<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE art SYSTEM 'http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/article.dtd'>
<art>
   <ui>1687-1499-2009-482520</ui>
   <ji>1687-1499</ji>
   <fm>
      <dochead>Research Article</dochead>
      <bibl>
         <title>
            <p>On Power Allocation for Parallel Gaussian Broadcast Channels with Common Information</p>
         </title>
         <aug>
            <au ca="yes" id="A1"><snm>Gohary</snm><fnm>RamyH</fnm><insr iid="I1"/><insr iid="I2"/><email>rgohary@crc.ca</email></au>
            <au id="A2"><snm>Davidson</snm><fnm>TimothyN</fnm><insr iid="I1"/><email>davidson@mcmaster.ca</email></au>
         </aug>
         <insg>
            <ins id="I1"><p>Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada</p></ins>
            <ins id="I2"><p>Communications Research Centre, Industry Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada</p></ins>
         </insg>
         <source>EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking</source>
         <issn>1687-1499</issn>
         <pubdate>2009</pubdate>
         <volume>2009</volume>
         <issue>1</issue>
         <fpage>482520</fpage>
         <url>http://jwcn.eurasipjournals.com/content/2009/1/482520</url>
         <xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1155/2009/482520</pubid></xrefbib>
      </bibl>
      <history><rec><date><day>28</day><month>10</month><year>2008</year></date></rec><acc><date><day>13</day><month>3</month><year>2009</year></date></acc><pub><date><day>26</day><month>4</month><year>2009</year></date></pub></history>
      <cpyrt><year>2009</year><collab>The Author(s).</collab><note>This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</note></cpyrt>
      <abs>
         <sec>
            <st>
               <p/>
            </st>
            <p>This paper considers a broadcast system in which a single transmitter sends a common message and (independent) particular messages to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i1.gif"/></inline-formula> receivers over <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i2.gif"/></inline-formula> unmatched parallel scalar Gaussian subchannels. For this system the set of all rate tuples that can be achieved via superposition coding and Gaussian signalling (SPCGS) can be parameterized by a set of power loads and partitions, and the boundary of this set can be expressed as the solution of an optimization problem. Although that problem is not convex in the general case, it will be shown that it can be used to obtain tight and efficiently computable inner and outer bounds on the SPCGS rate region. The development of these bounds relies on approximating the original optimization problem by a (convex) Geometric Program (GP), and in addition to generating the bounds, the GP also generates the corresponding power loads and partitions. There are special cases of the general problem that can be precisely formulated in a convex form. In this paper, explicit convex formulations are given for three such cases, namely, the case of 2 users, the case in which only particular messages are transmitted (in both of which the SPCGS rate region is the capacity region), and the case in which only the SPCGS sum rate is to be maximized.</p>
         </sec>
      </abs>
   </fm>
   <meta><classifications><classification id="OTWC" subtype="theme_series_title" type="BMC">Optimization Techniques in Wireless Communications</classification><classification id="OTWC" subtype="theme_series_editor" type="BMC"/></classifications></meta><bdy>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>1. Introduction</p>
         </st>
         <p>Consider a broadcast communication scenario in which a single transmitter wishes to send a combination of (independent) particular messages that are intended for individual users and a common message that is intended for all users [<abbr bid="B1">1</abbr>]. Such broadcast systems can be classified according to the probabilistic model that describes the communication channels between the transmitter and the receivers. A special class of broadcast channels is the class of degraded channels, in which the probabilistic model is such that the signals received by the users form a Markov chain. Using this Markovian property, a coding scheme that can attain every point in the capacity region for this class of channels was developed in [<abbr bid="B2">2</abbr>]. If, however, the received signals do not form a Markov chain, the broadcast channel is said to be nondegraded, and the coding scheme developed in [<abbr bid="B2">2</abbr>] does not apply directly to this case. Although degraded channels are useful in modelling single-input single-output broadcast systems, many practical systems give rise to nondegraded channels, including those that employ multicarrier transmission [<abbr bid="B3">3</abbr>], and the class of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems [<abbr bid="B4">4</abbr>]. </p>
         <p>Most of the studies on nondegraded broadcast channels have focused on scenarios in which only particular messages are sent to the users [<abbr bid="B5">5</abbr>, <abbr bid="B6">6</abbr>], and, of late, particular emphasis has been placed on Gaussian MIMO broadcast channels [<abbr bid="B4">4</abbr>, <abbr bid="B7">7</abbr>&#8211;<abbr bid="B12">12</abbr>]. For that class of channels, it has been shown that dirty paper coding [<abbr bid="B13">13</abbr>] with Gaussian signalling can achieve every point in the capacity region [<abbr bid="B4">4</abbr>]. For general nondegraded systems with common information, single-letter characterizations of achievable inner bounds were obtained in [<abbr bid="B14">14</abbr>, <abbr bid="B15">15</abbr>], and a single-letter characterization of an outer bound was obtained in [<abbr bid="B16">16</abbr>].</p>
         <p>In this paper, we will focus on a class of nondegraded broadcast channels that arises in multicarrier transmission schemes; for example, [<abbr bid="B3">3</abbr>, <abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>]. In particular, we consider systems in which a common message and particular messages are to be broadcast to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i3.gif"/></inline-formula> users over <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i4.gif"/></inline-formula> parallel scalar Gaussian subchannels. In such a system, each component subchannel is a degraded broadcast channel, but the overall broadcast channel is not degraded in the general case, because the ordering of the users in the Markov chain on each subchannel may be different. When that is the case, the subchannels are said to be unmatched [<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>]. As discussed below, the development of coding schemes for some related multicarrier broadcast systems has exploited the degraded nature of each subchannel, and we will do so in the proposed scheme.</p>
         <p>For degraded broadcast channels superposition coding is an optimal coding scheme [<abbr bid="B18">18</abbr>, <abbr bid="B19">19</abbr>], and, in fact, superposition coding can be shown to be equivalent to dirty paper coding for degraded broadcast channels [<abbr bid="B10">10</abbr>]. The superposition coding scheme divides the transmission power into partitions, and each partition is used to encode an incremental message that can be decoded by any user that observes the signal at, or above, a certain level of degradation, but cannot be decoded by weaker users. Since each component subchannel of the parallel scalar Gaussian channel model is degraded, superposition coding is optimal for each subchannel, and this observation was used in [<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>] to characterize the capacity region of the unmatched 2-user 2-subchannel scenario with both particular messages and a common message. For that case, a rather complicated method for obtaining optimal power allocations was provided in [<abbr bid="B20">20</abbr>]. For the case in which only particular messages are transmitted to the users, the capacity region for the unmatched <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i5.gif"/></inline-formula>-user <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i6.gif"/></inline-formula>-subchannel case was characterized in [<abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>], and methods for obtaining the optimal power allocations for that case were provided in [<abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>&#8211;<abbr bid="B23">23</abbr>].</p>
         <p>In this paper, we consider a broadcast system with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i7.gif"/></inline-formula> (unmatched) Gaussian subchannels and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i8.gif"/></inline-formula> users in which both a common message and particular messages are transmitted to the users. For this system we provide a characterization of the rate region that can be achieved using superposition coding and Gaussian signalling. For convenience, this region will be referred to as the SPCGS rate region. This characterization encompasses as special cases the characterization of the capacity region of the 2-user 2-subchannel scenario [<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>], and the characterization of the capacity region of the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i9.gif"/></inline-formula>-user <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i10.gif"/></inline-formula>-subchannel scenario with particular messaging only [<abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>].</p>
         <p>Using the characterization developed herein, we express the boundary points of the SPCGS rate region as the solution of an optimization problem. Although that optimization problem is not convex in the general case, we use convex optimization tools to provide efficiently computable inner and outer bounds on the SPCGS region. In particular, we employ (convex) Geometric Programming (GP) techniques [<abbr bid="B24">24</abbr>, <abbr bid="B25">25</abbr>] to efficiently compute these bounds, and to generate the corresponding power loads and partitions. In addition to the inner and outer bounds for the general case, we will develop (precise) convex formulations for the optimal power allocations in two special cases for which the capacity region is known; namely, the 2-user case with common information [<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>], and the case in which only particular messages are broadcast to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i11.gif"/></inline-formula> users [<abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>]. (Concurrent with our early work on this topic [<abbr bid="B26">26</abbr>], geometric programming was used in [<abbr bid="B23">23</abbr>] to find the optimal power allocation for the case of particular messaging.) In contrast to the methods proposed in [<abbr bid="B20">20</abbr>, <abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>], which are based on a search for Lagrange multipliers, our formulations for the optimal power allocation for these two problems are in the form of a geometric program, and hence are amenable to efficient numerical optimization techniques. In addition, we will provide a (precise) convex formulation for the problem of maximizing the SPCGS sum rate in the general <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i12.gif"/></inline-formula>-user <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i13.gif"/></inline-formula>-subchannel case.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>2. The Superposition Coding and Gaussian Signalling (SPCGS) Rate Region</p>
         </st>
         <p>We consider a broadcast channel with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i14.gif"/></inline-formula> users and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i15.gif"/></inline-formula> unmatched parallel degraded Gaussian subchannels, which is a common model for multicarrier transmission schemes; for example, [<abbr bid="B3">3</abbr>]. We will find it convenient to parameterize this model by normalizing the subchannel gains for each user to 1, and scaling the corresponding noise power by the inverse of the squared modulus of the gain. (The scaled noise power will be referred to as the "equivalent noise variance''.) Since the ordering of the users' noise powers is not necessarily the same on each subchannel, the overall broadcast channel is not degraded in the general case. This situation is depicted in Figure <figr fid="F1">1</figr>, in which the signal transmitted on the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i16.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel is denoted by <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i17.gif"/></inline-formula>, the signal received by User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i18.gif"/></inline-formula> on the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i19.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel is denoted by <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i20.gif"/></inline-formula>, and the (equivalent) noise variance on the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i21.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel at the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i22.gif"/></inline-formula>th degradation level by <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i23.gif"/></inline-formula>. The signal <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i24.gif"/></inline-formula> is the auxiliary signal on the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i25.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel that corresponds to the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i26.gif"/></inline-formula>th degradation level. The role of these auxiliary signals will become clear as we discuss the achievability of the superposition coding rate region. </p>
         <fig id="F1"><title><p>Figure 1</p></title><caption><p>The product of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i27.gif"/></inline-formula> unmatched parallel degraded broadcast subchannels with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i28.gif"/></inline-formula> users.</p></caption><text>
   <p>
      <b>The product of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i27.gif"/></inline-formula> unmatched parallel degraded broadcast subchannels with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i28.gif"/></inline-formula> users.</b>
   </p>
</text><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-1"/></fig>
         <p>To simplify the description of that characterization, we first establish some notation. Let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i29.gif"/></inline-formula> denote the level of degradation of User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i30.gif"/></inline-formula> on the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i31.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel. Using this notation, if the received signal of User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i32.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i33.gif"/></inline-formula>, is the strongest signal on the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i34.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel then <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i35.gif"/></inline-formula>, and if the received signal of User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i36.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i37.gif"/></inline-formula>, is the weakest signal on this subchannel, then <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i38.gif"/></inline-formula>. Let the power assigned to the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i39.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel be denoted by <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i40.gif"/></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i41.gif"/></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i42.gif"/></inline-formula> is the total power budget. Furthermore, denote the power partitions on the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i43.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel by <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i44.gif"/></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i45.gif"/></inline-formula>. Using these partitions, the power assigned to each auxiliary signal <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i46.gif"/></inline-formula> in Figure <figr fid="F1">1</figr> is given by <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i47.gif"/></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i48.gif"/></inline-formula> corresponds to the partition on the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i49.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel at the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i50.gif"/></inline-formula>th degradation level. As mentioned above, we will denote the equivalent noise variance on the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i51.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel at the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i52.gif"/></inline-formula>th level of degradation by <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i53.gif"/></inline-formula>, and hence <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i54.gif"/></inline-formula>. We will also use the standard notation <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i55.gif"/></inline-formula> to denote <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i56.gif"/></inline-formula>.</p>
         <p>We will use <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i57.gif"/></inline-formula> to denote the rate of the common message to all users, and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i58.gif"/></inline-formula> to denote the rate of the particular message to User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i59.gif"/></inline-formula>. (For simplicity, we will use the natural logarithm throughout this paper, and hence rates are measured in nats per (real) channel use.) Using these notations, we can now express the rate that is achievable via superposition coding and Gaussian signalling (SPCGS) for a broadcast system with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i60.gif"/></inline-formula> users and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i61.gif"/></inline-formula> parallel Gaussian subchannels. This is a generalization of the characterization in [<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>] for the system with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i62.gif"/></inline-formula>. </p>
         <p>Proposition 1. </p>
         <p>Let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i63.gif"/></inline-formula> denote a power allocation, and let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i64.gif"/></inline-formula> denote a set of power partitions. Let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i65.gif"/></inline-formula> be the set of rate vectors that satisfy </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M1a">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i66.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M1b">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i67.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M1c">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i68.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p>Then the set of all rate vectors <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i69.gif"/></inline-formula> that are achievable using superposition coding and Gaussian signalling over the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i70.gif"/></inline-formula> parallel scalar Gaussian subchannels depicted in Figure <figr fid="F1">1</figr> is given by </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M2">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i71.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p>where </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M3">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i72.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M4">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i73.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>Proof. </p>
         <p>For a given power allocation <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i74.gif"/></inline-formula> and a given set of power partitions <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i75.gif"/></inline-formula> the region bounded by the constraints in (1a)&#8211;(1c) is the region of rates achievable by superposition coding and Gaussian signalling (SPCGS). To show that, we first observe that each subchannel is a degraded broadcast channel. On subchannel <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i76.gif"/></inline-formula>, a composite signal of power <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i77.gif"/></inline-formula> is transmitted, and this signal is synthesized from Gaussian component signals that are superimposed on each other using the power partitions <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i78.gif"/></inline-formula>. The rates that can be achieved by that scheme on subchanel <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i79.gif"/></inline-formula> are well known; see, for example, [<abbr bid="B27">27</abbr>]. The rate region in (1a)&#8211;(1c) is then obtained by using the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i80.gif"/></inline-formula>th power partitions to (jointly) encode the common message across the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i81.gif"/></inline-formula> subchannels, and the other partitions to encode the particular messages. The SPCGS achievable region is then the union of all such regions over all power allocations satisfying the power constraint and all valid power partitions.</p>
         <p>More details regarding the way in which the Gaussian signals are constructed are provided in the following remark. </p>
         <p>Remark 1. </p>
         <p>Assume that the values of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i82.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i83.gif"/></inline-formula> are fixed and that these values satisfy (3) and (4), respectively. In the following remarks, we refer to the signals illustrated in Figure <figr fid="F1">1</figr>.</p>
         <p indent="1">(i)For subchannel <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i84.gif"/></inline-formula>, and degradation level <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i85.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i86.gif"/></inline-formula> is an auxiliary Gaussian signal that is constructed by superimposing an incremental Gaussian signal on <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i87.gif"/></inline-formula>. Being Gaussian and independent of the noise, this incremental signal contributes additively to the total noise plus interference power observed by any user attempting to decode the signal <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i88.gif"/></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i89.gif"/></inline-formula> [<abbr bid="B2">2</abbr>].</p>
         <p indent="1">(ii)The common message to all users is encoded using a single Gaussian codebook, and this message is embedded in the signals <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i90.gif"/></inline-formula>. The power assigned to these signals is <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i91.gif"/></inline-formula>, and the aggregate mutual information that User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i92.gif"/></inline-formula> gathers about these signals is <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i93.gif"/></inline-formula>. For User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i94.gif"/></inline-formula> to be able to decode the common message, the rate of this message must be less than the aggregate mutual information, and conversely, all users whose aggregate mutual information is greater than this rate will be able to be reliably decodable the common message. Hence, for the common message to reliably decodable by all users, the rate at which this message is transmitted must be less than the aggregate information of the weakest user. Therefore, the rate of the common message is limited by the constraint in (1a).</p>
         <p indent="1">(iii)The particular and common messages that are intended for any User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i95.gif"/></inline-formula> are embedded in the signals <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i96.gif"/></inline-formula>. The respective powers of these signals are <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i97.gif"/></inline-formula>. For these messages to be reliably decodable, the sum of the rates of these messages must be less than the aggregate mutual information that this user gathers about <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i98.gif"/></inline-formula>. This leads to the set of constraints in (1b).</p>
         <p indent="1">(iv)Consider a specific user, say User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i99.gif"/></inline-formula>, in the subset of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i100.gif"/></inline-formula> users <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i101.gif"/></inline-formula>. As in (1b), the sum of the rates of the messages that are intended for User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i102.gif"/></inline-formula> is bounded by <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i103.gif"/></inline-formula>; compare with the first term in (1c). On the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i104.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel, the degradation level of User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i105.gif"/></inline-formula> is <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i106.gif"/></inline-formula>. Now if the sum of the rates intended for User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i107.gif"/></inline-formula> is such that the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i108.gif"/></inline-formula>th term in the summation in (1b) is satisfied with equality, the other users in the subset <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i109.gif"/></inline-formula> whose degradation level is above that of User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i110.gif"/></inline-formula> (i.e., their degradation level is less than <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i111.gif"/></inline-formula>) can still reliably decode messages that are embedded in <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i112.gif"/></inline-formula>. Hence, the sum of the rates of these messages that can be achieved by superposition coding and Gaussian signalling is bounded by the second term in (1c). This holds for all permutations of users, that is, for all choices of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i113.gif"/></inline-formula> in <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i114.gif"/></inline-formula>.</p>
         <p/>
         <p>Before proceeding to particular instances of Proposition 1, we make the following remark regarding the number of inequalities required to characterize the SPCGS rate region of a general broadcast channel with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i115.gif"/></inline-formula> parallel Gaussian scalar subchannels and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i116.gif"/></inline-formula> users. </p>
         <p>Remark 2. </p>
         <p>In the general case, the number of inequalities that are required to characterize the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i117.gif"/></inline-formula>-dimensional SPCGS rate region in Proposition 1 is independent of the number of subchannels and is given by </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M5">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i118.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p>where the first term is the number of inequalities that are required to account for the achievable rate of the common message, and the second and third terms are the maximum number of inequalities that are required toaccount for partial sums of the achievable rates of the particular messages in the presence of a common message. </p>
         <p>In contrast with the exponential number of inequalities in (5), the number of inequalities that are required to characterize the capacity region when no common message is transmitted is equal to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i119.gif"/></inline-formula> [<abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>].</p>
         <p>Although Proposition 1 provides a unified framework that allows us to describe the set of rates that can be achieved by superposition coding and Gaussian signalling for an arbitrary set of degradation orderings of the users on each subchannel, for some orderings some of the bounds given in Proposition 1 will be redundant, and significantly simpler expressions can be obtained by removing this redundancy. For example, for the 2-user 2-subchannel case, for which the SPCGS rate region is the capacity region [<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>, <abbr bid="B28">28</abbr>], direct substitution in Proposition 1 and simple manipulation of the resulting inequalities shows that for matched subchannels, the description of the region in Proposition 1 can be reduced to the two inequalities in [<abbr bid="B28">28</abbr>]. For unmatched subchannels, the description in Proposition 1 yields the six inequalities in [<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>, Theorem&#8201;&#8201;2]. </p>
         <p>That Proposition 1 coincides with [<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>, Theorem&#8201;&#8201;2] in the special case of 2 subchannels and 2 users is not surprising because the underlying principles used in the derivation of these results are similar. However, in order to demonstrate some of the difficulties that arise in generalizing from 2-user to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i120.gif"/></inline-formula>-user scenarios, we now discuss a slightly more complicated example than the 2-user 2-subchannel one, namely, the 3-user 2-subchannel scenario depicted in Figure <figr fid="F2">2</figr>. For this situation we have <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i121.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i122.gif"/></inline-formula>. By substituting these values of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i123.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i124.gif"/></inline-formula> into Proposition 1, we obtain the following corollary. </p>
         <fig id="F2"><title><p>Figure 2</p></title><caption><p>The product of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i125.gif"/></inline-formula> unmatched degraded broadcast channels with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i126.gif"/></inline-formula> users.</p></caption><text>
   <p>
      <b>The product of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i125.gif"/></inline-formula> unmatched degraded broadcast channels with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i126.gif"/></inline-formula> users.</b>
   </p>
</text><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-2"/></fig>
         <p>Corollary 1 (<inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i127.gif"/></inline-formula>). </p>
         <p>Let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i128.gif"/></inline-formula> denote a power allocation, and let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i129.gif"/></inline-formula> denote a set of power partitions. Let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i130.gif"/></inline-formula> be the set of rate vectors that satisfy </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6a">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i131.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6b">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i132.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6c">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i133.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6d">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i134.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6e">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i135.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6f">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i136.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6g">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i137.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6h">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i138.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6i">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i139.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6k">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i140.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6l">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i141.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6m">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i142.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M6n">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i143.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p>Then the set of all rate vectors <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i144.gif"/></inline-formula> that are achievable using superposition coding and Gaussian signalling over the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i145.gif"/></inline-formula> parallel scalar Gaussian subchannels depicted in Figure <figr fid="F2">2</figr> is given by </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M7">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i146.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p>where </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M8">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i147.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>By examining the constraints in Corollary 1, it can be seen that for the scenario in Figure <figr fid="F2">2</figr>, the constraints in (6g) and (6h) are redundant. In order to see that, we note that because <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i148.gif"/></inline-formula>, the right-hand side (RHS) of (6l) is less than or equal to the RHS of (6g), and for any <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i149.gif"/></inline-formula>, the left-hand side (LHS) of (6l) is greater than the LHS of (6g). Hence, the constraint in (6l) is tighter than that in (6g). In a similar way, one can show that (6n) is tighter than the constraint in (6h), whence the redundancy of (6h).</p>
         <p>Remark 3. </p>
         <p>In order to assist in the interpretation of Corollary 1, we now identify the role of each signal.</p>
         <p indent="1">(i)The signal <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i150.gif"/></inline-formula> contains common information for all users, and particular information for User 3.</p>
         <p indent="1">(ii)For a fixed value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i151.gif"/></inline-formula>, the signal <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i152.gif"/></inline-formula> contains particular information for User 2.</p>
         <p indent="1">(iii)For a fixed value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i153.gif"/></inline-formula>, the signal <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i154.gif"/></inline-formula> contains particular information for User 1.</p>
         <p indent="1">(iv)The signal <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i155.gif"/></inline-formula> contains common information for all users, and particular information for User 1.</p>
         <p indent="1">(v)For a fixed value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i156.gif"/></inline-formula>, the signal <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i157.gif"/></inline-formula> contains particular information for User 2.</p>
         <p indent="1">(vi)For a fixed value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i158.gif"/></inline-formula>, the signal <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i159.gif"/></inline-formula> contains particular information for User 3.</p>
         <p/>
         <p>Note that, as pointed out in Remark 1, to achieve an arbitrary rate vector within the SPCGS region, the common message must be encoded and decoded jointly across the subchannels, whereas the particular messages may be encoded using independent codebooks on each subchanne.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>3. Power Loads and Partitions via Geometric Programming</p>
         </st>
         <p>In Proposition 1 we have provided a set of inequalities that characterize the SPCGS region. These inequalities are expressed in terms of the power loads <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i160.gif"/></inline-formula> and the power partitions <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i161.gif"/></inline-formula>. In order to achieve particular points on the boundary of this region, one can determine the power loads and partitions that maximize the weighted sum rate for any given weight vector. However, as shown in (5) and the discussion thereafter, the number of constraints that characterize the rate region of multicarrier broadcast channels with common information grows very rapidly with the number of users. Since it appears to be unlikely that a closed-form solution for the power allocation problem can be obtained, it is desirable to develop an efficient numerical technique to determine the optimal power loads and partitions. Towards that end, in this section, we formulate the problem of finding the SPCGS rate region as an optimization problem. Unfortunately, this formulation is not convex. However, we will provide two alternative formulations that will be used in Section 4 to obtain convex formulations for tight inner and outer bounds on the SPCGS region along with the corresponding power allocations. In addition, in Section 5, we will use these formulations to provide precise convex formulations for three important special cases of the optimal power allocation problem. </p>
         <p>Let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i162.gif"/></inline-formula> be the weight associated with the rate <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i163.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i164.gif"/></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i165.gif"/></inline-formula>. Our goal is to maximize <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i166.gif"/></inline-formula> subject to the constraints of Proposition 1 being satisfied. That is, we would like to solve </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M9">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i167.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p>In order to transform the optimization problem in (9) into a more convenient form, we introduce the change of variables <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i168.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i169.gif"/></inline-formula> Furthermore, we will denote <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i170.gif"/></inline-formula> by <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i171.gif"/></inline-formula>. By observing that the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, we can recast (9) as </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M10a">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i172.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M10b">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i173.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M10c">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i174.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M10d">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i175.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M10e">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i176.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M10f">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i177.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>The power loads and partitions that correspond to every point on the boundary of the SPCGS region can be obtained by varying the weights in (9), which appear as the exponents in (10a). For instance, the loads and partitions that correspond to a "fair'' rate tuple can be obtained by maximizing <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i178.gif"/></inline-formula> for an appropriately chosen set of weights, subject to the constraints in (10a)&#8211;(10f) and, possibly, a lower bound constraint on <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i179.gif"/></inline-formula>. A more direct technique for obtaining "fair'' loads and partitions is to draw insight from [<abbr bid="B29">29</abbr>] and maximize the harmonic mean of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i180.gif"/></inline-formula>, namely, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i181.gif"/></inline-formula> subject to the constraints in (10a)&#8211;(10f) and the lower bound constraint on <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i182.gif"/></inline-formula> (if it is imposed). Although we will not pursue that problem in this paper, its objective, and the additional constraint, can be written as posynomials (in the sense of [<abbr bid="B24">24</abbr>, <abbr bid="B25">25</abbr>]), and the techniques that we will apply to the weighted sum rate problem can also be applied to the problem of maximizing the harmonic mean of the rates.</p>
         <p>A key step in providing a convenient reformulation of (10a)&#8211;(10f) is the following sequence of substitutions. Let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i183.gif"/></inline-formula>. Because each subchannel is degraded, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i184.gif"/></inline-formula> for all <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i185.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i186.gif"/></inline-formula>. Let </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M11">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i187.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p>Using these new variables we can eliminate <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i188.gif"/></inline-formula> and write the constraints in (10a)&#8211;(10f) as follows </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M12a">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i189.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M12b">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i190.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p/>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M12c">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i191.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p>Using (12a)&#8211;(12c), we will develop, below, two alternative formulations of (10a)&#8211;(10f), each of which will be used in Section 4 to develop a certain outer bound. Before we do so, let us bound the terms of the form <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i192.gif"/></inline-formula> by new variables <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i193.gif"/></inline-formula>. Hence, the constraints of the form </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M13">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i194.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p>where <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i195.gif"/></inline-formula> is a posynomial (cf. [<abbr bid="B24">24</abbr>, <abbr bid="B25">25</abbr>]), can be equivalently expressed as </p>
         <p>
            <display-formula id="M14">
               <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i196.gif"/>
            </display-formula>
         </p>
         <p>Both parts of (14) are in the form of posynomial constraints, and hence can be easily incorporated into a Geometric Program (GP) [<abbr bid="B24">24</abbr>, <abbr bid="B25">25</abbr>].</p>
         <sec>
            <st>
               <p>3.1. Formulation 1</p>
            </st>
            <p>In order to develop a more convenient formulation, we note that in (12a)&#8211;(12c) the only constraint in which the variables <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i197.gif"/></inline-formula> appear is (12c). Hence, the set of constraints in (12c) can be written in a GP compatible form as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M15">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i198.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>We can now recast the constraints in (12a)&#8211;(12c) as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M16a">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i199.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M16b">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i200.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M16c">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i201.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M16d">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i202.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M16e">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i203.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M16f">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i204.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>The feasible set for the constraints in (16a)&#8211;(16f) is not convex because of the nonposynomial terms generated by the inverse of the sum of optimization variables in the right-hand side of (16c). However, in Section 4, we will show how the reformulation in (16a)&#8211;(16f) can be used to develop an efficiently computable outer bound on the capacity region.</p>
         </sec>
         <sec>
            <st>
               <p>3.2. Formulation 2</p>
            </st>
            <p>We now provide a different formulation that will be used to develop another useful outer bound and an inner bound on the achievable rate region. Consider the formulation in (12a)&#8211;(12c), and let us bound the terms of the form <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i205.gif"/></inline-formula> by new variables <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i206.gif"/></inline-formula>. Using these bounds, the constraints of the form </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M17">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i207.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>where <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i208.gif"/></inline-formula> is a posynomial can be equivalently expressed as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M18">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i209.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>However, </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M19">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i210.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>Therefore, one can write the constraints on the right of (18) as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M20">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i211.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>This constraint now is in the form of posynomial, and hence can be incorporated into a GP. Therefore, we can rewrite the constraints in (12a)&#8211;(12c) as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M21a">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i212.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M21b">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i213.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M21c">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i214.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M21d">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i215.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>By examining the constraints in (21a)&#8211;(21d), it can be seen that all the constraints are in the form of posynomial inequalities except for the constraint in (21d). Because of this posynomial equality constraint, the formulation in (21a)&#8211;(21d) is not a geometric program. However, there are important instances in which the boundary of the rate region and the corresponding power loads and partitions can be formulated in the form of a geometric program; namely, the unmatched two user case and the case in which only independent information is transmitted to the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i216.gif"/></inline-formula> users. In Section 5 we will provide convex formulations for these cases. In Section 5 we will also provide a convex formulation for obtaining the power loads and partitions that maximize the SPCGS sum rate. In the next section we will develop inner and outer bounds for the rate region that can be achieved by superposition coding and Gaussian signalling.</p>
         </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>4. Outer and Inner Bounds on the SPCGS Region</p>
         </st>
         <p>In this section, we use the formulations in (16a)&#8211;(16f) and (21a)&#8211;(21d) to develop tight inner and outer bounds on the SPCGS rate region.</p>
         <sec>
            <st>
               <p>4.1. Outer Bounds</p>
            </st>
            <sec>
               <st>
                  <p>4.1.1. An Outer Bound Based on Formulation 1</p>
               </st>
               <p>The formulation in (16a)&#8211;(16f) is not convex due to the terms of the form <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i217.gif"/></inline-formula> in (16c). In order to derive an outer bound on the rate region, we use the transformation <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i218.gif"/></inline-formula>. By invoking this transformation in the formulation in (16a)&#8211;(16f), one can verify that for each constraint of the nonposynomial form in (16c), an inverse term appears in one of the constraints in (16a). We can multiply each constraint that contains an offending term in the denominator by the corresponding constraints that contain the same term but in the numerator. By doing so we develop new constraints that do not contain offending terms. These new constraints are obviously a relaxation of the original constraints and hence lead to an outer bound on the SPCGS rate region. Indeed, the rates yielded by the relaxed constraints are not necessarily decodable by the users, even though the power allocations and partitions satisfy their respective constraints. However, these new constraints are posynomial constraints that can be used to replace the nonposynomial ones. As a result, the outer bound can be efficiently computed via geometric programming techniques. If any constraint that contains the offending term in the numerator is active, the relaxed constraint will (precisely) enforce the original nonposynomial constraint.</p>
            </sec>
            <sec>
               <st>
                  <p>4.1.2. An Outer Bound Based on Formulation 2</p>
               </st>
               <p>In order to develop an alternative outer bound, we recall that the nonconvexity of the formulation in (21a)&#8211;(21d) arises from the posynomial equality constraint in (21d). An outer bound can therefore be obtained by relaxing this constraint. In particular, for all <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i219.gif"/></inline-formula> we replace the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i220.gif"/></inline-formula>th constraint in (21d) by </p>
               <p>
                  <display-formula id="M22">
                     <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i221.gif"/>
                  </display-formula>
               </p>
               <p>This relaxation may yield power partitions that do not add up to unity, and hence the generated rates are not necessarily decodable by the users. However, this constraint is in a GP-compatible posynomial inequality form and therefore can be used to develop an efficiently computable outer bound on the SPCGS region.</p>
            </sec>
         </sec>
         <sec>
            <st>
               <p>4.2. An Inner Bound</p>
            </st>
            <p>The fact that the relaxation in Section 4.1.2 leads to an outer bound can be verified by observing that if (22) is satisfied with strict inequality, the corresponding rate tuple might not be achievable because the set <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i222.gif"/></inline-formula> does not necessarily represent a set of feasible power partitions. On the other hand, any rate tuple for which the corresponding set <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i223.gif"/></inline-formula> satisfies <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i224.gif"/></inline-formula> is achievable, and the set of such rate tuples forms an inner bound on the SPCGS rate region. In order to efficiently determine valid power partitions (that satisfy <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i225.gif"/></inline-formula>) that yield (achievable) rates that are close to the boundary of the SPCGS region, we will consider an auxiliary problem in which we fix the value of the weighted sum rate and search for a valid power partitioning that achieves this weighted sum rate. One formulation of the auxiliary problem is as follows. Let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i226.gif"/></inline-formula> denote twice the weighted sum rate. For a fixed value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i227.gif"/></inline-formula>, solve </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M23a">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i228.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M23b">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i229.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M23c">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i230.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M23d">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i231.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>For the given value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i232.gif"/></inline-formula>, if the solution of (23a)&#8211;(23d) satisfies (23c) with equality, the corresponding solution represents a valid power partitioning and this value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i233.gif"/></inline-formula> corresponds to twice a weighted sum of achievable rates. However, if the solution does not satisfy (23c) with equality, this value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i234.gif"/></inline-formula> corresponds to rates outside the SPCGS rate region. Hence, our goal is to find the maximum value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i235.gif"/></inline-formula> for which the solution of (23a)&#8211;(23d) satisfies (23c) with equality. In order to do that, we require a method for choosing the value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i236.gif"/></inline-formula> and a technique for solving (23a)&#8211;(23d) in an efficient manner.</p>
            <p>In order to select appropriate values for <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i237.gif"/></inline-formula> we observe that the optimal value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i238.gif"/></inline-formula> is a monotonically increasing function of the total power budget, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i239.gif"/></inline-formula>. In order to show that, we note that <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i240.gif"/></inline-formula> is a monotonically increasing function of each of the rates <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i241.gif"/></inline-formula>. For any valid power partition, each rate <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i242.gif"/></inline-formula> is the sum of terms of the form <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i243.gif"/></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i244.gif"/></inline-formula>. Now, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i245.gif"/></inline-formula>, which implies that the each rate is monotonically increasing in the total power budget, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i246.gif"/></inline-formula>. Now for any valid power allocation that corresponds to a point on the boundary of the SPCGS rate region we have <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i247.gif"/></inline-formula>. Hence, if we assume that the optimization in (23a)&#8211;(23d) can be solved exactly, one can perform bisection search over <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i248.gif"/></inline-formula> to find the largest value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i249.gif"/></inline-formula> for which the power partitions that maximize the objective in (23a)&#8211;(23d) satisfy <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i250.gif"/></inline-formula>. Note that in order to determine a search interval for the bisection technique, one may solve the relaxed problem in Section 3.2. Now, if <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i251.gif"/></inline-formula> is the optimum value of the relaxed problem, then the optimal feasible value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i252.gif"/></inline-formula> for (23a)&#8211;(23d) must lie in the interval <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i253.gif"/></inline-formula>.</p>
            <p>We now consider solving (23a)&#8211;(23d). Observe that although all the constraints in (23a)&#8211;(23d) are GP compatible, the objective is not GP compatible. One way to find an inner bound is to use a monomial to approximate the objective in (23a)&#8211;(23d). This approximation results in a geometric program that can be efficiently solved. An inner bound can then be found by using the bisection technique described above to find the largest value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i254.gif"/></inline-formula> for which maximizing the approximated objective yields a valid power allocation. By varying the monomial used to approximate the objective, one obtains a family of inner bounds. Of course, it is desirable to find the outermost inner bound. An efficient technique for doing so is to employ Signomial Programming (SP) [<abbr bid="B25">25</abbr>]. In this technique, the objective is iteratively approximated by the best fitting monomial in the neighbourhood of the current iterate. Since all the constraints in (23a)&#8211;(23d) are GP compatible, each iteration in the signomial programming technique involves the solution of a geometric program, and because the objective is the only expression in (23a)&#8211;(23d) that is not GP compatible, signomial programming is likely to provide solutions that are close to optimal [<abbr bid="B24">24</abbr>, <abbr bid="B25">25</abbr>]. In fact, our numerical experiments show that for the scenarios in which the capacity region can be computed exactly, the region generated by the proposed algorithm almost coincides with the capacity region; see Figure <figr fid="F5">5</figr>.</p>
            <p>For completeness, we now describe the proposed algorithm in more detail. In signomial programming, the set <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i255.gif"/></inline-formula> is initialized by arbitrary values that satisfy the constraints in (23a)&#8211;(23d). We then find the best fitting monomial for <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i256.gif"/></inline-formula> in the neighbourhood of the initial values of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i257.gif"/></inline-formula> using the Taylor expansion in the logarithmic domain. This monomial takes the form <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i258.gif"/></inline-formula>. Using this approximation, we solve the following geometric program: </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M24">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i259.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>By solving this geometric program, we obtain a new set <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i260.gif"/></inline-formula>. This set is used to generate a new set of exponents <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i261.gif"/></inline-formula>. (For the current objective, the exponents that correspond to the best fitting monomial at the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i262.gif"/></inline-formula>th iteration are given by <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i263.gif"/></inline-formula> where <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i264.gif"/></inline-formula> is a positive scalar that is a function of all <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i265.gif"/></inline-formula>. Being positive and common to all exponents, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i266.gif"/></inline-formula> can be dropped from the formulation of the optimization program in (24).) We continue to iterate in this manner until either the inequality constraint in (23c) is satisfied with equality or the sequence of sets <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i267.gif"/></inline-formula> converges without (23c) being satisfied with equality. In the former case, the SP approach has generated a solution to (23a)&#8211;(23d) that satisfies (23c) with equality. Hence, the current value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i268.gif"/></inline-formula> corresponds to twice the weighted sum rate of an achievable rate tuple, and the next step is to use the bisection rule to increase the value of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i269.gif"/></inline-formula> and solve (23a)&#8211;(23d) again. In the latter case, the SP approach has been unable to find a solution to (9) that satisfies (23c) with equality. While this does not necessarily mean that such a solution does not exist, we adopt the conservative approach and use the bisection rule to reduce <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i270.gif"/></inline-formula> and solve (23a)&#8211;(23d) again. This conservative approach is the reason why our approach generates an inner bound on the SPCGS rate region rather than the SPCGS rate region itself, but it is also the key to the computational efficiency of the algorithm.</p>
         </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>5. Exact Convex Formulations&#8212;Special Cases</p>
         </st>
         <p>In the previous section we considered a general Gaussian broadcast channel with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i271.gif"/></inline-formula> parallel subchannels and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i272.gif"/></inline-formula> users, and we showed how to derive convex formulations for inner and outer bounds on the SPCGS rate region. In this section we provide exact convex formulations for three particular instances of the general problem, namely, the 2-user case and the case of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i273.gif"/></inline-formula> users with (independent) particular messages only, and the SPCGS sum rate point of the general <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i274.gif"/></inline-formula>-user <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i275.gif"/></inline-formula>-subchannel case. (For the first two cases, the SPCGS rate region is known to be the capacity region [<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>, <abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>].) Using these convex formulations, optimal power loads and partitions for these three cases can be obtained using efficient interior point techniques.</p>
         <sec>
            <st>
               <p>5.1. Optimal Power Allocation for the 2-User Case</p>
            </st>
            <p>For this case, the capacity region was shown in [<abbr bid="B17">17</abbr>] to be the same as the SPCGS rate region. Similar to the general case considered in Proposition 1, the boundary of the 2-user SPCGS rate region is parameterized by power loads and partitions. Although the optimal values of these parameters can be determined using the indirect Lagrange multiplier search technique provided in [<abbr bid="B20">20</abbr>], in this section we provide a (precise) convex formulation that enables us to determine those loads and partitions directly, and in a computationally efficient manner. </p>
            <p>Recall that in our notation the degradedness condition on each subchannel implies that <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i276.gif"/></inline-formula>. Let <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i277.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i278.gif"/></inline-formula>, be the set of subchannels on which User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i279.gif"/></inline-formula> is the stronger user. Using Proposition 1 and the logarithmic substitutions: <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i280.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i281.gif"/></inline-formula>, we formulate the weighted sum rate optimization problem as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M25">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i282.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>where <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i283.gif"/></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i284.gif"/></inline-formula> is the power partition associated with the stronger user on the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i285.gif"/></inline-formula>th subchannel. In order to transform this optimization problem into a convex form, we perform the variable substitutions </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M26">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i286.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i287.gif"/></inline-formula>. Using these variable substitutions, and the equivalent constraints in (14), the optimization problem in (25) can be reformulated as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M27">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i288.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>The formulation in (27) is in the form of a convex geometric program and the optimal values of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i289.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i290.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i291.gif"/></inline-formula>, can be efficiently found. Once <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i292.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i293.gif"/></inline-formula> have been computed, one can use (26) to find the power loads <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i294.gif"/></inline-formula> and the power partitions <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i295.gif"/></inline-formula>.</p>
         </sec>
         <sec>
            <st>
               <p>5.2. Optimal Power Allocation for the Broadcast of Particular Information to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i296.gif"/></inline-formula> users</p>
            </st>
            <p>The capacity region for the case in which only particular information is to be transmitted to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i297.gif"/></inline-formula> users over <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i298.gif"/></inline-formula> parallel channels was considered in [<abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>&#8211;<abbr bid="B23">23</abbr>]. In [<abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>] the concept of utility functions was introduced. Using the properties of these functions and a search for a Lagrange multiplier, optimal power loads and power partitions were determined algebraically. In this section we will present an alternative efficient numerical technique for determining these loads and partitions through the solution of a convex optimization problem. (This technique is similar to that presented in [<abbr bid="B23">23</abbr>] and was developed independently.) Using our notation for the rate of particular information of User <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i299.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i300.gif"/></inline-formula>, the capacity region is the closure of all points of the form [<abbr bid="B21">21</abbr>] </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M28">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i301.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>where <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i302.gif"/></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i303.gif"/></inline-formula>. In order to simplify the notation, we will use <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i304.gif"/></inline-formula> to denote <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i305.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i306.gif"/></inline-formula> to denote <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i307.gif"/></inline-formula>. Finding each point on the boundary of the capacity region and the corresponding power loads and partitions is equivalent to solving the following optimization problem for a given set of weights <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i308.gif"/></inline-formula> that satisfy <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i309.gif"/></inline-formula>:</p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M29a">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i310.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M29b">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i311.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M29c">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i312.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M29d">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i313.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M29e">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i314.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>In its current form, the formulation in (29a)&#8211;(29e) is not convex. The key to casting (29a)&#8211;(29e) in a convex form is the change of variables </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M30">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i315.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>To begin with, we note that this substitution is one-to-one. That is, once the problem is solved in terms of the variables <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i316.gif"/></inline-formula>, one can readily obtain the required power partitions <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i317.gif"/></inline-formula>. We now examine the constraints in (29a)&#8211;(29e). The set of constraints in (29b) can be rewritten as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M31">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i318.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>Observe that because each subchannel is degraded, the constant <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i319.gif"/></inline-formula> is greater than or equal to zero. Hence, (31) is in the form of a posynomial constraint, and can be easily incorporated in a geometric program. In order to account for the constraints (29c), (29d), and (29e), we observe that from (30) we have </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M32">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i320.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>where we will use the convention that <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i321.gif"/></inline-formula>. The set of constraints in (29e) can now be expressed as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M33">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i322.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>This constraint is also in a posynomial format. Finally, we observe that the constraints in (29c) and (29d) can be merged together. In particular, the variables <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i323.gif"/></inline-formula> can be eliminated. Using (30), this will lead to the following constraint: </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M34">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i324.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>Using these transformations, the weighted sum rate optimization problem in (29a)&#8211;(29e) can be recast in the following convex format: </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M35">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i325.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>Once (35) has been solved, one can use (32) and (29c) to obtain the required power loads and partitions.</p>
         </sec>
         <sec>
            <st>
               <p>5.3. Optimal Power Allocation for SPCGS Sum Rate Maximization</p>
            </st>
            <p>In Section 3.1 we expressed the points on the boundary of the SPCGS rate region of a <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i326.gif"/></inline-formula>-user <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i327.gif"/></inline-formula>-subchannel broadcast channel as the solution of the optimization problem in (16a)&#8211;(16f). As discussed in Section 3.1, that problem is not convex for general values of the weights <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i328.gif"/></inline-formula>. However, for the case in which all the weights are equal, the objective in (16a)&#8211;(16f) corresponds to the sum of the common and particular SPCGS rates. We will now show that finding the power loads and partitions that maximize this sum rate can be cast a (convex) geometric program. In order to do that, we observe that the constraints in (16a)&#8211;(16f) that bound the sum rate can be extracted from (16c) by setting <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i329.gif"/></inline-formula> equal to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i330.gif"/></inline-formula>. It can be shown that in the problem of maximizing the sum rate only these constraints and the constraints in (16d)&#8211;(16f) can be active. That is, the constraints in (16a) and (16b) and the constraints in (16c) that correspond to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i331.gif"/></inline-formula> do not constrain the optimal solution to the sum rate optimization problem. In order to see that, we observe that solving (16a)&#8211;(16f) with these constraints removed results in a relaxation of the optimization problem. This relaxation yields an upper bound on the maximum sum rate. However, the solution of the relaxed problem provides power allocations that satisfy the power constraints in (16d)&#8211;(16f) and achieve this upper bound on the maximum sum rate. Hence, the maximum sum rate that can be achieved by superposition coding and Gaussian signalling, and the corresponding power allocations, can be obtained by solving the relaxed problem.</p>
            <p>We now provide an explicit formulation of the relaxed problem in a convex form. In order to do that, let the sum rate <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i332.gif"/></inline-formula> be equal to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i333.gif"/></inline-formula>, and note that by setting <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i334.gif"/></inline-formula> to be equal to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i335.gif"/></inline-formula> in (16c), we have <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i336.gif"/></inline-formula>. Hence, the relaxed problem can be expressed as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M36a">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i337.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M36b">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i338.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M36c">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i339.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M36d">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i340.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M36e">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i341.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>In order to cast the optimization problem in (36a)&#8211;(36e) in a convex form, we use the transformation in (30) to write the constraints in (36b) in a posynomial form as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="M37">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i342.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p>Noting from (11) and (30) that <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i343.gif"/></inline-formula> is equal to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i344.gif"/></inline-formula>, the constraints in (36c)&#8211;(36e) can be easily transformed into posynomial inequality constraints using the same technique that was used to formulate (35). </p>
            <p>Remark 4. </p>
            <p>In addition to casting the SPCGS sum rate in a convex form, it is also possible to show that by setting all the particular rates equal to zero, one can cast the problem of maximizing the common SPCGS rate as a GP. This can be done by removing the constraints in (16b) and (16c) and solving the resulting GP directly.</p>
         </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>6. Numerical Example</p>
         </st>
         <p>In this section we will provide a numerical example based on the 3-user 2-subchannel scenario depicted in Figure <figr fid="F2">2</figr>. Although it is straightforward to particularize the general formulation in (12a)&#8211;(12c) for this scenario, for completeness we have provided an explicit formulation in the appendix. Using this formulation, we obtain formulations for the outer and inner bounds on the SPCGS rate region using the approaches described in Section 4. </p>
         <p>The rate region for this scenario lies in a 4-dimensional space <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i345.gif"/></inline-formula>, which can be rather difficult to visualize. Therefore, in Figures <figr fid="F3">3</figr>, <figr fid="F4">4</figr>, and <figr fid="F5">5</figr> we will provide exemplary cross-sections of the rate region for different values of the common information rate, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i346.gif"/></inline-formula>. The parameters of the system model in Figure <figr fid="F2">2</figr> were chosen by setting the transmitted power, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i347.gif"/></inline-formula>, to be equal to 1, and picking the values for the equivalent noise variances at random, such that <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i348.gif"/></inline-formula>. In these figures we will show the rate regions for a system with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i349.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i350.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i351.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i352.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i353.gif"/></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i354.gif"/></inline-formula>. (Other results for this scenario are available in [<abbr bid="B26">26</abbr>].) Using the observation in Remark 4, the maximum common information rate <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i355.gif"/></inline-formula>, can be efficiently computed, and in this setting it is equal to <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i356.gif"/></inline-formula> nats per channel use.</p>
         <fig id="F3"><title><p>Figure 3</p></title><caption><p>The SPCGS rate regions obtained via signomial programming for <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i357.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i358.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i359.gif"/></inline-formula>.</p></caption><text>
   <p>
      <b>The SPCGS rate regions obtained via signomial programming for <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i357.gif"/></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i358.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i359.gif"/></inline-formula>.</b>
   </p>
</text><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-3"/></fig>
         <fig id="F4"><title><p>Figure 4</p></title><caption><p>A comparison between the inner and outer bounds on the SPCGS rate region at <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i360.gif"/></inline-formula>.</p></caption><text>
   <p><b>A comparison between the inner and outer bounds on the SPCGS rate region at <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i360.gif"/></inline-formula>.</b>Inner (marked "<inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i361.gif"/></inline-formula>'') and outer (marked "o'') bounds on SPCGS rate regionIntensity illustration of the difference between the values of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i362.gif"/></inline-formula> given by the outer and inner bounds. The boundary of the SPCGS rate region with <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i363.gif"/></inline-formula> is marked by "<inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i364.gif"/></inline-formula>''</p>
</text><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-4"/></fig>
         <fig id="F5"><title><p>Figure 5</p></title><caption><p>Difference between the values of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i365.gif"/></inline-formula> on the boundary of the capacity region for particular messaging (<inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i366.gif"/></inline-formula>) and the values of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i367.gif"/></inline-formula> generated by the proposed inner bound (for <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i368.gif"/></inline-formula>).</p></caption><text>
   <p><b>Difference between the values of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i365.gif"/></inline-formula> on the boundary of the capacity region for particular messaging (<inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i366.gif"/></inline-formula>) and the values of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i367.gif"/></inline-formula> generated by the proposed inner bound (for <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i368.gif"/></inline-formula>).</b> The boundary of the capacity region is marked by "<inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i369.gif"/></inline-formula>''.</p>
</text><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-5"/></fig>
         <p>As an initial illustration of the proposed approach, in Figure <figr fid="F3">3</figr> we show the regions of SPCGS achievable rate triples <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i370.gif"/></inline-formula> that are obtained via the signomial programming technique described in Section 4.2 for different values of the common information rate: <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i371.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i372.gif"/></inline-formula>. As can be seen from this figure, increasing the rate of the common message simultaneously reduces the maximum achievable rates for all particular messages; a result that conforms with natural intuition.</p>
         <p>In order to investigate the tightness of the proposed inner and outer bounds on the set of SPCGS achievable rates, in Figure <figr fid="F4">4</figr> we provide a comparison between the inner bound proposed in Section 4.2, which is obtained via signomial programming and bisection search, and the outer bound proposed in Section 4.1.1, which is obtained via a geometric program. In particular, Figure <figr fid="F4">4(a)</figr> shows a 3-dimensional plot of the inner and outer bounds on the rate triples <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i373.gif"/></inline-formula> when the common information rate is set at <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i374.gif"/></inline-formula>. For fixed values of <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i375.gif"/></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i376.gif"/></inline-formula>, the difference between the inner and the outer bounds on <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i377.gif"/></inline-formula> in Figure <figr fid="F4">4(a)</figr> is illustrated in Figure <figr fid="F4">4(b)</figr> using a 2-dimensional intensity plot, with black and white colours corresponding to the maximum and minimum differences, respectively. From this figure, it can be seen that the maximum difference is about <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i378.gif"/></inline-formula>, corresponding to a relative difference of approximately <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i379.gif"/></inline-formula>. It can also be seen from this Figure that although the bounds do not agree on the entire rate region, they almost coincide over a significant portion of it. </p>
         <p>Finally, we investigate the tightness of the inner bound when the rate of the common message is set to zero; that is, <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i380.gif"/></inline-formula>. In that case, the SPCGS region coincides with the capacity region, and can be precisely (and efficiently) computed using the formulation in Section 5.2. In Figure <figr fid="F5">5</figr>, the difference between the SPCGS rate region and the proposed inner bound is illustrated using an intensity plot. It can be seen from this plot that the maximum difference is about <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i381.gif"/></inline-formula>, which demonstrates the utility of the proposed inner bound. </p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>7. Conclusion</p>
         </st>
         <p>In this paper we have provided a general characterization of the rate region that can be achieved by superposition coding and Gaussian signalling (SPCGS) on a <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i382.gif"/></inline-formula>-user <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i383.gif"/></inline-formula>-subchannel Gaussian broadcast system in which a common message and particular messages are transmitted to the users. We have also expressed the boundary points of this region as the solution of an optimization problem. Although that problem is not convex in the general case, it was used to obtain efficiently computable inner and outer bounds on the SPCGS rate region. In addition, we have provided precise convex formulations for some important special cases of the general problem, including two cases in which the SPCGS rate region is known to be the capacity region (the 2-user case and the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i384.gif"/></inline-formula>-user case with particular messages only), and the <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i385.gif"/></inline-formula>-user <inline-formula><graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i386.gif"/></inline-formula>-subchannel case in which only the SPCGS sum rate is maximized.</p>
      </sec>
   </bdy>
   <bm>
      <ack>
         <sec>
            <st>
               <p>Acknowledgments</p>
            </st>
            <p>This work was supported, in part, by a Premier's Research Excellence Award from the Government of Ontario. The work of the second author is also supported by the Canada Research Chairs program.</p>
         </sec>
      </ack>
      <refgrp><bibl id="B1"><title><p>Broadcast channels</p></title><aug><au><snm>Cover</snm><fnm>T</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>1972</pubdate><volume>18</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>2</fpage><lpage>14</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.1972.1054727</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B2"><title><p>Random coding theorem for broadcast channels with degraded components</p></title><aug><au><snm>Bergmans</snm><fnm>P</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>1973</pubdate><volume>19</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>197</fpage><lpage>207</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.1973.1054980</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B3"><title><p>The capacity region of broadcast channels with intersymbol interference and colored Gaussian noise</p></title><aug><au><snm>Goldsmith</snm><fnm>AJ</fnm></au><au><snm>Effros</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>2001</pubdate><volume>47</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>219</fpage><lpage>240</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/18.904524</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B4"><title><p>The capacity region of the Gaussian multiple-input multiple-output broadcast channel</p></title><aug><au><snm>Weingarten</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au><au><snm>Steinberg</snm><fnm>Y</fnm></au><au><snm>Shamai</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>2006</pubdate><volume>52</volume><issue>9</issue><fpage>3936</fpage><lpage>3964</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B5"><title><p>A coding theorem for the discrete memoryless broadcast channel</p></title><aug><au><snm>Marton</snm><fnm>K</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>1979</pubdate><volume>25</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>306</fpage><lpage>311</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.1979.1056046</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B6"><title><p>An outer bound to the capacity region of broadcast channels</p></title><aug><au><snm>Sato</snm><fnm>H</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>1978</pubdate><volume>24</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>374</fpage><lpage>377</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.1978.1055883</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B7"><title><p>On the achievable throughput of a multiantenna Gaussian broadcast channel</p></title><aug><au><snm>Caire</snm><fnm>G</fnm></au><au><snm>Shamai</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>2003</pubdate><volume>49</volume><issue>7</issue><fpage>1691</fpage><lpage>1706</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.2003.813523</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B8"><title><p>Sum capacity of Gaussian vector broadcast channels</p></title><aug><au><snm>Yu</snm><fnm>W</fnm></au><au><snm>Cioffi</snm><fnm>JM</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>2004</pubdate><volume>50</volume><issue>9</issue><fpage>1875</fpage><lpage>1892</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.2004.833336</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B9"><title><p>Duality, achievable rates, and sum-rate capacity of Gaussian MIMO broadcast channels</p></title><aug><au><snm>Vishwanath</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Jindal</snm><fnm>N</fnm></au><au><snm>Goldsmith</snm><fnm>A</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>2003</pubdate><volume>49</volume><issue>10</issue><fpage>2658</fpage><lpage>2668</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.2003.817421</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B10"><title><p>Uplink-downlink duality via minimax duality</p></title><aug><au><snm>Yu</snm><fnm>W</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>2006</pubdate><volume>52</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>361</fpage><lpage>374</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B11"><title><p>Capacity bounds for Gaussian vector broadcast channels</p></title><aug><au><snm>Vishwanath</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Kramer</snm><fnm>G</fnm></au><au><snm>Shamai</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Jafar</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Goldsmith</snm><fnm>A</fnm></au></aug><source>Proceedings of DIMACS workshop on Signal Processing for Wireless Transmissions, October 2002, Rutgers, NJ, USA</source><editor>Foschini GJ, Verd&#250; S</editor><fpage>71</fpage><lpage>80</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B12"><title><p>Sum capacity of the vector Gaussian broadcast channel and uplink-downlink duality</p></title><aug><au><snm>Viswanath</snm><fnm>P</fnm></au><au><snm>Tse</snm><fnm>DNC</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>2003</pubdate><volume>49</volume><issue>8</issue><fpage>1912</fpage><lpage>1921</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.2003.814483</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B13"><title><p>Writing on dirty paper</p></title><aug><au><snm>Costa</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>1983</pubdate><volume>29</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>439</fpage><lpage>441</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.1983.1056659</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B14"><title><p>An achievable rate region for the broadcast channel</p></title><aug><au><snm>Cover</snm><fnm>TM</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>1975</pubdate><volume>21</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>399</fpage><lpage>404</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.1975.1055418</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B15"><title><p>Random coding theorems for the general discrete memoryless broadcast channel</p></title><aug><au><snm>van der Meulen</snm><fnm>EC</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>1975</pubdate><volume>21</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>180</fpage><lpage>190</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.1975.1055347</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B16"><title><p>An outer bound to the capacity region of the broadcast channel</p></title><aug><au><snm>Nair</snm><fnm>C</fnm></au><au><snm>El Gamal</snm><fnm>A</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>2007</pubdate><volume>53</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>350</fpage><lpage>355</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B17"><title><p>Capacity of the product and sum of two unmatched broadcast channels</p></title><aug><au><snm>El Gamal</snm><fnm>AA</fnm></au></aug><source>Problems of Information Transmission</source><pubdate>1980</pubdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>3</fpage><lpage>23</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B18"><title><p>A simple converse for broadcast channels with additive white Gaussian noise</p></title><aug><au><snm>Bergmans</snm><fnm>P</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</source><pubdate>1974</pubdate><volume>20</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>279</fpage><lpage>280</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1109/TIT.1974.1055184</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B19"><title><p>Capacity and coding for degraded broadcast channels</p></title><aug><au><snm>Gallager</snm><fnm>RG</fnm></au></aug><source>Problemy Peredachi Informatsii</source><pubdate>1974</pubdate><volume>10</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>185</fpage><lpage>193</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B20"><title><p>Capacity and dirty paper coding for Gaussian broadcast channels with common information</p></title><aug><au><snm>Jindal</snm><fnm>N</fnm></au><au><snm>Goldsmith</snm><fnm>A</fnm></au></aug><source>Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT &apos;04), June-July 2004, Chicago, Ill, USA</source><fpage>215</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B21"><title><p>Optimal power allocation over parallel Gaussian broadcast channels</p></title><aug><au><snm>Tse</snm><fnm>DNC</fnm></au></aug><source>Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT &apos;97), June-July 1997, Ulm, Germany</source><fpage>27</fpage></bibl><bibl id="B22"><title><p>Optimal resource allocation for OFDM multiuser channels</p></title><aug><au><snm>Wunder</snm><fnm>G</fnm></au><au><snm>Michel</snm><fnm>T</fnm></au></aug><note>submitted to <it>IEEE Transactions on Information Theory</it></note></bibl><bibl id="B23"><title><p>CTH03-5: optimal resource allocation via geometric programming for OFDM broadcast and multiple access channels</p></title><aug><au><snm>Seong</snm><fnm>K</fnm></au><au><snm>Yu</snm><fnm>DD</fnm></au><au><snm>Kim</snm><fnm>Y</fnm></au><au><snm>Cioffi</snm><fnm>JM</fnm></au></aug><source>Proceedings of the IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM &apos;06), November 2006, San Francisco, Calif, USA</source><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>5</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B24"><title><p>Geometric programming for communication systems</p></title><aug><au><snm>Chiang</snm><fnm>M</fnm></au></aug><source>Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory</source><pubdate>2005</pubdate><volume>2</volume><issue>1-2</issue><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>154</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1561/0100000005</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B25"><title><p>A tutorial on geometric programming</p></title><aug><au><snm>Boyd</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au><au><snm>Kim</snm><fnm>S-J</fnm></au><au><snm>Vandenberghe</snm><fnm>L</fnm></au><au><snm>Hassibi</snm><fnm>A</fnm></au></aug><source>Optimization and Engineering</source><pubdate>2007</pubdate><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>67</fpage><lpage>127</lpage><xrefbib><pubid idtype="doi">10.1007/s11081-007-9001-7</pubid></xrefbib></bibl><bibl id="B26"><title><p>On the capacity region of parallel Gaussian broadcast channels with common information</p></title><aug><au><snm>Gohary</snm><fnm>RH</fnm></au><au><snm>Davidson</snm><fnm>TN</fnm></au></aug><source>Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT &apos;07), June 2007, Nice, France</source><fpage>1146</fpage><lpage>1150</lpage></bibl><bibl id="B27"><aug><au><snm>Cover</snm><fnm>TM</fnm></au><au><snm>Thomas</snm><fnm>JA</fnm></au></aug><source>Elements of Information Theory</source><publisher>Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY, USA</publisher><pubdate>1991</pubdate></bibl><bibl id="B28"><aug><au><snm>Hughes-Hartogs</snm><fnm>D</fnm></au></aug><source>The capacity of a degraded spectral Gaussian broadcast channel, Ph.D. thesis</source><publisher>Stanford University, Stanford, Calif, USA</publisher><pubdate>July 1975</pubdate></bibl><bibl id="B29"><title><p>Dynamic spectrum management: complexity and duality</p></title><aug><au><snm>Luo</snm><fnm>Z-Q</fnm></au><au><snm>Zhang</snm><fnm>S</fnm></au></aug><source>IEEE Journal on Selected Topics in Signal Processing</source><pubdate>2008</pubdate><volume>2</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>57</fpage><lpage>73</lpage></bibl></refgrp>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>Appendix</p>
         </st>
         <sec>
            <st>
               <p>Equivalent Optimization Problem for the 3-User 2-Subchannel Case</p>
            </st>
            <p>Using the transformation in (11), the rate region described in (6a)&#8211;(6n) can be cast as </p>
            <p>
               <display-formula id="MA1">
                  <graphic file="1687-1499-2009-482520-i387.gif"/>
               </display-formula>
            </p>
            <p/>
         </sec>
      </sec>
   </bm>
</art>