- Kobayashi - Antenna diversity v. multiuser diversity
- N5625
- 10.1.1.31.6353
- Data and Signals Lecture 1
- 14555_Chapter 5
- 70Mbs 1024 Qam Receiver
- lecture2b
- Paper 2013 Multiple Input Multiple Output System
- UMTS Radio Theory.pdf
- A160_DVB-NGH_Spec.pdf
- WCN_unit-1
- Introduction to Wireless Communication.radio Communication
- Data Communication Basics
- Shannon
- Nbems Webinar
- Performance Review of Serially Concatenated RSC-RSC Codes using Non-iterative Viterbi Decoding Technique
- DNA Fountain Enables a Robust and Efficient Storage Architecture
- imp_CS115.pdf
- ICIAfS_paper_(N_L_E).pdf
- nt_prakt_v7_skript
- Dispense
- Hans Marko The bidirectional Communication Theroy - A generalization of information theory 1973
- Full Text 01
- HF Modems Explained Stanag
- Supporting ENKI Slides_protocols-3G Channels and Others
- DAB - Overview_2017
- 0004077
- Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America
- Yes Please
- The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution
- Dispatches from Pluto: Lost and Found in the Mississippi Delta
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future
- John Adams
- Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America
- The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power
- A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story
- Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius
- This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate
- The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
- The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
- Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore
- Smart People Should Build Things: How to Restore Our Culture of Achievement, Build a Path for Entrepreneurs, and Create New Jobs in America
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers
- The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
- Bad Feminist: Essays
- How To Win Friends and Influence People
- Angela's Ashes: A Memoir
- Steve Jobs
- Leaving Berlin: A Novel
- The Silver Linings Playbook: A Novel
- The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: A Novel
- The Light Between Oceans: A Novel
- The Incarnations: A Novel
- You Too Can Have a Body Like Mine: A Novel
- Life of Pi
- The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.: A Novel
- We Are Not Ourselves: A Novel
- The First Bad Man: A Novel
- The Rosie Project: A Novel
- The Blazing World: A Novel
- Brooklyn: A Novel
- The Flamethrowers: A Novel
- A Man Called Ove: A Novel
- Bel Canto
- The Master
- Interpreter of Maladies
- Beautiful Ruins: A Novel
- The Kitchen House: A Novel
- The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel
- Wolf Hall: A Novel
- The Wallcreeper
- A Prayer for Owen Meany: A Novel
- The Cider House Rules
- The Perks of Being a Wallflower
- The Bonfire of the Vanities: A Novel
- Lovers at the Chameleon Club, Paris 1932: A Novel
- Little Bee: A Novel

**Abstract –An expository investigation of Broadcast
**

channels,their Capacity constraints and basic Information

theory related to Progressive Source Coding for Multi-Rate

Broadcast.

Keywords–Broadcast, Channel Capacity, Degraded

Channel,Multi rate Broadcast.

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to discuss broadcast

channels,channel capacity,efficient coding and the various

issues related to them so as to lay out a foundation for

further development of efficient communication schemes.

The paper also discusses,though more informally, the

basics of superposition coding as a predecessor to the

development of other multi-rate broadcast methods.

Broadcasting is the act of simultaneous transmission

to multiple receivers. A Communication channel,when

defined as the physical channel that provides a connection

between transmitter and receiver,is often misconceived to

be a static unchanging medium. However for proper

analysis from the perspective of communications

engineers we need to be aware of the various

manifestations a channel can have, and how each

parameter of the same channel can vary for different

stimuli.

A Note on Capacity:

A broadcast channel can be visualized as having one

transmitter and many receivers,and can be characterized

by the function P(Y1=y1,Y2=y2..Yn=yn/X=x1).This

conditional probability function denotes the probability of

reception of various values of Y by different receivers,for

a given value of X,where X and Y are random variables.

With knowledge of the channel induced transitions that

occur,we also gain knowledge of the entropy involved :

H(X/Y).This quantity denotes how uncertain we are of X

after being given Y. If H(X/Y)=0 then the channel is error

less because this means that X=Y.H(X/Y) is therefore one

of the best indicators of the information loss in a channel.

Every source has an entropy H(X),which denotes the

average information per source symbol. Even thought the

rate of input bits may be R bits/sec, the rate of information

is only:Din=H(X)R bits/sec. More importantly,the rate of

transmitted bits is:Dt=[H(X)-H(X/Y)]R bits/sec

In the case of a channel with H(X)=H(X/Y) we are

better off flipping a coin to decide values for the output Y

ourselves.

I(X;Y) is the mutual information provided by the

output Y about the input X. The value of I(X;Y)

maximized over the set of input symbol probabilities p(xi)

is a quantity that depends only on the characteristics of a

channel (provided it is discrete and memoryless),and is

influenced through the conditional probabilities

p(y/x).This quantity is called the capacity of the channel

'C' =max{I(X;Y)} bits=max{H(X)-H(X/Y)} bits

A Note on broadcast Channels:

A broadcast channel is in many cases the practical

subversion of a the unicast channel. A single transmitter

must decide upon an interesting rate to transmit

information efficiently to many receivers. This rate will

most definitely depend on the capacity of the channel,but

the crux of the argument is that a broadcast channel is

essentially made up of a number of individual channels

each with their respective capacities C1,C2...Ck,and the

transmitter doesn't know the true channel characteristics

of all these 'K' channels. Therin lies the challenge.

There two basic approaches to broadcasting

information over a channel:

1) Send at a rate=Cmin=min{C1,C2...CK}

2) Send at a rate=Cmax=max{C1,C2...CK},which

would lead to transmission in the best channel alone (I.e

R1=R2..,all except the best rates.=0)

A third more efficient approach,known as time

sharing,allocates proportions of time λ1, λ2... λk to each of

C1,C2....CK in such a way that the actual rate of

information transmission of channel j is

R

j

=

∑

j≤k

¦ λ

j

C

j

)

However the ultimate aim of our discussion is to

develop a scheme that exceeds these limits of

performance by distributing precision and nesting data,to

make multi rate broadcast resemble K unicast operations

as closely as possible.

Hence we refuse to submit to the use of any of these

three schemes.

II. DEFINITION OF A BROADCAST CHANNEL

Consider a broadcast channel with 2 receivers,the

formal definition as initiated by Cover[3] is as follows:

Definition:A broadcast channel consists of an input

alphabet X and two output alphabets

y

1

and

y

2

and

a probability transition function which characterizes the

channel,given by:

P¦ y

1

n

, y

2

n

/ x

n

)

The broadcast channel is said to be memoryless if

Multi-Rate Broadcast-Part I:An

Investigation of Broadcast Channels

Dr.V.Vaidehi,Prashanth.B

Department of Electrical Engineering, Madras Institute of Technology,

vaidehi@annauniv.edu,prashanthseven@gmail.com

IETE Technical Review:Draft for submission

P ¦ y

1

n

, y

2

n

/ x

n

)=

∏

i=1

n

p ¦ y

¦1i)

, y

¦ 2i)

/ x

i

)

in a memory less broad cast channel the occurrence of

error in one interval or symbol period doesn't affect other

symbol periods. Examples of channels with memory

include fading links where switching transients cause

burst errors. A more general representation of broadcast

channels is given in [1] as being three finite sets given by

(X,P(y1,y2/x),Y1X Y2),the interpretation being that x is the

input to a broadcast channel with conditional probability

p(y1,y2/x) resulting in the outputs y1 and y2.The successful

reception of an n bit codeword transmitted as X in such a

channel will only depend,due to the amnesia of the

channel,upon the successful reception of each of the bits

in the word by each of the receivers.

Definition: The rate pair (R1,R2)is said to be achievable

for the broadcast channel if there exists a sequence of

¦¦ 2

nR

1

, 2

nR

2

) , n) codes with

P

e

¦n)

-0

Apart from the

fact that both codes R1 and R2 must have a probability of

error that tends to zero,this definition is very similar to the

channel coding argument that postulates the existence of a

set of codes for which

p

e

-0

as 'n',the code block

length,tends to infinity (provided Rc < Ro).

Why does the code block length affect the probability

of error?simply put there are 2

n

availiable vertices of a

hypercube,out of which we only select some M.For

different selections of M there exist different

communication systems,and hence an ensemble of

2

nM

possible choices.

Visualizing Distance Properties with Code Cube

The probability of error of a communication system that

chooses M coded waveforms out of a possible 2

nM

possible sets of codes is upper bound by the probability of

error of a system that uses only 2 equally likely words.

This means that:

P

e

¦

¯

X

k

)≤P

2

¦

¯

x

i

, x

j

)

where

P

2

¦

¯

x

i

, x

j

)

is the ensemble average over all

2

nM

systems for a scheme that uses only the code words

x

i

, x

j

.

By defining the cutoff rate

R

0

=log

2

¦2 /1+e

−E

c

/ N

0

)

and realizing that

the Q function (born out of the probability of error of a

binary system) is bounded by

Q¦

.

2dE

c

/ N

0

)=e

−dE

c

/ N

0

we get:

P

e

2

−n¦ R

0

−R

c

)

this means that whenever Rc<Ro the average probability

of error

P

e

¦n)

-0

as

n -∞

Definition: The capacity region of a broad cast channel is

the closure of the set of achievable rates.

These three definitions will suffice for a basic analysis.

II. SYMMETRIC CHANNELS

Understanding a Symmetric Discrete Memoryless

Channel (DMC),i.e a channel characterized by a set of

conditional probabilities [pij] which may or may not be

equal, is vital for the design of Multi-rate codes and so a

deeper inspection is not uncalled for.The Binary

Symmetric Channel(BSC) is a special case of a Discrete

Memoryless Channel,wherein there is only one common

value for the probability of erroneous reception,p. To

further clarify this statement,the channel is characterized

by the conditional probabilities:

Pr( Y = 0 | X = 0 ) =Pr( Y = 1 | X = 1 ) =1-p

Pr( Y = 0 | X = 1) =Pr( Y = 1 | X = 0 ) =p

Discrete Memoryless Channel

TABLE I

Capacities of some frequently encountered channels

Channel Capacity

1

Binary Symmetric Channel

1−H¦ p)

2 AWGN memoryless

max

∑

0

q

∫

−∞

∞

p¦ y/ x) p¦ x)

3

Waveform Channel:

Bandwidth

limitation

Power

Constraints

Gaussian

Noise

A very celebrated formula:

wlog ¦1+p

av

/ wN

0

)

X

Y1

Y2

1

q

1

p

q

q

IETE Technical Review:Draft for submission

The channel model represented above is actually 2

BSC channels. The first BSC,between X and Y1,has a

capacity C1=1;The second BSC,between X and Y2,has a

capacity C2=1-H(P).This is because the conditional

probability of transition for the second channel is p(and

q=1-p),because of which the maximum information is

bounded by the value of 1-H(P).

I ¦ X ; Y )=H ¦ X )−H ¦Y / X )

=

H ¦Y )−

∑

x

p¦ x) H ¦Y / X =x )

=

H ¦Y )−

∑

x

p¦ x) H ¦ p)

which means that

I ¦ X ; Y )≤¦1−H ¦ p))=C

But why can't the rate exceed this value?

This is because on correct decoding the receiver acquires

2 pieces of information:(i)the transmitted word of length

log

2

¦ M )

bits and(ii)an error word statistically

independent from (i).In a collection of n bits the number

of possible errors that can occur is

2

n

,however the

probable errors are limited to a range defined by the

hamming weight n(p±δ).This results in a typical set of

error sequences ,where,to borrow from [15]almost each

one is almost equally probable.Each of these error words

has an error probability of

2

−nH¦ p)

and so each conveys

information equal to nH(p).Now net bits in possession:

log

2

¦ M )+nH ¦ p)

but actually only n bits were transmitted,and so

log

2

¦ M )+nH ¦ p)≤n

log

2

¦ M )/ n=1−H ¦ p)

A Note on the Input Distribution of a Symmetric

Discrete Memoryless Channel:

Very often the choice of equally probably input

symbols maximizes the average mutual information

thereby achieving the capacity of the channel. However it

must be noted that this is not always the case,and that

such an equi-probable distribution will only result in

maximum information when the channel transition

probabilities exhibit a certain symmetry. More

specifically,when each row of the probability transition

matrix 'P' is a permutation of any other row,and each

column is a permutation of any other column,the

probability transition matrix is symmetrical and equi-

probable inputs will maximize I(X;Y).Consider for

example,the following two channels

Channel(i) Channel (ii)

Transition probability values borrowed from [4].

.Since the probability transition matrices are:

Channel (i)

P

1

=

¦

0.5

0.1

)

P

2

=

¦

0.3

0.3

)

P

1

=

¦

0.1

0.5

)

Channel (ii)

P

1

=

¦

0.6

0.3

)

P

1

=

¦

0.3

0.1

)

P

1

=

¦

0.1

0.6

)

We expect the first channel to achieve it's capacity

through equi-probably symbols,and the second channel to

achieve it's capacity through a set of symbols distributed

so as to maximize I(X;Y) (when expressed as a function

of p(x1)=p and p(x2)=(1-p))

This leads to a further conclusion regarding the input

probabilities {P(xi)} that maximizes I(X;Y) which can be

better illustrated through the analysis of a cost function

through which we define C(X) as:

C ¦ X )=I ¦ X ; Y )−λ

∑

j =0

q−1

P ¦ x

j

)−1

The cost function denotes that I(X;Y) need not always

equal C(X)and will only do so for a certain probability

distribution (which may or may not be the equi-probable

distribution) .By maximizing C(X) as follows:

∂

∂P ¦ x

k

)

C ¦ X )=

∂

∂P ¦ x

k

)

¦

∑

j=0

q−1

p ¦ x

j

) I ¦ x

j

; Y ))

−

∂

∂ P¦ x

k

)

¦\

∑

j =0

q−1

p ¦ x

j

)+\)=0

Where P(xk) is the optimum distribution.On

simplification we find that

I ¦ x

k

; Y )=log ¦e)

.This is an expected and yet sometimes slighted result

which denotes that,for the optimal distribution

P ¦ x

k

) , I ¦ x

k

; Y )

is constant over all xk and

moreover,the capacity of the Symmetric Discrete

memoryless Channel is:

C=max

p¦ x

j

)

I ¦ x

k

; Y )

Going back to the 2 channel example presented earlier,the

first channel achieves

I ¦ x

1

; Y )=I ¦ x

2

; y )=C

for an

equi-probable distribution,while the second channel

doesn't.

Orthogonal Channels:

The best possible scenario for someone who wishes to

broadcast information is to be presented with a channel in

which communication to one receiver,in no way interferes

with communication to another. Further,if the channel

matrices of all channels involved only contain either 1's or

0's,i.e they are perfectly noiseless channels,then all their

capacities will be 1 bit/transmission.

Consider a source X that broadcasts information to

two receivers Y1 and Y2. For such a broadcast channel

(I(X/Y1),I(X,Y2))=(1,1) can be achieved by:

IETE Technical Review:Draft for submission

Choosing the input probabilities in such a way

that information conveyed is maximized,as

depicted under the previous sub-heading.

Efficiently symbolizing the input alphabet in such

a way that C1 and C2 are jointly achievable will

then result in maximum capacity.

For example,if C1=C2=1 bit/transmission (perfectly

noiseless channel discussed earlier),then an input

probability distribution of P{x=i}=1/4 will achieve

(I(X/Y1),I(X,Y2))=(1,1).Then assuming there are n

possible input bits u Є{I,2,3...n} that we wish to transmit

to Y1 and n possible input bits v Є {1,2,3...n} that we wish

to transmit to Y2,there will be a total of

n

2

combinations(assuming that we transmit one member of u

and one of v,together).To uniquely represent these n

2

possibilities we need to make use of a same number of

symbols s Є{1,2,... n

2

},and every time receiver Y1

receives a symbol s1 it associates it with the corresponding

member of u while every time Y2 receives the same

symbol s1 it associates it with a member of v. Hence

the achievable rate region for orthogonal channels is:

Achievable Rates for an Orthogonal Channel

The noiseless of the channel,however,is no crucial.

An orthogonal broadcast channel will still maintain it's

position of superiority over other types of broadcast

channels in the sense that (R1,R2)=(C1,C2) can still be

achieved,even if the the broadcast channel is made up of 2

BSC channels each with parameter P1,P2.In this case each

of the individual channels will have capacity CN=1-

H(PN).The point here is that any R12 (a common rate of

broadcast) such that

0≤R

12

≤min ¦C

1,

C

2

)

can be

achieved,and if C1=C2 then R12=R1=R2 achieves maximum

capacity.

Orthogonal broadcast channels are idealistic

paradigms for the analysis of further,more practical

broadcast channels discussed in preceding sections. The

capacity regions of these channels will always lie within

the region of the orthogonal channel,as there will always

be some destructive interference between receivers.

III. GENERAL BROADCAST CHANNELS

In this section we discuss, Incompatible,Gaussian and

Degraded broadcast channel models,and briefly outline

the capacity region established by Marton. An

understanding of these channels is essential for the

analysis and development of multi-rate broadcast

systems.

Martons Inner Bound:

The capacity region of a general broadcast channel is

still to be established (save certain special cases),but

Marton [9] has established an inner bound. The inner

bound states that any (R1,R2)ЄR0 is achievable for a

Discrete Memoryless Broadcast Channel (DBMC)

provided R1 and R2,individually,are both bounded by the

information we wish to convey to receiver Y1and Y2

respectively,and (R1,R2) are both bounded by the net

information we wish to convey across the channel.

Assume we wish to send the auxillary variable u to

receiver y1 and auxillary variable v to receiver y2,then

according to Martons bound:

any

R

0

=¦ R

1,

R

2

): R

1,

R

2

≥0

is achievable provided

R

1

I ¦U ; Y

1

) , R

2

I ¦V ; Y

2

)

and

R

1

=R

2

I ¦U ; Y

1

)+I ¦V ; Y

2

)−I ¦U ; V )

for the DBMC

¦ X , p ¦ y

1,

y

2

/ x ) , Y

1

×Y

2

)

.

This trivial bound can be achieved by binning,as

depicted in [10] and [11].

Incompatible Broadcast Channels:

The worst cases of incompatibility for simultaneous

communication.

Switch-To-Talk:The switch to Talk broadcast channel, as

described in Cover [3] consists of a single transmitter and

2 or more receivers (at least for the sake of analysis,this is

the model chosen).The transmitter does not transmit the

same message to both receivers,nor does it make use of

the same alphabet. The idea is that when the sender

wishes to communicate with Y1 he uses x ЄX1 and when

he wishes to communicate with Y2 he uses x ЄX2.

Naive Time Sharing

A common analogy used to describe this type of

channel is a situation in which you,a speaker fluent in 2

languages, needs to communicate with 2 people,each of

whom can only understand 1 language. A simple

benchmark for this channel is naive time sharing as

described in the introduction section of this paper and also

IETE Technical Review:Draft for submission

in [1] and [3].Since both (R1,R2)=(C1,0) and

(R1,R2)=(0,C2) are achievable by devoting a fraction of

the transmission time

\

to A and

¯\

to B one can easily

achieve (R0,RA,RB)=

¦0, \C

1,

¯\C

2

)

.

We can do much better than this,however.

Consider the earlier stated example of speaking 2

languages. You talk in English and Hindi while each of

the listeners can only understand either one language. If

naive time sharing is used ,you would be using periods of

time

\

to differentiate the messages of receiver (1) and

receiver (2).Now instead of this,assume that each receiver

can distinguish if a particular word is spoken in his

language or not. Then,if at a particular instant of time a

hindi word is spoken,the Indian would get some

information in the form of a message, while both the

Indian and the American would get information about the

source of the message (they would both realize that the

source is the Hindi script).

In the switch-to-talk channel,if channel 1 is used

o

of the time and channel 2 is used

¦1−o)

proportion of

the time,

H ¦o)

additional bits/transmission may be

achieved. This is different from the naïve time sharing

bound in that, o is usually chosen based on source

probabilities so as to facilitate the perfect transmission of

one of 2

¦ nH¦o))

additional messages to Y1 and Y2.The

H ¦o)

additional bits transmitted in such a way give

knowledge of the source. Thus all (R1,R2) of the form

¦oC

1

¦ 0)

+H ¦o) , ¯ oC

2

¦0)

+H ¦o))

can be achieved,resulting in a capacity that dominates that

of naïve time sharing.

Switch-to-talk capacity region

The Worst case of Incompatibility:2 channels,so

incompatible that one can do no better than time sharing.

This type pf channel has very detrimental interference

coupled from one channel to the other. If X wishes to

communicate with Y1,he must send pure noise to

Y2.Borrowing the description of such a channel from [1,2]

P

1

=

¦

1 0

0 1

0.5 0.5

0.5 0.5

)

P

2

=

¦

0.5 0.5

0.5 0.5

1 0

0 1

)

as the transition matrices of the two channels C1 and C2 of

a system with X={1,2,3,4},Y1={1,2},Y2={1,2}.

We see that to find the capacity, we need to maximize

I(X/Y1),I(X/Y2) over the input probability distribution.

To see how exactly this sort of channel functions,consider

the following scenario:

o=p

1

+p

2

;

¯

o=p

3

+p

4

where P(X=i)=pi, ,

H ¦Y

1

)=H ¦ p

1

+o/ 2)

(or p2,since anyway to find the

maximum information we will maximize from

0≤p

1

≤o

)

H ¦Y

1

/ X )=o

by definition,the average information

transmitted to Y1 by X is

o

.

this results in the capacities:

C

1

=o; C

2

=

¯

o

when

o

=1 C1=1 but C2=0 (it receives pure noise and no

information).

Gaussian Channels: The unpredictability involved in

broadcasting often makes it's analysis more challenging

than unicasting.One transmitter has to efficiently code and

transmit data to n receivers in such a way that a rate as

close to the capacities of each of those n channels is

achieved.The Gaussian Channel is a time-discrete channel

that appears to draw noise from an independent and

identically distributes Gaussian distribution,add it to the

input, and generate an output that doesn't depend on the

input alone.The easiest way to represent this channel is:

Yi=Xi+Zi Zi~N(0,N)

if the noise variance is zero the receiver receives the

transmitted symbol perfectly.

To transmit data efficiently over this channel we establish

a power limitation on any codeword,denoted as:

1/ n

∑

i=0

n−1

x

1

=P

for a codeword (x1,x2......xn),and one of the simplest

ways to transmit data would be to send one of 2 levels

.P , −.P

.In such a scheme,when the noise in the

channel overwhelms the signal power,a misrepresentation

of data occurs. Exploiting this fact one can convert a

continuous Gaussian channel into a Discrete Channel with

cross-over probability Pe,where Pe is the probability of

error defined according to the input signal levels used (for

a

.P , −.P

system it would be :

P

e

=0.5P¦Y 0 / X =.P )

+0.5P¦Y >0/ X =−.P) )

The power constraint P however,leads to a subversion

IETE Technical Review:Draft for submission

of the classical formula for channel capacity

C=maxI(X;Y).Even though this formula still holds

good,the typical influences of signal power and noise are

not reflected in it.One needs only to realize that the noise

distribution,and hence the output distribution (since

Y=X+Z) are both normal,due to which the entropy of each

can be found easily in terms of the cumulative normal

function Φ(x).In short,the entropy of both Z and Y are

1

2

log2nec

2

bits (because Φ¦ x)=

1

.2nc

2

e

x

2

2 c

2

and

h¦ !)=−

∫

!ln¦ !)

as shown in [6]).Since the variance of Z

is N,and the variance of Y is (P+N) were P is E¦X

2

) ,the

mutual information is bounded by:

I ¦ X ; Y )≤

1

2

log¦2ne¦ P+N ))−

1

2

log ¦2ne N )

since

C=max

E¦ X

2

)≤P

I ¦ X ;Y )

the capacity of a gaussian channel with power constraint P

and noise variance N is:

C=

1

2

log ¦1+

P

N

)

bits per transmission...(1)

and for a channel bandlimited to W,since there are 2W

samples per second:

C=2Wlog ¦1+

P

N '

)

bits per second.

Where N' is the noise spectral density=N0/2 watts/Hz.

Now consider the time-discrete Gaussian Broadcast

Channel.2 channels leading to 2 receivers,each with their

own noise distributions Z1,Z2,.mean zero,and noise

variance N1,N2.It is well known that each of these

channels has a capacity given by (1),but for efficient

transmission a scheme that time-shares these capacities is

in adequate.Instead,consider a scheme that superimposes

s2,the data stream meant for Y2,onto the sequence s1 meant

for Y1.If the transmitted sequence actually consists of 2

streams of information s1,s2 in such a way that s2 is

intended for Y2 and s1 is intended for Y1,then the received

sequence are y1=s1+s2+z1 and y2=s1+s2+z2.Hence s1 and

z2 are considered noise by Y2,and S2 and Z1 contribute to

the loss of information with respect to Y1. If the net signal

power is S,let

oS , ¯ oS

be the signal power proportions

devoted to transmitting information to Y1 and Y2

respectively. Then,noise power felt by Y2 will be

oS

+N2 resulting in:

C

2

¦o)=

1

2

log ¦1+

¯

oS

oS +N

2

)

If we proceed along the same lines and analyze receiver

Y1 we may conclude that:

C

1

¦o)=

1

2

log ¦1+

oS

¯

oS +N

1

)

However,a better rate is definitely possible if we only

realize that,more often than not,one receiver experiences

more noise than the other,i.e when N1<N2.

Here we introduce superposition coding in one of it's

most fundamental manifestation, subtractive de-

coding.Based on the assumption that any data stream

decodable by receiver Y2 is also decodable by Y1 (since

C2 is more hostile to data transmission),we can decode S2

at Y2 and then find the data stream intended for receiver

Y1 by subtracting s2 from y1.The receiver Y1 therefore

correctly receives both s1 and s2 by first decoding s2,

which has been embedded in the overall data stream,and

then using this knowledge to isolate s1+z1.Conversely,the

rate pair:

R

1

=

1

2

log¦1+

¯ oS

o S+N

2

)+

1

2

log ¦1+

oS

N

1

)

R

2

=

1

2

log ¦1+

¯ oS

oS+N

2

)

is simultaneously possible,and it is clear that our previous

conclusion is over ruled simply because a much higher

rate is possible for Y1.

IV. SUPERPOSITION CODING

An engineer who wishes to broadcast music at the

best possible quality to all listeners is posed with a

predicament. He can either:

Prepare for the worst and transmit monoaural

quality music to everyone.

Hope for the best and transmit stereophonic

quality music to everyone.

The results depicted in [13] imply that he needn't resort to

either option (or equally,that he can use both). Rather, he

can create a data stream that contains both monoaural and

stereophonic music by superimposing the latter on the

former,and transmit this data to all receivers in such a way

that the quality of music heard by a listener is dictated by

the noise power present in the channel between him and

the transmitter.When Noise in the channel (N)>Noise

threshold (Nt),a receiver can do no better than recover the

monoaural data stream alone;however when N<Nt a

receiver can first recover the monoaural data stream, and

then use it to fine tune its reception so that stereophonic

music is heard.

A Note on Codebook Sizes:.

The transmission of an 'n' bit codeword will result in

the reception of a vector of power n(P+N).The space of

received vectors can be encompassed in a sphere of radius

.n¦ P+N ) ,and it is within this sphere that any possible

codeword will be mapped.The received vectors are

normally distributed with mean equal to the true

codeword and variance equal to the noise variance,which

means that they will very rarely be mapped as the exact

transmitted word but have a high probability of being

mapped inside a sphere of radius .n¦ N +c) around the

true codeword.These decoding spheres denote the limits

of error the decoder can tolerate,any transmittes vector

will only result in an error if it is plotted outside of it's

decoding sphere.The volume of an n dimensional

sphere,as given in [6] is

C

n

¦r

n

)

where r is the radius of the

IETE Technical Review:Draft for submission

sphere.Hence the number of decoding spheres of radius

.n¦ N ) that can be packed in a sphere of radius

.n¦ P+N ) is:

C

n

¦n ¦ P+N )

n

/ 2)

C

n

¦nN )

n

/ 2

=¦1+

P

N

)

n/ 2

=2

n×

1

2

log¦1+

P

N

)

Efficient transmission over a channel of capacity C

can be achieved using a ( 2

¦nC)

,n ) codebook because we

need a codeword to represent each 'decoding sphere',and

there are 2

¦nC)

decoding spheres in a larger sphere of

plausible received vectors.

Outline of Achievability:

Consider a noiseless channel along with a BSC channel

of parameter

p

.The noisy channel has lower capacity

C(

p

),and the number of codes in it's codebook is limited

to 2

¦nC

2

¦ p )−c)

.Fewer codewords leads to a higher noise

tolerance however,because the constellation points are

more spaced out .This noise tolerance is exploited to pack

in extra bits of information that are not decodable by

Y2,but carry meaningful information for Y1.

A ¦2

nC

2

¦ p )

, n) codebook can be constructed for

channel 2,with low probability of error. Normally one

would choose one word out of a possible 2

n

,transmit it,and decode it based on it's hamming

distance from any of one 2

nC

2

¦ p)

words in the

codebook.

In superposition coding we construct a code of this

type for a channel X (which is noisier than channel

2),and pack in extra information for Y1 that will still

keep the codeword within the hamming distance of

the intended word in the codebook of channel X.

Assume we have a broadcast channel that consists of 2

BSC's,one perfect and the other with parameter p. Even

though the worse of the two channels only has parameter

p,we design our code for a channel X,with parameter

¦o¯p+¯o p) (i.ethe 'p channel' cascaded with an additional

BSC of parameter

o

).Thus our basic codebook will only

have 2

¦nC ¦o¯p+¯ o p )−c)

codewords,but a noise tolerance=n

bits(probability that each bit is wrong)=n( ¦o¯p+¯o p) ).

These codewords form the cloudcenteres.

Each 'cloud' will have radius =noise tolerance of channel

X,n( ¦o¯p+¯o p) ),and withing each cloud will be a set of

points distinguishable only by channel 1.

The number of such points will be 2

nH ¦o)

This is because the number of probable errors for each

codeword/cloudcenter is 2

nH ¦o)

,as explained in part II of

this paper.Only, in our case they are not really errors,but

information bits meant for Y1.Hence the extra

information we can transmit to Y1,with each codeword

sent to Y2, is H¦o) .Resulting in the rates:

R1= C¦o ¯p+¯o p)+H ¦o)

R2= C¦o ¯p+¯o p)

A Note on Codebook Generation:

First generate 2

nR

2

codewords of length n to give the

cloud centers, u

n

¦w

2

) [1].Then for each of these 2

nR

2

codewords generate an additional 2

nR

1

code

words x

n

¦w

1,

w

2

) .

Cloudcenter

To transmit the pair (w1,w2) send the codeword

x

n

¦w

1,

w

2

) .The cloudcenter u

n

¦w

2

) is never actually

sent.

This code structure allows the transmission of a code

word (r,s) where r is received and decoded by both Y1

and Y2 while S is decoded only by Y2.It must be noted

that the parameter o controls the ration of power

allocated to the two data streams.If o is high it means the

number of cloud centers is low and there are more 'error'

points within each cloud.Power allocated to data stream r

depends on the number of bits used to locate each cloud

center,and is proportional to (1- o ) ; Power allocated to

data stream s depends on the number of bits used to

identify each point within the clouds,and is proportional

to o .To better elucidate this point we make a brief

venture into the actual coding schemes used for multi-rate

broadcast in depicting:

Multi-rate Signal Constellation

The first two bits of each word denote the 'cloud

centers'.Receivers in noisy channels can only decode

empty dots,while receivers in better channels can decode

black dots.For a fixed rate code in which the number of

points cannot change, o determines the Euclidian

distance between constellation points.

“Superposition coding dominates frequency multiplexing

which in turn dominates time multiplexing”,as shown in

[13].

V. CONCLUSIONS

We are trying to develop a superposition coding

technique that will function efficiently in wireless fading

IETE Technical Review:Draft for submission

channels,and this paper lays the ground work for further

analysis and design of such variable-rate codes. Our

coding scheme includes layering of data and the use of

auxillary random variables,or virtual signals,that will only

participate in the construction of the code;one useful idea

is that of achieving Multi-rate Broadcast using

Superposition Turbo TCM.

REFERENCES

[1] Cover, T.M. , “Comments on broadcast channels ,” in Information

Theory, IEEE Transactions on , Oct 1998 Volume: 44

[2] David J. C. MacKay, Information Theory, Inference, and Learning

Algorithms Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

[3] Cover, T.M ,“Broadcast channels,”IEEE Transactions on

Information Theory, IT-18(1):2--14, January 1972. Reprinted in

Record of COMSAT, seminar on Multiple User Communications,

UPO43CL, Clarksburg, Maryland, May 1975. Reprinted in Key

Papers in the Development of Information Theory. IEEE Press,

1974. ed. by D. Slepian.

[4] T. Cover and J. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, Wiley &

Sons, New York, 1991. Second edition, 2006.

[5] Thomas M. Cover “An Achievable Rate Region for the Broadcast

Channel”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,

IT-21(4):399--404, July 1975.

[6] S. Diggavi and T. Cover. Is maximum Entropy noise the worst?

Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Information

Theory, June 1997, Ulm, Germany, p. 278. n.

[7] C. J. Kaufman, Rocky Mountain Research Lab., Boulder, CO,

private communication, May 1995.

[8] Thomas M. Cover , “Open Problems in information Theory,” IEEE

IEEE USSR Joint Workshop on Information Theory, IEEE Press,

35 - 36, December 1975.

[9] Marton, K.“A coding theorem for the discrete memoryless

broadcast channel” Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on

,Volume 25, Issue 3, May 1979 Page(s): 306 - 311

[10] El Gamal, A.van der Meulen, E. , “A proof of Marton's coding

theorem for the discrete memoryless broadcast channel,”

Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on, Publication Date: Jan

1981 Volume: 27

[11] S. Chen, B. Mulgrew, and P. M. Grant, “An outer bound to the

capacity region of broadcast channels,” Information Theory, IEEE

Transactions on, vol. 4,Publication Date: May 1978

[12] Verdu, S., “Fifty years of Shannon theory ” Information Theory,

IEEE Transactions on ,Volume 44, Issue 6, Oct 1998 Page(s):2057

- 2078 .

[13] Patrick P.Bergmans,Thomas.Cover,“CooPerative Broadcasting,” in

Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on, volume. it-20,May

1947.

[14] Sun, T.W.; Wesel, R.D.; Shane, M.R.; Jarett, K, “Superposition

turbo TCM for multirate broadcast,”in Communications, IEEE

Transactions on,Volume 52, Issue 3, March 2004 Page(s): 368 -

371

[15] John Proakis, “Digital Communications,” Tata McGraw Hill,5

th

Edition.

[16] S. Gadkari and K. Rose., “Time-division versus superposition

coded modulation schemes for unequal error protection.,”IEEE

Trans. on Comm., 47(3):370–379, March 1999.

- Kobayashi - Antenna diversity v. multiuser diversityUploaded byetaranda
- N5625Uploaded byFeliscio Ascione Felicio
- 10.1.1.31.6353Uploaded bygopichetty
- Data and Signals Lecture 1Uploaded byblueshore
- 14555_Chapter 5Uploaded byamitmaheshpur
- 70Mbs 1024 Qam ReceiverUploaded byysakeun
- lecture2bUploaded byalperuslu
- Paper 2013 Multiple Input Multiple Output SystemUploaded byengahm807043
- UMTS Radio Theory.pdfUploaded byAbraham Ndong
- A160_DVB-NGH_Spec.pdfUploaded byJyothi Prakash
- WCN_unit-1Uploaded byyalamati9
- Introduction to Wireless Communication.radio CommunicationUploaded byRevanesh Mayigaiah
- Data Communication BasicsUploaded byKigenza
- ShannonUploaded byHani TaHa
- Nbems WebinarUploaded bydragon111111
- Performance Review of Serially Concatenated RSC-RSC Codes using Non-iterative Viterbi Decoding TechniqueUploaded byJacob Bauer
- DNA Fountain Enables a Robust and Efficient Storage ArchitectureUploaded by陳琮方
- imp_CS115.pdfUploaded byNeelu02
- ICIAfS_paper_(N_L_E).pdfUploaded byLê Phú Thảo
- nt_prakt_v7_skriptUploaded bysbgm
- DispenseUploaded bySolomon Berhie
- Hans Marko The bidirectional Communication Theroy - A generalization of information theory 1973Uploaded byjas_i_ti9
- Full Text 01Uploaded bywoodksd
- HF Modems Explained StanagUploaded byamos_eva
- Supporting ENKI Slides_protocols-3G Channels and OthersUploaded byvikrantchauhan11
- DAB - Overview_2017Uploaded byArken87
- 0004077Uploaded byKathleen Franklin