1

Rate-Energy Region in Wireless Information
and Power Transfer: New Receiver

arXiv:1802.01292v1 [] 5 Feb 2018

Architecture and Practical Modulation
Young-bin Kim, Dae Kyu Shin, Member, IEEE, and Wan Choi, Senior Member,
IEEE
Abstract

When simultaneous wireless information and power transfer is carried out, a fundamental tradeoff
between achievable rate and harvested energy exists because the received power is used for two different
purposes. The tradeoff is well characterized by the rate-energy region, and several techniques have
been proposed to improve the achievable rate-energy region. However, the existing techniques still
have a considerable loss in either energy or rate and thus the known achievable rate-energy regions
are far from the ideal one. Deriving tight upper and lower bounds on the rate-energy region of our
proposed scheme, we prove that the rate-energy region can be expanded almost to the ideal upper
bound. Contrary to the existing techniques, in the proposed scheme, the information decoding circuit
not only extracts amplitude and phase information but also combines the extracted information with
the amplitude information obtained from the rectified signal. Consequently, the required energy for
decoding can be minimized, and thus the proposed scheme achieves a near-optimal rate-energy region,
which implies that the fundamental tradeoff in the achievable rate-energy region is nearly eliminated. To

W. Choi is with School of Electrical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon
34141, Korea (e-mail: wchoi@kaist.edu).
Y.-b. Kim and D. K. Shin were with School of Electrical Engineering, KAIST, and are now with KDDI Research, Inc.,
Saitama 356-8502, Japan and with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Suwon 16677, Korea, respectively.

2

practically account for the theoretically achievable rate-energy region, we also present practical examples
with an M -ary multi-level circular QAM with Gaussian maximum likelihood detection.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Energy efficient transmission is one of key considerations in recent wireless networks, such
as wireless sensor networks, due to a limited lifetime of fixed energy supplies, e.g., batteries.
In parallel, high costs and difficulty of frequent battery replacing motivates remote energy
recharging technologies. Remote energy charing entials wireless power transfer (WPT)-enabled
communications where wireless information transfer is combined with WPT. The WPT-enabled
communication is in general classified into categories: simultaneous wireless information and
power transfer (SWIPT) where energy harvesting and information decoding are simultaneously
carried out at the receiver, and wireless powered communication networks (WPCN) where
wireless information is transmitted with the harvested energy.
SWIPT has been studied as a unified approach to energy harvesting and information decoding
[1], [2]. In SWIPT, generally, there exists a fundamental tradeoff between achievable rate and
harvested energy, which is characterized by the rate-energy region. With a constraint on the
amplitude of the transmit signal, finding the rate-energy region is known to be non-trivial
according to input distributions [1], while with an average power constraint on the transmit
signal, the achievable rate-energy region can be identified [2]. To expand the achievable rateenergy region, several approaches in receiver design have been investigated [3]–[6]. Typically, the
rate-energy tradeoff is optimized by either power split or time division between battery charging
and information decoding. However, even with either opportunistic switching between WPT and
information transfer in a time-division manner [4] or partial energy utilization in both WPT and
information transfer with an optimized power split [5], [7], there exist fundamental limitations

3

of simultaneous efficiency improvements in terms of both achievable rate and harvested energy
because the received energy is split for different purposes. In view of the rate-energy region, the
amount of harvested energy with a time switching (TS) receiver or a power split (PS) receiver
decreases as data rate increases. To minimize inefficiency resulted from the energy split for
different purposes, an integrated information and energy (IIE) receiver was proposed in [6]. In
the IIE receiver, the received signal is rectified for charging battery and only a small portion of
the rectified signal is used for decoding information. That is, in the IIE receiver, the amount of
charged energy corresponds to amplitude information for information transfer. The IIE receiver
offers maximum capability of energy harvesting for some non-zero data rate, but there still
exists a critical rate loss because information has to be carried over rectified signals. In view
of the rate-energy region, an IIE receiver can harvest the maximum amount of energy if a data
rate is below a certain threshold. However, it cannot harvest any energy if it tries to transmit
information with data rate greater than the threshold, so the rate-energy region achieved by
the IIE receiver is far from the optimal bound. Recently, when multiple antennas are used at
the IIE receiver, information decoding with rectified signals was studied in [8]. However, the
conventional schemes for SWIPT still suffer form considerable energy and data rate losses, and
thus the achievable rate-energy regions are still far from the ideal one.
In WPCN, wireless devices are first powered by WPT and then use the harvested energy
to transmit their signals. Since energy harvesting was introduced in [9], energy consumption
strategies with the harvested energy have been studied in various communication scenarios, such
as a point-to-point channel [10]–[13], a multiple access channel (MAC) [14], a broadcasting
channel (BC) [15], a relay channel [16], and an interference channel [17]. In these papers,
wired energy supply from energy sources with restricted and irregular energy arrivals, i.e., solar,
wind, etc., was assumed. Contrary to the restricted and irregular energy sources, there have

4

been extensive studies which use electromagnetic (EM) waves and radio-frequency (RF) signals
for remote energy supply in various scenarios; inductive coupling [18] and magnetic resonance
coupling [19], [20] for near-field WPT, and RF energy transfer for far-field WPT [3], [7]. Joint
resource allocation for WPT in a BC and information transmission in a MAC was optimized in
[21], [22]. Furthermore, WPCNs with user cooperation [23]–[25], full-duplex [26], [27], massive
multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) [28], [29], and cognitive techniques [30] were studied.
The limited capability of the conventional SWIPT receivers is mainly due to the separated
design of energy harvesting and information decoding, without sufficient considerations of interactions between them. This observation strongly motivates joint design of energy harvesting
and information decoding by taking account of the interplay between them. On the same line,
the authors in [31] argued that there is no thermodynamic limitation in achieving the ideal
rate-energy region with power splitting, from examples of thermodynamically reversible computational devices.
In this context, we explore a new SWIPT receiver architecture to improve the efficiency
of both WPT and information delivery. In particular, this paper proves that the rate-energy
region can be considerably expanded almost to the ideal upper bound by the proposed receiver.
While the rate-energy region achieved by the conventional SWIPT receiver was known to be far
from the ideal upper bound, the derived tight upper and lower bounds on the achievable rateenergy region of the proposed receiver demonstrate that the new achievable rate-energy region is
significantly expanded compared to those of the conventional SWIPT receivers. Contrary to the
IIE receiver, the proposed receiver exploits amplitude as well as phase for information transfer;
the information decoding circuit extracts amplitude and phase information and combines the
extracted information with the amplitude information obtained from the rectified signal. Because
the amplitude information is partially obtained from the energy harvesting circuit and thus the

5

energy required for information decoding at the decoding circuit can be minimized. Consequently,
the proposed scheme achieves near-optimal rate-energy region. That is, the fundamental tradeoff
between WPT and information transfer in the achievable rate-energy region can be nearly
eliminated, and SWIPT without sacrificing each other becomes possible. To practically account
for the theoretically achievable rate-energy region, we also present practical examples of the rateenergy region improvement based on an M-ary multi-level circular QAM with multi-dimensional
Gaussian maximum likelihood (ML) detection. The proposed receiver structure is leveraged by
signal constellations with multiple amplitude levels and different phases on each amplitude level.
However, since taking account of all possible such constellations is impossible, we consider and
optimize a structured one, multi-level circular QAM, as an example of such signal constellations.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II, the system model for SWIPT and
the proposed receiver for improving rate-energy region are described. In Section III, we analyze
the rate-energy region achievable by the proposed receiver. Practical examples of the rate-energy
region improvement are by the proposed receiver presented in Section IV. Finally, conclusions
are drawn in Section V.
II. S YSTEM

MODEL AND AN

U NIFIED R ECEIVER A RCHITECTURE

FOR

SWIPT

In this section, after describing the system model, we propose a receiver architecture which
integrates energy harvesting and information decoding while minimizing information and energy
losses.

A. System Model
We consider a SWIPT system constituted by a hybrid access point (AP) and a hybrid receiver
as shown in Fig. 1. Both of the hybrid AP and the receiver have a single antenna each. The
symbol duration is T and the corresponding signal bandwidth is assumed to B = 1/T Hz.

6

HAP

݄݁ ௝ఏ

‫ݐݏ‬

‫ݓ‬ୟ୬୲ ‫ݐ‬

Energy harvesting
‫ݐݎ‬

HR

Information decoding

Fig. 1. A SWIPT system model

Let the complex baseband signal transmitted from the hybrid AP be x(t) = xa (t)ejxφ (t) where
E [|x(t)|2 ] = 1 and xa (t) and xφ (t) denote amplitude and phase of x(t), respectively. Then, if
the carrier frequency f is much larger than the bandwidth, i.e., f ≫ B, the passband signal
transmitted from the hybrid AP becomes
s(t) =

√

√

2P R x(t)ej2πf t = 2P xa (t) cos (2πf t + xφ (t))

(1)

where the transmit signal is subject to an average power constraint given by E [|s(t)|2] = P .
Assuming an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel with a time invariant channel gain,
the channel output is
r(t) =

√

=

√

2R {y(t)} =

√

2R

n√

P hejθ x(t)ej2πf t + zant (t)ej2πf t

2P hxa (t) cos (2πf t + xφ (t) + θ) + want (t)

o

(2)
(3)

2
where h is a constant channel coefficient and θ ∈ [0, 2π) is a phase shift, zant (t) ∼ CN (0, σant
)
√ 
is a circular symmetric complex Gaussian noise, and want (t) = 2R zant (t)ej2πf t is the

corresponding passband Gaussian noise. The one-sided noise power spectral density is defined
as N0 =

2
σant
.
B

Our channel model with a constant channel coefficient corresponds to a frequency

non-selective static or quasi-static channel, which typically occurs with narrow band signals in
low mobility environments. The analysis with this channel model builds an analytic framework
to obtain the ergodic rate-energy region in frequency non-selective fast fading channels. It might

7

(a) Information decoding

‫ݐ ݎ‬

LPF

Diode

‫ݓ‬ୟ୬୲ ‫ݐ‬

Rectifier
(b) Energy harvesting

ଓƸ୉ୌ ‫ݐ‬

݅୉ୌ ‫ݐ‬

Battery

‫ݖ‬୰ୣୡ ‫ݐ‬

Fig. 2. Typical signal processing for information decoding and energy harvesting at a hybrid receiver.

also be applicable and extended to frequency selective channels since each subcarrier experiences
a frequency non-selective channel if orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) is
adopted.
A hybrid receiver consists of two parts: information decoding and energy harvesting which
are described in detail below.
1) Information Decoding: Fig. 2(a) depicts optimal signal processing for information decoding; the received signal is first converted down to the baseband signal and then quantized by
analog-to-digital conversion (ADC). Assuming quantization errors follow Gaussian distribution,
the quantization error and additional noise signals at down-converter and ADC can be modeled
2
together as a circularly symmetric noise zeff [k] ∼ CN (0, σeff
). Consequently, the equivalent

baseband signal of the decoder input at time index k is ŷID [k] = xID [k] + zID [k], where

8

2
2
zID [k] ∼ CN (0, σant
+ σeff
) and xID [k] and yID [k] denote the channel input and output at the

information decoder, respectively.
2) Energy Harvesting: Fig. 2(b) exhibits optimal signal processing for energy harvesting.
Contrary to the receiver for information decoding, the RF band signal is rectified to obtain
the direct current (DC) signal and can be built with a Shottky diode and a passive low-pass
filter (LPF) as in [6]. After passing the Shottky diode, the output current becomes iEH (t) =

Is eγr(t) − 1 ≈ c1 r(t) + c2 r 2 (t) where Is is the saturation current; γ is the reciprocal of the

thermal voltage of the diode; ck =

Is γ k
,
k!

k ∈ Z+ , which is given from the Taylor series expansion

of the exponential function. The approximation is tight because γr(t) is assumed to be close
to zero in general. Then, after LPF which removes high frequency components of the signal
centered at f and 2f , the rectified signal is obtained as
îEH (t) = c2 µ2EH (t) + zrec (t) = c2 µ2EH,I (t) + c2 µ2EH,Q (t) + zrec (t),

(4)

q

where µEH (t) = µ2EH,I (t) + µ2EH,Q (t) with
√
√
µEH,I (t) = P hxa (t) cos (xφ (t) + θ) + zI (t) and µEH,Q (t) = P hxa (t) sin (xφ (t) + θ) + zQ (t),
2
2
and zrec (t) ∼ N (0, σrec
) denotes the additional noise at the rectifier. zI (t) ∼ N (0, σant
/2) and
2
zQ (t) ∼ N (0, σant
/2) denote the in-phase and quadrature components of the complex baseband

antenna noise zant (t), respectively.
Since c2 is a constant specified by the diode, we assume that c2 = 1 for convenience as [6].
We also assume the amount of harvested energy from noise is negligible since it is relatively
marginal and the length of symbol period is one. If the whole received signal is used for energy
harvesting under the assumptions, the amount of energy charged at battery is given by QEH =
h
i
ζE îEH (t) = ζh2 P (J) where ζ is a DC signal to energy conversion efficiency by practical

limitations in saving energy, ζ ∈ (0, 1]. Note that power and energy can be interchangeable
throughout the paper under the assumption that the length of symbol period is unit.

9

Fig. 3. The proposed receiver architecture

B. Preliminary: Ideal Outer Bound on the Rate-Energy Region
The outer bound of achievable rate-energy region is defined as
outer
CR−E
(P )

=



(R, Q) R ≤ log2



h2 P
1+ 2
2
σant + σeff



2

, Q ≤ ζh P



.

(5)

Because the whole received signal cannot be used for one purpose only in SWIPT, the rateenergy region practically achievable has been known to be much smaller than the outer bound
in (5). The objective of our paper is to expand the achievable rate-energy region to be close to
the ideal upper bound in (5).

C. Proposed Receiver Architecture
As shown in Fig. 3, the proposed receiver architecture consists of two signal processing paths
as the conventional power split architecture, but the rectified signal is exploited not only for
energy harvesting but also for decoding amplitude information. On the other hand, the baseband
signal processing part extracts amplitude and phase information, and combines the extracted
information with the information obtained from the rectified signal. Specifically, the received
signal r(t) is split at point A according to the power split portions 1 − ρ and ρ. The signal with

10

the power portion ρ is rectified and then is again split into two paths at point B according to
portions 1−η and η; one for battery recharging and the other for extracting amplitude information
for the decoder. In order to transfer information over phase as well as amplitude, the receiver
has the conventional baseband signal processing path. At the decoder, the information obtained
from baseband signal processing is combined with the amplitude information acquired from
the rectified signal. In this way, the information and energy losses can be reduced; the power
portion 1 − ρ can be reduced without decreasing the achievable rate because the amplitude
information can be obtained from both of the baseband and rectified signals while the baseband
signal processing part can focus on decoding phase information.
III. R ATE -E NERGY R EGION A NALYSIS
In this section, we derive and show the rate-energy region achieved by the proposed architecture nearly achieves the rate-energy outer bound in (5).

A. Achievable Rate-Energy Region
From the output signal of the rectifier given in (4), the signal at point C in the proposed
receiver is represented as
p

2
√
j (θ+xφ (t))
2
îEH (t) = η ·
+ ρzant (t) + zrec (t)
ρh P xa (t)e
=η·




p
2
√
ρh2 P xa (t) + ρzant (t) + zrec (t) .

(6)

Because SNR for xa (t) in îEH (t) does not changed for any η (> 0), an arbitrary small positive
portion can be assumed to be used, i.e., η → 0. Consequently, up to ζρh2 P energy can be saved
at the battery, i.e., Q ≈ ζρh2 P .
For n channel uses, the mutual information obtained with the proposed receiver is given by






n
n
I înEH , ŷID
; xna , xnφ = I înEH ; xna , xnφ + I ŷID
; xna , xnφ |înEH

11



I înEH ; xna
| {z }

=

from the rectified signal





n
n
; xnφ |înEH , xna
+ I ŷID
; xna |înEH + I ŷID
|
{z
}

(7)

from the baseband signal




where f n = {f (1), . . . , f (n)} and (7) comes from I înEH ; xnφ |xna = 0. The first term and the

last two terms in (7) represent mutual information from the rectified signal and the baseband
signal at the proposed receiver, respectively.

1) Outer Bound: From Fano’s inequality, the achievable rate from the rectified signal is upper
bounded by [6]
nREH ≤ I



înEH ; xna



+ nǫn ≤




 nCOIC + nǫn ,

2
σant
= 0,

(8)



2
 nCNAC + nǫn , σrec
=0

where COIC is the capacity of the optimal intensity channel which corresponds to the case when
the rectified signal is obtained without antenna noise, i.e., zant (t) = 0 in (6); CNAC is the capacity
of the non-coherent AWGN channel which corresponds to the case without rectifier noise, i.e.,
zrec (t) = 0 in (6).
It is known in [32] that COIC is bounded above by

2 





− δ2
2
√
1
1
σrec e 2σrec 
δ
δ
− δ2
COIC ≤ log2 βe 2σrec
+ Q
+ δ + ρh2 P + √
+ 2πσrec Q
σrec
2
σrec
β
2π
−

δ2
2
2σrec

δe
δ2
√
+
+ 2
2 2πσrec 2σrec





δ + ρh2 P
σrec



1
2
log2 2πeσrec
(9)
2
R ∞ −τ 2
where β and δ are free parameters, β > 0 and δ ≥ 0, and Q(x) = √12π x e 2 dτ . The upper
1−Q

−

bound in (9) becomes tight with parameters


ρh2 P
,
(10)
δ = σrec log2 1 +
σrec


1
σrec − 2σδ22
2
β=
δ + ρh P + √ e rec
2
2π
(
) 12
2 


δ2
δ2
δ2
√
σ
1
σ
δ
−
−
rec
rec
2
2
2
δ + ρh2 P + √ e 2σrec
,
+
2πσrec e 2σrec
Q
+4 δ + ρh2 P + √ e 2σrec
2
σrec
2π
2π

(11)

12

which ensure only a marginal difference from the lower bound of COIC , and the difference
diminishes as the transmit power goes to infinity [32]. Therefore, if we adopt the values of
β and δ in (10) and (11), COIC used in (8) can be evaluated well in the proposed receiver
architecture.
On the other hand, an upper bound of CNAC can be obtained by maximizing the achievable
rate over all possible input distributions and then is given by [33]

where cE





1
ρh2 P
1
2π
CNAC ≤ log2 1 + 2
log2
+
− cE log2 e
(12)
2
σA
2
e

R∞
= 1 ⌊τ1⌋ − τ1 dτ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. The tightness of this upper

bound (12) is numerically presented in [33], [34] for high SNR. The upper bound in (12) shows
less than 0.2 nats difference from the capacity CNAC and becomes tighter as P → ∞.
Consequently, from (8) with n → ∞, the error probability goes to zero and the achievable
rate from the rectified signal REH in our proposed receiver is bounded above by

REH ≤ min (9), (12)

(13)

with parameters β and δ in (10) and (11). According to input distributions, we can find another
upper bound on the achievable rate as
nREH ≤ I



înEH ; xna



√

+ nǫn ≤ I ( ρr

n

; xna )

(a)

+ nǫn ≤ n log2



ρh2 P
1+ 2
2
ρσant + σrec

where (a) is the maximum achievable rate from information decoding with



+ nǫn

√

(14)

ρr(t) under

Gaussian signaling (i.e., (complex) Gaussian distributed input signals).
The information extracted from the rectified signal is passed to the decoder, and helps the
decoder decode the transmitted message from the

√

1 − ρ portion of the received signal. As a

result, the achievable rate is upper bounded as



n
n
nRID ≤ I ŷID
; xna |înEH + I ŷID
; xnφ |xna + nǫn

(15)

13

(b)


n
n
≤ I (ŷID
; xna ) + I ŷID
; xnφ |xna + nǫn

(16)


n
= I ŷID
; xna , xnφ + nǫn
(17)


(c)
(1 − ρ) h2 P
+ nǫn
(18)
≤ n log2 1 +
2
2
+ σeff
(1 − ρ) σant




n n
n
n
n
where (b) follows from h ŷID
|îEH ≤ h (ŷID
) and h ŷID
|xna , înEH = h (ŷID
|xna ); the equality in
(c) holds with Gaussian distributed input signals.

Combining (13), (14), and (18) with n → ∞, the achievable rate with the rectified signal and
the baseband signal in the proposed receiver is bounded above by
(

)


(1 − ρ) h2 P
ρh2 P
+ log2 1 +
R ≤ min (9), (12), log2 1 + 2
2
2
2
+ σeff
ρσant + σrec
(1 − ρ) σant

(19)

where R = REH + RID .
On the other hand, another upper bound of the achievable rate R is derived from the data
processing inequality as





n
n
nR≤ I înEH ; xna + I ŷID
; xna |înEH + I ŷID
; xnφ |xna + nǫn



n
n
= I înEH , ŷID
; xna + I ŷID
; xnφ |xna + nǫn

(d)

≤ I

√

ρr n ,

p


p

1 − ρr n ; xna + I
1 − ρr n ; xnφ |xna + nǫn

p

p

√ n n
n
n √ n
n
n n
= I ( ρr ; xa ) + I
1 − ρr ; xa | ρr + I
1 − ρr ; xφ |xa + nǫn
p

p
√ 
√
≤ I ( ρr n ; xna ) + I
1 − ρr n ; xna | ρr n + I
1 − ρr n ; xnφ |xna
+I

= I

√

√

ρr n ; xnφ |xna ,

ρr n ,


p
1 − ρr n + nǫn


p
1 − ρr n ; xna , xnφ + nǫn

= I (r n ; xn ) + nǫn


(e)
h2 P
+ nǫn
≤ n log2 1 + 2
2
σant + σeff

(20a)
(20b)
(20c)
(20d)

(20e)
(20f)
(20g)
(20h)

14

where Markov chains xna , xnφ → r n →

√

ρr n → înEH and xna , xnφ → r n →

√

n
1 − ρr n → ŷID

hold; (d) is given from data processing inequality based on the Markov chains; (e) holds with
a Gaussian input distribution.
Therefore, from (19) and (20), the maximum rate-energy region with the proposed receiver
architecture is obtained as
(






ρh2 P
(R, Q) R ≤ min COIC , CNAC , log2 1 + 2
2
ρσant + σrec




(1 − ρ) h2 P
h2 P
+ log2 1 +
, R ≤ log2 1 + 2
,
2
2
2
(1 − ρ) σant
+ σeff
σant + σeff
)

CR−E (P ) =

Q ≤ ζρh2 P.

(21)

2) Inner Bound: The achievable rate with the proposed receiver is certainly lower than the
mutual information in (7), which is maximized over all possible input distributions but is surely
higher than or equal to that with a specific input distribution. Therefore, we can obtain a lower
bound of the achievable rate with a specific distribution of the input xn as
n 



o
n
n
max I înEH ; xna + I ŷID
; xna |înEH + I ŷID
; xnφ |xna + nǫn
p(x)


≥ max nR
p(x)







n
n
; xna |înEH + I ŷID
; xnφ |xna + nǫn
≥ I înEH ; xna + I ŷID

(22)
(23)
(24)

where p(x) is the distribution of xn and xna and xnφ are input variables with the specific distribution
of xn .
To obtain a specified lower bound of the achievable rate in (24), we consider a Gaussian


n n
n
n
distributed input x as a specific distribution. Note that since the last two terms I ŷID ; xa |îEH +

n
I ŷID
; xnφ |xna correspond to the achievable rate from baseband signal processing, they are well

known to be maximized with the Gaussian input distribution and thus become





(1 − ρ) h2 P
n n
n
n n
n
I ŷID ; xa |îEH + I ŷID ; xφ |xa = log2 1 +
2
2
+ σeff
(1 − ρ) σant

(25)

15

with the Gaussian input assumption as (18). On the other hand, note that the first term in (24)


n
n
I îEH ; xa which denote the achievable rate from the rectified signal is not maximized with

the Gaussion distributed input since Gaussian input distribution is not optimal in a mixed noisy
√ n 2
n
channel with Chi-square noise | ρzant
| and AWGN zrec
. However, unfortunately, closed form


of I înEH ; xna with a Gaussian input distribution is not available.

The gap between the specified lower bound in (24) with a Gaussian input distribution and the

upper bound in (21) with suboptimal parameters β and δ from (10) and (11), which minimize
the upper bound of COIC in (9), diminishes as the transmit power increases as shown in Fig.


4. Note that the gap between the lower and upper bounds is determined mainly by I înEH ; xna

with Gaussian input distribution. When the portion of the rectified signal is high, i.e., ρ = 0.99,


since the value of I înEH ; xna becomes dominant, the gap between the upper and lower bounds

in Fig. 4 is large. On the contrary, when the portion of the rectified signal is relatively low, i.e.,


n
n
ρ = 0.2, the value of I îEH ; xa is marginal. Consequently, when ρ = 0.2, the upper and lower
bounds almost coincide with each other, which implies that the actual achievable rate can be

represented as either the upper bound or the lower bound. Moreover, a proper input distribution
instead of the Gaussian input distribution might be able to further reduce the gap.

B. Comparisons of Rate-Energy Regions
Figs. 5 and 6 compare the proposed receiver architecture with the PS receiver and the IIE
2
2
receiver in terms of rate-energy region, where h = 1, P = 100, σant
= σrec
= 1, ζ = 0.6, and
2
2
σeff
= 1 in Fig. 5 and σeff
= 10 in Fig. 6. Note that effect of ADC noise is incorporated in the

effective noise. The label of ‘Ideal bound’ denotes the ideal outer bound in (5) where energy
is maximally harvested without a rate loss. The label of ‘Outer bound of the unified receiver’
represents the upper bound on achievable rate-energy region in (21) by the proposed receiver

16

16
14

Lower bound with
Upper bound with
Lower bound with
Upper bound with

ρ=0.99
ρ=0.99
ρ=0.2
ρ=0.2

12

Rate

10
8
6
4
2
0
10 1

10 2

10 3

10 4

10 5

P

2
2
2
Fig. 4. Capacity bounds of the received signal in the unified receiver with h = 1, σant
= σrec
= σeff
= 1, and ζ = 0.6 with

Gaussian input distribution.

and the label of ‘Inner bound of the unified receiver’ means the lower bound on the achievable
rate-energy region in (24) with the Gaussian input distribution by the proposed receiver. The
rate-energy region achievable with the proposed receiver architecture certainly lies between the
‘Outer bound of the unified receiver’ and ‘Inner bound of the unified receiver’ of which gap is
quite small as exhibited in Figs. 5 and 6. The labels of ‘IIE receiver’ and ‘PS receiver’ denote the
outer bounds of the rate-energy regions with the IIE receiver and the PS receiver, respectively.
If ρ = 1 in the proposed receiver, the whole received signal is rectified, so the proposed receiver
becomes identical to the IIE receiver and correspondingly the harvested energy is maximized as
Q = ζh2 P . If ρ = 0 in the proposed receiver, the proposed receiver does not harvest energy and


h2 P
thus the achievable rate is maximized as R = log2 1 + σ2 +σ2 . An arbitrary point (i.e., rateant

eff

17

60

50

Energy Unit

40

30

20
Inner bound of the unified receiver
Outer bound of the unified receiver
PS Receiver
IIE Receiver (effective noise free)
IIE Receiver
Ideal bound

10

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Rate

2
2
2
Fig. 5. Rate-energy region for the proposed receiver with h = 1, σant
= σrec
= σeff
= 1, ζ = 0.6, and P = 100.

energy tuple) on the rate-energy region with the proposed receiver architecture can be achieved
by selecting an appropriate value of ρ in 0 < ρ < 1. The achievable rate-energy region with the
proposed architecture is very close to the ideal outer bound and remarkably larger than both the
outer bounds with the IIE receiver and the PS receiver in Figs. 5 and 6. The rate-energy region
achievable with the proposed receiver is very close to the ideal outer bound, which indicates
that the information and energy losses in SWIPT are small. Comparing Fig. 5 with Fig. 6, as
2
the effective noise power σeff
which accounts for quantization errors and ADC noise increases,

the rate-energy region with the proposed receiver architecture is compressed along the rate axis
because the achievable rate from baseband signal processing decreases as the effective noise
power increases. However, the rate-energy region with the proposed receiver is still considerably
larger than both upper bounds with the IIE receiver and the PS receiver and close to the ideal

18

60

50

Energy Unit

40

30

20
Inner bound of the unified receiver
Outer bound of the unified receiver
PS Receiver
IIE Receiver (effective noise free)
IIE Receiver
Ideal bound

10

0
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Rate

2
2
2
Fig. 6. Rate-energy region for the proposed receiver with h = 1, σant
= σrec
= 1, σeff
= 10, ζ = 0.6, and P = 100.

outer bound.
To examine the effect of channel fading, we additionally consider frequency non-selective fast
fading channels. For frequency non-selective fast fading channels, the ergodic rate-energy region,

that is, Eh [R(h(t))], Eh [Q(h(t))] , where h(t) is the time varying channel coefficient, is an

appropriate performance metric. To verify the superiority of the proposed receiver architecture
even in a frequency non-selective fast fading channel, we present the achievable ergodic rateenergy region in Fig. 7. In this figure, the channel is assumed to follow a complex Gaussian
channel, that is, the channel coefficient h(t) ∼ CN (0, 1), and the rate-energy regions are averaged

over 104 channel realizations to obtain the ergodic rate-energy region. As in the constant channel
model, the ergodic rate-energy region of the proposed receiver is considerably larger than those
of the conventional receivers. By the definition of ergodic rate-energy region, each snap shot

19

70

60

Energy Unit

50

40

30

Inner bound of the unified receiver
Outer bound of the unified receiver
PS Receiver
IIE Receiver
Ideal bound

20

10

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

Rate

Fig. 7. Achievable ergodic rate-energy regions in a frequency non-selective fast fading channel (h(t) ∼ CN (0, 1)) when
2
2
2
σant
= σrec
= σeff
= 1, ζ = 0.6, and P = 100.

for a channel realization corresponds to the rate-energy region in the constant channel model,
so our analysis in a constant channel model builds a analytic framework to obtain the ergodic
rate-energy region in time varying fading channels.
Moreover, although our analysis is based on narrow-band signals for SWIPT, our analysis can
be applicable to frequency selective channels for wide-band signals for SWIPT, since orthogonal
frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) can be used for wide-band signals and then each
subcarrier typically experiences a frequency non-selective channel.
IV. P RACTICAL

EXAMPLES OF THE ACHIEVABLE RATE - ENERGY REGION IMPROVEMENT

To practically account for the theoretically achievable rate-energy region, this section presents
practical examples of the rate-energy region improvement. To this end, based on multi-dimensional
Gaussian ML detection, we consider an M-ary multi-level modulation which leverages the pro-

20

Im

Im
ܰ௔ th level

݇th level
ʹߨ
‫ܯ‬௞

Re
ʹ݀

Ͳ ʹ݀

‫ڮ‬

(a) Inter-level structure

ʹܰ௔ ݀

͵rd
ʹnd
ͳst

‫ܯ‬௞ th

Re

(b) Constellation on the kth ring

Fig. 8. Signal constellation for the proposed M -ary multi-level modulation.

posed receiver. The proposed receiver structure is leveraged by signal constellations with multiple
amplitude levels and different phases on each amplitude level. However, since taking account
of all possible such constellations is impossible, we consider and optimize a structured one,
multi-level circular QAM, as an example of such signal constellations. If another constellation
is adopted, the practically realized rate-energy region might vary and other constellations could
yield more improved practical realization. However, for any constellation, the trend that the
near-optimal rate-energy region can be achieved with the proposed receiver structure is retained.
The constellation of the M-ary multi-level circular QAM has Na amplitude levels and there
are Mk signal points with different phases on the ring representing the kth amplitude level as
shown in Fig. 8. In the M-ary multi-level circular QAM, there are total M(=

PNa

k=1 Mk )

signal

points over Na amplitude levels. For a required amount of harvested energy QEH , the value of ρ
is determined since QEH is given by QEH = ρζh2 P (J). Then, signal constellation is designed
by optimizing Na and {Mk } according to the value of ρ in the proposed receiver architecture.

21

Let sm be the modulated symbol and each symbol is generated equiprobably from S =
{sm |m = 1, . . . , M}. Then, in the propose receiver, the baseband signal as well as the power
level information from the rectified signal construct a three dimensional (i.e., inphase, quadrature,
and the power level from the rectified signal) sufficient statistic for demodulation as
y = Hsm + n = um + n
where H = diag{

p

P (1 − ρ)|h|,

(26)

p
P (1 − ρ)|h|, P ρ|h|2} where diag{e1 , . . . , eN } denotes the

diagonal matrix with element ei on the ith diagonal, sm = [R{sm }, I{sm }, |sm |2 ]T where
R{·} and I{·} are real and imaginary parts of its argument, respectively, and n = [n1 , n2 , n3 ]
√
1 − ρR{zant } + R{zeff }, n2 = 1 − ρI{zant } + I{zeff } and n3 = α1 R{zant } +
√
√
α2 I{zant } + zrec where α1 = 2 P ρhxa cos (xφ + θ) and α2 = 2 P ρhxa sin (xφ + θ) from (4).
where n1 =

√

Note that R{zant }2 and I{zant }2 are assumed to be negligible for analytical tractability as [6]
although n3 = α1 R{zant } + R{zant }2 + α2 I{zant } + I{zant }2 + zrec . This assumption is well
justified as follows. Based on 3GPP standards [35], given the transmission bandwidth B=100
MHz and noise power spectral density N0 ≈ 2 × 10−14 , the variance of R{zant } and I{zant } can
2
be formulated by σant
/2 = N0 B/2 ≈ 10−6 . The complement cumulative distribution function

(CCDF) of

R{zant }2
α1 R{zant }

Pr

becomes
R{zant }2
≥ 0.1
α1 R{zant }

!

= Pr



√

R{zant } ≥ 0.1 2 P ρh



.

(27)

Assume |h| = 1 as Section III. B and ρ ≈ 1 for enough amount of harvested energy. Let the
transmitted power be Pt and then P = Pt d−α where d and α are the distance between transmitter
and receiver and the pathloss exponent, respectively. To evaluate the probability in (27), we set
α to be 3 since the pathloss exponent in urban and cellular radio is from 2.7 to 3.5 and assume
d = 5 (m) which is considered practically appropriate for RF-based SWIPT. Then, for different
transmit power levels, i.e., Pt = 20, 1, and 0.5 (Watt), P = Pt d−α = 0.16, 8 × 10−3 , and

22

√
4 × 10−3 (Watt) for Pt = 20, 1, and 0.5 (Watt), respectively. Correspondingly, 2 P ρh =




0.8, 0.18, and 0.13, respectively. Since Pr R{zant } ≥ 0.08 , Pr R{zant } ≥ 0.018 , and


2
ant }
Pr R{zant } ≥ 0.013 are approximately equal to 1, the probability of αR{z
≤ 0.1 is
R{z
ant }
1
almost one with high probability. Therefore, we can justify the assumption of R{zant }2 +I{zant }2

and n3 is simplified as α1 R{zant }+α2 I{zant }+zrec . In addition, in view of average signal power,
the ratio between noise power and squared noise power scales 10−6 . Therefore, R{zant }2 and
I{zant }2 can be reasonably assumed to be negligible for analytical tractability.
It is known that Maximal Likelihood (ML) is the optimal detection if symbols are generated
equiprobably and channel state information at receiver (CSIR) is available. Since all elements of
n include R{zant } and I{zant }, the noise vector n is a correlated Gaussian noise vector. After
whitening the correlated noise vector based on its covariance matrix given by Σn = Λn Λn T ,
the ML decision rule is formulated as
max ln f (y|sm) = min (y − um )T Σn −1 (y − um )

sm ∈S

(28)

sm ∈S

= min ||Λn −1 (y − um )||2 ,

(29)

sm ∈S

where f (y|sm) is the likelihood function given by a conditional probability density function
(PDF) ∼ N (um , Σn ); n is a jointly Gaussian random vector ∼ N (0, Σn) where Σn is its
covariance matrix given by


2
 E[n1 ] E[n1 n2 ] E[n1 n3 ] 


(f ) 

Σn =  E[n1 n2 ] E[n22 ] E[n2 n3 ] 




2
E[n1 n3 ] E[n3 n2 ] E[n3 ]

√
2
2
2
0
α1 1 − ρσant
/2
 {(1 − ρ)σant + σeff }/2


√
2
2
2
=
0
{(1 − ρ)σant
+ σeff
}/2
α2 1 − ρσant
/2


√
√
2
2
2
2
/2
α2 1 − ρσant
/2
{(α12 + α22 )σant
+ 2σrec
}/2
α1 1 − ρσant

(30)






 (31)



23

= Λn Λn T

(32)

where (f ) holds from E[n] = 0. Then, the pairwise error probability (PEP) based on the ML
detection that sj is detected when si was transmitted under CSIR is given by
−1

−1

2

2

Pr(si → sj |H) = Pr(||Λn (y − ui )|| > ||Λn (y − uj )|| |H) = Q




1
−1
||Λn (ui − uj )|| ,
2
(33)

where ∀i 6= j.
Based on the multi-dimensional ML detection, the M-ary multi-level circular QAM is designed
to maximize the data rate with a given transmit power P , an energy portion of the received signal
(target)

ρ, and a target symbol error rate Pe
correspondingly M =

PNa

k=1

(P1) :
such that

. That is, the design parameters, Na and {Mk }, and

Mk , are determined by solving the following optimization problem:

max

Na ,{Mk }

log2 M
Q



(34)

1
||Λn −1 (ui − uj )||
2

M=

Na
X



≤ Pe(target) , ∀i 6= j,

Mk ,

(35)
(36)

k=1

Na
1 X
Mk (2kd)2 ≤ P.
M k=1

(37)

Note that if ρ = 1, the optimization problem P1 reduces to design of conventional PAM. If
ρ = 0, the optimization problem P1 refers to design of the conventional circular QAM without
help of amplitude information from the rectified signal.
Since M, Na , and Mk are integers, P1 is an integer programming problem that is known
to barely have a closed form solution. Moreover, Q

1
||Λn −1 (ui
2


(target)
− uj )|| ≤ Pe
is a non-

convex function and thus we have to rely on numerical methods to solve . However, fortunately,
M can be upper-bounded and search complexity for a bounded integer is not so high; practically

24

feasible log2 M is about 10. To reduce the search complexity further, we can consider the Mary multi-level modulation with the same number of constellation points on each ring, i.e.,
M1 = . . . = MNa =

M
.
Na

It is also assumed that each ring has the same phase offset for the

signal points on each ring. Then, we determine Na and M by solving the following problem:
(P2) : max
Na

such that

log2 M


1
−1
||Λn (ui − uj )|| ≤ Pe(target) , ∀i 6= j,
Q
2

(38)
(39)

Na
1 X
(2kd)2 ≤ P.
Na k=1

(40)

Note that the considered M-ary multi-level circular QAM is not optimal but for demonstrating
the rate-energy region improvement with practical modulation.
The maximum modulation order log2 M is plotted versus the required amount of harvested
energy, QEH = ρζh2 P (J) = 60ρ when ζ = 0.6, h = 1 and P = 100 in Fig. 9, after numerically
(target)

solving the optimization problem P2 with the target symbol error probability of Pe

= 10−3 .

The label of ‘Proposed’ denotes the proposed unified SWIPT receiver structure exploiting the
optimized M-ary multi-level circular QAM based on the three-dimensional ML detection. The
labels of ‘IIE’ and ‘PS’ denote the IIE and PS receivers, respectively. Note that the IIE receiver
exploits PAM modulation/demodulation since the rectified signal is split. For the PS receiver,
the M-ary multi-level modulation optimized based on the optimization problem P2 for the PS
receiver is adopted. The proposed scheme achieves M = 32 when 0 ≤ QEH ≤ 46.5) (i.e.,
0 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.775). Although the achievable M decreases with ρ only beyond ρ = 0.775, the
proposed scheme outperforms the other two referential schemes for all QEH . On the other hand,
’IIE’ achieves higher modulation order log2 M than ‘PS’ if the amount of energy to be harvested
is high, i.e., 50 < QEH ≤ 60.
(target)

Fig. 10 exhibits the maximum modulation order log2 M as a function of ρ when Pe

=

25

6
Proposed
IIE
PS
5

log2(M)

4

3

2

1

0

0

10

20

30
Harvested Energy

40

50

60

Fig. 9. Maximum modulation order log2 M for the proposed receiver and the referential receivers according to varying energy
portion of the received signal ρ when

Eb
N0

(target)

= 20 dB and Pe

= 10−3 when ζ = 0.6 and h = 1.The amount of harvested

energy, QEH = ρζh2 P (J) = 60ρ .

10−4 . Except for the target symbol error probability, this figure has the same settings as Fig. 9.
Fig. 10 shows degraded performance compared to Fig. 9 due to the tighter target symbol error
probability, but the overall trend is the same as Fig.9. Comparing Figs. 9 and 10 with Figs. 5
and 6, the inverses of curves in Figs. 9 and 10 are roughly similar to Figs. 5 and 6. That is,
the maximum size log2 M satisfying target PEP according to the amount of harvested energy
practically accounts for the information theoretic rate-energy tradeoff region. Consequently, Figs.
9 and 10 reveal the rate-energy tradeoff from a practical viewpoint.

26

6
Proposed
IIE
PS
5

log2(M)

4

3

2

1

0

0

10

20

30
Harvested Energy

40

50

60

Fig. 10. Maximum modulation order log2 M for the proposed receiver and the referential receivers according to varying energy
portion of the received signal ρ when

Eb
N0

(target)

= 20 dB and Pe

= 10−4 when ζ = 0.6 and h = 1. The amount of harvested

energy, QEH = ρζh2 P (J) = 60ρ .

To see the optimal modulation constellation according to ρ, Tables I and II present optimal
log2 M and log2 Na together after solving the optimization problem P2 for target PEPs 10−3
and 10−4 when ζ = 0.6, h = 1 and P = 100. If there are different values of Na yielding the
maximum M while satisfying the constraints, the one achieving the smallest PEP is selected as
(target)

the optimal value of Na . Let log2 M ∗ (ρ, Pe

(target)

) and log2 Na∗ (ρ, Pe

) denote the maximum

modulation order and the optimal bits allocated to amplitude information for given ρ and target
(target)

PEP, respectively. That is, the optimal number of rings is Na∗ (ρ, Pe

). The optimized M-

27

TABLE I
O PTIMAL MODULATION CONSTELLATION (log2 M ∗ , log2 Na∗ ) ACCORDING TO ρ (= QEH /ζh2 P = QEH /60) FOR TARGET
PEP 10−3

1
1 2
9 37
29
9
[0: 10
] [ 10
: 5 ] [ 25 : 85 ] [ 58 : 40
] [ 29
: 4 ] [ 45 : 10
] [ 10
: 40 ] [ 37
: 19 ] [ 19
:1]
40 5
40 20
20

ρ
‘Proposed’

(5,2)

(5,4)

(5,4)

(5,4)

(4,3)

(4,3)

(4,3)

(3,1)

(2,1)

‘PS’

(5,4)

(5,4)

(4,2)

(3,1)

(2,1)

(0,0)

(0,0)

(0,0)

(0,0)

TABLE II
O PTIMAL MODULATION CONSTELLATION (log2 M ∗ , log2 Na∗ ) ACCORDING TO ρ (= QEH /ζh2 P = QEH /60) FOR TARGET
PEP 10−4

ρ

1
1 11
19
23
[0: 10
] [ 10
: 40 ] [ 11
: 1 ] [ 21 : 40
] [ 23
: 27 ] [ 27
: 31 ] [ 31
: 17 ] [ 17
: 37 ] [ 37
: 19 ] [ 20
:1]
40 2
40 40
40 40
40 20
20 40
40 20

‘Proposed’

(5,2)

(5,4)

(5,4)

(5,4)

(4,3)

(4,3)

(4,3)

(3,2)

(2,1)

(1,1)

‘PS’

(5,4)

(5,4)

(4,2)

(3,1)

(3,1)

(2,1)

(0,0)

(0,0)

(0,0)

(0,0)

(target)

ary multi-level circular QAM consists of Na∗ (ρ, Pe
(target)

M ∗ (ρ, Pe

(target)

)/Na∗ (ρ, Pe

) rings with different amplitudes and

) constellation points are placed on each ring. In the proposed

scheme, optimal Na decreases as the required amount of energy to be harvested increases in
general.

V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we proposed a unified receiver architecture for simultaneous wireless information
and power transfer, and derived tight upper and lower bounds on the rate-energy region achieved
with the proposed receiver architecture. It was proved that the the achievable rate-energy region
is considerably expanded over those of conventional schemes and becomes close to the ideal
upper bound. In the proposed receiver architecture, the energy required for information decoding
at the decoding circuit can be minimized because the amplitude information from the energy

28

harvesting circuit is also exploited in information decoding. Consequently, the fundamental
tradeoff in SWIPT is nearly overcome and thus the near optimal rate-energy region is achievable.
To practically account for the theoretically achievable rate-energy region, we also presented
practical examples of the rate-energy region improvement using an M-ary multi-level circular
QAM based on the multi-dimensional Gaussian ML detection.

R EFERENCES
[1] L. R. Varshney, “Transporting information and energy simultaneously,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), Toronto,
Canada, July 6-11, 2008, pp. 1612-1616.
[2] P. Grover and A. Sahai, “Shannon meets Tesla: wireless information and power transfer,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf.
Theory (ISIT), Austin, Texas, USA, June 13-18, 2010, pp. 2363-2367.
[3] S. Bi, C. K. Ho, and R. Zhang, “Wireless powered communication: opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag.,
vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 117-125, Aug. 2015.
[4] L. Liu, R. Zhang, and K.-C. Chua, “Wireless information transfer with opportunistic energy harvesting,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 288-300, Jan. 2013.
[5] L. Liu, R. Zhang, and K.-C. Chua, “Wireless information and power transfer: A dynamic power splitting approach,” IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 3990-4001, Sep. 2013.
[6] X. Zhou, R. Zhang, and C. K. Ho, “Wireless information and power transfer: architecture design and rate-energy tradeoff,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 4754-4767, Nov. 2013.
[7] R. Zhang and C. K. Ho, “MIMO broadcasting for simultanenous wireless information and power transfer,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1989-2001, May 2013.
[8] R. Zhang, L.-L. Yang, L. Hanzo, “Energy pattern aided simultaneous wireless information and power transfer,” IEEE J.
Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1492-1504, Aug. 2015.
[9] V. Sharma, U. Mukherji, V. Joseph, and S. Gupta, “Optimal energy management policies for energy harvesting sensor
nodes,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1326-1336, Apr. 2010.
[10] C. K. Ho and R. Zhang, “Optimal energy allocation for wireless communications with energy harvesting constraints,”
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 4808-4818, Sep. 2012.
[11] J. Yang and S. Ulukus, “Optimal packet scheduling in an energy harvesting communication system,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 220-230, Jan. 2012.

29

[12] K. Tutuncuoglu and A. Yener, “Optimum transmission policies for battery limited energy harvesting nodes,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1180-1189, Mar. 2012.
[13] O. Ozel and S. Ulukus, “Achieving AWGN capacity under stochastic energy harvesting,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.
58, no. 10, pp. 6471-6483, Oct. 2012.
[14] J. Yang and S. Ulukus, “Optimal packet scheduling in a multiple access channel with energy harvesting transmitters,”
IEEE J. Commun. and Network, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 140-150, Apr. 2012.
[15] O. Ozel, J. Yang, S. Ulukus,“Optimal broadcast scheduling for an energy harvesting rechargeable transmitter with a finite
capacity battery” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 2193-2203, June 2012.
[16] C. Huang, R. Zhang, and S. Cui,“Throughput maximization for the Gaussian relay channel with energy harvesting
constraints” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1469-1479, Aug. 2013.
[17] D. K. Shin, W. Choi, and D. Kim, “The two-user Gaussian interference channel with energy harvesting transmitters: energy
cooperation and achievable rate region,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 4551-4564, Nov. 2015.
[18] G. A. Covic and J. T. Boys, “Inductive power transfer,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 1276-1289, May 2013.
[19] A. Kurs, A. Karalis, R. Moffatt, J. D. Joannopoulos, P. Fisher, and M. Soljačić, “Wireless power transfer via strongly
coupled magnetic resonances,” Science, vol. 317, no. 5834, pp. 8386, June 2007.
[20] J. O. Mur-Miranda, G. Fanti, Y. Feng, K. Omanakuttan, R. Ongie, A. Setjoadi, and N. Sharpe, “Wireless power transfer
using weakly coupled magnetostatic resonators,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo. (ECCE), Atlanta, GA, USA,
Sep. 12-16, 2010, pp. 4179-4186.
[21] H. Ju and R. Zhang, “Throughput maximization in wireless powered communication networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 13, no. 1, Jan. 2014.
[22] Q. Wu, M. Tao, D. W. K. Ng, W. Chen, and R. Schober, “Energy-efficient resource allocation for wireless powered
communication networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 2312-2327, Mar. 2016.
[23] B. Gurakan, O. Ozel, J. Yang, and S. Ulukus, “Energy cooperation in energy harvesting communications,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 4884-4898, Dec. 2013.
[24] H. Ju and R. Zhang, “User cooperation in wireless powered communication networks,” Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf.,
Austin, TX, USA, 2014, pp. 14301435.
[25] H. Chen, Y. Li, J. L. Rebelatto, B. F. Uchoa-Filho, and B. Vucetic, “Harvest-then-cooperate: Wireless-powered cooperative
communications,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 17001711, Apr. 2015.
[26] H. Ju and R. Zhang, “Optimal resource allocation in full-duplex wireless powered communication network,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 35283540, Oct. 2014.
[27] X. Kang, C. K. Ho, and S. Sun, “Full-duplex wireless powered communication network with energy causality,” IEEE

30

Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 55395551, Oct. 2015.
[28] J. Zhang, C. Yuen, and C.-K. Wen, “Large-system analysis of ergodic sum-rate in wireless-powered MIMO communication
network,” Proc. 11th Annu. IEEE Int. Conf. SECON Workshops, Singapore, Jun./Jul. 2014, pp. 5761.
[29] G.-M. Yang, C.-C. Ho, R. Zhang, and Y. Guan, “Throughput optimization for massive MIMO systems powered by wireless
energy transfer,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 16401650, Aug. 2015.
[30] S. Lee and R. Zhang, “Cognitive wireless powered network: Spectrum sharing models and throughput maximization,”
arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05925, 2015.
[31] L. R. Varshney, “On energy/information cross-layer architectures,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), Cambridge,
MA, USA, July 1-6, 2012, pp. 1356-1360.
[32] A. Lapidoth, S. M. Moser, and M. A. Wigger, “On the capacity of free space optical intensity channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 4449-4461, Oct. 2009.
[33] M. Katz and S. Shamai, “On the capacity-achieving distribution of the discrete-time noncoherent and partially coherent
AWGN channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 2257-2270, Oct. 2004.
[34] A. Lapidoth, “Capacity bounds via duality: A phase noise example,” in Proc. 2nd Asian-European Workshop on Information
Theory, Breisach, Germany, June 26-29, 2002, pp. 5861.
[35] 3GPP TS 36.213 V12.11.0 (2016-09) Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical layer procedures.

