http://kth.diva-portal.org
This is an author produced version of a paper published in International Symposium on
Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS), 2012.
This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proofcorrections or proceedings pagination.
© 2012 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must
be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including
reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating
new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any
copyrighted component of this work in other works.
Citation for the published paper:
Hamed Farhadi, Chao Wang, Mikael Skoglund.
Power Control in Wireless Interference Networks with Limited Feedback
International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS), 2012
Access to the published version may require subscription.
Published with permission from: IEEE
Power Control in Wireless Interference Networks
with Limited Feedback
Hamed Farhadi, Chao Wang, Mikael Skoglund
School of Electrical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
Email: {farhadih, chaowang, skoglund}@kth.se
Abstract—This paper addresses a power control problem
in a wireless time-varying K-user interference network. Each
transmitter intends to communicate to its desired receiver at a
fixed rate. Quantized channel gains are globally available through
limited feedback signals. To eliminate multi-user interference, interference alignment scheme is performed based on the imperfect
channel knowledge. The communication quality is affected by the
channel quantization errors and interference leakage. We propose
a power control algorithm, aiming to guarantee successful transmissions of each user while minimizing the transmission power
of the network. Our results show that even with limited number
of feedback bits, by performing power control the considered
interference alignment scheme can outperform the conventional
time-division-multiple-access scheme.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Design of the efficient transmission schemes for wireless
interference networks has attracted much research interest.
A K-user interference network refers to a wireless network
consisting of K transmitter-receiver pairs. Since all the users
share the same radio resources, the reception at each receiver may potentially be interfered by unintended signals.
Conventional interference management strategies (e.g. timedivision-multiple-access, TDMA) tend to orthogonalize each
user pair’s operation. This requirement leads to the fact that at
each receiver’s signal space different interference signals are
orthogonal to the desired signals and also orthogonal to each
other. The interference is avoided at the cost of low spectral
efficiency. Thus, it was believed that the performance of the
interference networks is limited by interference. However, the
elegant interference alignment concept [1], [2] reveals that
with proper transmit signalling design, different interference
signals can in fact be aligned together, leaving maximally half
of the signal space at each receiver to its desired signals. Each
user may achieve half of the interference-free transmission rate
no matter how many interferers exist. Therefore, interference
networks may not be interference-limited in nature.
To perform interference alignment, in general the global
channel state information (CSI) is required to be perfectly
known at all the transmitters and the receivers. However,
acquiring such perfect global CSI is a challenging problem in
practice, especially for time-varying channel environments. A
more feasible assumption can be that each terminal obtains
only the quantized version of the channel gains through
feedback signals broadcasted by different receivers. It has
been shown that when the number of feedback bits is sufficiently large, the aforementioned good performance can still
be achieved [3], [4], [5]. However, the bandwidth of the
feedback channels is limited in practice so that the terminals
may not be able to attain sufficiently accurate CSI. It has
been shown that even with limited feedback, if proper rate
adaptation is performed the interference alignment scheme can
still outperform TDMA, in terms of sum throughput [6].
In the finite-SNR region, the transmitters may exploit the
available CSI not only to eliminate the multi-user interference,
but also to adapt their transmission strategies to fulfil certain
service requirements. For instance, in a class of systems
considered in [6] given that the transmission powers are fixed
a maximum sum throughput is always desired. Thus, rate
adaptation is performed among the transmitters. However, in
this paper we focus on a different type of the systems where
it is required to guarantee that each transmitter successfully
communicates with corresponding receiver at a pre-agreed
fixed rate [7]. Therefore, it is required to properly control the
powers. Certain power control techniques are proposed in [8],
[9] and [10] for the systems which treat the interference as
noise while decoding. For the systems with multiple antennas
at the terminals these are extended to joint beamforming and
power control in [11], [12] and [13].
Specifically, we consider a time-varying K-user interference
channel. Each transmitter intends to communicate with its
desired receiver at a fixed rate and can obtain quantized
channel gains through limited feedback signals from all the
receivers. We apply the interference alignment scheme based
on the imperfect channel knowledge to partially eliminate the
multi-user interference. We propose a power control algorithm,
aiming to guarantee successful transmissions of each user
while minimizing the total transmission power of the network.
Our results show that even with only a small number of feedback bits, with proper power control the average total power
requirement of applying the interference alignment scheme
can be lower than that of applying the TDMA scheme. Thus,
the advantage of performing power control while managing
interference through the interference alignment can be clearly
seen over the interference orthogonalization.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a single-antenna K-user interference network
represented in Fig. 1. Each transmitter has independent messages for its dedicated receiver. All the users share the medium
and simultaneously transmit. We assume discrete-time, blockfading (each block contains n channel uses) channels. The
z1
+
TX1
RX1
z2
+
RX2
.
.
.
zK
.
.
.
TXK
+
RXK
TX2
Fig. 1.
System model
channel gains remain constant over each block, but change
independently across different blocks. We consider transmission over a large number of blocks. At any block index a,
the transmitter k (k ∈ {1, 2, ..., K}) chooses its message
independently and uniformly from a set of size 2nRk where
Rk is the code rate which is fixed for all channel realizations.
It encodes its message to a unit-power codeword xak of length
n. The channel output at the receiver k is given by:
be conjectured that using certain more sophisticated quantization schemes [14] may lead to even better performance.
We deploy a two-dimensional vector quantizer to quantize
each complex-valued channel gain. The complex plane from
distance hmin up to distance hmax from the the real and the
imaginary axes, is divided into multiple equal-size (∆ × ∆)
square regions. Each region is called a quantization cell and
∆ is termed the quantization step size. For example, a 2N -bit
quantizer has 2N ×2N quantization cells and the corresponding
−hmin
. To quantize the
quantization step size is ∆ = hmax
2N −1
interference channel gains we set hmin equal to zero and to
quantize the direct channel gains we choose this parameter
according to the power constraint that will be mentioned in
the next section. The quantizer maps the channel coefficients
within a quantization cell to the quantized value which is the
mid-point of the corresponding cell. For channel realization
hakl , we represent this quantization process as follows:
ĥakl = Q(hakl ), ∀k, l ∈ {1, 2, ..., K}
(2)
where ĥakl is the quantized channel gain. The associated
a
a
(i.e. δkl
= ĥakl − hakl ).
quantization error is denoted as δkl
a
a
If |Re(hkk )| < hmin or |Im(hkk ) < hmin then ĥakk = 0. Since
we assume each receiver uses 2NI bits to quantize its desired
K
X
√ a a
√
channel gains and uses 2NII bits to quantize each interference
a
a
a
a
pl hkl xl + zk , k = 1, 2, · · · , K (1)
yk = pk hkk xk +
channel gain, the quantization step sizes for the desired and the
l=1,l6=k
hmax
−hmin
and ∆II = 2N
,
interference channel gains are ∆I = hmax
II−1
2NI−1
where hakl is the channel gain between the transmitter l and respectively. As a result, the magnitude of both the real and
the receiver k, drawn independently from a complex Gaussian the imaginary parts of the quantization error for the desired
distribution, i.e. hakl ∼ CN (0, 1), pk is the transmission power (interference) channel gain is bounded by ∆I ( ∆II ).
2
2
of the transmitter k and zak ∼ CN (0, 1) is the noise. hakk
denotes the desired channel gain and the first term on the B. Transmission Scheme
right hand side (RHS) of equation (1) is the desired signal of
We first provide the definition of the complement channels.
the receiver k, while hakl for l 6= k denotes the interference
Definition 1: The channels at the block indices a and b are
channel gain and the second term on the RHS of equation called complement if the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) is the multi-user interference experienced by the receiver
(3)
ĥaii = ĥbii , ĥaij = −ĥbij ; ∀i, j ∈ {1, ..., K} , i 6= j.
k. At the beginning of each block, each receiver estimates
the incoming channel gains based on the training sequences Assume m and m are the block indices of a pair of complep
broadcasted by each transmitter (this estimation is assumed to ment channels. Similar to the ergodic interference alignment
be perfect). Next, it quantizes the channel gains and broadcasts scheme proposed in [3] we require each transmitter to send
the corresponding indices to all the other terminals using the same codeword during these two blocks (i.e. xm = xmp ,
k
error-free feedback channels. There are two quantizers at ∀k ∈ {1, ..., K}). Each receiver adds its received signalsk in
each receiver with possibly different resolutions regarding the these two blocks (i.e. ym = ym + ymp ) and tries to decode its
k
k
k
desired and the interference channels. More specifically, each desired codeword. Therefore, according
to the system model
receiver uses 2NI bits to quantize its desired channel gain. in (1) the equivalent received signal at the receiver k is:
In addition, it uses 2NII bits to quantize each interference
√ m
m
m
channel gain. Therefore, each receiver totally broadcasts Nf =
+δkkp xm
ym
=
pk 2ĥkk +δkk
k
k
2NI+2(K −1)NII bits to all the other terminals. Each terminal
K
X√
m
reconstructs the quantized channel gains from the received
m
m
+
pl δkl
(4)
+δkl p xm
l +zk .
feedback signal and tries to accordingly compute its required
l=1,l6=k
transmission power. At the next block, since all the channels
The first term on the RHS of (4) is the desired signal, we call
change independently, this process is conducted again.
m
the second term the residual interference, and zm
k = zk +
m
A. Channel Gain Quantization
zk p is the equivalent noise. Clearly, part of the interference
To gain an insight on the performance of applying inter- is eliminated because of the complementarity of the quantized
ference alignment with limited feedback, we consider using a channel gains. However, due to the quantization errors certain
uniform quantization scheme to quantize the channels. It can amount of the residual interference remains at the receivers.
If the quantization resolution asymptotically goes to infinity,
the power of the residual interference approaches zero and the
2
transmitter k can achieve the rate Rk = 21 log 1 + 2|hm
kk | pk
if the codeword length n is sufficiently large and the code is
capacity achieving [3]. In this case, to guarantee successful
transmission at fixed rate R2Rk , the transmitter k should transmit
(2 k −1)
with power pk (hm
2 . This power control can be
kk ) = 2|hm
kk |
done at each transmitter independent of the others.
It has been proved in [3] that for the channels with a
symmetric distribution (e.g. zero mean complex Gaussian), the
probability of finding the complement channel for any channel
realization increases as the number of the transmitted blocks
increases. Therefore, with sufficiently large number of the
blocks for any of the block indices almost surely we can find
another block index such that the channels are complement.
Each receiver is able to decode its message after some delay
(the delay can be reduced by sacrificing the achievable rate as
mentioned in [15]).
To guarantee successful transmission at a fixed rate, each of
the transmitters is required to choose its power according to the
current channel gains. Therefore, if the quantization has infinite precision, the average required power for the transmitter k
2Rk
is E[pk (hkk )] = E[ (22|hkk−1)
|2 ]. This is substantially lower than
the required power of the conventional orthogonal transmission
KRk
schemes such as TDMA which is E[pk (hkk )] = E[ (2K|hkk−1)
|2 ]
(The average required power for the TDMA would increase
as the number of the users increases). However, with limited
resolution quantizers the quantization errors lead to a certain
amount of the interference leakage. The power control strategy
for the different users is interrelated and thus is challenging.
In what follows, we propose a power control algorithm which
aims to guarantee the successful transmissions with the minimum transmission power.
be calculated at the transmitters as follows:
2
2
Re(
ĥ
)
+
Im(
ĥ
)
pk
+∆
−4∆
4 ĥm
kk
kk
I
I
kk
min
SINRym
=
. (6)
PK
k
2 + 2∆2II l=1,l6=k pl
Therefore, the mutual information between
the transmitter
m
log2 1 + SINR
receiver pair k is 21
and
it
can be lower
yk
min
1
. In order to guarantee
bounded by 2 log2 1 + SINRym
k
successful transmission at rate Rk , the following condition
should be satisfied:
1
≥ Rk .
(7)
log2 1 + SINRym
k
2
Clearly, if the transmitters compute their transmission powers
such that meet the following condition, we can guarantee the
condition (7):
1
m
≥ Rk .
(8)
log2 1 + SINRymin
k
2
According to (6), the condition (8) can be re-written as
power constraint pk ≥ Ik (p), where
PK
(22Rk − 1)(2 + 2∆2II l=1,l6=k pl )
Ik (p) =
(9)
2
2 − 4∆
4 ĥm
Re(
ĥ
)
+
2∆
+
Im(
ĥ
)
kk
I
kk
I
kk
and p = [p1 · · · pK ]T . Thus the rate constraints for all the
users can be described by a vector inequality:
p ≻ I(p),
where the operator ≻ denotes element-wise strict inequalities.
I(p) = [I1 (p) · · · IK (p)]T , where Ik (p) is defined in (9).
The power vector p is a feasible solution of the power control
problem if it satisfies (10) and the function I(p) is feasible
if (10) has at least one feasible solution. Consequently, the
power control problem can be formulated as follows:
III. R ATE C ONSTRAINED P OWER C ONTROL
In this section, we first present the rate constrained power
control problem for the considered network. Next, we propose
an iterative power control algorithm as a solution of this
problem.
A. Rate Constrained Power Control Problem
Assume that the channels with block indices m and mp are
complement. We require each transmitter to repeat the same
codeword over the blocks m and mp . According to the inputoutput relation (4), the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio
(SINR) of the equivalent received signal of the receiver k (k ∈
{1, 2, ..., K}) can be expressed as follows:
m
SINRym
k
2
p
m
2ĥm
pk
kk + δkk + δkk
=
,
PK
m + δ mp 2 p
2 + l=1,l6=k δkl
l
kl
(5)
This SINR value is random and it depends on the quantization
errors which are unknown to the transmitters. This value can
, where SINRymin
m can
≥ SINRmin
be lower bounded as SINRym
ym
k
k
k
(10)
min
st. pI(p)
K
X
pl .
(11)
l=1
In the next part, we propose a solution for this problem.
B. Iterative Power Control
In this part, first we present an iterative power control
algorithm to solve the problem (11). Next, we study the
convergence of the proposed algorithm.
1) Iterative Power Control Algorithm: The iterative power
control procedure is shown in Algorithm 1. In each iteration of
the algorithm, the transmitter k (k ∈ {1, 2, ..., K}) computes
the function Ik given by (9) according to ĥm
kk and the total
transmission power of the other transmitters in the network
for the previous iteration (this power can also be computed by
the transmitter k based on the quantized channel gains ĥm
ll ,
∀l 6= k). Next, it updates its transmission power following
Algorithm 1. If ĥm
kk = 0, the link quality of the user k is poor.
To guarantee successful transmission, the transmitter has to
transmit with a very large power, which may also introduce
strong interference to the others. Thus, we require this user
uT
40
rS
uT
rS
uT
uT
35
Average total power/user (dB)
Algorithm 1 Iterative power control for interference alignment
Initialize: p1 (0), ..., pK (0), maxitr
for t = 1 : maxitr do
for k = 1 : K do
if ĥm
kk = 0 then
Transmitter k does not transmit and pk (t) = 0.
end if
Transmitter k computes function IkP
:
K
(22Rk −1)(2+2∆2II
l=1,l6=k pl (t−1))
Ik (p(t − 1)) =
2
m
2
m
4|ĥkk | +2∆I −4∆I (|Re(ĥm
kk )|+|Im(ĥkk )|)
Transmitter k updates its transmission power:
pk (t) = Ik (p(t − 1))
end for
end for
if pk did not converge then
Feasible solution does not exist. Stop transmission of the
transmitter k in blocks m and mp . Exclude transmitter
k from the set of active transmitters in the current block
and repeat the algorithm among the remained users.
end if
bC
rS
uT
rS
25
bC
rS
uT
20
bC
rS
15
uT
uTrS
1) Positivity : I(p) ≻ 0
2) Monotonicity : I(p) I(p′ ), (∀p p′ )
3) Scalability : αI(p) ≻ I(αp), (∀α > 1). (12)
Definition 3: If I(p) is a standard function, standard power
control algorithm is defined as:
p(t) = I(p(t − 1)).
(13)
For any initial vector p(0), the standard power control algorithm (13) generates a sequence of vectors p(1), ..., p(t).
Theorem 1: If the problem (11) is feasible, for any initial
power vector p(0) Algorithm 1 converges to a unique fixed
point p∗ which is the optimum solution of the problem (11).
Proof: First we show that function I(p) given in
(9) is a standard interference function. For this purpose
we show that this function satisfies the conditions given
in (12). For simplicity of the presentation, we re-write
bC
bC
bC
rS
bC
bC
bC
rSuTbC
bC
10
uTrSbC
rS
bC
bCuTrSbC
bCuTrS
bC
rS
bC
rS
5
uT
uT
0
rSbCuT
0
1
2
K = 3, IA, limited feedback
K = 3, TDMA, limited feedback
K = 5, IA, limited feedback
K = 5, TDMA, limited feedback
K = 7, IA, limited feedback
K = 7, TDMA, limited feedback
Full CSI , IA
3
4
5
6
7
Rate of each user (bits/channel use)
Fig. 2. Average total power per user vs. rate of each user in a K-user
interference networks (NI = NII = 8).
Ik (p) as Ik (p) = L(1 + ∆2II
to stop its transmission to save energy and protect other users
which in fact leads to a rate loss. The probability of this event
is (1 − 2Q(hmin ))2 , where Q(x) is the Q-function.
This algorithm, converges to the optimum solution if there is
at least one feasible power vector which satisfies the constraint
of the problem (11). If there is no such feasible power vector,
the transmitter whose power does not converge to the optimum
solution would be shut down and be excluded from the list
of the active transmitters. The optimization procedure repeats
until feasible solutions are found.
2) Convergence of the Algorithm: To provide the convergence proof of the proposed algorithm, we need to define a
family of functions and a corresponding iterative algorithm.
The definitions are consistent with reference [10].
Definition 2: I(p) is called standard interference function
if for all vectors p, p′ 0, it satisfies following conditions:
bC
rSuTbC
uT
−5
rS
bC
bC
rS
uT
bC
bC bC rS
rS
bC
rS
rS
uT
bC
30
uT uT
bC
PK
(22Rk −1)
2
2 −2∆
2|ĥm
+∆
|
I (|Re(ĥkk )|+|Im(ĥkk )|)
I
kk
l=1,l6=k
pl ), where L =
> 0 is a constant.
PK
1) Ik (p) = L(1 + ∆2II l=1,l6=k pl ) ≥ L > 0 and the
positivity condition is satisfied.
PK
PK
2) If p p′ , then (1+∆2II l=1,l6=k pl )≥(1+∆2II l=1,l6=k p′l )
and since L > 0 we have Ik (p) ≥ Ik (p′ ). Thus, the
monotonicity condition is satisfied.
3) If α > 1, then
Ik (αp) = L(1+α∆2II
K
X
l=1,l6=k
pl ) < αL(1+∆2II
K
X
pl ) = αIk (p).
l=1,l6=k
Therefore, the scalability condition is satisfied.
These conditions are satisfied for all the users and we can
conclude that the function I(p) given in (9) is a standard
function. Therefore, according to the Theorem 2 in [10] for any
initial power vector p(0) the standard power control algorithm
(13) converges to a unique fixed point p∗ . The Lemma 1 in
[10] implies this fixed point corresponds to the solution with
minimum required transmission power.
IV. N UMERICAL E VALUATION
In this section we numerically evaluate the performance
of the power control algorithm for the wireless interference
networks when quantized CSI are available at the transmitters.
For the TDMA scheme, we assume user scheduling is fixed
and the channel inversion is performed according to the
weakest channel corresponding to the quantized channel gain.
In all the simulations, we consider truncated channels where
the weak direct channels fall in the region bounded by distance
hmin from the real and imaginary axes are excluded where this
parameter is chosen according to the power constraint. For
the quantization of the Gaussian distributed channels, since
almost all channel realizations fall in the region bounded by
hmax = 4σ [16] we set hmax = 4.
CbbC
45
rS
bC
rS
bC
40
Average total power (dB)
35
rS
uT
30
V. C ONCLUSION
uT
uT
rS
rS
bC
25
Tu uT
uT
uT bC
uT
uT
uT
uT
uT
uT
uT
rS
bC
rS
rS
rS
20
bC
rS
rS
rS
bC
15
bC
uT
10
bC
rS
bC
5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
NI = 5, NII = 8, IA
NI = 7, NII = 7, IA
NI = 9, NII = 6, IA
Full CSI, IA
12
14
16
18
20
Sum rate (bits/channel use)
In this paper we have studied a time-vary interference
network in which the transmitters perform both interference
alignment and power control based on the quantized CSI,
obtained through limited feedbacks from the receivers. We
have proposed an iterative power control algorithm for such
a network, which aims to guarantee successful transmission
of each user at a fixed rate with minimum total transmission
power. The proposed algorithm converges to the optimum
solution whenever the problem has a solution. Through simulation results, we have shown that the proposed scheme can
require lower transmission powers than the TDMA scheme
in a certain rate region. Thus, the advantages of performing
power control for the wireless interference networks where the
interference alignment based on the imperfect CSI is applied
is explicitly seen.
R EFERENCES
Fig. 3.
Feedback bits trade-off in a 3-user network (Nf = 21).
Fig. 2 shows the average required power per user, as a
function of the rate of each user for different number of
users in the network (NI = NII = 8). The performance of
the TDMA scheme (with the same number of feedback bits)
and the interference alignment scheme with full CSI are also
shown for comparison. As we increase the number of users, the
required transmission power at a given rate does not change
for the interference alignment scheme with full CSI. But, it
considerably increases for the TDMA scheme, especially in
the high rate region. For the interference alignment scheme
with limited feedback, increasing the number of users does
not significantly increase the required power at the low-rate
region. However, if the transmission rate is high, the power
is increased notably when the number of users increases.
This is because at higher rates, the performance is affected
more severely by the residual interference. It can be seen
from the figure that even with limited feedback, applying
the interference alignment scheme with proper power control
outperforms the TDMA in the intermediate rate region by
requiring less power for the fixed-rate transmission.
Fig. 3 shows the trade-off between allocating feedback
bits to the quantizer of the desired channel and that of the
interference channels. In this example, the total number of the
feedback bits is Nf = 21. We can see that in the low-rate
region, allocating more bits to the desired channel is preferred
while in the high-rate region, it is more efficient to allocate
more bits for the quantization of the interference channels.
This is because when the desired transmission rate is low,
the network is working in the noise-limited region and it is
better to more precisely control the powers. However, in the
high- rate region the users should transmit with large powers
to guarantee successful transmission. Thus, the network is
interference-limited and it is preferred to more accurately
perform interference alignment rather than power control. This
result coincides with the trade-off observed in [6].
[1] M. A. Maddah-Ali, A. S. Motahari, and A. K. Khandani, “Communication over MIMO X channels: Interference alignment, decomposition,
and performance analysis,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 54, no. 8, pp.
3457–3470, Aug. 2008.
[2] V. R. Cadambe and S. A. Jafar, “Interference alignment and degrees of
freedom of the K-user interference channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 3425 –3441, Aug. 2008.
[3] B. Nazer, S. Jafar, M. Gaspar, and S. Vishwanath, “Ergodic interference
alignment,” in IEEE Int. Symp. Information Theory (ISIT’09), Seoul,
Korea, Jun. 2009.
[4] H. Bolcskei and I. J. Thukral, “Interference alignment with limited
feedback,” in IEEE Int. Symp. Information Theory (ISIT’09), Seoul,
Korea, Jun. 2009.
[5] R. T. Krishnamachari and M. K. Varanasi, “Interference alignment under
limited feedback for MIMO interference channels,” in IEEE Int. Symp.
Information Theory (ISIT’10), Austin, TX, Jun. 2010.
[6] H. Farhadi, C. Wang, and M. Skoglund, “On the throughput of wireless interference networks with limited feedback,” in IEEE Int. Symp.
Information Theory (ISIT’11), Saint Petersburg, Russia, Jul. 2011.
[7] X. Wang, G. B. Giannakis, and A. G. Marques, “A unified approach
to QoS-guaranteed scheduling for channel-adaptive wireless networks,”
Proc. IEEE, vol. 95, no. 12, pp. 2410–2431, Dec. 2007.
[8] G. J. Foschini and Z. Miljanic, “A simple distributed autonomous power
control algorithm and its convergence,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 641–646, Nov. 1993.
[9] J. Zander, “Distributed cochannel interference control in cellular radio
systems interference,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 41, no. 3, pp.
305–311, Aug. 1992.
[10] R. D. Yates, “A framework for uplink power control in cellular radio
systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1341–1347,
Sep. 1995.
[11] C. W. Tan, M. Chiang, and R. Srikant, “Maximizing sum rate and
minimizing MSE on multiuser downlink: Optimality, fast algorithms,
and equivalence via max-min SINR,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 6127–6143, 2012.
[12] M. Schubert and H. Boche, “Solution of the multiuser downlink beamforming problem with individual SINR constraints,” IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 18–28, Jan. 2004.
[13] F. Rashid-Farrokhi, K. J. R. Liu, and L. Tassiulas, “Transmit beamforming and power control for cellular wireless systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 16, no. 8, p. 14371450, Oct. 1998.
[14] R. M. Gray and D. L. Neuhoff, “Quantization,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 2325 –2383, Oct. 1998.
[15] J. C. Koo, W. Wu, and J. T. Gill, “Delay-rate tradeoff for ergodic
interference alignment in the Gaussian case,” in The Annual Allerton
Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, IL, USA,
2010.
[16] J. Max, “Quantizing for minimum distortion,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 7 –12, 1960.