1

Using Continuous Power Modulation for
Exchanging Local Channel State Information

arXiv:1708.02048v1 [cs.NI] 7 Aug 2017

Chao Zhang, Samson Lasaulce, and Vineeth S. Varma

Abstract—This letter provides a simple but efficient technique,
which allows each transmitter of an interference network, to
exchange local channel state information with the other transmitters. One salient feature of the proposed technique is that a
transmitter only needs measurements of the signal power at its
intended receiver to implement it, making direct inter-transmitter
signaling channels unnecessary. The key idea to achieve this is to
use a transient period during which the continuous power level
of a transmitter is taken to be the linear combination of the
channel gains to be exchanged.
Index Terms—Distributed power control, interference channel,
iterative water-filling algorithm, global channel state information,
power domain channel estimation

I. I NTRODUCTION
To perform operations such as power control or interference
coordination in distributed interference networks, a transmitter
requires knowledge about the channel gains or qualities of
the different links in presence. Aside from limitations such as
complexity, one limitation in the implementation of globally
efficient distributed power control policies, is the problem of
channel state information (CSI) availability at the transmitter.
Typically, global or network performance metrics depend on
global CSI, i.e., all the channel gains in presence. While
many estimation techniques or protocols to acquire local CSI
(i.e., the channel gains of links from all transmitters to a
given receiver) at a transmitter are available in literature (see
e.g., [1] [2]), there are not many works providing techniques
to acquire global CSI. The existing techniques to acquire
global CSI, typically rely on the existence of inter-transmitter
signaling channels (see [3] [4] [5]), which may be unavailable
in practice. Remarkably, it has been shown recently in [6]
that global CSI1 can be acquired from the sole knowledge
of the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or signal-tointerference plus noise ratio (SINR), and therefore making
dedicated feedback and inter-transmitter channels unnecessary.
The motivation for assuming such a feedback is given by
power control schemes such as the iterative water-filling algorithms (IWFA) [7] [8] which assume a transient or exploration
period during which the power control algorithm updates the
transmit power. For this, each transmitter updates its power by
relying on individual SINR feedback. As shown in [6], SINR
feedback is sufficient to allow every transmitter to recover
local CSI and exchange it by using the novel idea of power
1
It is essential to note that the estimation techniques proposed in the
present paper, and in [6], differ from classical estimation techniques as they
are performed in the power domain, and do not require training or pilot
signals. While channel acquisition may take some time, note that regular
communication is uninterrupted and occurs in parallel.

modulation, namely, the transmit power itself is used to embed
information about the channel.
In this letter, we present an alternative to the solution
given in [6] to exchange local CSI. The latter solution involves quantizing local channel gains, power modulating the
corresponding bits with discrete power levels, and using a
lattice-type decoding scheme at each transmitter, which has
to recover the power levels of the others. The CSI exchange
technique in [6] has a least two advantages: it can be used in
wireless systems where only discrete power levels are allowed
(see e.g., [9]); it can be made robust to local CSI estimation
noise and imperfections on the knowledge of the RSSI (or
SINR). However, if continuous power levels are allowed,
local CSI is well estimated, and the RSSI quality is good, a
much simpler solution can be used namely, to use continuous
power modulation (CPM), which is the purpose of this letter.
Technically, the technique proposed here distinguishes from
[6] by the fact that it uses continuous power modulation (in a
very specific way which allows local CSI exchange), and relies
on time-sharing (which is especially relevant for power domain
channel estimation). Additionally, the proposed technique has
the advantage of having very low complexity.
Important notations
Meaning
Channel gain from Transmitter j to
Receiver i
gji
r
Estimate of gji available at Transmitter i
k
gji
p
Estimate of gji available at Transmitter k ‰ i
g i “ pg1i , ..., gKi qT
Local CSI for Transmitter i
i
T
p
g j “ pg1j , ..., gKj q
Estimate of the local CSI of Transmitter j available at Transmitter i
G
Global channel matrix
k
p
Estimate of G available at TransG
mitter k
Symbol
gji

II. P ROPOSED

TECHNIQUE

We consider an interference channel with K transmitterreceiver pairs which are assumed to operate on the same band
[3]; the multi-band scenario readily follows and is considered
in the section dedicated to simulations (Sec. II). The channel
gain of the link between Transmitter i P t1, ..., Ku and
Receiver j P t1, ..., Ku is denoted by gij ě 0 and is assumed
min max
to lie in the interval rgij
, gij s. Channel gains are assumed

2

to be constant over each transmitted data frame, a frame being
composed of several time-slots. Each frame comprises two
phases. During the first T ě 1 time-slots, transmit power levels
p1 ,...,pK vary from time-slot to time-slot and corresponding
received signal (RS) power measurements are used to estimate
global CSI (exploration phase), pi being subject to a classical
power limitation pi P r0, Pmax s. Once the transmitters have
acquired a global CSI estimate, they can find the fixed power
level at which each of them will operate over all the remaining
time-slots (exploitation phase).
Let us denote by r
g1i , ..., grKi the local channel gain estimates
available to Transmitter i. As mentioned in Sec. I, local
CSI can be acquired by using classical estimation techniques
which, for example, assume that each transmitter sends to the
receivers a pilot or training sequence in the signal domain.
One of the key features of the proposed technique is to adjust
the power level of Transmitter i on time-slot t P t1, ..., T u, as
follows:
K
ÿ
aji ptqr
gji
(1)
pi ptq “
j“1

where
K
ÿ
Pmax
aji ptq “ aji ptq max , aji ptq ě 0,
aji ptq “ 1.
gji
j“1

(2)

Therefore, the power levels used during the exploration phase2
conveys information about local CSI. It turns out that local
CSI information can be recovered, provided the interference
is observed either through RSSI or SINR feedback. Here we
consider RSSI feedback, which has the advantage of directly
leading to linear estimators. In general, the RS power at
Receiver i on time-slot t writes as follows:
ωi ptq “

K
ÿ

gji pj ptq ` σ 2

(3)

j“1

“
“
“
“

j
ωij ptq ` zi,1
ptq
j
gji pj ptq ` σ 2 ` zi,1
ptq
j
j
2
grji pj ptq ` σ ` zi,1 ptq ` zi,2
ptq
grji pj ptq ` σ 2 ` zij ptq

where ω ji

gj grji ` z ji ` σ 2 1
ω
r ji “ Pj r

“
T

˚
˚
˚
P “ Pmax ˚
˚
˝
j

pωij ptj ` 1q, ..., ωij ptj ` KqqT , r
gj

z ji

pr
g1j , ..., r
gKj q ,
p1, 1, ..., 1qT , and
¨

(5)

“

pzij ptj

a1j ptj ` 1q
max
g1j
..
.
a1j ptj ` Kq
max
g1j

`

1q, ..., zij ptj

` Kqq , 1 “

aKj ptj ` 1q
max
gKj
..
.
aKj ptj ` Kq
max
gKj

...
..
.
...

“

T

˛

‹
‹
‹
‹.
‹
‚

(6)

This means that when j is broadcasting from time tj ` 1 to
tj ` K, the sequence of transmit powers it uses (as a column
vector), over the K time slots, is given by Pj r
gj . Finally, the
local CSI estimate grj is estimated at Transmitter i as:
p
gij “

´1
¯
Pj ´ j
ω
r i ´ σ2 1 .
gji
r

(7)

i
where gpkj
denotes the estimate of the channel gkj by transmitter i. Of course, writing the above implicitly assumes that the
coefficients aji are chosen properly. Note that more advanced
estimators such as the minimum mean square error (MMSE) or
maximum likelihood (ML) estimators might be used but here,
low complexity is prioritized. Normal requirements in terms
of local CSI and RSSI qualities are the targeted operating
conditions for the proposed technique. Once a global CSI
estimate is available, it becomes possible for Transmitter i,
i P t1, ..., Ku, to maximize a common network performance
criterion under the form
i

where σ 2 is the receive noise variance. But in a real wireless
system the RS power is quantized and transmitted through
a noisy feedback channel (the corresponding quantizer and
channel will be specified in Sec. II). Thus Transmitter i has
only access to an observed or a noisy version of ωi ptq, which
is denoted by ω
ri ptq. To facilitate and make more accurate the
local CSI exchange procedure, the used power levels during
the exploration phase are imposed to follow a time-sharing
rule. This means that during the exploration phase the power
level of Transmitter i, is chosen either to follow (1) or to
be zero. Assuming time-sharing for the exploration phase,
Transmitter j is only active when t P ttj `1, tj `2, . . . , tj `Ku
with tj :“ jpK ´ 1q . The observed RS power at Transmitter
i when Transmitter j is active expresses as:
ω
rij ptq

j
j
where zi,1
ptq “ ω
rij ptq ´ ωij ptq and zi,2
ptq “ pgji ´ r
gji q pj ptq.
By substituting pj ptq in (4) by its expanded version (1), it follows that the sequence of RS powers observed by Transmitter
i when Transmitter j is active, expresses as:

(4)

2
Just as for the IWFA, tuning the power levels in the proposed way may
induce some optimality loss, but in the scenarios of interest the influence of
the exploration phase on the performance is negligible.

p q,
upp1 , ..., pK ; G

(8)
ı
”
pi “ p
g iK being the global channel matrix estimate
G
gi1 ¨ ¨ ¨ p
(this setup has been coined for distributed CSI and studied in
[10]).

III. C OMPARISON

OF THE PROPOSED TECHNIQUE WITH

[6]

A. Technical comparison
Compared to the local CSI exchange technique provided in
[6], the proposed technique has two distinguishing technical
features. First, the transmit power during the exploration phase
is continuous. Thus, the proposed technique can be seen as a
complementary technique to [6] for scenarios in which discrete
power levels are not allowed. Additionally, the continuous
power is chosen in a very specific manner, namely to be the
linear combination of the channel gains. Second, only one
transmitter is active at a time during the local CSI exchange
phase, which makes the estimation procedure simple, but it is
observed to be very efficient via simulations. To understand
the underlying problem let us consider a special case K “ 3

3

and Transmitter 1. When three users are active at a time
and g31 ąą g21 it becomes difficult to recover p2 from
ω1 ptq “ g11 p1 ptq ` g21 p2 ptq ` g31 p3 ptq ` σ 2 . One drawback
for only activating one transmitter at a time appears if only
SINR feedback is available instead of RSSI feedback. In the
presence of SINR feedback, at least two users have to be active
at a time to allow information exchange in the power domain.

The quantizer used by Receiver i produces labels which are
sent to Transmitter i through a feedback channel and correctly
received with probability 1 ´ ε with 0 ď ε ď 1. We also need
to define the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) for the case of
K “ 2 transmitters:
˙
ˆ
˙
ˆ
Epg22 q
Epg11 q
“ 10 log10
(11)
SIRpdBq “ 10 log10
Epg21 q
Epg12 q

B. Comparison of CSI exchange phase

which can be written when the channel statistics are symmetric
(which we assume to be true in our simulation settings). We
min
max
chose the parameters gij
“ 0.01Epgij q, gij
“ 5Epgij q
(when i ‰ j) and Epgii q “ 1 for all the simulations in our
setting, with Epgij q determined by the SIR indicated. The
max
gij
channel gain dynamics min is thus equal to 27 dB, which is
gij
a quite typical value in real systems. The ESNR is obtained
by averaging over 104 realizations for the channel matrix, the
channel gains being chosen independently ˆand according
˙ to
gij
1
exp ´
(that
an exponential law φij pgij q “
Epgij q
Epgij q
is, Rayleigh fading is assumed). The local CSI estimates are
assumed to be perfectly known.
Influence of the choice of the parameters aij ptq. First, we
study the impact of the choice of the matrix Pj on the ESNR.
Denote by Aj the matrix whose entries are the coefficients
aij ptq for all t P ttj ` 1, . . . , tj ` Ku, i.e.,
¨
˛
a1j ptj ` 1q . . . aKj ptj ` 1q
˚
‹
..
..
..
Aj “ ˝
(12)
‚.
.
.
.

If one assumes that the number of required observations
has to be equal to the number of unknowns to estimate, the
local CSI exchange technique of [6] requires KpK ´ 1q timeslots. During this CSI exchange phase, regular communication
occurs in parallel, but with potentially high interference. Under
the same assumption, the technique proposed here requires
T “ K 2 time-slots for the exchange phase since each
transmitter has K channel gains to be exchanged and only one
user is active at a time (regular communication is effectively
time-division multiple access). For K being respectively equal
to 2, 3, and 4, this corresponds to an additional cost in terms
of time-slots of 100%, 50%, and 33%. Indeed, the number of
effectively interfering users using the same channel (meaning
operating on the same frequency band, at the same period of
time, in the same geographical area) will typically be small in
practice and not exceed 3 or 4, which makes the number of
time-slots of the exploration phase reasonable.
C. Simulations
As mentioned in Sec. II, we consider the multi-band case.
Here, s will stand for the band index, and S for the number of
bands. We assume, for ease of exposition, that the channel gain
statistics (path losses) are symmetric over all the bands; which
is why in some places, the band index is removed. To be able
to compare the technique provided in this letter to the state-ofthe-art technique given in [6], we consider two performance
metrics, namely, the estimation signal-to-noise ratio (ESNR)
and the sum-rate, which are defined as follows:
ESNRi “

Er}G}2 s
p i }2 s
Er}G ´ G

(9)

where }.}2 stands for the Frobenius norm and G “
rG1 ¨ ¨ ¨ GS s is the global channel matrix and the entries of
s
Gs are the channel gains for ”band s” gij
, i and j being
pi
respectively the row and column indices. The matrix G
corresponds to the estimate which is available to Transmitter
i. The sum-rate is defined as:
upp1 , ..., pK ; Gq “

S ÿ
K
ÿ

log2 p1 ` SINRsi pps1 , ..., psK ; Gs qq

s“1 i“1

(10)
where: psi is the transmit power level for band s, SINRsi ptq “
s s
gii
p ptq
ÿi
.We assume that RS power measurements
2
s s
σ `
gji
pj ptq
j‰i

are quantized uniformly in a dB scale with N bits and the
quantizer input dynamics or range in dB is rSNRpdBq
´
ˆ
˙
Pmax
20, SNRpdBq ` 10s where SNRpdBq “ 10 log10
.
σ2

a1j ptj ` Kq . . . aKj ptj ` Kq

Interestingly, for typical scenarios, the particular choice
Aj “ I only induces a quite small performance loss with
respect to the optimal choice e.g., measured in terms of
ESNR. In this respect, we perform simulations to compare
the ENSR obtained by choosing the best possible Aj over
that of choosing Aj “ I, for all j. For S “ 1, K “ 2,
N “ 8, ε “ 1%, SNRpdBq “ 30, and SIRpdBq “ 10
our comparison has shown that choosing the best matrix only
provides marginal improvements. Indeed, for typical values for
the SIR (say above 5 dB), estimating the cross-channel gains
reliably lead to matrices which are quite similar to the identity
matrix; otherwise, the influence of the cross-channel gains in
the sum (1) or in the RS power might be dominated by that
of the direct channel. Therefore, for the rest of this letter, we
will choose Aj “ I for all j, as this choice results in a very
low complexity technique and guarantees the invertibility of
the power matrix in (7).
Proposed scheme versus state-of-the-art. We compare the
performance in terms of sum-rate of our proposed technique,
with the state-of-the-art techniques in Fig. 1. We consider the
parameters K “ 4 (number of users), S “ 2 bands, perfect
local CSI estimate and SIRpdBq “ 10. The RSSI feedback
is assumed to be with N “ 8 bits and ε “ 0.01. We
compare the performance measured by the sum-rate using
CSI exchange using our proposed scheme, of CPM, with that
of: 1) perfect global CSI (ideal case); 2)local CSI exchange
using a power modulation based on Lloyd-Max quantization
(as in [6]) with 2 or 16 quantization levels; 3) the iterative

4

Team BRD with perfect global CSI
Team BRD with continuous power
Team BRD with [6] of 16 power levels
Team BRD with [6] of 2 power levels
IWFA with perfect local CSI

Average sum−rate (bps/Hz)

25

25

20

N=8, ε=1%, with CP
N=4, ε=5%, with CP
N=1, ε=5%, with CP
N=8, ε=1%, with [6]
N=4, ε=5%, with [6]
N=1, ε=5%, with [6]

15

10

5

0
0

35
30

30

ESNR (dB)

water-filling algorithm (IWFA). When global CSI is available
(perfect or otherwise), we implement a team best response
dynamics (BRD)3 to select the power control, where each
transmitter uses the CSI available for the BRD. In the case
of IWFA, no exchange of local CSI is required (no phase 2),
but there is a time taken for the algorithm to converge. This
figure demonstrates the performance improvement offered by
our proposed modulation technique in terms of sum-rate, and
we can observe that the team-BRD with CPM achieves a sumrate that is very close to that with perfect global CSI (which
is the ideal case).

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

SIR (dB)

Fig. 2: ESNR against SIR. Using continuous power modulation to
exchange local CSI appears to be a relevant choice when the RSSI
quality is good or even medium. Under severe conditions (e.g., when
only an ACK/NACK-type feedback is available for estimating the
channel), quantizing the channel gains and power modulating the
corresponding labels as in [6] is more appropriate.

20
15
10

proposed technique does not perform well when compared to
the technique of [6] when using L “ 2 (as seen in Fig. 2).

5
0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

SNR (dB)

Fig. 1: Comparison of average sum-rate obtained by using the
proposed technique (continuous power modulation) with [6]. We
observe that our technique results in an average sum-rate that is very
close to the ideal case of perfect global CSI.

Fig. 2 represents the ENSR in dB against the SIR in dB
for which represents the sum-EE as a function of the SNR
and assumes a similar setting to Fig. 1 except that here,
SNRpdBq “ 30, K “ 2 users and S “ 1 bands. Three
scenarios are considered: pN, εq “ p8, 1%q, pN, εq “ p4, 5%q,
and pN, εq “ p1, 5%q. The first scenario corresponds to typical
conditions in terms of quality for the RSSI, while the two
others correspond to quite severe conditions. The scenario with
only one RS power quantization bit can be seen as a scenario
with an ACK/NACK feedback. For each scenario, two schemes
are compared: the scheme proposed in this letter and the one
used in [6] which relies on channel gain quantization (here
with 1 or 4 bits), discrete power modulation with L levels and
lattice decoding. In Fig. 2 we compare with the case of L “ 2.
Fig. 2 clearly shows that the proposed technique provides a
performance in terms of ESNR, which is independent of the
SIR level; this is one of the effects of using time-sharing in the
exploration phase. When the quality of the RSSI is good, it is
seen that the proposed technique provides a very significant
gain in terms of ESNR; the gain ranges from 10 dB to 25 dB,
depending on the SIR level. It is only when the RSSI quality
is severely degraded (namely, when pN, εq “ p1, 5%q) that the
3
Team BRD for sum-rate with power control implies that each transmitter
iteratively updates its best transmit power given the other transmit powers
until all the powers converge. Since global CSI is available, each transmitter
can do this offline by assuming an arbitrary initial power vector and with
perfect global CSI, all transmitters will converge to the same equilibrium.

IV. C ONCLUSION
The two main features of the proposed technique are using
continuous power modulation in a very specific manner, and to
activate one transmitter at a time. Although continuous power
modulation may be thought to be sensitive to imperfect RSSI
feedback and imperfect local CSI, it is shown to perform very
well under normal conditions in terms of RSSI quality.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. K. Ozdemir and H. Arslan, “Channel estimation for wireless OFDM
systems,” IEEE Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 18–48, 2007.
[2] G. Boudreau, J. Panicker, N. Guo, R. Chang, N. Wang, and S. Vrzic,
“Interference coordination and cancellation for 4G networks,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 74–81, 2009.
[3] A. Gjendemsjø, D. Gesbert, G. E. Oien, and S. G. Kiani, “Binary power
control for sum rate maximization over multiple interfering links,” IEEE
Trans. on Wireless Communications, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 3164–3173, 2008.
[4] P. De Kerret and D. Gesbert, “CSI sharing strategies for transmitter
cooperation in wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 43–49, 2013.
[5] M. Deghel, M. Assaad, and M. Debbah, “Queueing stability and CSI
probing of a TDD wireless network with interference alignment,” in
Proceeding of IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory
(ISIT), pp. 794–798, 2015.
[6] V. S. Varma, S. Lasaulce, and C. Zhang, “Power modulation: Application
to inter-cell interference coordination,” in Proceeding of IEEE 23rd
European Signal Processing Conf. (EUSIPCO), pp. 1033–1037, 2015.
[7] W. Yu, G. Ginis, and J. M. Cioffi, “Distributed multiuser power
control for digital subscriber lines,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas
in Communications, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1105–1115, 2002.
[8] G. Scutari, D. Palomar, and S. Barbarossa, “The MIMO iterative
waterfilling algorithm,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, vol. 57, no. 5,
pp. 1917–1935, May 2009.
[9] S. Sesia, I. Toufik, and M. Baker, LTE, The UMTS Long Term Evolution,
From Theory to Practice. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Feb. 2009.
[10] P. De Kerret and D. Gesbert, “Degrees of freedom of the network MIMO
channel with distributed CSI,” IEEE Trans. on Information Theory,
vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 6806–6824, 2012.

