Solutions to Homework Set #2 Broadcast channel, degraded message set, Csiszar Sum Equality

Similar documents
The Gallager Converse

UCSD ECE 255C Handout #12 Prof. Young-Han Kim Tuesday, February 28, Solutions to Take-Home Midterm (Prepared by Pinar Sen)

Lecture 10: Broadcast Channel and Superposition Coding

EE5139R: Problem Set 7 Assigned: 30/09/15, Due: 07/10/15

Lecture 3: Channel Capacity

Superposition Encoding and Partial Decoding Is Optimal for a Class of Z-interference Channels

Lecture 6 I. CHANNEL CODING. X n (m) P Y X

EE/Stat 376B Handout #5 Network Information Theory October, 14, Homework Set #2 Solutions

Solutions to Homework Set #3 Channel and Source coding

Chapter 4. Data Transmission and Channel Capacity. Po-Ning Chen, Professor. Department of Communications Engineering. National Chiao Tung University

A Comparison of Superposition Coding Schemes

On Multiple User Channels with State Information at the Transmitters

Multiaccess Channels with State Known to One Encoder: A Case of Degraded Message Sets

List of Figures. Acknowledgements. Abstract 1. 1 Introduction 2. 2 Preliminaries Superposition Coding Block Markov Encoding...

Solutions to Homework Set #1 Sanov s Theorem, Rate distortion

Variable Length Codes for Degraded Broadcast Channels

Exercise 1. = P(y a 1)P(a 1 )

Information Theory. Lecture 10. Network Information Theory (CT15); a focus on channel capacity results

On the Capacity of Interference Channels with Degraded Message sets

Information Theory for Wireless Communications. Lecture 10 Discrete Memoryless Multiple Access Channel (DM-MAC): The Converse Theorem

A Summary of Multiple Access Channels

Feedback Capacity of the Gaussian Interference Channel to Within Bits: the Symmetric Case

Lecture 8: Channel and source-channel coding theorems; BEC & linear codes. 1 Intuitive justification for upper bound on channel capacity

Capacity bounds for multiple access-cognitive interference channel

LECTURE 10. Last time: Lecture outline

Lecture 5: Channel Capacity. Copyright G. Caire (Sample Lectures) 122

Network coding for multicast relation to compression and generalization of Slepian-Wolf

SOURCE CODING WITH SIDE INFORMATION AT THE DECODER (WYNER-ZIV CODING) FEB 13, 2003

Lecture 22: Final Review

X 1 : X Table 1: Y = X X 2

Relay Networks With Delays

UCSD ECE 255C Handout #14 Prof. Young-Han Kim Thursday, March 9, Solutions to Homework Set #5

EECS 750. Hypothesis Testing with Communication Constraints

Lecture 4 Noisy Channel Coding

Simultaneous Nonunique Decoding Is Rate-Optimal

Solutions to Set #2 Data Compression, Huffman code and AEP

EE 4TM4: Digital Communications II. Channel Capacity

Shannon s noisy-channel theorem

(Classical) Information Theory III: Noisy channel coding

ELEC546 Review of Information Theory

Capacity of a channel Shannon s second theorem. Information Theory 1/33

Shannon s Noisy-Channel Coding Theorem

Capacity Theorems for Relay Channels

Optimal Encoding Schemes for Several Classes of Discrete Degraded Broadcast Channels

A Comparison of Two Achievable Rate Regions for the Interference Channel

Noisy-Channel Coding

Note that the new channel is noisier than the original two : and H(A I +A2-2A1A2) > H(A2) (why?). min(c,, C2 ) = min(1 - H(a t ), 1 - H(A 2 )).

Capacity Region of Reversely Degraded Gaussian MIMO Broadcast Channel

Interactive Decoding of a Broadcast Message

Chapter 2: Entropy and Mutual Information. University of Illinois at Chicago ECE 534, Natasha Devroye

Lecture 15: Conditional and Joint Typicaility

On the Capacity Region of the Gaussian Z-channel

Interactive Hypothesis Testing with Communication Constraints

Classical codes for quantum broadcast channels. arxiv: Ivan Savov and Mark M. Wilde School of Computer Science, McGill University

Random Access: An Information-Theoretic Perspective

ProblemsWeCanSolveWithaHelper

Capacity of a Class of Cognitive Radio Channels: Interference Channels with Degraded Message Sets

Universal Incremental Slepian-Wolf Coding

EE376A: Homework #3 Due by 11:59pm Saturday, February 10th, 2018

National University of Singapore Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering. Examination for

Coding for Noisy Write-Efficient Memories

Distributed Source Coding Using LDPC Codes

Homework Set #2 Data Compression, Huffman code and AEP

Side-information Scalable Source Coding

Exercises with solutions (Set B)

LECTURE 13. Last time: Lecture outline

Shannon s Noisy-Channel Coding Theorem

Capacity of the Discrete Memoryless Energy Harvesting Channel with Side Information

EE376A: Homeworks #4 Solutions Due on Thursday, February 22, 2018 Please submit on Gradescope. Start every question on a new page.

Feedback Capacity of a Class of Symmetric Finite-State Markov Channels

Achievable Rates and Outer Bound for the Half-Duplex MAC with Generalized Feedback

The Capacity Region of the Cognitive Z-interference Channel with One Noiseless Component

EE5585 Data Compression May 2, Lecture 27

Two Applications of the Gaussian Poincaré Inequality in the Shannon Theory

ECE Information theory Final (Fall 2008)

II. THE TWO-WAY TWO-RELAY CHANNEL

Interference Channels with Source Cooperation

Lecture 1: The Multiple Access Channel. Copyright G. Caire 12

Interference channel capacity region for randomized fixed-composition codes

Bounds and Capacity Results for the Cognitive Z-interference Channel

Frans M.J. Willems. Authentication Based on Secret-Key Generation. Frans M.J. Willems. (joint work w. Tanya Ignatenko)

9 Forward-backward algorithm, sum-product on factor graphs

Keyless authentication in the presence of a simultaneously transmitting adversary

Sum Capacity of Gaussian Vector Broadcast Channels

Noisy channel communication

Chapter 9. Gaussian Channel

Performance-based Security for Encoding of Information Signals. FA ( ) Paul Cuff (Princeton University)

Research Article Multiaccess Channels with State Known to Some Encoders and Independent Messages

Optimal Independent Encoding Schemes for Several Classes of Discrete Degraded Broadcast Channels

Generalized Writing on Dirty Paper

Example: Letter Frequencies

Source and Channel Coding for Correlated Sources Over Multiuser Channels

Secret Key Agreement Using Asymmetry in Channel State Knowledge

Multicoding Schemes for Interference Channels

Lecture 11: Quantum Information III - Source Coding

Capacity of a Class of Semi-Deterministic Primitive Relay Channels

LECTURE 2. Convexity and related notions. Last time: mutual information: definitions and properties. Lecture outline

Information Masking and Amplification: The Source Coding Setting

Example: Letter Frequencies

Joint Write-Once-Memory and Error-Control Codes

Transcription:

1st Semester 2010/11 Solutions to Homework Set #2 Broadcast channel, degraded message set, Csiszar Sum Equality 1. Convexity of capacity region of broadcast channel. Let C R 2 be the capacity region of all achievable rate pairs R (R 1,R 2 ) for the broadcast channel. Show that C is a convex set by using a timesharing argument. Specifically, show that if R (1) and R (2) are achievable, then λr (1) + (1 λ)r (2) is achievable for 0 λ 1. Solution to Convexity of Capacity Regions. Let R (1) and R (2) be two achievable rate pairs. Then there exist a sequence of ((2 nr(1) 1,2 nr (1) 2 ),n) codes and a sequence of ((2 nr (2) 1,2 nr (2) 2 ),n) codes for the channel with P e (n) (1) 0 and P e (n) (2) 0. We will now construct a code of rate λr (1) +(1 λ)r (2). Foracodelength n, use theconcatenation ofthecodebookoflength λn and rate R (1) and the code of length (1 λ)n and rate R (2). The new codebookconsists of all pairs of codewords and hence the number of X 1 codewords is 2 λnr(1) 1 2 (1 λ)nr (2) 1, and hence the rate is λr (1) 1 +(1 λ)r(2) Similarly the rate of the X 2 codeword is λr (1) 2 +(1 λ)r (2) 2. We will now show that the probability of error for this sequence of codes goes to zero. The decoding rule for the concatenated code is just the combination of the decoding rule for the parts of the code. Hence the probability of error for the combined codeword is less than the sum of the probabilities for each part. For the combined code, P (n) e 1. P e (λn) (1)+P e ((1 λ)n) (2) (1) which goes to 0 as n. Hence the overall probability of error goes to 0, which implies the λr (1) +(1 λ)r (2) is achievable. 1

2. Joint typicality Let x n,y n be jointly strong-typical i.e., (x n,y n ) T ǫ (n) (X,Y), and let Z n be distributed according to n i1 p Z X(z i x i ) (instead of p Z X,Y (z i x i,y i )). Then, P{(x n,y n,z n ) T ǫ (n) (X,Y,Z)} 2 n(i(y;z X) δ(ǫ)), where δ(ǫ) 0 when ǫ 0. Solution to Joint typicality. Since(x n,x n ) T ǫ (n) (X,Y)andZ n n i1 p Z X(z i x i )thenifp(x n,y n ) n i1 p(x i,y i ) results in p(x n,y n,z n ) p{(x n )p(z n x n )p(y n x n ). p[(x n,y n,z n ) T ǫ (n) (X,Y,Z)] (2) p(x n,y n,z n ) (3) (x n,y n,z n ) T ǫ (n) (X,Y,Z) (x n,y n,z n ) T ǫ (n) (X,Y,Z) (x n,y n,z n ) T (n) ǫ (X,Y,Z) p(x n )p(z n x n )p(y n x n ) (4) 2 n(h(x) ǫ) 2 n(h(y X) ǫ) 2 n(h(z X) ǫ) 2 n(h(x,y,z)+ǫ) 2 n(h(x)+h(z X)+H(Y X) 3ǫ) (6) 2 n(h(y,z X) H(Y X) H(Z X)+4ǫ) (7) 2 n(h(y,z X) H(Y X)+4ǫ) (8) 2 n(i(y;z X) δ(ǫ)) (9) Note: p(z n x n ) 2 n(h(z X) ǫ). (see Cover, page 522.) 3. Broadcast capacity depends only on the conditional marginals. Consider the general broadcast channel (X,Y 1 Y 2,p(y 1,y 2 x)). Show that the capacity region depends only on p(y 1 x) and p(y 2 x). To do this, for any given ((2 nr 1,2 nr 2 ),n) code, let P (n) 1 P{Ŵ1(Y 1 ) W 1 }, (10) P (n) 2 P{Ŵ2(Y 2 ) W 2 }, (11) P (n) P{(Ŵ1,Ŵ2) (W 1,W 2 )}. (12) (5) Then show max{p (n) 1,P (n) 2 } P (n) P (n) 1 +P (n) 2. 2

The result now follows by a simple argument. Remark: The probability of error P (n) does depend on the conditional joint distribution p(y 1,y 2 x). But whether or not P (n) can be driven to zero (at rates (R 1,R 2 )) does not (except through the conditional marginals p(y 1 x),p(y 2 x)). Solution to Broadcast channel capacity depends only on conditional marginals P (n) 1 P(Ŵ1(Y 1 ) W 1 ) (13) P (n) 2 P(Ŵ2(Y 2 ) W 2 ) (14) P (n) P((Ŵ1(Y 1 ),Ŵ2(Y 2 )) (W 1,W 2 )) (15) Then by the union of events bound, it is obvious that P (n) P (n) 1 +P (n) 2. (16) Alsosince(Ŵ1(Y 1 ) W 1 )or(ŵ2(y 2 ) W 2 )implies((ŵ1(y 1 ),Ŵ2(Y 2 )) (W 1,W 2 )), we have P (n) max{p (n) 1,P (n) 2 }. (17) Hence P (n) 0 iff P (n) 1 0 and P (n) 2 0. The probability of error, P (n), for a broadcast channel does depend on the joint conditional distribution. However, the individual probabilities of error P (n) 1 andp (n) 2 however depend only on the conditional marginal distributions p(y 1 x) and p(y 2 x) respectively. Hence if we have a sequence of codes for a particular broadcast channel with P (n) 0, so that P (n) 1 0 and P (n) 2 0, then using the same codes for another broadcast channel with the same conditional marginals will ensure that P (n) for that channel as well, and the corresponding rate pair is achievable for the second channel. Hence the capacity region for a broadcast channel depends only on the conditional marginals. 4. Degraded broadcast channel. Find the capacity region for the degraded broadcast channel in Figure 1. Degraded broadcast channel. From the expression for the capacity region, it is clear that the only on trivial possibility for the auxiliary randomvariableu isthatitbebinary. Fromthesymmetry oftheproblem, 3

1 p 1 α α p X Y 1 Y p 2 α 1 p 1 α Figure 1: Broadcast channel with a binary symmetric channel and an erasure channel we see that the auxiliary random variable should be connected to X by a binary symmetric channel with parameter β. Hence we have the setup as shown in Figure 2. 1 p 1 α U α p X Y 1 Y p 2 α 1 p 1 α Figure 2: Broadcast channel with auxiliary random variable We can now evaluate the capacity region for this choice of auxiliary random variable. By symmetry, the best distribution for U is the uniform. 4

Hence R 2 I(U;Y 2 ) (18) H(Y 2 ) H(Y 2 U) (19) ( α H 2,α, α ) H((βp+βp)α,α,(βp+βp)α) (20) 2 ( ) 1 H(α)+αH H(α) αh(βp+βp) (21) 2 α(1 H(βp+βp)). (22) Also R 1 I(X;Y 1 U) (23) H(Y 1 U) H(Y 1 U,X) (24) H(βp+βp) H(p). (25) These two equations characterize the boundary of the capacity region as β varies. When β 0, then R 1 0 and R 2 α(1 H(p)). When β 1 2, we have R 1 1 H(p) and R 2 0. 5. Csiszar Sum Equality. Let X n and Y n be two random vectors with arbitrary joint probability distribution. Show that: I(Xi+1;Y n i Y i 1 ) i1 I(Y i 1 ;X i Xi+1) n (26) i1 As we shall see this inequality is useful in proving converses to several multiple user channels. (Hint: You can prove this by induction or by expanding the terms on both sides using the chain rule.) Solution: Csiszar Sum Equality. 5

I(Xi+1 n ;Y i Y i 1 ) i1 I(X j ;Y i Y i 1,Xj+1 n ) i1 ji+1 j 1 I(X j ;Y i Y i 1,Xj+1 n ) j2 i1 I(X j ;Y j 1 Xj+1 n ) j2 I(X j ;Y j 1 Xj+1 n ) j1 I(Y i 1 ;X i Xi+1 n ) i1 where the first and third equalities follow from chain rule, and the second equality follows from switching of the summations. 6. Broadcast Channel with Degraded Message Sets. Consider a general DM broadcast channel (X;p(y 1,y 2 x);y 1 ;Y 2 ). The sender X encodestwomessages(w 0 ;W 1 )uniformlydistributedover{1,2...,2 nr 0 } and {1,2,...2 nr 1 }. Message W 0 is to be sent to both receivers, while message W 1 is only intended for receiver Y 1. The capacity region is given by the set C of all (R 0 ;R 1 ) such that: for some p(u)p(x u). (a) Show that the set C is convex. (b) Provide the achievability proof R 0 I(U;Y 2 ) (27) R 1 I(X;Y 1 U) (28) R 0 +R 1 I(X;Y 1 ) (29) (c) Provide a converse proof. You may derive your own converse or use the steps below. 6

An alternative characterization of the capacity region is the set C of all (R 0,R 1 ) such that: R 0 min{i(u;y 1 );I(U;Y 2 )} (30) R 0 +R 1 min{i(x;y 1 );I(X;Y 1 U)+I(U;Y 2 )} (31) for some p(u)p(x u). Show that C C. Define U i (W 0 ;Y1 i 1,Y2,i+1). n Show that n(r 0 +R 1 ) (I(X i ;Y 1,i U i )+I(U i ;Y 2,i ))+nǫ n (32) i1 using the steps n(r 0 +R 1 ) I(W 1 ;Y1 n W 0 )+I(W 0 ;Y2 n )+nǫ n I(X i ;Y 1,i U i )+I(Y2,i+1 n ;Y 1,i W 0.Y1 i 1 ) i1 +I(U i ;Y 2,i ) I(Y i 1 1 ;Y 2,i W 0,Y n 2,(i+1) )+nǫ n. (33) Then use the identity from previous exercise to cancel the second and fourth terms. 7

Solution: Broadcast Channel with Degraded Message Sets. 1. Convex proof. To show that the set C is convex is suffices to show that for any random variable Q s.t. Q (U,X) (Y 1,Y 2 ) form a Markov chain, any rate pair (R 0,R 1 ) s.t.: R 0 I(U;Y 2 Q), (34) R 1 I(X;Y 1 U,Q), (35) R 0 +R 1 I(X;Y 1 Q), (36) is in C. To show this, define U (Q,U). Then U X (Y 1,Y 2 ) form a Markov chain, and R 0 I(U;Y 2 Q) I(U ;Y 2 ), (37) R 1 I(X;Y 1 U,Q) I(X;Y 1 ;U ), (38) R 0 +R 1 I(X;Y 1 Q) I(X;Y 1 ), (39) This completes the proof of convexity 2. The achieveability proof The proof of achievability of C uses superposition coding and is identical to the proof of achievability for degraded broadcast channel. First generate 2 nr 0 codewords u n (w 0 ) according to p(u n ) n i1 p(u 1). For each codeword u n (w 0 ), generate 2 nr 1 codewords x n (w 0,w 1 ) according to n i1 p(x i u i (w 0 )). To send the pair (w 0,w 1 ), send the corresponding codeword x n (w 0,w 1 ). At the receiver side, receiver 2 decodes W 0 with arbitrarily small probability of error if R 0 I(U;Y 2 ) and receiver 1 decodes W 0,W 1 with 8

arbitrarily small probability of error if R 0 + R 1 < I(X;Y 1 ) and R 1 < I(X;Y 1 U). Thus, P n e 0 if 3. Converse proof. Step 1 R 0 I(U;Y 2 ), (40) R 1 I(X;Y 1 U), (41) R 0 +R 1 I(X;Y 1 ), (42) The converse in the following section proves that C C. To show that C C it suffices to show that any point on the boundary of C is in C. Consider any point on the boundary of C, i.e., any point s.t.: R 0 min{i(u;y 1 );I(U;Y 2 )} (43) R 0 +R 1 min{i(x;y 1 ),I(X;Y 1 U)+I(U;Y 2 )} (44) Clearly R 0 I(U;Y 2 ) and R 0 +R 1 I(X;Y 1 ). Now, if R 0 I(U;Y 2 ), then R 1 min{i(x;y 1 ) I (U;Y 2 ),I(X;Y 1 U)} I(X;Y 1 U). If on the other hand R 0 I(U;Y 1 ), then R 1 min{i(x;y 1 U),I(X;Y 1 U)+I(U;Y 2 ) I(U,Y 1 )} I(X;Y 1 U). Thus, C C. Step 1 nr 0 H(W 0 ) (45) I(W 0 ;Y1 n n (46) H(Y1 n ) H(Y1 n W 0 )+nǫ n (47) ( H(Y1i ) H(Y 1i W 0,Y1 i 1 ) ) +nǫ n (48) i1 i1 ( H(Y1i ) H(Y 1i W 0,Y i 1 1,Y n 2(i+1) )) +nǫ n (49) (H(Y 1i ) H(Y 1i U 1 ))+nǫ n (50) i1 I(U i ;Y 1i )+nǫ (51) i1 9

Similarly, it can be shown that nr 0 n i1 I(U i;y 2i ) + nǫ n. Now, consider n(r 0 +R 1 ) H(W 0,W 1 ) (52) I(W 0,W 1 ;Y1 n )+nǫ n (53) I(X n ;Y1 n n (54) H(Y1 n 1 n )+nǫ n (55) (H(Y 1i ) H(Y 1i X i ))+nǫ n (56) i1 I(X i ;Y 1i )+nǫ n. (57) i1 10

Finally, consider n(r 0 +R 1 ) H(W 0 )+H(W 1 ) (58) H(W 1 W 0 )+H(W 0 ) (59) I(W 1 ;Y1 n W 0 )+I(W 0 ;Y2 n )+2nǫ n (60) I(W 1 ;Y 1i W 0,Y1 i 1 )+I(W 0 ;Y 2i Y2(i+1))+2nǫ n n (61) i1 i1 i1 I(W 1,Y n 2(i+1) ;Y 1i W 0,Y i 1 1 )+I(W 0,Y n 2(i+1) ;Y 2i)+2nǫ n I(Y n 2(i+1);Y 1i W 0,Y i 1 1 )+I(W 1 ;Y 1i W 0,Y i 1 1,Y n 2(i+1)) (62) (63) + I(W 0 ;Y2(i+1) n ;Y 2i) (64) + I(Y1 i 1 ;Y 2i W 0,Y2(i+1)) I(Y n 1 i 1 ;Y 2i W 0,Y2(i+1))+2nǫ n n (65) i1 I(Y n 2(i+1) ;Y 1i W 0,Y i 1 1 )+I(W 1 ;Y 1i U i ) (66) + I(W 0,Y1 i 1,Y2(i+1);Y n 2i ) I(Y1 i 1 ;Y 2i W 0,Y2(i+1))+2nǫ n n (67) i1 I(Y n 2(i+1) ;Y 1i W 0,Y i 1 1 )+I(X i ;Y 1i U i ) (68) + I(U i ;Y 2i ) I(Yi i 1 ;Y 2i W o,y2(i+1))+2nǫ n n (69) I(X i ;Y 1i U i )+I(U i ;Y 2i )+2nǫ n (70) i1 Using the standard time-sharing argument, the converse follows. 11