Exercise 4.7Z: About the Water Filling Algorithm
We consider K parallel Gaussian channels (AWGN) with different interference powers σ2k, where 1≤k≤K . The graph illustrates this constellation using K=4 as an example.
The transmission power in the individual channels is denoted by Pk, the sum of which must not exceed the specified value PX :
- P1+...+PK=K∑k=1E[X2k]≤PX.
If the random variables X1, ... , XK are Gaussian, then for the (total) mutual information between the input X and the output Y can be written:
- I(X1,...,XK;Y1,...,YK)=1/2⋅K∑k=1log2(1+Pkσ2k),Resultin"bit".
The maximum for this is the channel capacity of the total system, where the maximization refers to the division of the total power PX among the individual channels:
- CK(PX)=max
This maximization can be done with the "water–filling algorithm" shown in the above graph for K = 4.
In the present exercise, this algorithm is to be applied, assuming the following:
- Two parallel Gaussian channels ⇒ K = 2,
- normalized noise powers \sigma_1^2 = 1 and \sigma_2^2 = 4,
- normalized transmission powers P_X = 10 and P_X = 3 respectively.
Hints:
- The exercise belongs to the chapter AWGN channel capacity with continuous value input.
- Reference is made in particular to the page Parallel Gaussian Channels.
- Since the results are to be given in "bit", the logarithm to base 2 is used in the equations: \log_2.
Questions
Solution
- According to the explanations in the theory section "Water–Filling" ⇒ Proposal 2 is to be applied when unequal conditions exist.
- However, solution proposal 3 is also correct: If the channels are equally good, there is nothing to prevent all K channels from being filled with the same power ⇒ P_1 = P_2 = ... = P_K = P_X/K.
(2) For the mutual information, with equal power distribution, the following applies:
- I(X_1, X_2\hspace{0.05cm};\hspace{0.05cm}Y_1, Y_2) \ = \ {1}/{2} \cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{5}{1} \right ) +{1}/{2} \cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{5}{4} \right )=1.292\,{\rm bit}+ 0.585\,{\rm bit} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline{= 1.877\,{\rm bit}} \hspace{0.05cm}.
(3) According to the adjacent sketch, the following must apply:
- P_2 = P_1 - (\sigma_2^2 - \sigma_1^2) = P_1 -3\hspace{0.3cm}\text{wobei }\hspace{0.3cm}P_1 + P_2 = P_X = 10
- \Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} P_1 + (P_1 -3) = 10\hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} 2 \cdot P_1 = 13 \hspace{0.3cm} \Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} \underline{P_1 = 6.5}\hspace{0.05cm}, \hspace{0.3cm}\underline{P_2 = 3.5}\hspace{0.05cm}.
For the "water level height" here holds:
- H= P_1 + \sigma_1^2= P_2 + \sigma_2^2 = 7.5 = 6.5+1 = 3.5+4.
(4) The channel capacity indicates the maximum mutual information. The maximum is already fixed by the best possible power sharing according to subtask (3). For P_X = 10 holds:
- C={1}/{2} \cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{6.5}{1} \right ) +{1}/{2} \cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{3.5}{4} \right )
- \Rightarrow\hspace{0.3cm} C=1.453\,{\rm bit}+ 0.453\,{\rm bit} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline{= 1.906\,{\rm bit}} \hspace{0.05cm}.
(5) For P_X = 3, with the same power splitting (P_1 = P_2 =1.5), we obtain:
- I(X_1, X_2\hspace{0.05cm};\hspace{0.05cm}Y_1, Y_2) ={1}/{2} \cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{1.5}{1} \right ) +{1}/{2} \cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{1.5}{4} \right ) \hspace{0.15cm}\underline{= 0.891\,{\rm bit}} \hspace{0.05cm}.
(6) According to the water–filling algorithm, the total transmission power P_X = 3 is now fully allocated to the first channel:
- {P_1 = 3}\hspace{0.05cm}, \hspace{0.3cm}{P_2 = 0}\hspace{0.05cm}.
- So here for the "water level height":
- H= 4= P_1 + \sigma_1^2= P_2 + \sigma_2^2= 3+1=0+4.
- This gives for the channel capacity:
- C ={1}/{2} \cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{3}{1} \right ) +{1}/{2} \cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{0}{4} \right )=1\,{\rm bit}+ 0\,{\rm bit} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline{= 1\,{\rm bit}} \hspace{0.05cm}.
Further notes:
- While for P_X = 10 the difference between even and best power splitting was only 0.03 bit, for P_X = 3 the difference is larger: 0.109 bit.
- For even larger P_X > 10 , the difference between even and best power splitting becomes even smaller.
For example, for P_X = 100 the difference is only 0.001 bit as the following calculation shows:
- For P_1 = P_2 = 50 one obtains:
- I = I(X_1, X_2\hspace{0.05cm};\hspace{0.05cm}Y_1, Y_2) = {1}/{2} \cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{50}{1} \right ) +{1}/{2}\cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{50}{4} \right )= 2.836\,{\rm bit}+ 1.877\,{\rm bit} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline{= 4.713\,{\rm bit}} \hspace{0.05cm}.
- In contrast, the best possible split gives ⇒ P_1 = 51.5, \ P_2 = 48.5:
- C = {1}/{2} \cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{51.5}{1} \right ) +{1}/{2}\cdot {\rm log}_2\hspace{0.05cm}\left ( 1 + \frac{48.5}{4} \right )= 2.857\,{\rm bit}+ 1.857\,{\rm bit} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline{= 4.714\,{\rm bit}} \hspace{0.05cm}.