1

Optimal Power Control in Decentralized
Gaussian Multiple Access Channels
Kamal Singh Department of Electrical Engineering

arXiv:1711.08272v1 [eess.SP] 21 Nov 2017

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.
{kamalsingh}@ee.iitb.ac.in

Abstract
We consider the decentralized power optimization problem for Gaussian fading multiple access
channel (MAC) such that the average sum-throughput gets maximized. With the fading-link information,
also known as channel state information (CSI), available locally at the respective transmitters and full
CSI at the receiver, the analytical solution to optimal power problem is considered not feasible. We
specialize alternating-maximization algorithm for computing the optimal powers and ergodic capacity of
the decentralized Gaussian fading MAC channel. To illustrate the performance, we compute the optimal
powers and ergodic capacities.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The multiple access channel (MAC) is a commonly used model to represent communication
scenario where multiple senders communicate to a common receiver, such as the uplink channel
of a mobile cellular network. The availability of the CSI at the transmitters and receiver can
significantly improve the reliability as well as the throughput performance of MAC system.
Under full CSI at the receiver and partial CSI at the transmitters, the ergodic capacity region of
a MAC with additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and fast fading is completely characterized
by the optimal power control schemes [3]. Precisely speaking, Gaussian codebooks with optimal
power control achieves the ergodic capacity region, see Figure 1. In contrast, in a Gaussian
MAC with block fading assumption, it is imperative to control both the rate and the power to
achieve the channel capacity. To explain this subtle difference, notice that in a fast fading model,
each codeword experiences all possible fading realizations and thus, any rate close to ergodic
This work has been submitted to the IEEE for possible publication. Copyright may be transferred without notice, after which
this version may no longer be accessible.

2

capacity can be achieved by choosing to transmit all codewords with the same rate and optimal
power strategies [8]. Depending upon the availability of channel state information (CSI) at the
transmitters and receiver, the optimal power control strategy varies. We consider decentralized
fading MAC configuration where each transmitter knows only its own fading coefficients and
the receiver has full CSI. Further, we assume independent fading statistics, with average power
constraints not necessary identical, across users. Also, we assume a fast fading model where the
channel varies IID (independent and identically distributed) in time.
The problem of ergodic capacity computation of this decentralized Gaussian MAC was first
introduced by Shamai and Telatar in [2] for the identical user1 settings, stating that the solution to
the power control optimization problem is analytically not feasible. A simple heuristic ON-OFF
power control scheme is shown to give tight throughput rates as the number of MAC users gets
large. In [4], the optimal power is shown to be monotonically increasing and a heuristic power
scheme is proposed by modifying the standard power water-filling incorporating the monotone
property and other desirable features suggested in [2]. Most recently in [5], tight numerical
bounds (upper and lower both) to ergodic capacity are obtained for the decentralized MAC for
identical users setting.
In this letter, we revisit the power control optimization problem for the decentralized Gaussian
MAC where the fading distributions and average power constraints across users are arbitrarily
chosen. Thus, the identical users configuration becomes a special case in our study. The main
contribution of this work is a simple alternate maximization based computational algorithm for
the optimal power controls and ergodic capacity.
The remainder of this letter is organized as follows. The next section describes the system
model and the optimization problem to be solved. In Section III, The computational algorithm
for the optimal power control based on alternating maximization approach is explained in detail.
The optimal powers and ergodic capacity results are shown in section IV. Conclusions are drawn
in the final section.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
Consider a K− user Gaussian fading MAC whose output is given by
XK
Y =
Hi Xi + Z,
i=1

1

Fading distributions and power constraints are identical across users.

3

where users transmit symbols Xi , 1 ≤ i ≤ K, and undergoes flat fading denoted by multiplicative
coefficient Hi . The additive noise Z is a normalized AWGN process independent of X and H.
The fading processes Hi are assumed to be independent across users and varies IID in time. In
our decentralized model, the fading coefficients Hi are known only to the respective transmitters
at all instants. The receiver has access to the full CSI vector (H1 , H2 , · · · , HK ). We also assume
that the fading distributions are known a priori to all the transmitters and the receiver. The i−th
transmitter, using the available channel state information hi , selects transmit power of Pi (hi ),
see Figure 1. The power control Pi (hi ) needs to obey the respective average power constraint
i
denoted as E Pi (Hi ) ≤ P avg
. For a chosen set of feasible power control schemes denoted by

h1
W1

AWGN coder
rate R1

X1

×
p

×

P1 (h1 )

h2
W2

AWGN coder
rate R2

X2

×
p

×

+

P2 (h2 )

Y

Z
hK

WK

AWGN coder
rate RK

×
p

XK

×

PK (hK )

Fig. 1. Power control in Decentralized Gaussian fading MAC.

P
Pi (hi ), 1 ≤ i ≤ K, the achievable average ergodic sum-rate R , E K
i=1 Ri is given by [1]


XK
R(P1 , · · · , PK ) = E log 1 +
|Hi |2 Pi (Hi ) .
(1)
i=1

Since hi is known at the respective transmitter and receiver, the sum-rate in (1) depends only

on the fading magnitudes. Thus, we can replace |Hi |2 by Vi and write Pi (Hi ) as Pi (Vi ), 1 ≤
i ≤ K. Our objective is to maximize the sum-rate R over the set of power control schemes
Pi (Vi ), 1 ≤ i ≤ K under the average power constraints associated with the transmitters.

We will use the notation xK
1 to denote the vector (x1 , · · · , xK ). The notation Ψ represents

the joint cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the fading links. There are a few exceptions
whose meanings will be clear from the context or will be defined appropriately.

4

Definition 1. The ergodic sum-capacity Csum is the maximum average sum-rate achievable [3],
i.e.


XK
Csum = max E log 1 +
Vi Pi (Vi ) ,
P1 , ..., PK

s.t.

i=1

(2)

i
, 1 ≤ i ≤ K.
E Pi (Vi ) ≤ P avg

Proposition 2. The optimization in (2) is a convex program.
Proof: Notice that the average power constraints are linear and the objective function is
concave in Pi (vi ). The latter can be deduced since ∂ 2 R/∂Pi 2 < 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ K.
Proposition 3. A necessary and sufficient condition for the power controls Pj (vj ), 1 ≤ j ≤ K,
to be optimal, whenever non-zero, is
Z

K
dΨ(vi=1,i6
λj
=j )
= ·
PK
vj
1 + vj Pj (vj ) + i=1,i6=j vi Pi (vi )

(3)

where λj ’s are Lagrange multipliers constants.

Proof: Since (2) is a convex optimization problem with a strictly feasible point, the Slater’s
condition is satisfied implying that the duality gap is zero. Thus, the optimization can be solved
by maximizing the Lagrangian function. Employing non-negative multipliers λj for each of the
power constraints, we obtain the Lagrangian function
Z
Z
K


XK
X
K
λi Pi (vi )dΨ(vi )·
vi Pi (vi ) dΨ(v1 ) −
L , log 1 + vj Pj (vj ) +
i=1,i6=j

i=1

Using KKT conditions for optimality, the derivatives of Lagrangian L with respect to the power
allocation functions has to be zero, whenever non-zero power is allocated. Thus, the optimal
Pj (vj ) > 0 satisfies
Z

K
dΨ(vi=1,i6
λj
=j )
= ·
PK
vj
1 + vj Pj (vj ) + i=1,i6=j vi Pi (vi )

Analytical solution of the KKT conditions for the optimal power schemes is considered not
feasible [2]. However, in the next section, we propose a general structural result on optimal
decentralized power schemes that allows optimal powers and ergodic capacities computation
numerically using alternate maximization method.

5

III. O PTIMAL P OWER C ONTROL
Theorem 4. The optimal power allocation function Pj∗ (vj ), whenever non-zero, must be a
monotonically increasing function of vj , 1 ≤ j ≤ K.
Proof: Since Pj∗ (vj ), 1 ≤ j ≤ K, are optimal powers, recall KKT conditions in (3)
Z
K
dΨ(vi=1,i6
=j )
vj
= λj ,
(4)
P
∗
1 + vj Pj∗ (vj ) + K
i=1,i6=j vi Pi (vi )
P
∗
whenever Pj∗ (vj ) > 0. For notational convenience, we abbreviate K
i=1,i6=j vi Pi (vi ) to y. W.l.o.g

consider a optimal power allocation say Pk∗ (·) of user-k with fading coefficients v̄k > ṽk such
that positive powers are allocated. Then, using (4), the following condition must hold:
Z
Z
dΨ(y)
dΨ(y)
= ṽk
, i.e.
v̄k
∗
1 + v̄k Pk (v̄k ) + y
1 + ṽk Pk∗ (ṽk ) + y

Z 
ṽk
v̄k
−
dΨ(y) = 0.
1 + v̄k Pk∗ (v̄k ) + y 1 + ṽk Pk∗ (ṽk ) + y

(5)

Consider the integrand in Equation (5):
ṽk
v̄k
−
∗
1 + v̄k Pk (v̄k ) + y 1 + ṽk Pk∗ (ṽk ) + y
(v̄k − ṽk )(1 + y) + v̄k ṽk (Pk∗ (ṽk ) − Pk∗ (v̄k ))
⇒
.
(1 + ṽk Pk∗ (ṽk ) + y)(1 + v̄k Pk∗ (v̄k ) + y)

(6)

Notice that for Pk∗ (v̄k ) ≤ Pk∗ (ṽk ), the integrand is always positive and thus, violates (5).

Therefore, in the optimal case, Pk∗ (v̄k ) > Pk∗ (ṽk ) whenever v̄k > ṽk . This completes the proof.

Let us denote the integral on the LHS in (3) by fj (vj Pj (vj )). The monotone property of the
optimal power controls leads to an important consequence as shown next.
Corollary 5. The integral function fj (vj Pj (vj )) is monotonically decreasing function of vj .
Proof: From Theorem 4, the optimal power obeys Pj (α1 ) > Pj (α2 ) whenever α1 > α2 .
Thus, vj Pj (vj ) is monotonically increasing whenever vj exceeds the channel threshold. Finally,
monotone increasing vj Pj (vj ) in the denominator of the integral in (3) proves the lemma.
In the next subsection, using monotone property suggested in Theorem 4 and Corollary 5,
we propose a computational algorithm based on alternating maximization (AM) method for the
optimization in (2) . The convergence and the optimality proofs are sketched later.

6

A. AM Algorithm
The alternating maximization (AM) method sequentially maximizes R w.r.t. each power
scheme iteratively. To mark this, with a slight abuse of notation, we use Pin to denote the power
scheme computed for the i-th transmitter at the completion of n-th iteration. Furthermore, let
Pn := (P1n , · · · , PKn ) and Pnj := (P1n , · · · , PKn )\Pjn denote the complete set of computed powers

and all powers excluding Pjn respectively. The computational algorithm is parameterized in terms
of positive variables denoted by λi , 1 ≤ i ≤ K.
Algorithm

Optimal powers for decentralized MAC

Input: Initialize λi , 1 ≤ i ≤ K, small step-size δ, approximation error tolerance  and n = 1.

Pi0 (vi ), 1 ≤ i ≤ K, denote arbitrarily initialized power allocations obeying average power
constraints.
Output: Pj∗ , 1 ≤ j ≤ K.
Repeat
For j = 1 to K
(i) Compute
Pjn = arg max R(Pjn−1 , Pj )
Pj

using
Pjn (vj )
j
=
(ii) Find P̄avg

(iii) If

End

R

1
= fj−1
vj



λj
vj



.

Pjn (vj )dΨj (vj ).




 P j − P̄ j >  then λj = λj + δ; goto step (i)
avg
avg


 P j − P̄ j < − then λj = λj − δ; goto step (i)
avg
avg

n=n+1
Until the sum-rate converges.
The proposed alternating maximization algorithm requires the computation of partial maximizers
Pjn , 1 ≤ j ≤ K (see step (ii)). The computation in step (ii) and its justification follows next.

7

Corollary 6. The partial maximizers Pjn , 1 ≤ j ≤ K, can be found by solving the following
 
1 −1 λj
n
Pj (vj ) = fj
,
(7)
vj
vj
where fj−1 (·) is the inverse mapping of the fj (·) function.

Proof: Since the integral function fj (·) is a strictly decreasing function whenever vj exceeds
threshold (see Corollary 5), the inverse mapping denoted by fj−1 (·), exists.
Remark 7. The existence of fj−1 (·) implies the existence of the optimal power solution. However,
as mentioned earlier, solving (7) analytically is not feasible. Nevertheless, the solution of (7)
can be easily approximated numerically.
B. Convergence and Optimality
In general, alternating maximization based optimizations need not converge. Now, we prove
the convergence and optimality of the algorithm. Our proof follows along the same lines as
Raymond and Toby’s convergence proof of AM optimization for convex objective function and
convex constraints (see [6], [7]) with appropriate modifications which are fairly obvious.
Lemma 8. The AM Algorithm converges i.e.
R(P1n , · · · , PKn ) → R∗ .
Proof: For simplicity of exposition, we describe the proof for K = 2 user case. The extension to higher K is straightforward. With every successive iteration of alternating maximization,
the ergodic sum-rate improves as we show below. We notice that
R(P1n , P2n−1 ) ≥ R(P1n−1 , P2n−1 ),
R(P1n , P2n ) ≥ R(P1n , P2n−1 ).
Thus,
R(P1n , P2n ) ≥ R(P1n−1 , P2n−1 ).
Since the rate sequence R(P1n , P2n ) is non-decreasing, it must converge because sum-rate is
bounded from above. Therefore
R(P1n , P2n ) → R∗ ,
for some positive constant R∗ ≤ Csum .

8

Notice that for every iteration, the partial optimization problems at hand are convex and hence,
the power controls (P1n , · · · , PKn ) are uniquely determined, thus implying that power controls
also converge.
Let the achievable sum-rate at the completion of n-th iteration of the AM algorithm is denoted
by Rn := R(P1n , · · · , PKn ). In the following theorem, we show that the alternating maximization
algorithm attains the global optimum irrespective of the chosen starting or initializing conditions.
Theorem 9. The AM Algorithm converges to the global optima i.e.
R∗ = Csum .
Proof: Suppose (P1∗ , · · · , PK∗ ) are the set of optimal powers achieving Csum . We define
∆Rn = Rn+1 − Rn ,
i.e. ∆Rn is the increment in the sum-rate Rn after another complete iteration of the AM
algorithm. If Rn := R(P1n , · · · , PKn ) < Csum , then there exists a P (vi ), which is a convex

combination of Pi∗ (vi ) and Pin (vi ) for some 1 ≤ i ≤ K, such that (see sufficiency condition
(SC-1) in [6])
n
n
R(P1n , · · · , Pi−1
, P, Pi+1
, · · · , PKn ) > R(P1n , · · · , PKn ).

Note that P (vi ) is a feasible power allocation since the feasible set is convex. The above condition
imply that
Rn < Csum ⇒ ∆Rn > 0,
i.e. the AM algorithm does not get trapped if Rn < Csum . However, this does not necessitate
convergence to the optimal since the positive increments ∆Rn , n ≥ 1, can be arbitrarily small.
To this end, we recall, from Lemma 8, that
R∗ − δ ≤ Rn ≤ R∗ ,

(8)

holds for any δ > 0 and for all n sufficiently large. Let A denote the feasible set of power
schemes for which (8) holds. Suppose that R∗ < Csum . Let
µ = min ∆Rn
A

Notice that R∗ < Csum ⇒ ∆Rn > 0 for all power schemes in A. Therefore
Rn+1 − Rn = ∆Rn ≥ µ,

9

holds for all sufficiently large n. Since µ > 0, Rn eventually exceeds R∗ and hence, the
assumption Rn → R∗ is false. Therefore, Rn → Csum .
6
K=2
K=3
K=4

CΨ (bits)

5

4

3

2

0

1

2

3

4

5
6
Pavg (dB)

7

8

9

10

8

9

10

Fig. 2. Capacity results for K = 2, 3, 4 identical users decentralized MAC.

K=2
K=3
K=4

4

P̄ ∗ (v)

3

2

1

0
0

1

2

3

4

5
v

6

7

Fig. 3. Optimal power controls for K = 2, 3, 4 identical users decentralized MAC at Pavg = 0 dB.

IV. N UMERICAL RESULTS
We demonstrate the utility of the proposed algorithm for MAC channel where the average
transmit powers of the users are identical and the fading links are i.i.d. normalized Rayleigh
distributed i.e. dΨ(v) = e−v dv. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the ergodic capacity results and
the optimal power allocations respectively.

10

V. C ONCLUSIONS
We presented a simple alternating maximization based numerical algorithm for the optimal
powers and ergodic capacity of decentralized Gaussian MAC with arbitrary fading distributions
and average power constraints. One serious drawback of this algorithm is that the computational
complexity and convergence rate vary considerably with number of MAC users. Consequently,
the algorithm is more appropriate for MAC with small number of users.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. El Gamal and Y.-H. Kim, Network Information Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
[2] S. Shamai and E. Telatar, “Some information theoretic aspects of decentralized power control in multiple access fading
channels,” in Information Theory and Networking Workshop, IEEE, June 1999.
[3] A. Das and P. Narayan, “Capacities of time-varying multiple-access channels with side information,” Information Theory,
IEEE Transactions on, vol.48, no.1, pp. 4-25, Jan 2002.
[4] K. Singh, S. R. B. Pillai, “Decentralized power adaptation in ergodic fading multiple access channels,” in NCC, 2015.
[5] N. Mital, K. Singh and S. R. B Pillai, “On the Ergodic Sum-Capacity of Decentralized Multiple Access Channels,” in
IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 854-857, May 2016.
[6] R. W. Yeung and T. Berger, “Multi-way alternating minimization,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory, Sept. 1995.
[7] R. W. Yeung, Information Theory and Network Coding. Springer Press, 2008.
[8] G. Caire and S. Shamai, “On the capacity of some channels with channel state information,” Information Theory, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 45, pp. 1468-1489, 1998.

