 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Analysis of quantization effects on the performance of cooperative MIMO techniques in wireless networks
EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking volume 2012, Article number: 290 (2012)
Abstract
The most successful achievable schemes for ad hoc wireless networks are those based on establishing cooperative multipleinput and multipleoutput links. In this article, we analyze one of the important design parameters of such schemes, namely the number of quantization bits. Due to the digital architecture of these schemes, the received signal at nodes should become quantized before further processing. The scheme’s aggregate throughput highly depends on the resolution of the quantization process. We demonstrate that there is an optimum number of quantization bits which maximizes the network throughput. We show that the optimum number of quantization bits scales as β log_{2}(SNR), for any strictly positive β independent of SNR, for the high SNR regime. Furthermore, we derive the optimum scaling of network throughput in such a regime. It is concluded that a good management of the number of quantization bits as a design parameter has a significant impact on the network performance.
Introduction
Many applications in the wireless communication technology involve ad hoc deployment of a large number of wireless nodes. Due to the broadcast and superposition nature of the wireless medium, we face the interference phenomenon in such networks. The throughput of the network is the endtoend rate that all the source–destination nodes can communicate with, in the presence of interference. In order to analyze the performance of such ad hoc wireless network architectures, one can think of the wireless network as a graph. In this graph, the vertices are the wireless nodes, and the edges are wireless links. As a result, by using graphtheoretic tools, the information flow properties of the network can be analyzed [1–3].
However, as graph models cannot capture all properties of wireless networks, the graphtheorybased approach has serious limitations. One of such limitations is that a graph cannot properly model broadcast and superposition nature of wireless channels. Therefore, other works address the problem from a semiinformationtheoretic perspective. Based on this approach, the first successful attempt at deriving the scaling properties of the network capacity was presented by Gupta and Kumar [4]. Their result shows aggregate throughput scaling of order $\Theta \left(\sqrt{n}\right)$ for arbitrary networks of n nodes. The article by Franceschetti et al. [5] extends the above result to random networks. A number of other articles, such as [6, 7], also verified the $\Theta \left(\sqrt{n}\right)$ aggregate throughput limitation, which results in $\Theta (1/\sqrt{n})$ throughput per node. These results indicate that the throughput per node does not scale with the number of nodes, which seems unsatisfying. However, almost all the aforementioned articles are based on multihop routing of information. The main reason for the $\Theta (1/\sqrt{n})$ limitation is that each block of information should pass through a large number of hops before reaching its destination.
The network performance, however, is not always so disappointing if we do not bound ourselves to the multihop transmission technology. Based on this fact, the work of Aeron and Saligrama [8] and Özgür et al. [9] proposes schemes employing cooperative multipleinput and multipleoutput (MIMO) techniques as their main strategy. In such schemes each source node cooperates with the nearby nodes to form a virtual MIMO transmitter. In addition, local nodes at the receive side form a virtual MIMO receiver. Upon transmission of the MIMO signal, the received signals at the receive nodes should become quantized. After quantization and further cooperation, the data are sent to and decoded at the destination node.
The scheme proposed in [9] achieves aggregate throughput of order n, which is superior comparing with the multihopbased results. This superior performance is due to the cooperative nature of the scheme. Consequently, it has sparked a new wave of interest in the researchers to investigate the role of cooperative MIMO schemes in ad hoc networks (e.g., see [10–12]).
However, in order to make such schemes practical and usable in reallife protocols, there is still a large number of issues to be addressed. For example, there is the question whether the scalingbased analysis results (as n→∞) in [8, 9] are reliable for finite size networks. In other words, how large should n be for the results to be valid? Similarly, many design parameters in [9] are still not addressed in the literature. While optimizing these parameters has a great impact on proper operation of the network, it is not clear what the optimum values for such design parameters are as functions of network characteristics.
In this article^{a}, we focus on one of the key design parameters of such schemes. As mentioned earlier, the nodes who act as the virtual MIMO receiver should quantize the received signal before sending these quantized data to the destination node for decoding. We focus on this quantization process, as this process is critical for the cooperative MIMO operation. The main questions we address in this article are: Does optimization of the number of quantization bits have a great effect on network throughput? How many number of bits each receive node should use for the quantization process? At high signaltonoise ratios (SNR), what is the optimum choice for the number of quantization bits? How does the network throughput behave in high SNR regime?
In order to address the above issues, we analyze an inherent tradeoff in determining the “proper” number of quantization bits. By increasing the number of quantization bits, the capacity of the virtual MIMO link is increased. However, the amount of data that the receive nodes should send to the destination node is increased as well. These two phenomena have competing effects on the network throughput. For analyzing this tradeoff, we formulate the problem and find the optimum number of quantization bits maximizing the network throughput.
In order to clarify contributions of this article compared with [9, 10], it should be noted that our focus in this article is on the optimization of the quantization process, rather than on proposing a new network communication scheme. In fact, the issue of optimization of number of quantization bits is not addressed in [9, 10] while as will be shown, intelligent management of this issue results in significant throughput enhancement.
The structure of the article is as follows. In “Network model” section, we state our network model. In “Managing the number of quantization bits” section, we investigate the role of quantization bits and the resulting inherent tradeoff. “Numerical illustrations” section contains helpful numerical illustrations. Finally, the article ends with conclusion.
At last, we review the notations used throughout the article. We use Knuth’s asymptotic notation as follows [13]: f(n) = O(g(n)) if there exists positive constants c_{0} and n_{0} such that for all n ≥ n_{0} we have 0 ≤ f(n) ≤ c_{0}g(n), f(n) = Ω(g(n)) if g(n) = O(f(n)), f(n) = Θ(g(n)) if f(n) = O(g(n)) and f(n) = Ω(g(n)). Also, matrices and vectors are indicated in boldface, (·)^{H} is the Hermitian operator, the expression f_{1}(x) ∼ f_{2}(x) is equivalent to $\underset{x\to \infty}{\text{lim}}\frac{{f}_{1}\left(x\right)}{{f}_{2}\left(x\right)}=\text{constant}>0$, and, H(·) is the entropy function.
Network model
In this section, we describe the network model used in this article. First, general assumptions about the network and the wireless channel model are described. Then, the model used for establishing cooperative MIMO links in the network is described.
General assumptions
Consider a wireless network consisting of n nodes capable of both transmitting and receiving signals. The nodes are uniformly distributed in area A in a random manner. Each node intends to transmit information to exactly one other node, and is also the receiver of information from one other node, through a uniform random mapping. If the set of transmitting nodes at each time slot is called $\mathbb{S}\u23df$, then the signal received by the i th node at time slot m is given by
where X_{ k }[m] is the signal transmitted by node k at the time slot m, and Z_{ i }[m] denotes noise at the receiver. The wireless channel between nodes i and k at time slot m is modeled as
where r_{ ik } is the distance between nodes i and k, α is the path loss exponent, θ_{ ik } is the random phase change between nodes i and k which is uniformly distributed in the range [0, 2Π), and G denotes antenna gain. This channel model has broadly been used in the literature, e.g., see [9, 10]. Network throughput is defined as the rate at which all the source nodes send their information to destination nodes and depends on the spatiotemporal transmission strategies used in the network as discussed later.
Establishing cooperative MIMO links
The scheme considered in this article is based on cooperative MIMO transmission introduced in [9] and consists of the following three phases. In the first phase, each node shares its data between nearby nodes, such that these nodes can help in transmitting the data. In the second phase, those nearby nodes form virtual MIMO transmitters and transmit MIMO signals toward their destinations. In the last phase, upon reception of the signals transmitted in the second phase, the nearby nodes at the destination side form a virtual MIMO receiver and cooperate with each other to decode the original data at the destination node. As an example of such strategy, we continue our discussion based on the framework developed in [10]. In the network, each node is a source of data for exactly one other node, and also, it is destination of data for exactly one other node. Now, we describe the transmission procedure through which all source nodes transmit their data to the corresponding destinations in three phases. According to [10], the three transmission phases can be detailed as follows:

Phase 1: Partition the network area into equal clusters such that each cluster contains M nodes. Suppose that every source node has ML bits to transmit to its destination. Let us focus on one source node s. Node s distributes its ML bits among other nodes inside its cluster, L bits for each. In order to do this, node s maps a data block of length L to a Gaussian codeword of length C_{0}, and transmits this codeword to another node inside its cluster. This action takes C_{0} time slots. Then, s repeats the same action for all other nodes in the cluster in a round robin manner to distribute all the ML bits. Accordingly, such process takes (M − 1)C_{0} time slots. Since all the nodes in this cluster are source for some other nodes in the network, each node inside the cluster should repeat the whole procedure described above, as s did, onebyone. This results in M(M − 1)C_{0} time slots needed for this specific cluster. This intracluster activity is done simultaneously in onefourth of the clusters by a 4TDMA spatial reuse scheme. (The kTDMA spatial reuse strategy was first proposed in [4] and is a widely known concept in the literature. For details refer to [4, 9, 10].) Thus, the total time needed for all the source nodes in the network (which are, in fact, all the nodes in the network) to distribute their data inside their clusters is
$$\mathbb{D}\left(\text{phase 1}\right)=4M(M1){C}_{0}=4M(M1)\frac{L}{{R}_{0}},$$(3)where the rate of each transmission—i.e., the number of bits per slot—is R_{0} ≜ L / C_{0}. In this phase, the transmission from node i to node j is with transmission power $P{r}_{\mathit{ij}}^{\alpha}$. It should be noted that by increasing transmit power P, R_{0} cannot be made arbitrarily large, and it reaches a saturation value due to intercluster interference.

Phase 2: Consider the source node s. Its destination is located in some other cluster called the receive cluster. After completing phase 1, ML bits of s is distributed among M nodes inside its cluster. Thus, each node in the cluster has L bits of s. In this phase, every node maps L bits of s to a C_{1}long Gaussian codeword. Then, all nodes transmit their codewords simultaneously similar to a virtual MIMO transmitter. Each node transmits with power $P\frac{{r}_{\mathit{SD}}^{\alpha}}{M}$, where r_{ SD } is the distance between the centers of the transmit cluster and the receive cluster. We denote the transmission rate of each node by ${R}_{1}\triangleq \frac{L}{{C}_{1}}$. Each source node in the network needs a MIMO transmission shot as explained above, in order to deliver its data. Since we have a total of n source nodes in the network, an order of n MIMO shots, and accordingly, n time slots is required for this phase. Thus, the total number of time slots for this phase is^{b}
$$\mathbb{D}\left(\text{phase 2}\right)=2n{C}_{1}=2n\frac{L}{{R}_{1}}.$$(4) 
Phase 3: Consider a given receive cluster with M nodes. Each receive cluster, in phase 2, has acted as a virtual MIMO receiver. However, since the received signals at each virtual MIMO receiver (each cluster) are not collocated (and are distributed among the nodes in the cluster), we cannot decode the message. Thus, in phase 3 we should gather these distributed signals at the destination, which will then decode the original message.Consider a specific destination node named d which we assume to be the destination of source node s. As described earlier, in the second phase the nodes in the cluster of s send the information belonging to s in C_{1} time slots in a MIMO fashion. Thus, after the second phase, every node in the receive cluster has received C_{1} real numbers. These real numbers are the MIMO observations received at the antenna of each node in the receive cluster. Since we have to gather all these analog signals at the destination nodes d for the decoding process, we first have to quantize the analog observations. Thus, every node quantizes each observation with Q bits. Therefore, each node in the receive cluster has Q C_{1} bits which should be passed to d. Consequently, every node passes Q C_{1} bits to d in a TDMA manner using codewords of length C_{0} exactly as in phase 1, providing the total of (M − 1)C_{0} codewords for destination d. Finally, from these (M − 1)C_{0} codewords (along with the analog data already received at the second phase in d), node d decodes the whole ML bits of s.This procedure should be repeated for all destination nodes in receive cluster. Since, there are M destination nodes in the receive cluster, each one should get its (M − 1)Q C_{1} bits from other nodes, onebyone. Considering the 4TDMA spatial reuse strategy between clusters (as in the first phase), the total time slots needed for this phase is given by
$$\mathbb{D}\left(\text{phase 3}\right)\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}4M(M1){C}_{0}{C}_{1}Q/L\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}4M(M1)\frac{\mathit{LQ}}{{R}_{0}{R}_{1}}.$$(5)Consequently, the total time required for this scheme for large values of M is
$$\mathbb{D}=4{M}^{2}\frac{L}{{R}_{0}}+2n\frac{L}{{R}_{1}}+4{M}^{2}\frac{\mathit{LQ}}{{R}_{0}{R}_{1}}.$$(6)Since the total of nML bits is delivered, the effective throughput will be
$$T=\frac{\mathit{nML}}{4{M}^{2}\frac{L}{{R}_{0}}\left(1+\frac{Q}{{R}_{1}}\right)+2n\frac{L}{{R}_{1}}}.$$(7)Accordingly, by optimizing M with respect to the achievable throughput T, as [10]:
$${M}^{\mathrm{opt}}={\left(\frac{{R}_{0}}{2({R}_{1}+Q)}\right)}^{1/2}\sqrt{n},$$(8)the optimum throughput will be
$${T}^{\mathrm{opt}}={\left(\frac{{R}_{0}{R}_{1}^{2}}{32({R}_{1}+Q)}\right)}^{1/2}\sqrt{n}.$$(9)It is useful to note that the receive power at each of the nodes is bounded in the third phase as [10]
$$P{a}^{2}\le {P}^{\mathrm{rec}}\le P{b}^{2},$$(10)where
$$a\triangleq {\left(2\sqrt{2}\right)}^{\alpha /2},\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}b\triangleq {\left(2+\sqrt{2}\right)}^{\alpha /2}.$$(11)The above framework is sufficient for our purposes in this article. However, an interested reader can find more detailed explanation of the scheme by referring to [10]. In the next section, we use this simple scheme to begin analyzing the quantization effects in the second and third phases described above.
Managing the number of quantization bits
The quantization process in the cooperative MIMO strategy is a critical operation before any further action for decoding. That is due to the fact that in order to pass the received informationcarrying signal to the destination node (the decoder), these signals should first become quantized. These quantized signals constitute the information based on which the original data are recovered as will be discussed in this section.
Two stage cooperative MIMO network
Our goal is to study the effect of choosing a proper value for the number of quantization bits, on the performance of the network in terms of throughput. Thus, here we analyze a tradeoff between the number of quantization bits, and the achieved throughput of the virtual MIMO channel. In fact, by decreasing Q, each node has to represent its received analog signal with more ambiguity. The distortion due to quantization, acts as an added noise and makes the MIMO decoding at the destination node more difficult. Consequently, the capacity of the virtual MIMO link is decreased. In other words, by decreasing the number of quantization bits, Q, R_{1} in Equation (9) is decreased. In addition, as our goal is to achieve a low traffic load in the third phase, we have to decrease the number of quantization bits. In other words, by decreasing Q, the denominator of (9) is decreased. These are two competing effects which shape the tradeoff behavior inherent in the problem.
As it is clear from Equation (9), optimizing Q will result in improvement in the preconstant value of the throughput. Thus, the best Q can be found by solving the following optimization problem:
To this end, we need to understand how R_{1} increases as Q is increased. R_{1} is proportional to the MIMO capacity between the clusters in the second phase, i.e.,
where C_{MIMO} is the capacity of the cooperative MIMO link. The second phase signal model results in [9]
where X_{ i } is the transmitted signal vector by the nodes in the transmit cluster, and Y_{ j } is the received signal vector at the nodes in the receive cluster. Also, H_{ ij } is the channel matrix of the cooperative MIMO setup, and N_{ j } is the additive noiseplusdistortion vector added at the receive nodes. The noiseplusdistortion vector consists of two parts, namely the thermal noise (Z), and the quantization distortion (D)
We consider the thermal noise of receiving nodes to be independent from each other. The thermal noise at different nodes are assumed to have power σ^{2}. The quantization distortion of the receive node i depends on Q, and based on the ratedistortion theory [14] is equal to
where ${P}_{i}^{\mathrm{rec}}$ is the power of the received signal at the node i. The received power for node i is the sum of the transmitted signals’ power, diminished by the path loss effect. Given the fact that the power of each transmit node in the second phase is $P\frac{{r}_{\mathit{SD}}^{\alpha}}{M}$, we will have that [9]
By considering the quantization distortion as noise, the channel model represented in (14) will be a MIMO channel with unequal noise power at the receive antennas. Obviously, this is not the best strategy since the distortion vector contains information about the transmitted signal and is not useless noise. However, with this assumption, we can note that R_{1} will be
(The detailed derivation of (18) is presented in the Appendix.) where SNR is defined to be
and the expectation is with respect to the random channel phases. Also, we define the entries of the matrix F as (F)_{ ik } ≜ γ_{ ik }exp(j θ_{ ik }), where ${\gamma}_{\mathit{ik}}\triangleq {\left(\frac{{r}_{\mathit{SD}}}{{r}_{\mathit{ki}}}\right)}^{\alpha /2}$. Also, from the geometry of the problem, we have that
In addition, ${\mathit{\Sigma}}_{N}^{\u2033}$ is the noiseplusdistortion covariance matrix given by
where the expectation is with respect to X and Z. Therefore, it is diagonal with diagonal entries
It should be noted that due to the normalized values of distances in equation (22), the distance of the transmit and receive clusters is not important, and consequently the value of R_{1} for all the cluster pairs is almost the same^{c}.
Now we are in a position to note how decreasing Q decreases R_{1}. By decreasing Q, the diagonal elements of the noiseplusdistortion covariance matrix stated in (22) (i.e., ${\left({\Sigma}_{N}^{\u2033}\right)}_{\mathit{ii}}$) will be increased. This results in a decreased value for R_{1}. By understanding these two competing effects, we have evaluated the tradeoff mentioned above, which suggests that there is an optimum number of quantization bits. As will be shown later, proper management of this tradeoff has a great effect on enhancing the network throughput.
Extension to hierarchical cooperation schemes
The scheme explained in “Establishing cooperative MIMO links” section is a simple form of a more general scheme named Hierarchical Cooperation [9]. Consider a typical transmit cluster as explained in the previous sections. In the first phase, each node inside the cluster should distribute different data between other nodes inside the cluster. One can note that the process in phase 1 is very similar to the original problem in a smaller scale (by the original problem we mean: n nodes randomly distributed each having data for another node in the network). That is because the process in phase 1 and the original problem both consist of uniform traffic demand between the nodes of an specific area. Thus, we can divide the phase 1 into three subphases similar to the abovementioned approach. The same story is true for the phase 3. Therefore, we can divide the phase 3 into three subphases too. This concept is illustrated in Figure 1. The big rectangles in Figure 1 illustrate the three phases at the first level (top level) of the hierarchy. The first and third phases of the first level are divided again into another three phases which are shown by small rectangles. These small rectangles constitute the second level of the hierarchy. Consequent levels of hierarchy are built in the same manner up to h levels. The hierarchical cooperation with h stages has been analyzed in [9, 10] in detail. By this approach, the network throughput is [10]^{d}
As it is clear from Equation (23), optimizing Q will result in improvement in the preconstant value of the throughput. Consequently, the optimization problem becomes
This optimization problem reduces to (12) by putting h = 2.
In [11, 12], it has been observed that phases 1 and 3 can be manipulated in a more effective way in terms of delay. It has been shown that this modified scheme achieves the throughput^{e} given by [12]
For this delayeffective scheme, the optimization problem becomes
In order to analyze the above optimization problems ((24) and (26)), we need to have more understanding of the behavior of R_{1} as a function of Q. The exact expression for R_{1} is the solution to the quantized MIMO channel capacity problem (Equation 18), which is very difficult to work with.
Therefore, by some simple observations, we propose a simple approximation for the behavior of R_{1} as a function of Q as follows. Consider a typical MIMO transmission between two clusters. By varying the value of Q, the observed quantization noise in the diagonal elements of ${\mathit{\Sigma}}_{N}^{\u2033}$ in Equation (22) varies accordingly. By substituting the covariance matrix ${\mathit{\Sigma}}_{N}^{\u2033}$ in Equation (18), we can quantify the functionality of R_{1} as a function of Q. Figure 2 shows a typical numerical example of R_{1} as a function of Q derived by Equation (18). This figure shows that at small values of Q, the rate grows almost linearly with Q, until it gets a saturation value. In this saturation point, increasing Q does not help improving R_{1}. Let R_{ s } be the saturation value for R_{1}. Then we have
We can roughly say that this happens when the quantization distortion is negligible comparing with the thermal noise. Also, we see that until we reach this saturation point, it makes sense to approximate the curve with a linear one. Thus, we approximate R_{1}(Q) by a piecewise linear function as depicted in Figure 3. The first parameter of this approximation is R_{ s } which is the saturation capacity. The second parameter is the number of bits required for getting closed to this saturation capacity, namely Q_{ s }. However, it should be noted that there are also some limitations for this kind of approximation. First, it should be noted that at low values of Q, Equation (18) is not valid and apparently the value of R_{1} at Q = 0 is zero. Second, it should be noted that Equation (18) is not the capacity, and is just a lower bound, since we have assumed the quantization distortion to be just noise.
In order to find the optimum value of Q for the hierarchical cooperation scheme, we have to solve the problem (24). It is clear that the optimum value for Q happens before or at the saturation point (i.e., Q_{ s }). By assuming Q ≤ Q_{ s } in Equation (24), we will have the following quantity to be maximized:
which is maximized by putting Q = Q_{ s }. This results in the following preconstant value
According to the above result, we should use the number of quantization bits needed to get near optimal MIMO capacity at saturation. But, further bit allocation will result in throughput loss, due to the extra load for the third phase.
In a similar way, we can analyze the optimization problem for the variant of the hierarchical cooperation scheme, proposed in [11]. By analyzing (26) we see that any Q ≤ Q_{ s } maximizes the throughput preconstant. Thus, the modified hierarchical cooperation scheme proposed in [11] is very insensitive to the choice of the number of quantization bits, as long as, we do not choose a number larger than Q_{ s }. The corresponding preconstant will be
The above discussions show that, in the hierarchical cooperation scheme and its variant, it is best to allocate enough quantization bits to have a nearoptimal MIMO link in the second phase.
Analysis in the high SNR regime
One important issue is the behavior of the optimum number of quantization bits, and the network throughput preconstant in the high SNR regime (i.e., ρ → ∞). In this section, we carry out this analysis, and prove that the optimum number of quantization bits scales as Θ(log_{2}(ρ)). With this optimum scaling, the optimum throughput preconstant scaling is of order Θ(log_{2}(ρ)^{1−1/h}).
In order to understand this issue, first, we should analyze R_{1} in the high SNR regime. Equation (18) is very difficult to work with. Thus, we derive upper and lower bounds for (18) which are easier to work with. To do so, we put
where by using ${P}_{min}^{\mathrm{rec}}$ and ${P}_{\text{max}}^{\mathrm{rec}}$ from (10) we will get
Also, we have from (20)
where the entries of the matrix G are defined to be (G)_{ ik } ≜ exp(j θ_{ ik }). Now that we have bounds for the elements of the matrices ${\mathit{\Sigma}}_{N}^{\u2033}$ and F in (32) and (33), respectively, by inserting them into (18) the following bounds will result
In other words, for deriving (34) we have used Equation (18), where, we need using the bounds for the received signal powers at different nodes stated in (10) and the inequalities in (20), both originally derived in [9].
The above bounds on R_{1} demonstrate an interesting fact. If we do not increase Q as SNR increases, for R_{1} we will have
and consequently, the preconstant for the twostage system (9) is bounded^{f} as
However, if we set Q = β log_{2}(ρ), for values of 0 < β < 1, the upper bound in the high SNR regime will be given by
where
In (37) and (38), λ_{ i }’s are singular values of G which are independent of ρ. Also, in the case of β > 1, by similar calculations, we will have
Finally, for β = 1:
A similar analysis holds for the lower bound. Thus, by choosing Q = β log_{2}(ρ), for any β > 0,
where ${C}_{1}^{\u2033}$ and ${C}_{2}^{\u2033}$ are two constant values independent of SNR. The inequalities in (41) indicate that R_{1} is of the order log_{2}(ρ), and accordingly the preconstant for the twostage scheme (9) will increase as
Also, by a similar approach, we see that for the hstage hierarchical cooperation scheme, with the throughput indicated in (23), the preconstant scaling is of order
In addition, for the modified hstage scheme, with the throughput stated in (25), the preconstant will be independent of ρ in the scaling sense.
Finally, we prove that the scaling choice of Q = Θ(log_{2}(ρ)) is orderoptimal. First, we show that no scaling order larger than this results in higher throughput. We have observed that by the scaling of Q = Θ(log_{2}(ρ)), the scaling of R_{1} is as R_{1} = Θ(log_{2}(ρ)). Choosing a larger scaling than Q = Θ(log_{2}(ρ)) for Q, does not help improving the scaling order of R_{1}. That is because R_{1} = Θ(log_{2}(ρ)) is the best achievable scaling even in the case of Q = ∞. Thus, increasing the scaling order of Q does not help improving the scaling order of R_{1}. On the other hand, this action will deteriorate the preconstant factor by increasing the third phase load. Consequently, no scaling larger than Θ(log_{2}(ρ)) is the optimum scaling order.
Now, we prove that no scaling smaller than Θ(log_{2}(ρ)) is the optimum choice. Suppose we scale Q as Q = Θ(f(ρ)), in which ${\text{lim}}_{\rho \to \infty}\frac{f\left(\rho \right)}{{\text{log}}_{2}\left(\rho \right)}=0$. Thus, we have
Therefore, by similar calculations as in (37), and using (44), for the lower bound in (34) we will have
Similar analysis holds for the upper bound in (34), and thus, we will have R_{1} = Θ(f(ρ)). Accordingly, the preconstant scaling for the hierarchical cooperation scheme is
which has become worse when compared with (43). Thus, the optimal scaling for Q is
Numerical illustrations
In this section, with the help of numerical illustrations, we investigate the abovediscussed results and facts. The system considered in this section is the cooperative MIMO scheme explained in “Establishing cooperative MIMO links” section.
Consider Figure 4. This figure shows the preconstant factor of the throughput (i.e., ${\left(\frac{{R}_{0}{R}_{1}^{2}}{32({R}_{1}+Q)}\right)}^{1/2}$ from Equation (9)) as function of Q in ρ = 25 dB. The figure contains three curves. The middle curve is the preconstant based on the relationship (18) used for R_{1}, which is the exact capacity of a MIMO channel with different noise powers at the receivers. The upper curve is based on the lower bound on R_{1} in (34). The lower curve is based on the upper bound in (34). This figure shows some interesting facts. The first fact is that there is an optimum choice of Q which maximizes the preconstant value of the throughput. This Q is the optimal choice for handling the tradeoff discussed in “Managing the number of quantization bits” section. The second fact is that the evaluation based on the lower and upper bound relations also shows the existence of an optimal value, but with a slightly different value for the optimum Q. The optimum Q derived based on these curves are 5.75, 10, and 15.25 bits at this specific SNR value.
The next issue is about the behavior of the optimum value of Q at different SNR levels. This issue is investigated in Figure 5. The three curves in this figure are derived in the same way as in Figure 4, with the difference that the upper curve is associated with the lower bound for R_{1} and the lower curve is associated with the upper bound. In this figure, we note that all the three curves have almost equal slopes. This provides the answer to the question that why the bounds stated in (34) are very useful to work with, when considering the high SNR regime analysis.
Finally, Figure 6 shows the preconstant of the network throughput when the optimum number of quantization bits derived in Figure 5 is used. Again, in this figure we note the same slope for the three curves. This fact, again, illustrates the reason for the advantage of using bounds in the high SNR regime analysis.
It should be noted that the analysis in “Analysis in the high SNR regime” section is tailored to the high SNR case. That is because the model we have considered is a dense wireless network which is interferencelimited in nature and not powerlimited. However, extending the analytical results of this article to nonhigh SNR situations is an interesting problem for future work. However, we can examine the problem in that situation from the numerical viewpoint which are shown in Figures 7 and 8.
The numerical results presented in this section are very helpful to understand the inherent tradeoff in the optimization problem.
Conclusion
In this article, we have analyzed one of the key practical design parameters of cooperative MIMO schemes in ad hoc networks. We have considered the role of the number of quantization bits used at the nodes acting as the virtual MIMO receiver. By increasing this number, we will have a better virtual MIMO link, at the expense of a higher traffic load for cooperation at the receive nodes. We have analyzed this tradeoff and have shown there is an optimum number of quantization bits. Also, we have shown that if we do not increase this number as SNR increases, the throughput reaches a saturation value. We have shown that the optimum scaling of the number of quantization bits with SNR is as log_{2}(SNR). By this optimal scaling, the preconstant of the hierarchical cooperation method increases by order (log^{2}(SNR))^{1 − 1/h}, in which h is the number of hierarchy stages. The discussions are supported with numerical illustrations.
Endnotes
^{a}An earlier version of this article was accepted at the 36th IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN 2011) as a poster presentation.^{b}In fact, just the scaling is important which is linear with n. However, to understand why we have put 2n C_{1}, and not n C_{1}, refer to [9, 10].^{c}The reason is that in the second phase, the transmit power of the MIMO transmission is proportional to ${r}_{\mathit{SD}}^{\alpha}$ where r_{ SD } is the distance between the centers of the source and destination clusters. On the other hand, the path loss between any two nodes in these two clusters can be approximated by the distance between the centers of the clusters. Thus, these two terms cancel the difference between different cluster pairs and we can treat them equally. Therefore, for the sake of analytical traceability, we have used this approximation and concluded that R_{1} is almost the same for all the cluster pairs.^{d}The calculations are the same as [10], with the difference that we have not put R_{1} = R_{0}.^{e}The calculations are the same as [12], with the difference that we have not put R_{1} = R_{0}.^{f}It should be noted that there is an intrinsic saturation for R_{0}due to interference in the 4TDMA spatial reuse scheme as mentioned earlier (i.e., _{limρ→∞}R_{0} < ∞).
Appendix
In this appendix, we derive Equation (18) of the capacity of quantized MIMO channel with different quantization noise at the receivers. Based on [9], Equations (14) and (15) characterize the quantized MIMO channel model. If we do not use the information in D for recovering X, and consider the quantization distortion as an extra gaussian noise independent of X, we can assume H(YX) = H(N). Then, by following the conventional capacity calculation of MIMO channels we will have
where Σ_{ X } and Σ_{ N } are covariance matrices of X and N, respectively. Therefore, they are diagonal with the entries ${\left({\mathit{\Sigma}}_{X}\right)}_{\mathit{ii}}=P\frac{{r}_{\mathit{SD}}^{\alpha}}{M}$, and (_{ Σ }_{ N })ii = σ^{2} + D_{ i }. From (48) we derive the following
where the entries of the matrix F are (F)_{ ik } ≜ γ_{ ik } exp(j θ_{ ik }), and ${\gamma}_{\mathit{ik}}\triangleq {\left(\frac{{r}_{\mathit{SD}}}{{r}_{\mathit{ki}}}\right)}^{\alpha /2}$. Finally, by normalizing to σ^{2}and defining $\rho \triangleq \frac{P}{{\sigma}^{2}}$ we will have the relation stated in (18).
References
 1.
Jain K, Padhye J, Padmanabhan V, Qiu L: Impact of interference on multihop wireless network performance. In Paper presented at the Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom) (ACM). San Diego, California; 2003:pp. 6680.
 2.
Madan R, Shah D, Leveque O: Product multicommodity flow in wireless networks. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2008, 54(4):14601476.
 3.
Peraki C, Servetto SD: Capacity stabilityflows in largescale random networks. In Paper presented at the IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW). San Antonio, Texas; 2004:pp. 159164.
 4.
Gupta P, Kumar PR: The capacity of wireless networks. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2000, 42(2):388404.
 5.
Franceschetti M, Dousse O, Tse DNC: Closing the gap in the capacity of wireless networks via percolation theory. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2007, 53(3):10091018.
 6.
Kulkarni SR, Viswanath P: A deterministic approach to throughput scaling in wireless networks. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2004, 50(6):10411049. 10.1109/TIT.2004.828055
 7.
El Gamal A, Mammen J, Prabhakar B, Shah D: Optimal throughputdelay scaling in wireless networks—Part: I the fluid model. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2006, 52(6):25682592.
 8.
Aeron S, Saligrama V: Wireless ad hoc networks: strategies and scaling laws for the fixed SNR regime. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2007, 53(6):20442059.
 9.
Özgür A, Lévêque O, Tse D: Hierarchical cooperation achieves optimal capacity scaling in ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2007, 53(10):35493572.
 10.
Ghaderi J, Xie LL, Shen X: Hierarchical cooperation in ad hoc networks: optimal clustering and achievable throughput. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2009, 55(8):34253436.
 11.
Özgür A, Lévêque O: Throughputdelay tradeoff for hierarchical cooperation in ad hoc wireless networks. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2010, 56(3):13691377.
 12.
Xie LL: On informationtheoretic scaling laws for wireless networks. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory (submitted) (2008) Revised, July 2009. available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1205
 13.
Knuth DE: Big omicron and big omega and big theta. ACM SIGACT News 1976, 8: 1824. 10.1145/1008328.1008329
 14.
Cover T, Thomas JA: Elements of Information Theory. Wiley Series in Telecommunications and Signal Processing, New York, NY; 2006.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported in part by the Iran National Science Foundation under Grant 87041174 and in part by the Iran Telecommunications Research Center (ITRC). Also, this study was supported in part by the EMAITEK funds from the Basque Government.
Author information
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Received
Accepted
Published
DOI
Keywords
 Ad hoc wireless networks
 Cooperative MIMO
 Throughput maximization
 Quantization effects