be applied sequentially on columns and rows of H, with

complexity that is quadratic in max M, N..
A linear-complexity norm-based algorithm [10] re-orders the elements

of H and applies a reduced ISSA.
Incurs some loss compared with ISSA.

Ergodic Capacity: Mt=8, Mr=Lt=2
16
14
Spectral efficiency Bits/sec/Hz

12
10
4
Water−filling
Optimal Selection
2 Successive Selection
Norm−based selection
No CSI @ Tx
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
SNR (in dB)
Capacity of Antenna Selection
The capacity of antenna selection channel in general is not known.
We begin with Tx antenna selection.
In the high SNR Taylor expansion of capacity:
C = M log ρ + O(1)
A non-vanishing constant term exists, denoted excess capacity

(Sanayei & Nosratinia).
4
G = lim (C − m log ρ)
ρ→∞
where m = min{M, N}.

Excess Capacity
Excess capacity is a measure of incremental capacity induced by CSI.
For large M it can be shown:
G =0 non-informed transmitter
M
Gwf = N log waterfilling
N
Gas = N log log M N-antenna selection
Gas is calculated for N antenna selection because S.& N. showed

selecting more antennas has diminishing returns.
16
14 G
wf
12 Gas
Spectral efficiency Bits/sec/Hz
10
m log(ρ)
2 No CSI @ Tx
Ant. Sel. (optimal)
Ant. Sel. (successive)
Water−filling
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
SNR (dB)

Discussion
No obvious way is known for applying antenna selection to wideband

systems with uncorrelated frequency bands.
Channel estimation errors and feedback delay can cause problems for
antenna selection.
Practical RF switches have ≈ 1 to 2 dB loss.
Scenarios of particular interest for antenna selection:

Many more antennas on Tx or Rx side than the other
Channel correlation matrix rank deficient
Extreme case: keyhole channel
Relay Selection

Two-Hop Communication
Source
Two-Hop Communication
Relay

Relay Channel
Source
Relay Channel
Source
Relay

Relay Protocols
Decode-and-Forward (DF)
Compress-and-Forward (CF)
Partial Decode-and-Forward (PDF)
Amplify-and-Forward (AF)
Dynamic Decode-and-Forward (DDF)
Non-orthogonal Amplify-and-Forward (NAF)
Other protocols also exist, especially for multiple relays.
Amplify-and-Forward
Relay does only linear processing
X2 = c · Y2
The constant c is determined by the relay power constraint.

Advantages:
Very little processing required
Simple analysis, especially in multi-relay scenarios
Useful when the relay cannot decode
Disadvantages:
Amplifies noise, therefore ...
In most regimes, there exist better protocols
Amplify-and-Forward applies to Gaussian and fading channels.

Amplify-and-Forward
The AF achievable rate for fixed channels is [11]
1
IAF = log(1 + |h13 |2 + f (|h12 |2 , |h23 |2 ))
2
xy
f (x, y ) =
x +y +1
1
Note: we are operating in complex baseband. The factor 2 in front of
log is due to half-duplex operation.
Due to the structure of AF (simple amplification, no mapping) a duty

cycle of 1/2 is used.
Decode-and-Forward Diversity
Outage O and the event A = {Relay decodes}. Use Bayes:
Pout (R) = P(O|A) P(A) + P(O|Ac ) P(Ac )
Now calculate conditional and event probabilities. For Rayleigh

channels, magnitude-squared is exponentially distributed, so:
22R − 1 22R − 1 22R − 1

c 2
P(A ) = P |h12 | < = 1 − exp(− )≈
SNR SNR SNR
Can calculate all terms (Hunter and Nosratinia [12]), but we limit
ourselves to diversity calculation.
Let’s use this opportunity to visit a useful tool: asymptotic analysis
with exponential equalities.

.
We say f (x) and g (x) are exponentially equal, denoted f = g , if
log f (x)
limx→∞ log g (x) = 1.
Applying to individual probabilities, we get:
. .
P(O|Ac ) = SNR−1 P(Ac ) = SNR−1
. .
P(O|A) = SNR−2 P(A) = 1
Asymptotically small sums dominated by maximum term:

X .
f (x) = fi (x) =⇒ f (x) = max fi (x)
i
Applying this to the Bayesian expression, we get:

.
Pout (R) = SNR−2
and from this we can directly conclude that DF has diversity two,
since log(Pe ) ∼ −2 log SNR.
Multi-Relay Scenario
There may be more than one relay in the network.
Concentrate on the essence of problem: the relation of multiple relays

to a given source and destination
Various Solutions are possible based on:

Channel state information
Synchronization among nodes

Multiple Relays: Distributed Beamforming
Multiple Relays: Space-Time Coding

Multiple Relays: Relay Selection
Best Relayed Link
Multiple Relays: Tradeoffs
Distributed beamforming gives the strongest performance

Perfect channel state information at TX
Perfect synchronization
Distributed space-time codes gives slightly lower performance

No CSI at TX
STC design nontrivial
Requires synchronization among relays
Relay selection is the most robust

No synchronization among relays
Small amount of CSI at TX

Aspects of Relay Selection
Question: which relay should serve a given source-destination?
Relay protocols (e.g. AF vs. DF)
Exchange of CSIT (quasi-static channels)
Number of relays selected
Relay selection metric
Performance metric and its calculation (e.g. diversity)
Relay Selection with Relay CSIR
If nodes have only receive CSI, how should we select relays?
Dynamic (distributed) relay assignment using relay CSIR can lead to

deficient network-wide diversity (Hunter and Nosratinia).
Simply because relay-based assignment cannot guarantee relaying for

all sources.
Without CSIT, it is better to follow a fixed relay assignment.
Maximum diversity only on the order of actual transmission paths.

Relay Selection with CSIT
With CSIT, relay selection can get diversity on the order of potential
transmission paths.
In principle similar to antenna selection
Analysis often based on order statistics
Exchange of CSIT
Explicit (e.g. feedback)
Implicit (e.g. backoff timers and channel sense)
We shall see that implicit methods can run into difficulties.
Selection Metrics
Most general: compare end-to-end mutual information of choices
Disadvantages:
Computational complexity
Complicated decision function → intractable performance analysis
Simpler (suboptimal) selection rules may suffice
Example (AF): Proxy for end-to-end SNR
Example (DF): choose the best relay-destination path among decoded

relays

AF Selection with Implicit CSI Exchange
Bletsas et al. 2006 [13]


Best Relay

Performance of AF Relay Selection
Best relay according to mutual information gives full diversity.
The following two selection metrics also give full diversity:
γ = min{γ1 , γ2 }
γ1 γ2
γ=
γ1 + γ2
However, coordination by backoff timer can be problematic.
Small but finite probability of collision δ.
δ is independent of SNR...
Therefore, error floor at high-SNR ⇒ zero diversity.

Collision Probability in Backoff-Timer Methods
Backoff Timer
Backoff Timer

Backoff Timer
Backoff Timer
Backoff Timer
wavefront
Backoff Timer

Backoff Timer
Backoff Timer
Backoff Timer
COLLISION!
Backoff Timer

Difficulties with Implicit Selection Methods
In implicit methods relays must learn and agree on the selection

decision without explicit communication.
Example for relay backoff timer error: 100 meter separation of relays
produces a 3 microsecond error.
This adds to any errors in the synchronization of relay clocks.
Therefore the problem with implicit methods is not just theoretical;

implicit methods are difficult to design robustly.
For now it seems more promising to pursue explicit methods to

distribute the relay selection decision among relays.
Methods and Benefits of Relay Selection
Let us examine the lessons learned so far.

Relay selection: simple method for multi-relay system.
Produces diversity
Implicit methods fraught with problems. Explicit is better
Question: can relay selection also provide improved rate (multiplexing

gain)?
The remainder of this section explores this question.
For that, we need to visit the rate loss induced by relays, and the
concept of diversity multiplexing tradeoff.

Full-Duplex vs. Half-Duplex
Full-duplex: TX and RX at the same time, on the same frequency
Challenges of full-duplex wireless:2

Internal leakage: existing decouplers have around 60-70 dB isolation.
Need 110 dB.
Echo from nearby objects
Therefore, need to study half-duplex.
Relay first listens, then transmits.
Half-duplex relaying can be orthogonal or non-orthogonal
2
Hot topic of current research
Orthogonal vs. Non-Orthogonal Half-Duplex
Source x1(w1) x1(w2) x1(w3) x1(w4)
Relay 0 x2(w1) x2(w2) x2(w3)
Full-Duplex
Source x1(w1) x1(w1) x1(w2) x1(w2)
Relay 0 x2(w1) 0 x2(w2)
Non-Orthogonal Half-Duplex
Source x1(w1) 0 x1(w2) 0
Relay 0 x2(w1) 0 x2(w2)
Orthogonal Half-Duplex

Intro to Diversity-Multiplexing Tradeoff (DMT)
We have so far concentrated on diversity (=reliability)

We now consider a fuller trade-off:
Throughput ←→ Reliability
Example: outage probability of one Rayleigh link:
Pout = Prob{log(1 + |h|2 SNR) < R}

R −1

2
= Prob |h|2 <
SNR
2R − 1

= 1 − exp −
SNR
2R − 1
≈ at high SNR
SNR
This shows that if R is constant, Pout ∼ SNR−1 .
Intro to Diversity-Multiplexing Tradeoff (DMT)
Now take R = r log SNR, then:
2r log SNR − 1 SNRr − 1

Pout ≈ = ≈ SNRr −1
SNR SNR
Knowing error is never > 1, tighten the approximation by:
+
Pout ≈ SNR−(1−r )
where (·)+ = max{·, 0}.

r is called the multiplexing gain. Now we take the logarithm of error
to find the diversity:
d (r ) = (1 − r )+
DMT is due to Zheng and Tse [9]

Notes on the DMT
Diversity is defined with probability of error Pe , we used Pout .

These two are not the same, since it is possible to have errors without
outage, and vice versa.
Our development was sketchy, but the results are correct.
As a key part of their development, Zheng and Tse derived the
conditions when one can be used instead of the other in MIMO and
MAC channels.
Thankfully, in many instances, the two analyses are equivalent, e.g.,
with asymptotically large block lengths.
However, in general, the equivalence must be verified.
DMT of Orthogonal, Half-duplex Relaying
d(r)
2
AF,DF,CC
direct
0.5 1 r
d (r ) = 2(1 − 2r )+

Loss of Time in Orthogonal Signaling
Orthogonal relaying: new data is sent only in half of time slots.
So the pre-log factor of capacity is at most 0.5
Discussion: orthogonal relaying is perfect with low rates, but at high

rates it may be outperformed by the direct link.
This motivates us to look for improvements:

Let the source continue to transmit after the relay starts
(non-orthogonal)
Adapt the relaying portion of time to channel qualities.
This led to the NAF and DDF protocols.
NAF and DDF Signaling
Block 1 Block 2
Source x(1,1) x(1,2) x(2,1) x(2,2)
Relay x(1,1) x(2,1)
time
Non-Orthogonal AF
Block 1 Block 2
Source
Relay
time
Relay decodes Relay decodes
Dynamic DF

DMT of NAF and DDF
d(r)
2
NAF
AF
1
DDF
direct
0.5 1 r
Multi-Relay NAF and DDF
d(r)
6
NAF
AF
DDF
1
direct
0.5 1 r
Multi-relay NAF and DDF are not close to the MISO bound.
Motivation for alternative solutions in multi-relay regimes.

Can Relaying Achieve the MISO Bound?
Yuksel and Erkip [14] showed that compress-and-forward (CF)

achieves the DMT bound.
Requires global channel-state information
ARQ DF can also achieve the MISO bound (Tannious and
Nosratinia [15])
One relay and one ARQ equivalent to 3 × 1 MISO
d (r ) = 3(1 − r )+
Also, Laneman [11] investigated ARQ AF (but achieving max.

diversity 2).
ARQ relaying needs only finite feedback (no prior global channel
information required).
Explicit Best DF Relay Discovery
Source Relays Destination
Tannious and Nosratinia 2008 [15]


1-bit
1-bit

1-bit
log (1+M)
bits

n
Source sm issio Destination
tran
data
Best Relay
DMT of Relay Selection with Direct Link
10
Direct
DSTC
8 DDF
ITRS
Diversity gain d(r)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Multiplexing gain r

Recovering the Half-Duplex Loss by Relay Selection
We saw last method achieves the MISO bound
But cannot be used in a parallel relay model (needs direct link)
QUESTION: how to use half-duplex parallel relays
Some approaches:
Isolated NAF relays (Yang and Belfiore [16])
Isolated DF relays (same principle)
Partially isolated AF relays and sequential transmission
Can discard the isolation requirement via relay selection
Other Relay Selection in the Literature
Joint with antenna selection
Multiple relay selection
Multi-source multi-destination relay selection
For secure communication
With adaptive arrays
With resource allocation (e.g. frequency, power)
In various fading models (e.g. Nakagami etc)
...
Summary of Relay Selection
Simple mechanism for multi-relay scenarios
Produces diversity in the number of relays
Implicit selection has robustness problems
Careful algorithms can also achieve high multiplexing gain
With direct link, MISO upper bound obtained
Without direct link, close to MISO upper bound, but faces inter-relay
interference.
General Opportunistic Relay Networks

Limitation of Opportunistic Relays
The mathematical engine of relay selection:

Selection among independent random variables
Sometimes it is i.i.d. channel gains (decode-forward).
Sometimes it is a proxy for channel gain ( f function in AF).
In the context of wireless networks, this is a severe limitation.
The nature of difficulty is demonstrated with an example.
Opportunistic MultiAccess Relay Channel

Difficulties of Opportunistic MARC
Optimal selection is not obtained via simple comparison of channel

gains
The throughput of the two options are complex functions of all five
channel gains.
The throughput under two options are statistically dependent.
Order statistics of dependent r.v. are often not tractable.
A new framework due to Abouelseoud and Nosratinia [17] addresses

these problems and opens opportunistic communication to a much
wider group of networks.
Addressing Dependencies
Mode 1 Mode 2
Probability of outage in terms of outage of two modes:
P(O) = P(O1 , O2 ) = P(O1 )P(O2 |O1 )

log P(O) = log P(O1 ) + log P(O2 |O1 )
d (r ) = d1 (r ) + d20 (r )
where d20 (r ) is diversity of Mode 2 conditioned on Mode 1 being in

outage.
A Viable Solution?
Question: Are d1 (r ) and d20 (r ) tractable?
Answer: Yes, at least in some simple cases...
In other cases, can posit a selection rule and calculate outage
Latter case leads to achievable DMT which, if lucky, may be tight

against upper bound
On all examples tried so far, these approaches have been tractable
Therefore, let us generalize ....
New Framework
Mode 1
Transmitters Mode 2 Receivers
Mode n
Model opportunistic network as a collection of modes.
One mode can be active at a time (example, MARC).
Definition: A mode consists of a set of nodes and links such that the
message received in each node, conditioned on one source message, is
independent of all other source messages.
This precludes interference among messages, thus generalizing the

definition of opportunistic communication.
DMT Bounds
Lemma
In a system that opportunistically switches between n modes whose
conditional DMT is given by di0 (r )
d (r ) ≤ d10 (r ) + d20 (r ) + . . . + dn0 (r ),
4 log P(ei |ei −1 , . . . , e1 )

di0 (r ) = − lim
ρ→∞ log ρ
Lemma
The DMT for opportunistically switching between n independent wireless
subsystems d(r ) is bounded by
d (r ) ≤ d1 (r ) + d2 (r ) + . . . + dn (r ), (1)
and di (r ) is the DMT of the subsystem i .

Tightness of DMT Bounds
Lemma
The upper bounds of Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 are tight if the following two
conditions are asymptotically satisfied:
1 Each selected subsystem uses codebooks that achieve its individual
DMT.
2 Overall system is not in outage unless all subsystems are in outage.

Opportunistic One-Relay Selection
The above result allows us to solve open problems, including relay

selection in the presence of direct link.
The simplest of them is the one-relay on/off problem.
Theorem
The DMT of a three-node simple relay channel, under either AF or DF,
subject to opportunistic relay selection, is given by:
d (r ) = (1 − r )+ + (1 − 2r )+ . (2)
Opportunistic Interference Relay Channel
We consider the opportunistic interference relay channel.

Modes are defined such that messages do not interfere.
Technique: Genie upper bound + achievable scheme
(a) (b) (c) (d)

DMT of Opportunistic IRC
Theorem
The opportunistic interference relay channel has the following DMT
characteristics: under orthogonal DF and non/orthogonal AF:
d (r ) = n(1 − r )+ + n(1 − 2r )+
Under dynamic DF:

(
n
(n + 1)(1 − r ) 0 ≤ r < n+1
d (r ) =
n 1−r
r
n
n+1 ≤ r < 1
and under CF it achieves d(r ) = 2n(1 − r )+
DMT of Opportunistic IRC
8
CF
NAF/OAF/ODF
7 DDF1
DDF2
6
Diversity Gain d(r)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Multiplexing Gain r
4 × 4 opportunistic IRC

The Opportunistic Shared Relay Channel
(a) (b) (c)
Genie-aided Upper Bound
Theorem
A DMT upper bound for genie-aided opportunistic shared relay channel is:
r
d (r ) ≤ (1 − )+ + (2n − 1)(1 − r )+
n

Achievable Schemes
Theorem
For the 2-user shared relay channel, the following DMT can be achieved:
For NAF:
r +
d (r ) = max{2(1 − r )+ + 2(1 − 2r )+ , 1 − }
2
For DDF: 
4(1 − r ) 0 < r ≤ 0.5 √

d (r ) = 2 1−r
r 0.5 < r ≤ 3 − 5
 √
1 − 2r 3 − 5, r ≤ 2

and for CF:

r +
d (r ) = max 4(1 − r )+ , 1 −

2
DMT of Shared Relay Channel
4
Upper bound
NAF
3.5
DDF
CF
3
Diversity Gain d(r)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Multiplexing Gain r

Opportunistic MultipleAccess Relay Channel (MARC)
DMT for Opportunistic MARC
Theorem
The opportunistic MARC has the following DMT: for the orthogonal AF
and DF:
d (r ) = (n + 1)(1 − 2r )+
for the NAF:
d (r ) = n(1 − r ) + (1 − 2r )+
for the DDF: (
n
(n + 1)(1 − r ) 0 < r ≤ n+1
d (r ) =
n (1−r
r
) n
n+1 < r ≤ 1
and for the CF:

d (r ) = (n + 1)(1 − r )+

DMT for Opportunistic MARC
N+1
Diversity Gain d(r)
OAF/ODF
NAF
DDF
Upper bound/CF
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Multiplexing Gain r
The Opportunistic X-Relay Channel
(a) (b)
(c) (d)

DMT for Opportunistic X-Relay Channel
Theorem
The opportunistic 2 × 2 X-Relay Channel has the following achievable
DMT: for the orthogonal AF and DF as well as NAF:
d (r ) = 4(1 − r )+ + 2(1 − 2r )+
for the DDF:

(
6(1 − r ) 0 < r ≤ 21
d (r ) =
2 (1−r
r
)
+ 2(1 − r ) 12 < r ≤ 1
and for the CF:

d (r ) = 6(1 − r )+
DMT for Opportunistic X-Relay Channel
6
Upper bound
ODF/OAF
NAF
5 DDF
CF
Diversity Gain d(r)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Multiplexing Gain r

Insights Arising from the New Framework
Opportunistic relay on/off gives the same DMT as NAF
In shared relay channel: at low multiplexing, DDF outperforms NAF

and CF. At medium multiplexing, CF is the best. At high
multiplexing, relay must be turned off.
For the MARC, selection based on direct links is DMT-optimal.

Non-orthogonal CF achieves the genie-aided upper bound.
For the X-relay channel, the DMT upper bound is met by

opportunistic CF.
Generalized Opportunistic Relays: Summary and Discussion
Central idea: a Markov-like expansion of error probability resulting in

terms that can be interpreted as “conditional diversities.”
This method has worked so far because conditional diversities were

tractable...
... as long as one finds an appropriate selection criterion.
Our experience so far has been that selection criteria can be found to
construct reasonable achievability results from the DMT viewpoint.

Opportunistic Cognitive Radios
Overview of Cognitive Radio
Cognitive Spectrum Sharing refers to various methods of re-utilizing

spectrum that is temporally/spatially under-used
Mentioned as critically important technology by FCC
Subject of much research, a very difficult problem
Primary nodes are the owner of the spectrum
Secondary or cognitive nodes are trying to reuse the spectrum

Different Approaches to Spectrum Sharing
Overlay/interweave: detect spectrum hole, transmit into it
Detecting spectrum holes reliably has proved to be very difficult
Secondary transmitter makes decisions, while important metric is

interference at primary receiver.
Can create hidden node problem.
Underlay: Transmit only when negligible harm to primary.
In this tutorial we concentrate on the underlay method.
Opportunistic Underlay Spectrum Sharing
A single secondary node has limited opportunities to transmit.
One can use the principles of multi-user diversity in the

secondary [18]-[22].
Node selection must satisfy two criteria:

Low interference on primary
High throughput for secondary
We consider multi-antenna base stations in uplink or downlink mode

MAC secondary
Primary Primary
Gp Gp
Gs Gs
H H
Secondary Secondary
Primary: M-antenna base station, N nodes

Secondary: m-antenna base station, n nodes
Secondary MAC Node Selection
Must select secondary users that:

Satisfy interference constraints
Maximize throughput
Node selection decisions are coupled thru interference constraint
Assume uniform secondary transmit power
Idea: consider interference quota per selection α
Total interference on each primary antenna: Γ
Then total nodes we are allowed to select:

Γ
ks =
α
Secondary MAC Strategy
We will select up to ks nodes that generate less than α interference.

The set of eligible nodes:
A = { Nodes that generate interference < α}
Question: how to set the quota α?

Interference quota too big: ks small, can’t select enough nodes
Interference quota too small: no nodes will be eligible
Insight: Set α so that:

ks = E [|A|]
MAC Selection Algorithm
1
Set α = Θ(n− N+1 ) (for primary MAC replace N with M).
Determine eligible users, if less than ks = Γ/α, use all, if not, select
ks randomly.
All secondary nodes transmit with equal power
It is possible to upper- and lower-bound the sum rate of secondary
Theorem (Li and Nosratinia [18])

For a MAC (uplink) secondary system:
m
R= log n + O(1) primary MAC
N +1
m
R= log n + O(1) primary BC
M +1

MAC: Capacity Growth
6
Throughput (bit)
5
2 k =2
s
k =3
s
1
0
20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380
Number of secondary users
Example: Pp = Ps = 5, N = 2, m = 4, N = 2
Reducing Interference via Multiuser Diversity
We can use the flexibility of node selection to:

Increase secondary throughput
Reduce interference on primary
Both!
There is a fundamental tradeoff of how much can we do of one vs.

the other desirable tasks.
Theorem
Bounding the interference on primary by Θ(n−q ), the MAC throughput is:
m − qM
R= log n + O(1) primary MAC
M +1
m − qN
R= log n + O(1) primary BC
N +1

MAC: Secondary Capacity v. Interference
Throughput (bit)
q=0.2
q=0.1
4
2
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
1.5
q=0.2
q=0.1
1
Γ
0.5
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Example: Γ = 2n−q
Broadcast Secondary
Primary Primary
Gp Gp
Gs Gs
H H
Secondary Secondary

Secondary Broadcast Strategy and Result
Basic Idea: Random orthogonal secondary beamforming (similar to

Sharif and Hassibi)
Find best secondary nodes (again similar to Sharif and Hassibi)
Set broadcast power to satisfy interference constraints
Theorem (Li and Nosratinia [18])

The sum-throughput of a broadcast secondary is:
R = m log log n + O(1) primary BC or MAC
If we try at the same time to reduce the interference by Θ((log q)−1 ),
R = (1 − q)m log log n + O(1)
Broadcast: Capacity Growth
2.5
Throughput (bit)
1.5
1
20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380
Example: Pp = Ps = 5, N = 2, m = 4, N = 2
Broadcast: Secondary Capacity v. Interference
Throughput (bit)
q=0.5
1.5 q=0.8
0.5
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
1.5
q=0.5
1 q=0.8
Γ
0.5
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Example: Γ = 2(log n)−q

Path Loss and Shadowing
So far, nodes experienced similar link statistics
A valid question: what if nodes experience unequal path loss and

shadowing?
Under certain conditions, it can be shown that path loss and

shadowing do not affect the growth rates.
Sufficient condition: path loss and shadowing distributions are

bounded.
Practically, this means path loss and shadowing are such that nodes
can still be considered “within the same network” and have some
non-trivial chance of being selected.

Improvements in Secondary MAC
Recall nodes were selected only based on interference quotas.
Further refining the selection based on ordering “forward” channels

does not improve growth rates.
However, ordering based on forward channels yields a 20-30%

improvement in throughput
This method was called “Hybrid opportunistic scheduling” [23]
Furthermore, in [23] it was shown that fairness constraints do not

affect the growth rate.
Relays and Spectrum Sharing
Relays are being considered for spectrum sharing [24]-[30]
We consider a MIMO secondary with relays:
Primary nodes
G
Hp
H F

Setup Details
Per-node interference constraint
Two-hop secondary communication
Amplify-forward relays
Relay Selection is allowed
Relay beamforming is allowed
All channel gains are Rayleigh
M-antenna TX and RX, n relays
Spectrum Sharing via Relay Selection & Beamforming
Select relays with weak interference links
Each relay determines its own eligibility
Divide relays into M groups,
Relays in each group synchronize their input phase with one of the
TX antennas, and coherently transmit towards one RX antenna.
The result is virtual parallel pipes whose SIR grows with number of
relays.
M
Secondary throughput grows as 2 log n.
This channel diagonalization is reminiscent of Boelcskei et. al. [31].

Discussion and Refinements
The growth rate as though there is no primary constraint!
The philosophy is to use many relays with small power per relay
One can use the relays to:

Improve secondary rate
Reduce interference on primary
Both!
If we attempt to reduce the interference on primary by O(n−q ), we

can achieve secondary rate growth:
(
M(1−2q)
2 log n + O(1) 0 < q < 21
R=
O(1) q ≥ 21
Factor 1/2 in front of log n due to half-duplex operation, can be

improved by an alternating relay protocol.
Overall Summary and Conclusion
The key aspects of opportunistic communication:

Simplifies the system by reducing interfering elements
Exploits CSI
Aims to improve capacity or reliability
Principles of opportunistic communication can be applied to various

system configurations
Recent developments have opened new avenues for wider application

of opportunistic techniques.

THANK YOU!
[1] R. Knopp and P. Humblet, “Multiuser diversity,” Eurecom Technical Report, May 2002. [Online]. Available:
http://www.eurecom.fr/util/publidownload.en.htm?id=607
[2] S. Sanayei and A. Nosratinia, “Opportunistic downlink transmission with limited feedback,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory,
vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 4363 –4372, Nov. 2007.
[3] D. Gesbert and M.-S. Alouini, “How much feedback is multi-user diversity really worth?” in IEEE International Conference
on Communications, vol. 1, Jun. 2004, pp. 234 – 238.
[4] D. Love, R. Heath, V. Lau, D. Gesbert, B. Rao, and M. Andrews, “An overview of limited feedback in wireless
communication systems,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1341 –1365, Oct. 2008.
[5] S. Sanayei and A. Nosratinia, “Opportunistic beamforming with limited feedback,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6,
no. 8, pp. 2765 –2771, Aug. 2007.
[6] M. Sharif and B. Hassibi, “On the capacity of mimo broadcast channels with partial side information,” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 506 – 522, Feb. 2005.
[7] S. Sanayei, A. Nosratinia, and N. Aldhahir, “Opportunistic dynamic subchannel allocation in multiuser ofdm networks with
limited feedback,” in IEEE Information Theory Workshop, Oct. 2004, pp. 182 – 186.
[8] D. Tse and P. Viswanath, Fundamentals of Wireless Communication. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[9] L. Zheng and D. N. C. Tse, “Diversity and multiplexing: a fundamental tradeoff in multiple-antenna channels,” IEEE
Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1073–1096, May 2003.
[10] S. Sanayei and A. Nosratinia, “Opportunistic beamforming with limited feedback,” in Asilomar Conference on Signals,
Systems and Computers, Nov. 2005, pp. 648 –652.
[11] J. N. Laneman, D. N. C. Tse, and G. W. Wornell, “Cooperative diversity in wireless networks: Efficient protocols and
outage behavior,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3062–3080, Dec. 2004.
[12] T. E. Hunter and A. Nosratinia, “Diversity through coded cooperation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 2, pp.
283–289, Feb. 2006.
[13] A. Bletsas, A. Khisti, D. P. Reed, and A. Lippman, “A simple cooperative diversity method based on network path
selection,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 659–672, Mar. 2006.

[14] M. Yuksel and E. Erkip, “Multiple-antenna cooperative wireless systems: A diversity-multiplexing tradeoff perspective,”
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 3371–3393, Oct. 2007.
[15] R. Tannious and A. Nosratinia, “Spectrally-efficient relay selection with limited feedback,” IEEE J. Select. Areas
Commun., vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1419 – 1428, Oct. 2008.
[16] S. Yang and J. C. Belfiore, “Towards the optimal amplify-and-forward cooperative diversity scheme,” IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 3114–3126, Sep. 2007.
[17] M. Abouelseoud and A. Nosratinia, “Opportunistic wireless relay networks: Diversity multiplexing tradeoff,” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, to appear. [Online]. Available: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/1104.4491
[18] Y. Li and A. Nosratinia, “Capacity limits of multiuser multiantenna cognitive networks,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory,
2012. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3641
[19] N. Jamal, H. E. Saffar, and P. Mitran, “Asymptotic scheduling gains in point-to-multipoint cognitive networks.” [Online].
Available: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.3365
[20] R. Zhang and Y.-C. Liang, “Exploiting multi-antennas for opportunistic spectrum sharing in cognitive radio networks,”
Selected Topics in Signal Processing, IEEE Journal of, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 88 –102, Feb. 2008.
[21] R. Zhang, S. Cui, and Y.-C. Liang, “On ergodic sum capacity of fading cognitive multiple-access and broadcast channels,”
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 5161–5178, Nov. 2009.
[22] K. Hamdi, W. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Opportunistic spectrum sharing in cognitive MIMO wireless networks,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4098–4109, Aug. 2009.
[23] Y. Li and A. Nosratinia, “Hybrid opportunistic scheduling in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 11, Jan. 2012.
[24] G. Zhao, J. Ma, G. Li, T. Wu, Y. Kwon, A. Soong, and C. Yang, “Spatial spectrum holes for cognitive radio with
relay-assisted directional transmission,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 5270 –5279, Oct. 2009.
[25] J. Mietzner, L. Lampe, and R. Schober, “Distributed transmit power allocation for multihop cognitive-radio systems,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 5187 –5201, Oct. 2009.
[26] V. Asghari and S. Aissa, “Cooperative relay communication performance under spectrum-sharing resource requirements,”
in ICC, IEEE, May 2010.
[27] L. Li, X. Zhou, H. Xu, G. Li, D. Wang, and A. Soong, “Simplified relay selection and power allocation in cooperative
cognitive radio systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 33 –36, Jan. 2011.
[28] M. Naeem, D. Lee, and U. Pareek, “An efficient multiple relay selection scheme for cognitive radio systems,” in ICC, IEEE,
May 2010.
[29] Y. Zou, J. Zhu, B. Zheng, and Y.-D. Yao, “An adaptive cooperation diversity scheme with best-relay selection in cognitive
radio networks,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 5438 –5445, Oct. 2010.
[30] J. Lee, H. Wang, J. Andrews, and D. Hong, “Outage probability of cognitive relay networks with interference constraints,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 390 –395, Feb. 2011.
[31] H. Bolcskei, R. U. Nabar, O. Oyman, and A. J. Paulraj, “Capacity scaling laws in MIMO relay networks,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1433–1444, Jun. 2006.

t9 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

t9 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Opportunistic Communication: Unified View &

IEEE Global Communications Conference (Globecom)

Atlanta, Georgia, 2013

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 1/ 133

Background and Disclaimers

Pre-requisites: introductory knowledge of wireless channel models,

Emphasis on results and intuition.

Proofs and detailed explanations omitted.

Disclaimer 1: Tone and coverage reflective of author’s experiences &

Disclaimer 2: Every attempt is made to be inclusive, but coverage is

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 2/ 133

Generalized Opportunistic Relay Networks

Opportunistic Multiuser Cognitive Radio

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 3/ 133

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 4/ 133

Review of uplink and downlink capacity results

Multiuser diversity with limited feedback

Delay and Fairness

Multiuser diversity: capacity vs. reliability

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 5/ 133

Uplink Fading Channel with Receive CSI

Sum capacity of a Gaussian multiple-access channel:

In slow fading with receive CSI:

In fast fading with receive CSI:

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 6/ 133

With transmit CSI, we can do better.

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 7/ 133

Uplink Fading with Transmit CSI

Leads to a parallel-channel problem and the water-filling solution:

Taking the number of coherence periods L → ∞ in an ergodic fading

The sum power constraint is justified by the symmetry of the problem

Symmetric with CSIR only:

This is achieved by TDMA.

P ∗ (h) maxk |hk |2

with a waterfilling solution:

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 9/ 133

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 10/ 133

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 11/ 133

Exploiting Temporal Variations

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 11/ 133

rate multiuser diversity

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 11/ 133

Multiuser diversity gain has two sources:

Multiuser diversity is directly related to CSI

Classical diversity improves reliability, multiuser diversity was

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 12/ 133

Capacity of multiuser diversity systems grows as log log k.

Intuition: Choosing the best of k channels gives effective power

⇒ Multiuser diversity is about power, not degrees of freedom.

log log k rate can be maintained with one-bit feedback

With M-antenna base station, we get Csum ∼ M log log k.

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 13/ 133

Uplink Growth Rates

With a short-term (peak) power constraint P per user:

Superposition transmission by all1 users, Csum ∼ log k.

Superposition Csum ∼ log k.

With low-mobility users, we get the benefit of multi-user diversity.

With very fast users, we lose multiuser diversity because there is

Feedback is a key issue in multiuser diversity, to be visited next.

Aria Nosratinia Opportunistic Communication - Globecom’2013 15/ 133

Limited Feedback and Multiuser Diversity

Threshold-based channel selection (Gesbert/ Alouini [3])

Achieves capacity proportional to M log log k, as long as M log k.