 Research
 Open Access
Hadamard upper bound on optimum joint decoding capacity of Wyner Gaussian cellular MAC
 Muhammad Zeeshan Shakir^{1, 2}Email author,
 Tariq S Durrani^{2} and
 MohamedSlim Alouini^{1}
https://doi.org/10.1186/168714992011110
© Shakir et al; licensee Springer. 2011
 Received: 5 November 2010
 Accepted: 25 September 2011
 Published: 25 September 2011
Abstract
This article presents an original analytical expression for an upper bound on the optimum joint decoding capacity of Wyner circular Gaussian cellular multiple access channel (CGCMAC) for uniformly distributed mobile terminals (MTs). This upper bound is referred to as Hadamard upper bound (HUB) and is a novel application of the Hadamard inequality established by exploiting the Hadamard operation between the channel fading matrix G and the channel path gain matrix Ω. This article demonstrates that the actual capacity converges to the theoretical upper bound under the constraints like low signaltonoise ratios and limiting channel path gain among the MTs and the respective base station of interest. In order to determine the usefulness of the HUB, the behavior of the theoretical upper bound is critically observed specially when the intercell and the intracell time sharing schemes are employed. In this context, we derive an analytical form of HUB by employing an approximation approach based on the estimation of probability density function of trace of Hadamard product of two matrices, i.e., G and Ω. A closed form of expression has been derived to capture the effect of the MT distribution on the optimum joint decoding capacity of CGCMAC. This article demonstrates that the analytical HUB based on the proposed approximation approach converges to the theoretical upper bound results in the medium to high signal to noise ratio regime and shows a reasonably tighter bound on optimum joint decoding capacity of Wyner GCMAC.
Keywords
 Time Division Multiple Access
 Multiple Input Multiple Output
 Hadamard Product
 Path Gain
 Hadamard Inequality
1. Introduction
The ever growing demand for communication services has necessitated the development of wireless systems with high bandwidth and power efficiency [1, 2]. In the last decade, recent milestones in the information theory of wireless communication systems with multiple antenna and multiple users have offered additional newfound hope to meet this demand [3–11]. Multiple input multiple output (MIMO) technology provides substantial gains over single antenna communication systems, however the cost of deploying multiple antennas at the mobile terminals (MTs) in a cellular network can be prohibitive, at least in the immediate future [3, 8]. In this context, distributed MIMO approach is a means of realizing the gains of MIMO with single antenna terminals in a cellular network allowing a gradual migration to a true MIMO cellular network. This approach requires some level of cooperation among the network terminals which can be accomplished through suitably designed protocols [4–6, 12–16]. Toward this end, in the last few decades, numerous articles have been written to analyze various cellular models using information theoretic argument to gain insight into the implications on the performance of the system parameters. For an extensive survey on this literature, the reader is referred to [5, 6, 17–19] and the references there in.
The analytical framework of this article is inspired by analytically tractable model for multicell processing (MCP) as proposed in [7], where Wyner incorporated the fundamental aspects of cellular network into the framework of the well known Gaussian multiple access channel (MAC) to form a Gaussian cellular MAC (GCMAC). The majority of the MCP models preserve fundamental assumptions which has initially appeared in Wyner's model, namely (i) interference is considered only from two adjacent cells; (ii) path loss variations among the MTs and the respective base stations (BSs) are ignored; (iii) the interference level at a given BS from neighboring users in adjacent cells is characterized by a deterministic parameter 0 ≤ Ω ≤ 1, i.e., the collocation of MTs (users).^{a}
A. Background and related study
In [7], Wyner considered optimal joint processing of all BSs by exploiting cooperation among the BSs. It has been shown that intracell time division multiple access (TDMA) scheme is optimal and achieves capacity. Later, Shamai and Wyner considered a similar model with frequency flat fading scenario and more conventional decoding schemes, e.g., singlecell processing (SCP) and twocellsite processing schemes [5, 6]. It has also been shown that the optimum joint decoding strategy is distinctly advantageous over intracell TDMA scheme and fading between the terminals in a communication link increases the capacity with the increase in the number of jointly decoded users. Later, in [20] Wyner model has been modified by employing multiple transmitting and receiving antennas at both ends of the communication link in the cellular network where each BS is also composed of multiple antennas. Recently, new results have been published by further modifying the Wyner model with shadowing [21].
Recently, Wyner model has been investigated to account for randomly distributed users, i.e., noncollocated users [21–24]. In [22], an instant signalinterferenceratio (SIR) and averaged throughout for randomly distributed users have been derived by employing TDMA and code division multiple access (CDMA) schemes. It has been shown that the Wyner model is accurate only for the system with sufficient number of simultaneous users. It has also been shown that for MCP scenario, the CDMA outperforms the intercell TDMA which is opposite to the original results of Wyner, where intercell TDMA is shown to be capacity achieving [7]. Later in the article, similar kind of analysis has also been presented for downlink case which is out of scope of this article. The readers are referred to [22] and references there in.
Although the Wyner model is mathematically tractable, but still it is unrealistic with respect to practical cellular systems that the users are collocated with the BSs and offering deterministic level of interference intensity to the respective BS. As a consequence, another effort has been made to derive an analytical capacity expression based on random matrix theory [21, 23]. Despite the fact that the variableuser density is used in this article, the analysis is only valid under the asymptotic assumptions of large number of MTs K, i.e., K → ∞ and infinite configuration of number of cooperating BSs N, i.e., N → ∞ such that $\frac{K}{N}\to c\in \left(0,1\right)$[17, 21, 23, 24]. On the contrary, the main contribution of our article is to offer nonasymptotic approach to derive information theoretic bound on Wyner GCMAC model where finite number of BSs arranged in a circle are cooperating to jointly decode the user's data.
B. Contributions
In this article, we consider a circular version of Wyner GCMAC (by wrap around the linear Wyner model to form a circle) which we refer to as circular GCMAC (CGCMAC) throughout the article [12]. We consider an architecture where the BSs can cooperate to jointly decode all user's data, i.e., macrodiversity. Thus, we dispense with cellular structure altogether and consider the entire network of the cooperating BSs and the users as a networkMIMO system [12]. Each user has a link to each BS and BSs cooperate to jointly decode all user's data. The summary of main contributions of this article are described as follows. We derive a nonasymptotic analytical upper bound on the optimum joint decoding capacity of Wyner CGCMAC by exploiting the Hadamard inequality for finite cellular networkMIMO setup. The bound is referred to as Hadamard upper bound (HUB). In this study, we alleviate the Wyner's original assumption by assuming that the MTs are uniformly distributed across the cells in Wyner CGCMAC.
In first part of this article, we introduce the derivation of Hadamard inequality and its application to derive information theoretic bound on optimum joint decoding capacity which we referred to as theoretical HUB. The theoretical results of this article are exploited further to study the effect of variable path gains offered by each user in adjacent cells to the BS of interest (due to variableuser density). The performance analysis of first part of this article includes the presentation of capacity expressions over multiuser and singleuser decoding strategies with and without intracell and intercell TDMA schemes to determine the existence of the proposed upper bound. In the second part of this article, we derive the analytical form of HUB by approximating the probability density function (PDF) of Hadamard product of channel fading matrix G and channel path gain matrix Ω. The closed form representation of HUB is presented in the form of Meijer's GFunction. The performance and comparison description of analytical approach includes the presentation of information theoretic bound over the range of signaltonoise ratios (SNRs) and the calculation of mean area spectral efficiency (ASE) over the range of cell radii for the system under consideration.
This article is organized as follows. In Section II, system model for Wyner CGCMAC is recast in Hadamard matrix framework. Next in Section III, the Hadamard inequality is derived as Theorem 3.3 based on Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.2. While in Section IV, a novel application of the Hadamard inequality is employed to derive the theoretical upper bound on optimum joint decoding capacity. This is followed by the several simulation results for a singleuser and the multiuser scenarios that validate the analysis and illustrate the effect of various time sharing schemes on the performance of the optimum joint decoding capacity for the system under consideration. In Section V, we derive a novel analytical expression for an upper bound on optimum joint decoding capacity. This is followed by numerical examples and discussions in Section VI that validate the theoretical and analytical results, and illustrate the accuracy of the proposed approach for realistic cellular networkMIMO systems. Conclusions are presented in Section VII.
Notation: Throughout the article, ℝ^{N × 1}and ℂ^{N × 1}denote N dimensional real and complex vector spaces, respectively. Furthermore, ℙ^{N × 1}denotes N dimensional permutation vector spaces which has 1 at some specific position in each column. Moreover, the matrices are represented by an uppercase boldface letters, as an example, the N × M matrix A with N rows and M columns are represented as A^{N × M}. Similarly, the vectors are represented by a lowercase boldface italic version of the original matrix, as an example, a N × 1 column vector a is represented as a^{N × 1}. An element of the matrix or a vector is represented by the nonboldface letter representing the respective vector structure with subscripted row and column indices, as an example a_{n,m}refers to the element referenced by row n and column m of a matrix A^{N × M}. Similarly, a_{ k } refers to element k of the vector a^{N × 1}. Scalar variables are always represented by a nonboldface italic characters. The following standard matrix function are defined as follows: (·) ^{ T } denotes the nonHermitian transpose; (·) ^{ H } denotes the Hermitian transpose; tr (·) denotes the trace of a square matrix; det (·) and  ·  denote the determinant of a square matrix; A denotes the norm of the matrix A; $E\left[\cdot \right]$ denotes the expectation operator and (∘) denotes the Hadamard operation (element wise multiplication) between the two matrices.
2. Wyner Gaussian cellular Mac model
A. System model
where G_{N,K}∈ ℂ^{N×NK}such that ${G}_{N,K}~\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}\left(0,{I}_{N}\right)$ and Ω_{N,K}∈ ℝ^{N×NK}such that ${\Omega}_{N,K}~\mathcal{U}\left(0,1\right)$. The modeling of channel path gain matrix Ω_{N,K}for a singleuser and the multiuser environments can be well understood from the following Lemma.
Lemma 2.1: (Modeling of Channel Path Gain Matrix)
The matrix S is real and orthogonal, hence S^{1} = S^{ T } and also the basis vectors are orthogonal for ℝ ^{ N } .

Symmetrical channel path gain matrix: In this scenario, the structure of the channel path gain matrix is typically circular for a singleuser case. Therefore, the path gains between the MTs T_{j+i}for {i = 0, ±1} and the respective BSs B_{ j }are deterministic and can be viewed as a row vector of the resultant N × N circular channel path gain matrix Ω. Mathematically, the first row of the channel matrix may be expressed as^{d}$\Omega \left(1,:\right)=\left({\Omega}_{{B}_{j}{T}_{j}},{\Omega}_{{B}_{j}{T}_{j+i}}0,0,0,{\Omega}_{{B}_{j}{T}_{ji}}\right)$, where ${\Omega}_{{B}_{j}{T}_{j}}$ is the path gain between the intracell MTs T_{ j }and the respective BSs in j th cell and ${\Omega}_{{B}_{j}{T}_{j+i}}$ for i = ± 1 is the channel path gain between the MTs T_{j+i}for i = ± 1 in the adjacent cells and the respective BSs in j th cell. In this context, it is known that the circular matrix Ω can be expressed as a linear combination of powers of the shift operator S[27, 28]. Therefore, the resultant circular channel path gain matrix (symmetrical) for K = 1 active user in each cell can be expressed as${\Omega}_{N,1}={I}_{N}+{\Omega}_{{B}_{j}{T}_{j+1}}S+{\Omega}_{{B}_{j}{T}_{j1}}{S}^{T},$(8)
where 1_{ K } denotes 1 × K all ones vector and (⊗) denotes the Kronecker product.

Unsymmetrical channel path gain matrix: In this scenario, the MTs (users) in the adjacent cells are randomly distributed across the cells in the entire system. Therefore, the channel path gain matrix is not deterministic, and hence, the resultant matrix is no more circular. In this setup, the channel path gain matrix for singleuser scenario can be mathematically modeled as follows:${\Omega}_{N,1}={I}_{N}+{\widehat{\Omega}}_{N,1}\circ S+{\widehat{\Omega}}_{N,1}\circ {S}^{T},$(10)
where ${\widehat{\Omega}}_{N,1}~\mathcal{U}\left(0,1\right)$.
B. Definitions
 i.
Intracell TDMA: a time sharing scheme where only one user in each cell in the system is allowed to transmit simultaneously at any time instant.
 ii.
Intercell TDMA: a time sharing scheme where only one cell in the system is active at any time instant such that each local user inside the cell is allowed to transmit simultaneously. The users in other cells in the system are inactive at that time instant.
 iii.
Channel path gain (Ω): normalized distance dependent path loss offered by intracell and intercell MTs to the BS of interest.
 iv.
MCP: a transmission strategy, where a joint receiver decodes all users data jointly (uplink); while the BSs can transmit information for all users in the system (downlink).
 v.
SCP: a transmission strategy where the BSs can only decode the data from their local users, i.e., intracell users and consider the intercell interference from the intercell users as a Gaussian noise (uplink); while the BSs can transmit information only for their local users, i.e., intracell users (downlink).
3. Information theory and Hadamard inequality
Theorem 3.1: (Hadamard Product)
where P_{ N } and ${\mathcal{P}}_{M}$ are N^{2} × N and M^{2} × M partial permutation matrices, respectively (in some of the literatures these matrices are referred to as selection matrices [29]). The j th column of P_{ N } and P_{ M } has 1 in its ((j  1) N + j) th and ((j  1) M + j) th positions, respectively, and zero elsewhere.
Proof: See [[31], Theorem 2.5].
Corollary 3.2: (Hadamard Product)
 i.
P _{ N } and P _{ M } are the only matrices of zeros and onces that satisfy (15) for all G and Ω.
 ii.
P ^{ T } P = I and PP ^{ T } is a diagonal matrix of zeros and ones, so 0 ≤ diag 0 (PP ^{ T } ) ≤ 1.
 iii.There exists a N ^{2} × (N ^{2}  N) matrix Q _{ N } and M ^{2} × (M ^{2}  M) matrix Q _{ M } of zeros and ones such that π ≜ (P Q) is the permutation matrix. The matrix Q is not unique but for any choice of Q, following holds:${P}^{T}Q=0;\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{Q}^{T}Q=I;\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}Q{Q}^{T}=IP{P}^{T}.$
 iv.Using the properties of a permutation matrix together with the definition of π in (iii); we have$\pi \phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{\pi}^{T}=\left(P\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}Q\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {P}^{T}\hfill \\ \hfill {Q}^{T}\hfill \end{array}\right)=P{P}^{T}+Q{Q}^{T}=I.$
Theorem 3.3: (Hadamard Inequality)
This inequality is referred to as the Hadamard inequality which will be employed to derive the theoretical and analytical HUB on the capacity (14).
This completes the proof of Theorem 3.3. ■
An alternate proof of (18) is provided as Appendix A.
4. Theoretical Hub
Now, in the following subsections we analyze the validity of the HUB on optimum joint decoding capacity w.r.t a singleuser and the multiuser environments under limiting constraints.
A. Singleuser environment
i. Low intercell interference regime
It is to note that this is the scenario in cellular network when the MTs in adjacent cells are located far away from the BS of interest. Practically, the MTs in the adjacent cells which are located at the edge away from the BS of interest are offering negligible path gain.
This completes the proof of (21). ■
ii. Tightness of HUBlow SNR regime
This completes the proof of (25). ■
It is demonstrated in Figure 2 that as γ → 0, the gain inserted by the upper bound Δ = Δ_{0} ≈ 0 (compare the black solid curve with the red dashed curve). It can be seen from the figure that the theoretical HUB on optimum capacity is loose in the high range of SNR regime and comparably tight in the low SNR regime, and hence ${\stackrel{\u0304}{\mathsf{\text{C}}}}_{\mathsf{\text{opt}}}\left(p\left(H\right),\gamma \right)\approx {\mathsf{\text{C}}}_{\mathsf{\text{opt}}}\left(p\left(H\right),\gamma \right)$.
iii. Intercell TDMA scheme
The same has been shown in Figure 2. The black dasheddotted curve and the curve with red square marker illustrate optimum capacity and theoretical HUB, respectively, when intercell interference is negligible, i.e., using (23). Next, the curve with green circle marker shows the capacity when intercell TDMA is employed, i.e., using (26).
B. Multiuser environment
In this section, we demonstrate the behavior of the theoretical HUB when two implementation forms of time sharing schemes are employed in multiuser environment. One is referred to as intercell TDMA, intracell narrowband scheme (TDMA, NB), and other is intercell TDMA, intracell wideband scheme [12]. We refer the later scheme as intercell time sharing, wideband scheme, (ICTS, WB) throughout the discussions. It is to note that SCP is employed only to determine the application of our bound for realistic cellular network.
i. Intercell TDMA, intracell narrowband scheme (TDMA, NB)
ii. Intercell time sharing, wideband scheme, (ICTS, WB)
Summary of theoretical Hadamard upper bound (HUB)
User(s) (K)  Constraints for ${C}_{opt}\left(p\left(H\right);\gamma \right)={\stackrel{\u0304}{C}}_{opt}\left(p\left(H\right);\gamma \right)$  Constraints for ${C}_{opt}(p\left(H\right);\gamma )\; <{\stackrel{\u0304}{C}}_{opt}\left(p\left(H\right);\gamma \right)$ 

K = 1 (Cooperative BS scenario)  i. Ω → 0, i.e., low level of intercell interference to the BS of interest. ii. γ → 0, i.e., the gain inserted by HUB Δ → 0 and is given by ${\Delta}_{0}=\underset{\gamma \to 0}{lim}\gamma E\left[\mathsf{\text{tr}}\left({\Gamma}_{\left(P,Q\right)}\right)\right]$.  $\Omega ~\mathcal{U}\left(0,1\right)$ (variable path gain among the MTs and the Bs of interest due to Uniformly distributed MTs across the cells). 
K > 1 (Noncooperative BS scenario)  By employing intracell TDMA, intercell Narrowband (TDMA, NB) scheme.  By employing Intercell Time Sharing, Wideband (ICTS, WB) scheme. 
5. Analytical Hub
is the Shannon transform of a random square Hadamard composite matrix $\left(\stackrel{\u2323}{G}\circ \stackrel{\u2323}{\Omega}\right)$ and distributed according to the cumulative distribution function (CDF) denoted by ${\mathsf{\text{F}}}_{\stackrel{\u2323}{G}\circ \stackrel{\u2323}{\Omega}}\left(\mathsf{\text{tr}}\left(\stackrel{\u2323}{G}\circ \stackrel{\u2323}{\Omega}\right)\right)$[17], where $\stackrel{\u2323}{\gamma}=\gamma \phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{N}^{2}$ and $\gamma =P/{\sigma}_{z}^{2}$ is the MT transmit power over receiver noise ratio.
where ${f}_{\stackrel{\u2323}{G}\circ \stackrel{\u2323}{\Omega}}\left(u\right)$ is the joint PDF of the $\mathsf{\text{tr}}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left(\stackrel{\u2323}{G}\right)$ and $\mathsf{\text{tr}}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left(\stackrel{\u2323}{\Omega}\right)$ which is evaluated as follows in the next subsection.
A. Approximation of PDF of $\mathsf{\text{tr}}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left(\stackrel{\u2323}{G}\circ \stackrel{\u2323}{\Omega}\right)$
where we have made a use of Meijer's GFunction [35], available in standard scientific software packages, such as Mathematica, in order to transform the integral expression to the closed form and $\Theta =1\u221564\sqrt{2}{\pi}^{2}{\stackrel{\u2323}{\gamma}}^{2}$.
6. Numerical examples and discussions
7. Conclusion
The analytical upper bound referred to as HUB is derived on optimum joint decoding capacity for Wyner CGCMAC under realistic assumptions: uniformly distributed MTs across the adjacent cells; and the finite number of cooperating BSs arranged in a circular configuration. New analytical approach have been reported to derive an information theoretic upper bound on the optimum joint decoding capacity of circular Wyner GCMAC. This approach is based on the approximation of the PDF of trace of composite Hadamard product matrix (G ∘ Ω) by employing the Hadamard inequality. A closed form expression has been derived to capture the effect of variable userdensity in GCMAC. The proposed analytical approach has been validated by using Monte Carlo simulations for variable userdensity cellular system. It has been shown that a reasonably tighter upper bound on optimum joint decoding capacity can be obtained by exploiting Hadamard inequality for realistic scenarios in cellular network. The importance of the methodology presented here lies in the fact that it allows a realistic representation of the MT's spatial arrangement. Therefore, this approach can be further exploited in order to investigate the various practical MT distributions and their effect on the optimum joint decoding capacity of system under consideration.
Appendix A
An Alternate Proof Of (18)
This completes the proof. ■
Remarks: The result (A.56) can be applied to the correlated scenario where the rank of the fading channel matrix may reduce to 1 [2, 15, 26]. Alternatively, the proof can be extended for channel matrix of any rank L. As an example, if A is a diagonalizable matrix of size N × N with rank L. Then, there are L square rank one matrices given as A_{1}, A_{2}, ..., A _{ L }, such that A = A_{1} + A_{2} + ... + A_{ L } and an alternative proof can be derived for such matrices.
ENDNOTES
^{a} MTs are also referred to as users and is interchangeably used throughout the article.
^{ b }T_{j+1}≜ T_{j+1}mod N.
^{c}Throughout this article, H_{N,K}, G_{N,K}and Ω_{N,K}refers to the channel matrices corresponding to N number of cells and K users per cell in a CGCMAC. For brevity, the channel matrices will be expressed as H, G and Ω, respectively, unless it is necessary to emphasis the number of cells and the number of users.
^{d}Here, we used Matlab format to express row vector. For an example, Ω(1, :) shows First row vector of matrix Ω.
^{e}As an example, for N = 6 and K = 1, the partial permutation matrices are P ∈ ℙ^{36 × 6} and Q ∈ ℙ^{36 × 30}[26].
^{f}Terms with higher order of γ are ignored ⇔ γ^{ x } ≈ 0; ∀x = 2, 3, ... [33].
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of Picsel Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UK and KAUST, KSA. This study was presented in part at IEEE International Symposium Wireless Communications and Systems, ISWCS'2010, York, UK, September 2010.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Ghosh A, Zhang J, Andrews JG, Muhamed R: Fundamentals of LTE. Boston, Massachusetts, MA, USA: PrenticeHall; 2010.Google Scholar
 Kramer G, Maric I, Yates RD: Cooperative Communications (Foundations and Trends in Networking). Hanover, Massachusets, MA, USA: now Publishers, Inc; 2007.Google Scholar
 Foschini GJ, Gans MJ: On the limits of wireless communications in a fading environment when using multiple antennas. Springer Jour Wireless Personal Communs 1998, 6(3):311335.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Somekh O, Zaidel BM: Sum rate characterization of joint multiple cellsite processing. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 2007, 53(12):44734497.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shamai S, Wyner AD: Informationtheoretic considerations for symmetric cellular multipleaccess fading channels  Part I. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 1997, 43(6):18771894. 10.1109/18.641553MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shamai S, Wyner AD: Informationtheoretic considerations for symmetric cellular multipleaccess fading channels  Part II. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 1997, 43(6):18951911. 10.1109/18.641554MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Wyner AD: Shannontheoretic approach to a Gaussian cellular multipleaccess channel. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 1994, 40(6):17131727. 10.1109/18.340450MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Teletar IE: Capacity of multiantenna Gaussian channels. European Trans Telecomm 1999, 10: 585595. 10.1002/ett.4460100604View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Andrews JG, Choi W, Heath RW: Overcoming interference in spatial multiplexing MIMO wireless networks. IEEE Mag Wireless Communs 2007, 14(6):95104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Boudreau G, Panicker J, Guo N, Chang R, Wang N, Vrzic S: Interference coordination and cancellation for 4G networks. IEEE Mag Communs 2009, 47(4):7781.Google Scholar
 Zhang J, Chen R, Andrews JG, Ghosh A, Heath RW Jr: Networked MIMO with clustered linear precoding. IEEE Trans Wireless Communs 2009, 8(4):19101921.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shakir MZ, Durrani TS, Alouini MS: On the optimum joint decoding capacity of Wyner Circular GCMAC by exploiting Hadamad inequality. Proc IEEE Intl Symp Wireless Communs and Systems, ISWCS' 2010, York, United Kingdom 2010, 785789.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Somekh O, Simeone O, Poor HV, Shamai (Shitz) S: Throughput of cellular uplink with dynamic user activity and cooperative basestations. Proc IEEE Inform Theory Workshop, ITW' 2009, Taormina, Italy 2009, 610614.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shamai (Shitz) S, Somekh O, Zaidel BM: Multicell communications: an information theoretic perspective. Proc Joint Workshop Commun and Coding, JWCC'04, Donnini, Florence, Italy 2004.Google Scholar
 Somekh O, Simeone O, BarNess Y, Haimovich AM, Spagnolini U, Shamai (Shitz) S: Distributed Antenna Systems: Open Architecture for Future Wireless Communications, Chapter: An Information Theoretic View of Distributed Antenna Processing in Cellular Systems. New York, NY, USA: Auerbach Publications, CRC Press; 2007.Google Scholar
 Marsch P, Khattak S, Fettweis G: A framework for determining realistic capacity bounds for distributed antenna systems. Proc IEEE Inform Theory Workshop, ITW'2006, Punta del Este, Uruguay 2006, 571575.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Tulino AM, Verdu S: Random Matrix Theory and Wireless Communications (Foundations and Trends in Commus. and Inform. Theory). Hanover, Massachusets, MA, USA: now Publisher Inc; 2004.Google Scholar
 Cover TM, Thomas JA: Elements of Information Theory. 2nd edition. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc; 2006.MATHGoogle Scholar
 Simeone O, Somekh O, Poor HV, Shamai (Shitz) S: Local base station cooperation via finite capacity links for the uplink of linear cellular networks. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 2009, 55(1):190204.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Aktas D, Bacha MN, Evans JS, Hanly SV: Scaling results on the sum capacity of cellular networks with MIMO links. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 2006, 52(7):32643274.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kaltakis D, Imran MA, Tzaras C: Information theoretic capacity of cellular multiple access channel with shadow fading. IEEE Trans Communs 2010, 58(5):14681476.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Xu J, Zhang J, Andrews JG: On the accuracy of the Wyner model in cellular networks. IEEE Trans Wireless Communs 2011, 10(9):30983109.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chatzinotas S, Imran MA, Tzaras C: On the capacity of variable density cellular Systems under multicell decoding. IEEE Let Communs 2008, 12: 496498.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Katranaras E, Imran MA, Tzaras C: Uplink capacity of a variable density cellular system with multicell processing. IEEE Trans Communs 2009, 57(7):20982108.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Liang Y, Goldsmith A: Symmetric rate capacity of cellular systems with cooperative base stations. Proc IEEE Conf Global Communs., GLOBECOM'2006, San Francisco, California, CA, USA 2006, 15.Google Scholar
 Shakir MZ: Cellular MIMO networkschannel modeling, decomposition and information theoretic perspectives. PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK; 2010.Google Scholar
 Gray RM:Toeplitz and circulant matrices: a review. 2002. [http://ee.stanford.edu/gray/toeplitz.pdf]Google Scholar
 Goodman R:Finite fourier transforms circulant matrices and fast fourier transform. 2007. [http://www.math.rutgers.edu/courses/550A/550f07/fftnotes.pdf]Google Scholar
 Amemiya T: Advanced Econometrics. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MA, USA: Harvard University Press; 1985.Google Scholar
 Horn RA, Johnson CR: Matrix Analysis. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1985.MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kilicman A, AlZhour Z: On the connection between Kronecker and Hadamard convolution products of matrices and some applications. Hindawi Jour Inequalities and Applications 2009, 10. Article ID: 736243Google Scholar
 Visick G: A quantitative version of the observation that the Hadamard product is a principal submatrix of the Kronecker product. Elsevier Jour Linear Algebra and its Applications 2000, 304: 4568. 10.1016/S00243795(99)001871MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Beezer RA: A First course in linear algebra, version 2.20. 2009.Google Scholar
 Ulukok Z, Turkmen R: On some matrix trace inequalities. Hindawi Jour Inequalities and Applications 2010, 18. Article 1D: 201486Google Scholar
 Abramowitz M, Stegun IA: Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. 9th edition. New York, USA: Dover Publication, Inc; 1972.MATHGoogle Scholar
 Alouini MS, Goldsmith A: Area spectral efficiency of cellular mobile radio systems. IEEE Trans Vehicular Technology 1999, 48(4):10471066. 10.1109/25.775355View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.