 Research article
 Open Access
 Published:
Slotted Gaussian Multiple Access Channel: Stable Throughput Region and Role of Side Information Vaneet
EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking volume 2008, Article number: 2 (2008)
Abstract
We study the relation between the stable throughput regions and the capacity regions for a Gaussian multipleaccess channel. Our main focus is to study how the extent of side information about source arrival statistics and/or instantaneous queue states at each transmitter influence the achievable stable throughput region. Two notions of MAC capacity are studied. The first notion is the conventional Shannon capacity which relies on large coding block lengths for finite SNR, while the second uses finite code blocks with high SNR. We find that the stable throughput region coincides with the Shannon capacity region for many scenarios of side information, where side information is defined as a mix of statistical description and instantaneous queue states. However, a lack of sufficient side information about arrival statistics can lead to a significant reduction in the stable throughput region. Finally, our results lend strong support to centralized architectures implementing some form of congestion/rate control to achieve Shannon capacity, primarily to counter lack of detailed information about source statistics at the mobile nodes.
1. Introduction
Often in communication networks, the traffic distribution is unknown. However, in bounding the performance of a network, it is commonly assumed [15] that the transmitters and the receivers have complete knowledge of the source arrival distribution (or the probability distribution of the number of packets arriving per unit time), which is then used in the design of optimal transmission methods. In this paper, we study the impact of such side information regarding the traffic on the stability performance of Gaussian multiple access channels.
We will focus our attention on a slotted Gaussian multipleaccess channel with K users sending bursty data to a single receiver. In capacity analysis, it is implicitly assumed that the users are aware of all the transmission rates (of every user) and have optimal codebooks, which allows the whole system to operate close to the boundary of the capacity region; this can be understood as all nodes having complete statistical knowledge regarding all sources. In this work, we will take the first step towards understanding exactly how much information is needed at each node about the other sources. We will study this through a series of five cases with different amount of statistical information at each node. Furthermore, we will adopt a more general source model, unlike prior work [3, 4], in which data arrives randomly at a user with general distribution in each symbol duration. This arrival process decouples the definition of source arrivals from that of communication system design, which will occur in blocks of length n codewords.
In the first of the five cases, the transmitters and the receiver will be assumed to know the arrival distribution of all the sources, which represents the case of complete statistical information. We show that in this case the stable throughput region coincides with the Shannon capacity region. A similar result was shown in [3] for twouser multipleaccess system, by requiring not only complete distributional knowledge but also one bit of instantaneous queue state information. Our encoding strategy holds for a general Kuser system and requires no instantaneous state information to achieve every point in the Shannon capacity region. Keeping our objective in mind, we reduce the amount of side information in the second case from full statistical knowledge to only the knowledge of the mean arrival rates of every node. Since the probability of a certain input bit pattern depends on the length of the bit pattern, the coding techniques which assume equally likely bit arrival for every input bit pattern are not optimal. As a result, it appears that the knowledge of mean arrival rates alone is insufficient to guarantee achieving every point in the Shannon capacity region (optimal operation will potentially require a multiuser universal source coder and since we are transmitting over a noisy channel, we will also need multiuser source/channel separation. Thus, the chances that full Shannon capacity region is achievable with only information about mean arrival rates appear slim). However,we show that if each node sends quantized one bit information about its own queue state to the receiver every timeslot, then the entire Shannon capacity region can be achieved with reduced statistical information. Again, in contrast to the main result in [3], we show that limited statistical information suffices if one bit of instantaneous system state information is available.
In contrast to the above cases, we consider a case where the sources are not aware of the mean arrival rates of other nodes. In this case, the stability region is significantly reduced compared to Shannon capacity region, even with one bit of quantized state information every timeslot. The significant loss can be attributed to the fact that each node has to essentially assume that other nodes potentially have highest possible load, thus predividing the total available capacity into K equal portions. This division is inefficient in the cases where some of the nodes have lowerthanmaximum arrival rates. Thus the stable throughput region of actual systems may be significantly lower than the Shannon capacity region due to lack of knowledge of source arrival distribution, thereby underscoring the importance of side information.
We next show that this loss can be completely recovered if the receiver has either full statistical knowledge (like in first case above) or knows the mean arrivals of all nodes along with onebit instantaneous queue state information, and the receiver can send feedback to each node once during system operation. This onetime feedback is akin to congestion/rate control [6, 7], where the receiver informs each node of their allowable rate at the beginning of the communication. In this case, the stable throughput region coincides with the Shannon capacity region. This scenario is akin to the congestion control via feedback from the base station. Hence, compared to the first scenario, we traded the knowledge of complete arrival distribution of other sources at a source with a feedback from the receiver.
For each case of side information, we consider two notions of Shannon capacity. The first is the conventional notion of capacity, which is defined for a fixed value of SNR with growing encoding block length [5]. In this notion, the problem of understanding delay in an information theoretic setting remains intractable, since n → ∞ makes all talk of perbit delay irrelevant. A bit, even if it is in the queue for finite number of timeslots, will have infinitely large delay since timeslot is infinite. Hence, we explore an alternate asymptote, partially inspired by ageold diversity order analysis, where we study finite block lengths in a high SNR regime. In this regime, we no longer work with the exact capacity region, but with the rates of growth. However, as SNR increases, the capacity increases in an unbounded fashion. So for, any meaningful discussion about stability regions, the sources have to produce data at rates which scale with the SNR. This leads us to reconsider the definition of stability. Note that this is not an uncommon assumption, and is implicitly assumed in asymptotic in SNR frameworks like diversitymultiplexing studies [8, 9]. We formalize these new notions of capacity and stable throughput region and show that conceptually similar results hold for the finite block length case. While conceptually the results are similar in two notions of the capacity, they differ in the details of their proofs.
We quickly note that the problem of not knowing statistics of other nodes can be understood as a multiuser universal sourcecoding problem, where the distributed sources are not aware of the full joint distribution. In this case, the transmitters will encode assuming incomplete system knowledge and the receiver will decode assuming similarly reduced information about the system. Such a general formulation will form the obvious next step following our current work, and will be a topic of discussion elsewhere.
The relation between queuing stability and Shannon capacity remains a problem of interest, since most sources are bursty and require a delaybounded delivery. For random access systems, the problem has been studied extensively (e.g., see [1, 4, 1013]). A key result in [2, 4] is that the queuing stability region coincides with the Shannon capacity region in many cases on the collision channel, illustrating that the bursty nature of the arriving packets does not limit the data rate at which the probability of error can be made arbitrarily small. The entire body of work on collision channels assumes that the arrival distributions are known to all the users, and also that the receiver knows if a particular user is sending the data in order to decide collisions. Also, the transmitting users have some side information, by which they know if a collision has occurred and, hence, decide to retransmit. Similar information is needed for randomaccess systems with multipacket reception capability in order to decide retransmissions.
Following the work on the collision channel, the effect of scheduling and power control on the stability in multiuser channels under Poisson arrivals was studied in [7, 1416]. The stability of the queues in wired switches has been studied for general arrivals [17, 18] for certain scheduling algorithms. While numerous works characterize stability conditions, stability policies and stablesystem behavior, we concentrate on the influence of side information on the stable throughput region.
The relation between queuing stability and Shannon capacity for multipleaccess systems over AWGN channels has been studied earlier in [3, 7, 14, 15, 19].Most of this work [7, 14, 15, 19] assumes complete knowledge of the queue states. In [3], with the assumptions of time slots being large, and a maximum of one packet of fixed length arriving at each user in a time slot for a system with two users, it was shown that the stable throughput region was independent of the burstiness and the shared queue information. The model assumed a fixed form of side information rather than the tradeoff of side information with stable throughput regions that is addressed in this paper.
We begin in Section 2 by describing the channel model and the capacity regions. In Section 3, we assume finite SNR with large timeslots. Various achievable stable throughput regions are described depending on the amount of side information. In Section 4, we consider the dual problem of finite timeslots with large SNR, where the influence of the amount of side information on the achievable stable throughput region is studied.
2. Problem Formulation
2.1. Channel and source model
We consider a multipleaccess system, as the illustrated in Figure 1, where K users transmit to a single receiver. We will assume a timeslotted system where the transmissions only occur at the slot boundaries. Each slot is indexed by k and within each slot, the n symbols will be indexed by j.
The received signal at time unit j is the sum of the transmissions of the users and Gaussian noise at time unit j,
where Z[j] is zero mean i.i.d. Gaussian noise with variance N, and is independent of channel inputs X_{ i }[j] ϵ ℝ, i = 1,2,…,K ((X_{ i }[1],…,X_{ i }[n]) represents the nlength codeword sent in a timeslot). The channel output is Y[j] ϵ ℝ. The transmit power of user i averaged over all the codewords is P_{ i } if it is transmitting and 0 otherwise. Thus, no power control is performed. We also assume that receiver has the perfect timing information to ensure the synchronization at the receiver. Finally define SNR = (SNRU_{1}, SNR_{2},…, SNR_{K}), where SNR_{ j } = P_{ i }/N, is the signaltonoise ratio for user i (SNR_{ i } is the ratio of the average signal power of ith user to the noise variance, and does not include interference from other users).
While the transmissions occur only at the slot boundaries, the data can arrive anytime during the slot. Data arrives for user i in form of bits with an average rate of λ_{ i } bits per unit time (one time unit represents one symbol duration). So the arrival process is defined independent of the slot boundaries or the slot length and directly on the smallest time unit, the symbol timeduration. We define Δ_{ i }(k) to be the number of bits that arrive for transmission at user i in timeslot k, E[Δ_{ i }(k)] = nλ_{ i }. Thus, unlike the previous works [1, 2, 4], we do not assume that the arrivals occur only at the start or the end of the timeslot, which makes the definition of arrival process independent of the communicationsystem design, notably the slot length n.
We denote the number of bits departing from the queue of user i in time slot k as Ω_{ i }(k). Further, we denote the number of bits in the ith queue at the beginning of timeslot k as Q_{ i }(k). The queue is updated as
with Q_{ i }(1) = 0. We assume that the number of elements in the queue of ith user (or the queue state) is known only to ith user. The stable throughput region is the region where the queues do not grow unbounded in the steady state. The mathematical definitions for these stability regions for large time slots and large SNRs are defined in Section 2.3.
2.2. Capacity regions
In this section, we define the two notions of capacity. First is the conventional definition where the SNR is held fixed and the blocklength is allowed to grow unbounded. And in the second case, blocklength is held fixed and SNR is increased unbounded. To contrast the two definitions, we state the preliminaries for conventional definition of capacity.
A \left(\left({2}^{n{R}_{1}},{2}^{n{R}_{2}},\dots ,{2}^{n{R}_{K}}\right),n\right) code for multipleaccess channel consists of K encoding functions f_{ i } : \mathbb{W}_{ i } → W ^{n}_{ i } where Wd _{ i } is the input to the encoder at user i and takes {2}^{n{R}_{K}} values, and a decoding function g : g : \mathbb{R}^{n} → \mathbb{W}_{1} × \mathbb{W}_{2} × ⋯ × \mathbb{W}_{ k }, where \mathbb{X} ^{n}_{ i } ⊆ R^{n}
Definition 1. A rate tuple (R_{1},R_{2},…,R_{ K }) is achievable if there exists a sequence of \left(\left({2}^{n{R}_{1}},{2}^{n{R}_{2}},\dots {2}^{n{R}_{K}}\right),n\right) codeswith error probability P_{ e } → 0 as n → ∞. The capacity region is the closure of all achievable rate tuples (R_{1}, R_{2},…, R_{ K }).
Lemma 1 (see [5]). The capacity region of Gaussian multiple access channel is given by closure of convex hull of all (R_{1}, R_{2},…, R_{k}) satisfying
where S is any subset of {1,2, …K}, and C(x) = (1/2)log (1 + x)
The classical definition of capacity requires the block length n to approach infinity. In contrast, we will define the SNRcapacity region for a fixed blocklength n but with increasing SNR. Our motivation stems from our aim to analytically understand the role of delay in communication. Towards that end, the highSNR regime allows keeping delay in check and is useful for highdatarate systems. Part of our motivation for choosing highSNR regime comes from diversitymultiplexing tradeoff [8, 9], which has proven useful in fading channels.
To maintain differentiation in the quality of user channels, we will model the growth of SNR on different transmitterreceiver links with different exponents. Let SN{R}_{i}\doteq {u}^{{\alpha}_{i}} for some fixed α_{ i } greater than zero (we adopt the notation of [8]to denote ≐, \stackrel{\text{.}}{\le} and \stackrel{\text{.}}{\ge} to represent exponential equality and inequalities) for some base SNR denoted by u (In other words, α_{ i } ≜ lim u → ∞ (log(SNR_{ i })/log(u))) (u can be chosen to be any base SNR, e.g., max(SNR_{ i }) or min(SNR_{ i }) or an average). For our asymptotic analysis, we take the rates to vary as Ri ≐ r_{ i }, log(SNR_{ i }). Thus, R, ≐ r_{ i }, log(SNR_{ i }) ≐ r_{ i }α_{ i }log(u)
Definition 2. A rate tuple (r_{1},r_{2},…,r_{ K }) is SNRachievable if there exists a sequence of \left(\left({2}^{n{r}_{1}log\left(SN{R}_{1}\right)},{2}^{n{r}_{2}log\left(SN{R}_{2}\right)},\dots {2}^{n{r}_{K}log\left(SN{R}_{K}\right)}\right),n\right) codes with error probability P_{ e } → 0 as u — to (equivalently, SN{R}_{i}\doteq {u}^{{\alpha}_{i}}\to \infty). The SNR capacity region is the closure of all SNRachievable rate tuples (r_{1},r_{2},…,r_{ K }).
The next result proves the SNRcapacity region; and Figure 2 shows an example capacityregion when α_{1} > α_{2}.
Lemma 2. The SNRcapacity region of Gaussian multiple access channel is given by closure of all (r_{1}, r_{2},…, r_{ K }) satisfying
where S is any subset of {1,2,…K}, where α_{ i } is defined as above.
Proof. The achievability proof can be given on similar lines as in [9]. Consider the ensemble of i.i.d. random codes. Specifically, each user generates a codebook ℂ^{(i)} containing {2}^{n{R}_{i}}\doteq SN{R}_{i}^{{r}_{i}n} codewords denoted as {\mathrm{X}}_{1}^{\left(i\right)},\dots ,{\mathrm{X}}_{SN{R}_{i}^{{r}_{i}n}}^{\left(i\right)}. Each codeword is nlength vector with i.i.d. Gaussian entries with zero mean and unit variance. Once picked, the codebooks are revealed to the receiver. In each block period, transmitted signal of user i is chosen from ℂ^{(i)}.
Consider detection error probability of joint maximum likelihood receiver. We first define for each nonempty set S ⊆ {1, 2, … K} an error event
where {\widehat{m}}_{i} is the decoded message of user i while m_{ i } is the actual message. Thus ε^{S} is the event that receiver makes wrong decisions of all users in set S and makes correct for the rest. Clearly, we have the probability of error P_{ e }(u) as
Without loss of generality, we assume S = {1, 2,…, S}. Let X0 = (X ^{(1)}_{0} , …, X ^{(K)}_{0} ) be the transmitted signal where X ^{(i)}_{0} ∈ ℂ^{(i)} is the codeword transmitted by user i. Denote by X_{1} another codeword that differs from X_{0} on the symbols transmitted by all users in S but coincide on those by other users, that is, X_{1} = (X ^{(1)}_{1} , … X ^{(S)}_{1} , X ^{(S + 1)}_{0} , … X ^{(K)}_{0} ).
The error event ε^{S} occurs if the receiver makes a wrong decision in favor of any such X_{1}. This happens when
Note that (7) is similar to (27) in [9] with H=\left[\sqrt{SN{R}_{1}},\sqrt{SN{R}_{2}},\dots ,\sqrt{SN{R}_{\leftS\right}}\right] and number of transmit and receive antennas as unity. Hence by comments following (27) in [9], we consider this as a singleuser error probability with overall rate ∑_{i ∈ S}R_{ i }, S transmit antennas and 1 receive antenna.
Following [8], we use pairwise error probability (PEP) to bound average probability of error. Recall that X_{0} and X_{1} differ in set S ⊆ {1, 2, …, K}. Construct a matrix ΔX of size S × n containing X_{0} – X_{ 1 } at all S users.This reflects the difference in transmit matrices for S transmit antennas.
Since ΔX is isotropic, HΔX^{2} has same distribution as ev(HH^{†})Δx^{2} where ev(HH^{†}) is defined as the eigenvalue of HH^{†} and equals {\displaystyle {\sum}_{i\in S}SN{R}_{i}\doteq {u}^{{max}_{i\in S}{\alpha}_{i}}}, and Δx any row vector of ΔX. Hence,
As the number of possible choices of X_{ 1 } is {\displaystyle {\prod}_{i\in S}}\left(SN{R}_{i}^{n{r}_{i}}1\right), the overall error probability
Hence, the error probability goes to zero when Σ_{i ∈ S}r_{ i }α_{ i } − (1/2 max_{i ∈ S}α_{ i } < 0 for all S which is true by the statement of the theorem.
For the converse, let Σ_{i ∈ S}r_{ i }α_{ i } > (1/2)max_{i ∈ S}α_{ i } for some S. Again, assume that S = {1,2,…, S} without loss of generality. The probability of error can be bounded by Fano’s inequality as
where R = Σ_{iϵS}R_{ i }. Since I(X ^{n}_{1} , X ^{n}_{2,} …, X ^{n}_{S} ; Y^{n}X ^{n}_{S + 1} , … X ^{n}_{ K } ) = (n/2)log(1 + Σ_{i ∈ S}P_{ i }/N) we get
This shows that the error probability cannot be brought arbitrarily close to zero in the limit of high SNR when Σ_{i ∈ S}r_{ i }α_{ i } > (1/2)max_{i ∈ S}α_{ i } for any S, thus proving the converse.□
We will sometimes use the term interior of the capacity region or interior of SNRcapacity region to imply that the vector is not on the boundary, but inside the region.
2.3. Stable throughput region
In the case of finite SNR, stable throughput region is the region formed by the closure of vectors of mean arrival rates at the different queues for which there exists a transmission scheme in which the queues are stable. In our discussion, stability of queues implies that the ratio of queue length to block length is finite with probability one for large blocklengths. The above definition of stability of queues corresponds to a “timeobserved” version of the stability definition used in standard practice [12, 20, 21], according to which the queue length is finite with probability one. There are some other weaker notions of stability in literature like substability [12, 17, 20, 21] which also hold when the queues satisfy stability. Formally, we will use the following definition of the stable throughput region
Definition 3 (Stable throughput (large n and finite SNR)). The stable throughput region in the case when n → ∞ is defined as the closure of all (λ_{1}, λ_{2},…, λ_{ K }), such that, there exists a transmission scheme, such that, the signal received at destination has probability of error P_{ e } → 0 as n → ∞. Furthermore, there exists an integer M such that all the queues are stable for n > M .In other words, there exists an integer M such that lim_{j→∞} Pr[Q_{ i }(j) < nx] = F(x, n) and lim_{x→∞} F(x, n) = 1, for i = 1,2,…, K and n > M, when the arrival rates at user i is λ_{ i }.
When the SNR is large, large amount of data can be serviced in a timeslot even if the timeslot is not large. Hence, the stability of the queue is defined by normalizing with the order of amount of information that can be serviced in each blocklength which is of the order of log(u) as mentioned in Section 2.2. As we can serve such large rates, the incoming rates which are of lower order than log(u) can definitely be served; hence we assume that the incoming arrival rates are also of the order of log(u) (i.e., λ_{ i } ≐ l_{ i } log(SNR_{ i }) ≐ l_{ i }α_{ i } log(u)). Hence, stable throughput region in this case is the region formed by the closure of vectors of normalized mean arrival rates at the different queues for which there exists a transmission scheme in which the queues are stable. In our discussion, stability of queues implies that the ratio of queue length to log(u) is finite with probability one for large SNR (or u). Hence, the stable throughput region in this case is defined as follows.
Definition 4 (SNRstable throughput (finite n and large SNR)). The SNRstable throughput region in the case when SNR → ∞ is defined as the closure of all (l_{1},l_{2},…, l_{ K }) such that there exists a transmission scheme such that the signal received at destination has probability of error P_{ e } → 0 as u → ∞. Furthermore, all the queues are stable for u large enough. In other words, there exists M < ∞ such that lim_{j → ∞} Pr[Q_{ i },(j) < xlog(u)] = F(x, u) and lim_{x→∞} F(x, u) = 1, for i = 1,2,…, K and u > M, when the arrival rate at user i is λ_{ i } ≐ l_{ i }α_{ i } log(u).
As u → ∞, the region is defined as the closure of (l_{1},l_{2},…,l_{ K }) which is a finite region although λi, go to to. Let us say l_{ i } as the arrival rate per SNRunit which we use in defining the stable throughput region for large SNR in contrast to λ_{ i }, which is the arrival rate per unit time and is used to define stable throughput region for large n. The stability of the queues refer to the queue length per growth is finite with probability one, where the growth is the blocklength (f) in case of large n, while log(u) in the case of large SNR. Also, the stable throughput region is defined as the region in which the arrival rates per unitgrowth (per timeunit or per SNRunit in the two cases) lie so that the queues remain stable.
2.4. Source side information
To keep our analysis tractable, we consider the case of i.i.d. arrivals. Thus, each source i is described by an arrival distribution p_{ i },(a), and the joint distribution of the arrival process is p(a) = Π_{ i }p_{ i }(a). While the joint distribution is often used in capacity analysis to obtain best possible capacity region [5], it is seldom known in such detail in operational systems. In source coding parlance, this is a problem of universal source coding over noisy channels, where the distribution is only partially known (see universal source coding over noiseless channels in [5]). Our objective is to study the role of this statistical information on the stability of multiuserqueuing system and, in the process, understand the interplay between statistical information and instantaneous source information (in the form of queue state Q_{ i },(j)). Hence we will study the following series of cases.

(1a)
Full statistical information p(a) known to all nodes— K transmitters and the central receiver.

(1b)
Each node knows arrival means (\mathbb{E}(a_{1}), \mathbb{E}(a_{2}),…, \mathbb{E}(a_{ K })) for all nodes and transmitters convey 1bit of quantized queue information to the receiver every timeslot.

(2a)
Each transmitter only knows its own arrival statistics p_{ i },(a) but the receiver knows p(a) and is allowed to feedback some information to all the transmitters.

(2b)
Each transmitter knows only its own arrival mean \mathbb{E}(a_{ i }), and conveys 1bit of quantized queue information to the receiver every timeslot. In this case, the receiver knows (\mathbb{E}(a_{1}), \mathbb{E}(a_{2}),…, \mathbb{E}(a_{K})), and is allowed to feedback some information to all the transmitters.

(3)
No statistical information is available to any node and the transmitters can convey 1bit of queue information.
Our focus is on finitebit overhead information about the queue state from transmitters to receiver to counter lack of statistical knowledge. In the process, we discovered that a single bit of queue state information is sufficient to achieve our goals; as a result, we state our results only for singlebit information and note that the proof techniques can be generalized to multi bit information case. Furthermore, implicit in our constructions is the desire to use the simplest multiuser receiver and avoid universal decoding (which is not matched to any particular source distribution but to a whole class). Thus, the receiver adapts its decoder to match the current state of the queues in those cases where the arrival distributions (and hence the prior message probabilities) are (partially) unknown.
An analogue of quantized instantaneous source information is the quantized channel state information studied in fading channels [22, 23] where the receivers convey a few bits of information about the current fading states. In the current case, the transmitters have instantaneous information about the sources; and, hence, they convey a few bits to the receiver to enable improved decoding. This sourcechannel duality in information sharing, while interesting in its own right, is not further discussed in this paper.
Finally, we note that each node in the system is assumed to know the transmit powers of each user and their channel gains, and hence knows the capacity region accurately. Thus the only uncertainty at the transmitters is potentially about the source arrival statistics of other nodes; and, in some cases (2a, 2b and 3), about the available capacity for each node.
3. Finite SNR With n → ∞
In this section, we assume that the timeslots can be made arbitrarily large so that we can use the conventional large block length coding strategies [5] for multipleaccess channels. We will give an achievable rate region for all five side information cases listed in Section 2.4. Two main code constructions are used, namely in Theorem 1 for Case 1a and Theorem 2 for Case 1b, and rest of the sideinformation cases follow from them (Cases 2a, 2b and 3). Throughout this section, we assume that λ_{ i }, < ∞ and lim_{n→∞}(Var(Δ_{ i },(k))/n^{2}) < ∞
Theorem 1 (sideinformation Case 1a). The stable throughput region (as in Definition 3) coincides with the Shannon capacity region given in Lemma 1, when all K + 1 nodes know the complete arrival distribution of all K sources.
Proof. Let the incoming rates (λ_{1},λ_{2},…,λ_{ K }) be such that Σ_{iϵS}λ_{ i } < C (Σ_{iϵS}P_{ i }/N) where S ϵ \mathbb{S} and \mathbb{S} is set of all nonempty subsets of {1,2,…,K}. Let τ = (1/2 K)min_{sϵ}\mathbb{S}(C(ΣiϵsP_{ i }/N) – Σ_{ iϵs }λ_{ i }). Let γ_{ i } = λ_{ i }, + τ. Note that (γ_{1}, γ_{2},…, γ_{ K }) is also in the interior of the capacity region of Lemma 1.
Suppose that the number of bits with the transmitter i at the beginning of timeslot k is Q_{ i }(k). Then, Ω_{ i }(k) = min(Q_{ i }(k), nγ_{ i }) bits are sent to the encoder. The encoding and decoding operations make use of the prior probabilities of all the possible 2^{nγi+1} – 1 messages (consisting of all messages of length ≤ nγ_{i}). The asymptotic rate at user i is thus no more than γ_{ i }. Since (γ_{1}, γ_{2},…, γ_{ K }) is in the interior of the capacity region, there exists an encoding and decoding scheme in which average probability of error at the decoder goes to 0 as n → ∞. Note here that we do not change the codebooks in every time slot. Once chosen in the first timeslot, the codebook for each user remains the same throughout the use of the channel in all subsequent timeslots.
Using the above encoding scheme, the queue update equation for user i (2) reduces to Q_{ i }(k + 1) = Q_{ i }(k) –min(Q_{ i }(k), ny_{ i }) + Δ_{ i }(k) = (Q_{ i }(k) – ny_{ i })^{+} + Δ_{ i }(k). This queue update equation is different from [24] because in our case, the encoding is done at the beginning of a timeslot. Hence, Δ_{ i }(k) bits will remain in the queue at the start of the next timeslot.We prove that this queue is stable in the appendix. This completes the proof. □
When there is incomplete information about statistical information, we can assume a distribution and encode as if the distribution is known. But, this approach will lead to a loss in stable throughput region due to mismatch of the probability distributions at the sources and the actual distribution (this leads to a loss in the achievable rates as shown in [25]). To avoid this loss, we consider 1bit queue state information which can aid in alleviating the loss in performance.
Theorem 2 (sideinformation Case 1b). The stable throughput region (as in Definition 3) coincides with the Shannon capacity region given in Lemma 1, when all K +1 nodes know the mean arrival rates of all K sources and transmitters convey 1bit of quantized queue state information to the receiver in each timeslot.
Proof. Let the incoming rates (λ_{1},λ_{2},…,λ_{ K }) be such that Σ_{iϵS}λ_{ i }, < C (Σ_{ iϵs }P_{ i }/N) where S ϵ \mathbb{S} where \mathbb{S} is set of all nonempty subsets of {1,2,…,K}. Let t = (1/2 K)min_{sϵs}(C(Σ_{iϵS}P/N) – Σ_{iϵS}λ_{ i }). Let γ_{ i }, = λ_{ i }, + min(τ, λ_{ i }). Note that (γ_{1}, γ_{2},…, γ_{ K }) is also in the interior of the capacity region.
Let us consider transmitter i. Suppose that the number of bits with the transmitter at the beginning of timeslot k be Q_{ i }(k). If Q_{ i }(k) < nγ_{ i }, we serve Ω_{ i },(k) = 0 bits, else we serve Ω_{ i },(k) = nγ_{ i } bits. The input to the encoder at transmitter i can have any bitsequence of length nγ_{ i }. These are encoded to 2^{nγi} codewords of length n (since we do not know the whole statistical information,we encode only the equally likely symbols in contrast to Theorem 1 where we encode all the possible bit sequences having length atmost nγ_{ i }). The transmitter sends the information of Ω_{ i }(k) = 0 by sending the single bit quantized queue state information. The codebooks are chosen at the beginning of operation and stay fixed throughout. Since (y_{1}, y_{ 2 },…, y_{ K }) is in the interior of the capacity region, there exists an encoding and decoding scheme with average probability of error at the decoder going to 0 as n goes to infinity.
Using the above scheme, the queue update (2) reduces to Q_{ i }(k +1) = f (Q_{ i }(k), nγ_{ i }) + Δ_{ i }(k), where f (A,B) = A – B if A ≥ B, and = A otherwise. Note that Q_{ i }(k +1) ≤ (Q_{ i }(k) – 2ny_{ i })^{+} + (ny_{ i } + Δ_{ i }(k)). In other words, this queue is upper bounded by a queue whose stability can be proven similar to the appendix. Hence, we see that the queues are stable. This completes the proof. □
Lemma 3 (sideinformation Case 3). Suppose that the transmit power P_{ i } = P for all i. All transmitters send 1bit queue information as in Theorem 2. If nodes do not know anything about arrival distribution of any node (not even its own), then the stable throughput region contains the closure of (λ_{1},λ_{2},…, λ_{k}) where (λ_{1},λ_{2},…,λ_{ K }) satisfy
for any predecided variable S > 0 chosen without any knowledge ofarrival distribution or arrival means, and known to all the transmitting nodes and the base station.
Proof. By choosing γ_{ i } = (1/K)C(KP/N) – δ/2 K and using the same protocol as in the proof of Theorem 2 to encode, we see that any point in the above region is in stable throughput region. □
Remark 1. Although S can be chosen arbitrarily small, the knowledge of same δ > 0 at all the nodes can be considered as a sideinformation.
Two important conclusions can be drawn from studying Theorems 1 and 2 and Lemma 3. First, there is a significant loss in the achievable stable throughput region if the transmitters do not know anything about the source arrival statistics at all nodes. This situation represents the common scenario in actual practice. The loss is entirely due to the fact that any transmitter has to guarantee that its packets will be received errorfree without any knowledge of amount of data which other transmitters may be trying to send. Thus, each transmitter assumes that every source is sending at its peak rate, so that they essentially split the sumrate capacity equally. However, in cases where some sources have lower arrival rates, this scheme can lead to a large loss compared to fullinformation scenario of Theorem 1 or partial knowledge with feedforward bit of Theorem 2.
Second, the proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 suggest a simple architecture to get around the problem of every transmitter knowing the statistics of every source in the system. Essentially the transmitters need to know only an appropriate value of t to calculate how far the arrival rate is from the capacity region and hence decide their transmission rate. Thus if the receiver knows the statistics or arrival rates at each node, it can calculate the appropriate “backoff” parameter t and send it to each transmitter. This is akin to congestion/rate control by basestations and leads to the following result.
Corollary 1 (sideinformation Case 2). The stable throughput region (as in Definition 3) coincides with the Shannon capacity region given in Lemma 1 if

(2a)
the K transmitters know only their own complete arrival distribution but the base station knows the complete arrival distribution ofall K sources, or

(2b)
the K transmitters know only their own mean arrival rates but the base station knows all the mean arrival rates; in addition, transmitters send one bit ofinstanta neous queue state information
if the base station can feedback a real number to all K sources.
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorems 1 and 2 except that t is calculated at the base station and is fedback to all the K sources. □
3.1. Discussion
In Theorem 1, it is shown that with full statistical information about all the nodes at all the nodes guarantees that every point in the Shannon capacity region of Lemma 1 is in stable throughput region. Thus, full statistical information guarantees maximal achievable performance. The key ingredient of this result is that the probability of different bit sequences is known to the receiver which allows the receiver to use the optimal maximum a posteriori probability decoder. Thus, while each codeblock may have different number of information bits, the receiver has accurate knowledge of the probability of each message.
As the information about the distribution of source information bits reduces, the transmitter and the receiver no longer can perform optimal allocation of code rates and thus suffer from additional “overhead” of indicating the number of encoded bits in every codeword. If we reduce the information, we may not have the same knowledge of the encoding rate at the senders and the receiver, which will result in significant number of errors, and the stable throughput regions will be much less than the capacity region. This overhead can surprisingly be eliminated if the encoders can share onebit information about their current queue state. When the distribution of arrivals is not known, we have to assume that the incoming symbols are equally likely. For this assumption to hold, we encode equally likely symbols which have the same number of input bits. Hence, we send one bit of queue information when the respective queue has less elements than that supported by the service rate of that particular transmitter, and send the bits supported by service rate otherwise. This helps us to send all the blocks with equal probability. The encoding rates just need the side information of mean arrival rates rather than the whole distribution since we know the prior probabilities of each codeword and do not need the whole distribution for this information. This is why in Theorem 2 when each node knows the arrival rates at all the nodes, we get stable queues when the mean arrival rates are within the capacity region. There is a loss in achievable rates as we know less and less information.
We further see in Lemma 3 that if we do not know any information, we have to predecide the encoding and decoding rates in the interior of the capacity region which leads to the stability region being smaller than the capacity region. Note that the 1bit side information is not needed when all the queues always have data to send, the case which is commonly considered in information theoretic analysis resulting in Lemma 1.
We further see in Corollary 1 that if the base station can feedback a real number to the transmitting users once, we need much less side information at the transmitters. This side information is needed only once and hence can be communicated the same time when the codebooks are told to the receivers. In this case, every point in the capacity region is stable. Hence, we have a practical way akin to congestion control where we trade side information of other transmitters at a transmitter by some information from receiver.
4. Fixed BlockLength n With SNR → ∞
Till now, we concentrated on the blocklength being large enough to make the error probability at the receiver decrease to 0. We now consider the duallike problem to keep the blocklength fixed, while letting the SNR = (SNR_{1}, SNR_{2},…, SNR_{ K }) high enough for the probability of error at the decoder to be very small, where SN{R}_{i}={P}_{i}/N\doteq {u}^{{\alpha}_{i}}, where u is some base SNR. We will give an achievable rate region for all five sideinformation cases listed in Section 2.4. Two main code constructions are used, namely in Theorem 3 for Case 1a and Theorem 4 for Case 1b, and rest of the sideinformation cases follows from them (Cases 2a, 2b, and 3).
In this section, we also assume that lim_{SNR→∞}(\mathbb{E}(Δi(k))/log(SNR_{ i })) < ∞ and lim_{SNR→∞}(Var(Δ_{ i }(k))/log^{2}(SNRi)) < ∞. As the SNR is large enough, the channel can support rates that are logarithmic in SNR. Hence, we can also support the arrival rates that are logarithmic in SNR. Hence, we let all the arrival rates be assumed to be a function of SNR as λ_{ i } ≐ l_{ i } log(SNR_{ i }) ≐ l_{ i }α_{ i } log(u). We also assume that SNR_{ i } for all i is known to all the nodes.
Theorem 3 (sideinformation Case 1a). The SNRstable throughput region (as in Definition 4) coincides with the SNR capacity region given in Lemma 2, when all K +1 nodes know the complete arrival distribution of all K sources.
Proof. Let the incoming rates (λ_{1},λ_{2},…,λ_{ K }) be λ_{ i } ≐ l_{ i }α_{ i } log(u), with Σ_{iϵS}l_{ i }α_{ i } < (1/2)max_{iϵS} α_{ i }, where S ϵ \mathbb{S}, where \mathbb{S} is set of all nonempty subsets of {1,2,…, K}. Let τ = (1/K)(1 – max_{SϵS}Σ_{iϵS} l_{ i }α_{ i }/(1/2)max_{iϵS} α_{ i })). Let g_{ i } = l_{ i } + τ/4. Note that (g_{1},g_{2},…,g_{ K }) is also in the interior of the SNRcapacity region. We can take the departure rate γ_{ i } = λ_{ i } + (g_{ i } − l_{ i })log SNR_{ i } ≐ g_{ i } log SNR_{ i } ≐ g_{ i }α_{ i } log u.
The constructive queuing scheme is similar to that in Theorem 1 with the above arrival and departure rates. We get probability of error at the decoder going to 0 as u → ∞ since (g_{1},g_{2},…,g_{ K }) is in the interior of the SNRcapacity region.
Using the above scheme, the queue states emerge as Q_{ i }(k + 1) = (Q_{ i }(k) – nγ_{ i })^{+} + Δ_{ i }(k). Using similar procedure as in the appendix, we can easily show that the queues are stable. □
Theorem 4 (sideinformation Case 1b). The SNRstable throughput region (as in Definition 4) coincides with the SNR capacity region given in Lemma 2, when all K +1 nodes know the mean arrival rates of all K sources and transmitters convey 1bit of quantized queue state information to the receiver in each timeslot.
Proof. Let the incoming rates (λ_{1},λ_{2},…,λ_{ K }) be λ_{ i } ≐ l_{ i }α_{ i } log(u), with Σ_{iϵS}l_{ i }α_{ i } < (1/2)max_{iϵS}α_{i}, where S ϵ \mathbb{S}, and \mathbb{S} is set of all nonempty subsets of {1,2,…,K}. Let τ = (1/K)(1 – max_{SϵS}(Σ_{ i }ϵs l_{ i }α_{ i }/(1/2)max_{ iϵs } α_{i})). Let g_{ i } = l_{ i } + min(l_{ i }, τ/4). Note that (g_{1},g_{2},…, g_{ K }) is also in the interior of the SNRcapacity region. We can take the departure rate γ_{ i } = λ_{ i } + (g_{ i }, − l_{ i })log SNR ≐ g_{ i }α_{ i } log u.
Let us consider transmitter i. Suppose that the number of bits with the transmitter at the beginning of timeslot k is Q_{ i }(k). If Q_{ i }(k) < nγ_{ i }, we serve Ω_{ i }(k) = 0 bits, else we serve Ω_{ i },(k) = nγ_{ i } bits. The input to the encoder at transmitter i can be any bitsequence of length nγ_{ i }. These are encoded to 2^{nγi} codewords of length n. The transmitter sends the information of Ω_{ i }(k) = 0 by sending the singlebit information that the queue is empty. Since (g_{1},g_{2},.…,g_{ K }) is in the interior of the SNRcapacity region, there exists u large enough so that there exist an encoding and decoding scheme with arbitrarily small average probability of error as u goes to infinity.
Using the above scheme, the queue states emerge as Q_{ i } (k +1) = f (Q_{ i }(k), nγ_{ i },) + Δ_{ i },(k), where f (A, B) = A – B if A ≥ B, and = A otherwise. Using arguments similar to those used in the proof of Theorem 2, we can show that the queues are stable. □
Lemma 4 (sideinformation Case 3). Suppose that the transmit power P_{ i } = P for all i, hence SNR_{ i } = u. All transmitters send 1bit queue information as in Theorem 4. If nodes do not know anything about arrival distribution of any node (not even its own), then the SNRstable throughput region contains the closure of (l_{1},(l_{2},…, l_{ K }), where (l_{1}, l_{2},…, l_{ K }) satisfy
for any predecided variable δ > 0 chosen without any knowledge of arrival distribution or arrival means, and known to all the transmitting nodes and the base station.
Proof. The SNRcapacity region in this case is the closure of Σ_{1≤i≤K}r_{ i } < 1/2. By choosing g_{ i } = 1/2K − δ/2K, γ_{ i } ≐ g_{ i } log u and using the same protocol as in the proof of Theorem 4 to encode, we see that any point in the above region as stable. □
We further see that both the Cases 1a and 1b in Theorems 3 and 4 suggest that at a transmitting node, we use the information of its own arrival distribution/means while the arrival distributions/means at other nodes are absorbed into the parameter τ similar to that in Section 3. Hence we consider a method where only the receiver knows the full arrival distribution/mean, computes an appropriate τ, and then relays it to all the transmitters as in Section 3. Note that this parameter is needed only once and not in every time slot. Using this, Theorems 3 and 4 change as follows.
Corollary 2 (sideinformation Case 2). The SNRstable throughput region (as in Definition 4) coincides with the SNR capacity region given in Lemma 2, when

(2a)
all Ktransmitting nodes know the complete arrival distribution of its own source, the base station knows the complete arrival distribution of all K sources, or

(2b)
all Ktransmitting nodes know the mean arrival rates of its own source, the base station knows the mean arrival rates of all K sources, transmitters convey 1bit of quantized queue state information to the receiver in each timeslot
if the base station can feedback a real number to all K sources.
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorems 3 and 4 except that τ is calculated at the base station and is fedback to all the K sources. □
4.1. Discussion
The results follow the similar behavior as in Section 3 for finite SNR. When each node knows the distribution of arrivals at all the nodes, the SNRstable throughput region coincides with the SNRcapacity region as in Theorem 3. As we decrease the side information, we loose in the SNRstable throughput regions since we would have to predecide something. With the knowledge of whole distribution of arrival, we estimated the a priori probability of all the messages sent from the encoder that gave us the maximum stable throughput region. We show that the knowledge of whole distribution of arrival can be relaxed if we allow one bit of information from the transmitters to indicate whether the queue is empty. On these lines, if each node knows the mean arrival rate at all the queues, stable queues are achieved as long as the mean arrival rates are in the interior of the SNRcapacity region (Theorem 4). We further see that there is a loss in the throughput stability regions due to predeciding some terms when there is a less information. We further see in Corollary 2 that the knowledge of arrival distribution/means of other transmitters is not needed at a transmitter as long as there is a real feedback from the base station.
Till now, we saw the similarities in the two cases when the SNR is finite with infinite blocklength and when the block length is finite while SNR is infinite. The main difference in the two approaches is the definition of stability. The definition of stability in the case of infinite block length means that the queue length has to be finite multiple of blocklength with probability 1. This would mean that a bit would take extremely large amount of time to get serviced (As n → ∞, each bit even if waits one timeslot means that it waits for infinite time). In the case of infinite SNR stability refers to queue length being a finite multiple of log(SNR) with probability 1. Since, increasingly large number of bits are being served each time unit, the average bit delay is smaller.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we studied the impact of side information on the stable throughput regions. We found that when every node knows the distribution of the arrival rates of every node, the stable throughput region coincides with the Shannon capacity region for both finite timeslots with large SNR and finite SNR with large timeslots. We also considered a variant of the side information in which the knowledge of the whole of the distribution is replaced by the arrival means, along with one bit of sideinformation in every timeslot; and that seems enough. Further, the case of side information at a node in which a transmitter knows only its own arrival statistics was studied, and we found that a feedback from the receiver is enough. Finally, we showed that any information content that is less than the mean arrival rates known to all nodes implies a reduced stable throughput region, a case which is indicative of the performance of real systems.
References
J. Luo and A. Ephremides, “On the throughput, capacity, and stability regions of random multiple access,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 2593–2607, 2006.
J. Massey and P. Mathys, “The collision channel without feedback,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 192–204, 1985.
M. Medard, J. Huang, A. J. Goldsmith, S. P. Meyn, and T. P. Coleman, “Capacity of timeslotted ALOHA packetized multipleaccess systems over the AWGN channel,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communication, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 486–499, 2004.
R. Rao and A. Ephremides, “On the stability of interacting queues in a multipleaccess system,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 918–930, 1988.
T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1991.
H. Ohsaki, M. Murata, H. Suzuki, C. Ikeda, and H. Miyahara, “Ratebased congestion control for ATM networks,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 60–72, 1995.
E. M. Yeh and A. S. Cohen, “Throughput optimal power and rate control for queued multiaccess and broadcast communications,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT ’04), p. 112, Chicago, 1ll, USA, June July 2004.
L. Zheng and D. N. C. Tse, “Diversity and multiplexing: a fundamental tradeoff in multipleantenna channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1073–1096, 2003.
D. N. C. Tse, P. Viswanath, and L. Zheng, “Diversity multiplexing tradeoff in multipleaccess channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1859–1874, 2004.
B. Tsybakov and V. Mikhailov, “Ergodicity of a slotted ALOHA system,” Problems of Information Transmission, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 301–312, 1979.
S. Ghez, S. Verdu, and S. C. Schwartz, “Stability properties of slotted Aloha with multipacket reception capability,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 640–649, 1988.
W. Szpankowski, “Stability conditions for some distributed systems: buffered random access systems,” Advances in Applied Probability, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 498–515, 1994.
B. Shrader and A. Ephremides, “On the Shannon capacity and queueing stability of random access multicast,” submitted to IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, May 2007.
H. Boche and M. Wiczanowski, “Optimal scheduling for high speed uplink packet access—a crosslayer approach,” in Proceedings of the 59th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC ‘04), vol. 5, pp. 2575–2579, Milan, Italy, May 2004.
M. J. Neely, E. Modiano, and C. E. Rohrs, “Power allocation and routing in multibeam satellites with timevarying channels,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 138–152, 2003.
M. Kobayashi and G. Caire, “Joint beamforming and scheduling for a MIMO downlink with random arrivals,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT ‘06), pp. 1442–1446, Seattle, Wash, USA, July 2006.
E. Leonardi, M. Mellia, F. Neri, and M. A. Marsan, “Bounds on average delays and queue size averages and variances in input queued cellbased switches,” in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM ‘01), vol. 2, pp. 1095–1103, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, April 2001.
N. McKeown, V. Anantharam, and J. Walrand, “Achieving 100 percent throughput in an inputqueued switch,” in Proceedings of the 15th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM ‘96), pp. 296–302, San Francisco, Calif, USA, March 1996.
I. E. Telatar and R. G. Gallager, “Combining queueing theory with information theory for multiaccess,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 963–969, 1995.
R. M. Loynes, “The stability of a queue with nonindependent interarrival and service times,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 58, pp. 497–520, 1968.
S. P. Meyn and R. L. Tweedie, Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1996.
A. Khoshnevis and A. Sabharwal, “Performance of quantized power control in multiple antenna systems,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC ‘04), vol. 2, pp. 803–807, Paris, France, June 2004.
C. Swannack, G. W. Wornell, and E. UysalBiyikoglu, “MIMO broadcast scheduling with quantized channel state information,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT ‘06), pp. 1788–1792, Seattle, Wash, USA, July 2006.
L. Kleinrock, Queueing Systems, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1975.
F. Hekland, G. E. 0ien, and T. A. Ramstad, “Quantifying performance losses in sourcechannel coding,” in Proceedings of the European Wireless Conference (EW ‘07), Paris, France, April 2007.
E. Gelenbe and G. Pujolle, Introduction to Queueing Networks, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1987.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge fruitful discussions with Robert Calderbank and Tian Lan (Princeton University). We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for many suggestions that improved this paper. V. Aggarwal was partially supported by NSF Awards ANI0338807, CCF0635331, CNS0325971, and AFOSR under Contract 00852833. A. Sabharwal was partially supported by NSF Awards CCF0635331 and CNS 0325971.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Stability of Queues In Theorem 1
The queues emerge as Q_{ i }(k + 1) = (Q_{ i }(k) – nγ_{ i })^{+} + Δ_{ i }(k). Let Q_{ i }(k)/n = V_{ i }(k) and b_{ i }(k) = Δ_{ i }(k)/n – y_{ i }. Using this, we see that
Continuing in this way, we get
As b_{ i }(1) ≤ Δ_{ i }(1)/n,
Let
where d_{ i }(k) = (Δ_{ i }(k) – Δ_{ i }(k – 1))/n + b_{ i }(k). V_{ i }(j) and V′_{ i } (j) have same distribution since we just renamed the labels and all the b_{ i }’s were i.i.d.
Let e_{ i }(k) = d_{ i }(2) + d_{ i }(j – 2) + … d_{ i }(k – 1) for k ≥ 3 and 0 otherwise. We see that V′_{ i } (j) can only increase with j, and hence as j → ∞must converge to the (possibly infinite) random variable Ṽ_{ i },
As E(d,(k)) < 0, it follows being similar analysis as of [26, Section 1.7] that sup_{k≥2}e_{ i }(k) is finite with probability 1 and has a proper probability distribution (by proper, we mean that limit of the distribution is 0 and 1 at – ∞ and to, resp.). As mean and variance of Δ_{ i }(1)/n is finite for n large enough, this has a proper distribution function, Ṽ_{ i } is finite with probability 1 and forms a proper distribution function. Since Ṽ_{ i } is finite with probability 1, both V_{ i }(j) and V′_{ i }(j) converge to the same distribution, which is the distribution of Ṽ_{ i }. Hence, there exists an integer M such that lim_{j→∞} Pr[Q_{ i }(j) < nx] = F (x, n) and lim_{x→∞}F(x, n) = 1, for i = 1,2,…, K and n > M. Thus, the queues are stable for n large enough.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Aggarwal, V., Sabharwal, A. Slotted Gaussian Multiple Access Channel: Stable Throughput Region and Role of Side Information Vaneet. J Wireless Com Network 2008, 2 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/695894
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/695894
Keywords
 Arrival Rate
 Queue Length
 Capacity Region
 Side Information
 Arrival Distribution