1

The Dirty MIMO Multiple-Access Channel

arXiv:1510.08018v4 [] 17 Jun 2017

Anatoly Khina, Yuval Kochman, and Uri Erez

Abstract—In the scalar dirty multiple-access channel, in addition to Gaussian noise, two additive interference signals are
present, each known non-causally to a single transmitter. It was
shown by Philosof et al. that for strong interferences, an i.i.d.
ensemble of codes does not achieve the capacity region. Rather,
a structured-codes approach was presented, that was shown to be
optimal in the limit of high signal-to-noise ratios, where the sumcapacity is dictated by the minimal (“bottleneck”) channel gain.
In this paper, we consider the multiple-input multiple-output
(MIMO) variant of this setting. In order to incorporate structured
codes in this case, one can utilize matrix decompositions that
transform the channel into effective parallel scalar dirty multipleaccess channels. This approach however suffers from a “bottleneck” effect for each effective scalar channel and therefore the
achievable rates strongly depend on the chosen decomposition.
It is shown that a recently proposed decomposition, where the
diagonals of the effective channel matrices are equal up to a
scaling factor, is optimal at high signal-to-noise ratios, under
an equal rank assumption. This approach is then extended to
any number of transmitters. Finally, an application to physicallayer network coding for the MIMO two-way relay channel is
presented.
Index Terms—Multiple-access channel, dirty-paper coding,
multiple-input multiple-output channel, matrix decomposition,
physical-layer network coding, two-way relay channel.

Costa [1] showed that the capacity of this channel, when
the interference is i.i.d. and Gaussian, is equal to that of an
interference-free channel 21 log(1 + P ), i.e., as if s ≡ 0. This
result was subsequently extended to ergodic interference in [2]
and to arbitrary interference in [3], where to achieve the latter,
a structured lattice-based coding scheme was used.
This model serves as an information-theoretic basis for the
study of interference cancellation techniques, and was applied
to different network communication scenarios; see, e.g., [4].
Its multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) variant as well
as its extension to MIMO broadcast with private messages can
be easily treated either directly or via scalar dirty-paper coding
(DPC) and an adequate orthogonal matrix decomposition, the
most prominent being the singular-value decomposition (SVD)
and the QR decomposition (QRD); see, e.g., [5]–[9].
Philosof et al. [10] extended the dirty-paper channel to the
case of K multiple (distributed) transmitters, each transmitter,
corresponding to a different user, knowing a different part of
the interference:
y=

K
X

(xk + sk ) + z,

(2)

k=1

I. I NTRODUCTION
The dirty-paper channel, first introduced by Costa [1], is
given by
y = x + s + z,

(1)

where y is the channel output, x is the channel input subject to
an average power constraint P , z is an additive white Gaussian
noise (AWGN) of unit power, and s is an interference which is
known non-causally to the transmitter but not to the receiver.
The material in this paper was presented in part at the 2011 IEEE
International Symposium of Information Theory, St. Petersburg, Russia, and
at the 2016 IEEE International Symposium of Information Theory, Barcelona,
Spain.
A. Khina was with the Department of Electrical Engineering-Systems, Tel
Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. He is now with the Department
of Electrical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
91125, USA (e-mail: khina@caltech.edu).
Y. Kochman is with the the Rachel and Selim Benin School of Computer
Science and Engineering, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904,
Israel (e-mail: yuvalko@cs.huji.ac.il).
U. Erez is with the Department of Electrical Engineering-Systems, Tel Aviv
University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. (e-mail: uri@eng.tau.ac.il).
The work of A. Khina was supported by the Feder Family Award, by
the Trotsky Foundation at Tel Aviv University, by the Yitzhak and Chaya
Weinstein Research Institute for Signal Processing, and by the Clore Israel
Foundation.
The work of Y. Kochman was supported by the Israeli Science Foundation
(ISF) under grant #956/12, by the German–Israeli Foundation for Scientific
Research and Development (GIF), and by the HUJI Cyber Security Research
Center in conjunction with the Israel National Cyber Bureau in the Prime
Minister’s Office.
The work of U. Erez was supported, in part, by the ISF under Grant
No. 1956/15.

where y and z are as before, xk (k = 1, . . . , K) is the input of
transmitter k and is subject to an average power constraint Pk ,
and sk is an arbitrary interference sequence which is known
non-causally to transmitter k but not to the other transmitters
nor to the receiver.
This scenario is encountered in practice in cases where,
for instance, non-cooperative base stations transmit data (over
a multiple-access link) to a common receiver as well as to
separate distinct receivers, which serve as interferences known
at the transmitters for the communication to the common
receiver. This scenario is described in Fig. 1 for K = 2
receivers.
The capacity region of this scenario, termed the dirty
multiple-access channel (DMAC) in [10], was shown to be
contained (“outer bound”) in the region of all rate tuples
(R1 , . . . , RK ) satisfying
K
X

k=1



1
Rk ≤ log 1 + min Pk ,
k=1,...,K
2

(3)

and to contain (“achievable region”) all rate tuples
(R1 , . . . , RK ) satisfying1
K
X

k=1

Rk ≤

 
+
1
1
log
,
+ min Pk
2
K k=1,...,K

(4)

1 In addition to (4), other inner bounds which are tighter in certain cases
are derived in [10].

2

In the high-SNR limit (where all powers satisfy Pk ≫ 1),
the individual capacity of the k-th user is given by:3
 
N
Pk
log
.
2
N
Thus, similarly to the scalar case (5), one can expect the highSNR capacity region to be given by


min Pk
K
X
N
k=1,...,K
.
log 
(7)
Rk ≤
2
N
k=1

Fig. 1. A wireless dirty-paper channel scenario. The base stations communicate with the common receiver over a multiple-access channel as well as with
receiver 1 and receiver 2 that serve as interferences for the communication
to the common receiver.

where [x]+ , max{0, x}. These two regions coincide
in the limit of high signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) —
P1 , . . . , PK ≫ 1 — thus establishing the capacity region
in this limit to be equal to the region of all rate tuples
(R1 , . . . , RK ) satisfying


K
X
1
Rk ≤ log
(5)
min Pk .
k=1,...,K
2
k=1

That is, the sum-capacity suffers from a bottleneck problem
and reduces to the minimum of the individual capacities in
this limit, where by the individual capacity of user k, we mean
the capacity from transmitter k to the receiver where all other
transmitters are silent. Interestingly, Costa’s random binning
technique does not achieve the rate region (4) or the high-SNR
region (5), and structured lattice-based techniques need to be
used [10], [11].
The MIMO counterpart of the problem is given by
y=

K
X

(Hk xk + sk ) + z.

(6)

k=1

For simplicity, we assume for now that all vectors are of equal
length N .2 We further assume, without loss of generality, that
the square channel matrices {Hk } all have unit determinant,
since any other value can be absorbed in Pk . The AWGN
vector z has i.i.d. unit-variance elements, while the interference vectors {sk } are arbitrary as in the scalar case. The
transmitters are subject to average power constraints {Pk }.
2 We

shall depart from this assumption later and treat the more general case
of full-rank channel matrices where the number of receive antennas is larger
or equal to that of the transmit antennas of each of the transmitters.

However, in contrast to the single-user setting (1), the
extension of the scalar DMAC to the MIMO case is not
straightforward. As structure is required even in the scalar
case (2), one cannot use a vector random codebook. To overcome this, we suggest to employ Nr parallel scalar schemes,
each using the lattice coding technique of [10]. This is in
the spirit of the capacity-achieving SVD [12] or QRD [13]–
[16] based schemes, that were proposed for MIMO communications (motivated by implementation considerations). The
total rate is split between multiple scalar codebooks, each one
enjoying a channel gain according to the respective diagonal
value of the equivalent channel matrix obtained by the channel
decomposition.
Unfortunately, for the MIMO DMAC problem, neither
the SVD nor the QRD is suitable, i.e., their corresponding
achievable rates cannot approach (7). Applying the SVD is not
possible in the MIMO DMAC setting as joint diagonalization
with the same orthogonal matrix on one side does not exist in
general. Applying the QRD to each of the orthogonal matrices,
in contrast, is possible as it requires an orthogonal operation
only at the transmitter.4 However, the resulting matrices will
have non-equal diagonals in general, corresponding to nonequal SNRs. Specifically, denoting the i-th diagonal element
of the k-th matrix by dk;i , the resulting high-SNR sum-rate
would be limited to



2
P
d
min
N
K
r
k
k;i
X
X1

 k=1,...,K
(8)
log 
Rk ≤

2
N
r
i=1
k=1

in this case. As this represents a per-element bottleneck, the
rate is in general much lower than (7).
In this work we make use of a recently proposed joint
orthogonal triangularization [17] to remedy the problem, i.e.,
to transform the per-element bottleneck (8) into a global one
as in (7). Specifically, the decomposition allows to transform
two matrices (with equal determinants) into triangular ones
with equal diagonals, using the same orthogonal matrix on
the left — corresponding to a common operation carried
at the receiver — and different orthogonal matrices on the
right — corresponding to different operations applied by each
of the transmitters. The equal-diagonals property implies that
the minimum in (8) is not active and hence the per-element
3 The optimal covariance matrix in the limit of high SNR is white; see
Lemma 1 in the sequel.
4 More precisely, RQ decompositions need to be applied to the channel
matrices in this case.

3

bottleneck problem, incurred in the QRD-based scheme, is
replaced by the more favorable vector bottleneck (7).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We start by
introducing the channel model in Section II. We then present
the ingredients we use: the matrix decomposition is presented
in Section III, and a structured coding scheme for the singleuser “dirty” MIMO channel is presented in Section IV. Our
main result, the high-SNR capacity of the two-user MIMO
DMAC (6) is given in Section V, using a structured scheme.
We extend this result to the K-user case in Section VI. We
then demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed technique
for MIMO physical-layer network coding in Section VII, by
constructing a scheme that achieves capacity in the limit of
high SNR for the MIMO two-way relay channel. We conclude
the paper in Section VIII.
II. P ROBLEM S TATEMENT
The K-user MIMO DMAC is given by:
y=

K
X

(Hk xk + sk ) + z,

where y is the channel output vector of length Nr ,5 xk
(k = 1, . . . , K) is the input vector of transmitter k of length
Nt;k and is subject to an average power constraint Pk defined
formally in the sequal, z is an AWGN vector with an identity
covariance matrix, and sk is an interference vector of length
Nr which is known non-causally to transmitter k but not to
the other transmitters nor to the receiver. The interference
vector signals {sk } are assumed to be arbitrary sequences. We
consider a closed-loop scenario, meaning that the Nr × Nt;k
channel matrix Hk is known everywhere and that it satisfies
the following properties.
Definition 1 (Proper). A matrix H of dimensions Nr × Nt is
said to be proper if it has no fewer columns than rows, i.e.,
Nr ≤ Nt , is full rank (namely of rank Nr ) and satisfies

(10)
det HHT = 1.

Remark 1. Similarly to the special case of full-rank matrices
discussed in the introduction, a full-rank Nr × Nt matrix H
with Nr ≤ Nt and det HHT = a 6= 1 may always be
normalized to satisfy (10) by absorbing a in the associated
power constraint.
Transmission is carried out in blocks of length n. The input
signal transmitted by transmitter k is given by
xnk = fk (wk , snk ) ,
where we denote by an blocks of a at time instants 1, 2, . . . , n,
i.e., an = a[1], . . . , a[n], wk is the conveyed
message


by this
user which is chosen uniformly from 1, . . . , 2nRk , Rk
is its transmission rate, and fk is the encoding function. The
input signal xk is subject to an average power constraint
n

ℓ=1

5 All

vectors in this paper are assumed column vectors.

(ŵ1 , . . . , ŵK ) = g (y n ) .
A rate tuple (R1 , . . . , RK ) is said to be achievable if for
any ǫ > 0, however small, there exist n, f and g, such that
the error probability is bounded from the above by ǫ:
Pr (ŵ1 6= w1 , . . . , ŵK 6= wK ) ≤ ǫ.
The capacity region is defined as the closure of all achievable rate tuples.
III. BACKGROUND : O RTHOGONAL M ATRIX
T RIANGULARIZATION
In this section we briefly recall some important matrix
decompositions that will be used in the sequel. In Section III-A
we recall the generalized triangular decomposition (GTD) and
some of its important special cases. Joint orthogonal triangularizations of two matrices are discussed in Section III-B.

(9)

k=1

1X 2
xk [ℓ] ≤ Pk .
n

The receiver reconstructs the messages ŵ1 , . . . ŵK from the
channel output, using a decoding function g:

A. Single Matrix Triangularization
Let A be a proper matrix (recall Definition 1) of dimensions
M × N . A generalized triangular decomposition (GTD) of A
is given by:
A = UTVT ,

(11)

where U and V are orthogonal matrices of dimensions
M × M and N × N , respectively, and T is a generalized
lower-triangular matrix:
Ti,j = 0 ,

∀i < j .

Namely, it has the following structure:
N

 z
T1,1



  T2,1

T=M  .

 ..



TM,1

0
T2,2
..
.

0
0
..
.

TM,2

···

}|
···
···
TM,M

0 ···
0 ···
.. . .
.
.
0 ···

0
0
..
.
0

{



.


The diagonal entries of T always have a unit product.6
Necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a GTD
for a prescribed diagonal {Ti,i } are known, along with explicit
constructions of such a decomposition [18]–[22].
The following three important special cases of the GTD are
well known; all of them are guaranteed to exist for a proper
matrix A.7
1) SVD (see, e.g., [24]): Here, the resulting matrix T in
(11) is a diagonal matrix, and its diagonal elements are equal
to the singular values of the decomposed matrix A.
2) QR Decomposition (see, e.g., [24]): In this decomposition, the matrix V in (11) equals the identity matrix and hence
does not depend on the matrix A. This decomposition can be
constructed by performing Gram–Schmidt orthonormalization
on the (ordered) columns of the matrix A.
6 Since A is a proper matrix it is full rank by definition; thus, all the diagonal
values of T, {Ti,i }, are non-zero.
7 See [23] for a geometrical interpretation of these decompositions.

4

3) GMD (see [22], [25], [26]): The diagonal elements of
T in this decomposition are all equal to the geometric mean
of its singular values σ(A), which is real and positive.
B. Joint Matrix Triangularization
Let A1 and A2 be two proper matrices of dimensions
M1 × N and M2 × N , respectively. A joint triangularization
of these two matrices is given by:
A1 = U1 T1 VT ,
T

A2 = U2 T2 V ,

(12a)
(12b)

where U1 , U2 and V are orthogonal matrices of dimensions
M1 × M1 , M2 × M2 and N × N , respectively, and T1 and
T2 are generalized lower-triangular matrices of dimensions
M1 × N and M2 × N , respectively.
It turns out that the existence of such a decomposition
depends on the diagonal ratios {T1;ii /T2;ii }. Necessary and
sufficient conditions were given in [17]. Specifically, it was
shown that there always exists a decomposition with unit
ratios, i.e.,
T1;ii = T2;ii ,

i = 1, . . . , N .

Such a decomposition is coined the joint equi-diagonal triangularization (JET).8 Technically, the existence of JET is an
extension of the existence of the (single-matrix) GMD.
Unfortunately, JET of more than two matrices is in general
not possible [23]. Nonetheless, in Section VI we present a way
to overcome this obstacle.

The Costa-style scheme for the MIMO dirty-paper channel
suffers from two major drawbacks. First, it requires vector
codebooks of dimension Nt , which depend on the specific
channel H. And second, it does not admit an arbitrary interference. Both can be resolved by using the orthogonal matrix
decompositions of Section III to reduce the coding task to
that of coding for the scalar dirty-paper channel (1). For each
scalar channel, the interference consists of two parts: a linear
combination of the elements of the “physical interference”
s and a linear combination of the off-diagonal elements of
the triangular matrix which also serves as “self interference”.
When using the lattice-based scheme of [3], the capacity (14)
is achieved even for an arbitrary interference sequence s.
Scheme (Single-user zero-forcing MIMO DPC).
Offline:
• Apply any orthogonal matrix triangularization (11) to the
channel matrix H, to obtain the orthogonal matrices U
and V, of dimensions Nr and Nt , respectively, and the
Nr × Nt generalized lower-triangular matrix T.
• Denote the vector of the diagonal entries of T by
d , diag (T).
• Construct Nr good unit-power scalar dirty-paper codes

with respect to SNRs d2i P/Nr .
Transmitter: At each time instant:
• Generates {x̃i } in a successive manner from first (i = 1)
to last (i = Nr ), where x̃i is the corresponding entry of
the codeword of sub-channel i, the interference over this
sub-channel is equal to
i−1
X

IV. BACKGROUND : S INGLE -U SER MIMO
D IRTY-PAPER C HANNEL
In this section we review the (single-user) MIMO dirtypaper channel, corresponding to setting K = 1 in (9):
y = Hx + s + z.

(13)

We suppress the user index of x, s, H and Nt in this case.
For an i.i.d. Gaussian interference vector, a straightforward
extension of Costa’s random binning scheme achieves the
capacity of this channel,
1
log INr + HKHT , (14)
C (H, P ) ,
max
K: trace(K)≤P 2
which is, as in the scalar case, equal to the interference-free
capacity. In the high-SNR limit, we have the following.
Lemma 1 (See, e.g., [27]). The capacity of the single-user
MIMO dirty-paper channel (13) satisfies
lim [C − RHSNR ] = 0,

P →∞

where
Nr
P
.
(15)
log
2
Nr
Furthermore, this rate can be achieved by the input covariance
matrix
P
IN .
K=
Nt t
RHSNR ,

8 See

[23] for a geometrical interpretation of the JET.

ℓ=1

•

•

Ti,ℓ x̃ℓ +

Nr
X

Vi,ℓ sℓ ,

ℓ=1

and Ti,ℓ and Vi,ℓ denote the (i, ℓ) entries of T and V,
respectively.
Forms x̃ with its first Nr entries being {x̃i } followed by
(Nt − Nr ) zeros.
Transmits x which is formed by multiplying x̃ by V:
x = Vx̃.

Receiver:
T
• At each time instant forms ỹ = U y.
• Decodes the codebooks using dirty-paper decoders, where
x̃i is decoded from ỹi .
As is well known, the zero-forcing (ZF) DPC scheme
approaches capacity for proper channel matrices in the limit of
high SNR. This is formally stated as a corollary of Lemma 1.
Corollary 1. For any proper channel matrix H, the ZF MIMO
DPC scheme achieves RHSNR (15). Thus, it approaches the
capacity of the MIMO dirty-paper channel (13) in the limit
P → ∞.
Proof. The ZF MIMO DPC scheme achieves a rate of


Nr
X
P 2
1
d
log 1 +
RZF =
2
Nr i
i=1


Nr
X
1
P 2
≥
di
log
2
Nr
i=1

5

!
 
Nr
Y
1
1
P
2
= Nr · log
di
+ log
2
Nr
2
i=1
 
P
Nr
,
log
=
2
Nr

•

Generates {x̃k;i } in a successive manner from first (i = 1)
to last (i = Nr ), where x̃k;i is the corresponding
entry of the codeword of user k over sub-channel i, the
interference over this sub-channel is equal to
i−1
X

where the last equality follows from (10).
Remark 2. A minimum mean square error (MMSE) variant of
the scheme achieves capacity for any SNR and any channel
matrix (not necessarily proper); see, e.g., [9]. Unfortunately,
extending the MMSE variant of the scheme to the DMAC setting is not straightforward, and therefore we shall concentrate
on the ZF variant of the scheme.

ℓ=1

•

•

Proposition 1 (Two-user sum-capacity outer bound). The sumcapacity of the two-user MIMO DMAC (9) is bounded from
above by the minimum of the individual capacities:
max

Kk : trace(Kk )≤Pk

Vk;i,ℓ sk;ℓ ,

ℓ=1

xk = Vk x̃k .

In this section we derive outer and inner bounds on the
capacity region of the two-user MIMO DMAC (9). We show
that the two coincide for proper channel matrices in the limit
of high SNRs.
The following is a straightforward adaptation of the outer
bound of [10] for the scalar case (3) to the two-user MIMO
setting (9). It is formally proved in the Appendix.

1
log min
k=1,2
2

Nr
X

Tk;i,ℓ and Vk;i,ℓ are the (i, ℓ) entries of Tk and VK ,
respectively, and sk;ℓ is the ℓ-th entry of sk .
Forms x̃k with its first Nr entries being {x̃k;i } followed
by (Nt;k − Nr ) zeros.
Transmits xk which is formed by multiplying x̃ by Vk :

V. T WO -U SER MIMO DMAC

R1 + R2 ≤

Tk;i,ℓ x̃k;ℓ +

I + H k Kk H T
k .
(16)

We next introduce an inner bound that approaches the upper
bound (16) in the limit of high SNRs.
Theorem 1. For the two-user MIMO DMAC (9) with any
proper channel matrices H1 and H2 , the region of all nonnegative rate pairs (R1 , R2 ) satisfying
 
+
Nr
min{P1 , P2 }
R1 + R2 ≤
log
(17)
2
Nr
is achievable.
We give a constructive proof, employing a scheme that uses
the JET of Section III-B to translate the two-user MIMO
DMAC (9) into parallel SISO DMACs with equal channel
gains (corresponding to equal diagonals). As explained in the
introduction, this specific choice of decomposition is essential.
Scheme (Two-user MIMO DMAC).
Offline:
• Apply the JET of Section III-B to the channel matrices
H1 and H2 , to obtain the orthogonal matrices U, V1 ,
and V2 , of dimensions Nr , Nt;1 and Nt;2 , respectively,
and the generalized lower-triangular matrices T1 and T2
of dimensions Nr × Nt;1 and Nr × Nt;2 , respectively.
• Denote the Nr diagonal elements of T1 and T2 by {di }
(which are equal for both matrices).
• Construct Nr good unit-power scalar DMAC codes with
respect to SNR pairs {(d2i P1 /Nr , d2i P2 /Nr )}.
Transmitter k (k = 1, 2): At each time instant:

Receiver:
• At each time instant, forms ỹ according to:
ỹ = ŨT y.
•

Decodes the codebooks using the decoders of the scalar
DMAC codes, where x̃1,i and x̃2;i are decoded from ỹi .

We use this scheme for the proof of the theorem.
Proof of Theorem 1. The proposed scheme achieves any rate
pair (R1 , R2 ) N
whose
sum-rate is bounded from below by
r
X
R1 + R2 =
(r1;i + r2;i )
(18a)
i=1
Nr
X

 
+
1
1
2 min{P1 , P2 }
log
+ di ·
(18b)
≥
2
2
Nr
i=1


Nr
X
min{P1 , P2 }
1
(18c)
log d2i ·
≥
2
Nr
i=1


Nr
Nr
X
X
1
1
min{P1 , P2 }
2
(18d)
log di +
log
=
2
2
Nr
i=1
i=1


Nr
min{P1 , P2 }
=
,
(18e)
log
2
Nr

where rk;i is the achievable rate of transmitter k (k = 1, 2)
over sub-channel i (i = 1, . . . , Nr ), (18b) follows from (4),
and (18e) holds true due to (10).
By comparing Proposition 1 with Theorem 1 in the limit of
high SNR, (recall Lemma 1), the following corollary follows.
Corollary 2. The capacity region of the two-user MIMO
DMAC (9) with any proper channel matrices H1 and H2 is
given by CHSNR + o(1), where CHSNR is given by all rate
pairs satisfying:


Nr
min{P1 , P2 }
R1 + R2 ≤
log
2
Nr
and o(1) vanishes as min{P1 , P2 } → ∞.
Remark 3. At any finite SNR, the scheme can achieve rates
outside CHSNR . Specifically, the inequality (18c) is strict,
unless the achievable sum-rate is zero. However, in that case
the calculation depends upon the exact diagonal values {di };
we do not pursue this direction.

6

VI. K -U SER MIMO DMAC
In this section we extend the results obtained in Section V
to MIMO DMACs with K > 2 users.
The outer bound is a straightforward extension of the twouser case of Proposition 1.
Proposition 2 (K-user sum-capacity outer bound). The sumcapacity of the K-user MIMO DMAC (9) is bounded from the
above by the minimum of the individual capacities:
K
X

k=1

Rk ≤

1
log min
k=1,...,K
2

max

Kk : trace(Kk )≤Pk

I + H k Kk H T
k .

For an inner bound, we would have liked to use a JET of
K > 2 matrices. As such a decomposition does not exist in
general, we present a “workaround”, following [23].
We process jointly N channel uses and consider them as one
time-extended channel use. The corresponding time-extended
channel is
”y =

K
X

(Hk ”xk + ¯sk ) + ˚z ,

where ”y, ”xk , ¯sk , ˚z are the time-extended vectors composed
of N “physical” (concatenated) output, input, interference and
noise vectors, respectively. The corresponding time-extended
matrix Hk is a block-diagonal matrix whose N blocks are all
equal to Hk :
(19)

where ⊗ denotes the Kronecker product operation (see, e.g.,
[28, Ch. 4]). As the following result shows, for such blockdiagonal matrices we can achieve equal diagonals, up to
edge effects that can be made arbitrarily small by utilizing
a sufficient number of time extensions N .
Theorem 2 (K-JET with edge effects [23]). Let H1 , . . . , HK
be K proper matrices of dimensions Nr × Nt;1 , . . . , Nr ×
Nt;K , respectively, and construct their time-extended matrices
with N blocks, H1 , . . . , HK , respectively, according to (19).
Denote
Ñ = N − NrK−2 + 1.

(20)

Then, there exist matrices U, V1 , . . . , VK with orthonormal
columns of dimensions Nr N × Nr Ñ , Nt;1 N × Nr Ñ , . . . ,
Nt;K N × Nr Ñ , respectively, such that
Tk = UT Hk Vk ,

k = 1, . . . , K ,

where T1 , . . . , TK are lower-triangular matrices of dimensions
Nr Ñ × Nr Ñ with equal diagonals of unit product.
The value of Ñ in (20) stems from a matrix truncation
operation where we omit rows for which triangularization is
not guaranteed; see, e.g., [23, Section VII-B] for an example
of the case K = 3, Nr = Nt;1 = Nt;2 = Nt;3 = 2 and general
N.
Since the ratio between Ñ and N approaches 1 when N
goes to infinity:
lim

N →∞

Ñ
= 1,
N

Theorem 3. For the K-user MIMO DMAC (9), the region of
all non-negative rate tuples (R1 , . . . , RK ) satisfying
"
!#+
K
min Pk
X
Nr
k
log
Rk ≤
2
Nr
k=1

is achievable.
Proof. Fix some large enough N . Construct the channel
matrices H1 , . . . , HK as in (19), and set U, V1 , . . . , VK
and T1 , . . . , TK according to Theorem 2. Now, over nN
consecutive channel uses, apply the natural extension of the
scheme of Section V to K users, replacing {Uk }, V, {Tk } with
the obtained matrices. As in the proof of Theorem 1, we can
attain any rate approaching
K
X

Rk ≤

k=1

k=1

Hk = IN ⊗ Hk ,

the loss in rate due to the disparity between them goes to zero.
This is stated formally in the following theorem.

(21)

min Pk
Nr Ñ
k=1,...,K
.
log
2
Nr

As we used the channel nN times, we need to divide these
rates by N ; by (21) the proof is complete.
By comparing Proposition 2 with Theorem 3 in the limit of
high SNR, we can extend Corollary 2 as follows.
Corollary 3. The capacity region of the K-user MIMO
DMAC (9) with any proper channel matrices H1 , . . . , HK is
given by CHSNR + o(1), where CHSNR is given by all rate
pairs satisfying:


min Pk
K
X
Nr
k=1,...,K

log 
Rk ≤
2
Nr
k=1

and o(1) vanishes as

min

k=1,...,K

PK → ∞.

Remark 4. To approach the rate of Theorem 3 for K > 2
users, the number of time extensions N needs to be taken to
infinity, in general. Using a finite number of time extensions
entails a loss in performance, which decays when this number
is increased. On the other hand, a large number of time
extensions requires using a longer block, or alternatively, if
the blocklength is limited, this corresponds to shortening the
effective blocklength of the scalar codes used, which in turn
translates to a loss in performance. Hence in practice, striking
a balance between these two losses is required, by selecting
an appropriate number of time extensions N . For further
discussion and details, see [23].
VII. A PPLICATION TO THE MIMO T WO -WAY
R ELAY C HANNEL
In this section we apply the MIMO DMAC scheme of
Section V to the MIMO two-way relay channel (TWRC). For
Gaussian scalar channels, the similarity between these two
settings was previously observed; see, e.g., [4].
As in the scalar DMAC setting (2), structured schemes
based on lattice coding are known to be optimal in the limit
of high SNR for the scalar TWRC [29], [30]. This suggests

7

in turn that, like in the MIMO DMAC setting, using the JET
in conjunction with scalar lattice codes can achieve a similar
result in the MIMO TWRC setting.
We start by introducing the MIMO TWRC model.
A. Channel Model

H1

H2
Relay

Terminal 1

The TWRC consists of two terminals and a relay. We define
the channel model as follows. Transmission takes place in two
phases, each one, without loss of generality, consisting of n
channel uses. At each time instant i in the first phase, terminal
k (k = 1, 2) transmits a signal xk;i and the relay receives
yi according to some memoryless multiple-access channel
(MAC) WMAC (y|x1 , x2 ). At each time instant i in the second
phase, the relay transmits a signal xi and terminal k (k = 1, 2)
receives yk;i according to some memoryless broadcast (BC)
channel WBC (y1 , y2 |x). Before transmission begins, terminal k
possesses an independent message of rate Rk , unknown to the
other nodes; at the end of the two transmission phases, each
terminal should be able to decode, with arbitrarily low error
probability, the message of the other terminal. The closure of
all achievable rate pairs (R1 , R2 ) is the capacity region of the
network.
In the Gaussian MIMO setting, terminal k (k = 1, 2) has
Nt;k transmit antennas and the relay has Nr receive antennas,
during the MAC phase (see also Fig. 2a):
y = H1 x1 + H2 x2 + z,
where the channel matrices Hk and the vectors z are defined
as in (9). We assume that the channel matrices are proper.9
We denote by Kk (k = 1, 2) the input covariance matrix used
by terminal k during transmission.
We shall concentrate on the symmetric setting:
R1 = R2 , R,
P1 = P2 , P.
The exact nature of the BC channel is not material in
the context of this work. We characterize it by its commonmessage capacity Ccommon .
Before treating the MIMO setting, we start by reviewing the
structured physical network coding (PNC) approach for the
scalar setting, in which H1 and H2 are replaced with scalar
channel gains h1 and h2 .

Terminal 2
(a) The MIMO MAC phase.

G1

G2
Relay

Terminal 1

Terminal 2

(b) The BC phase for the special case where it is a MIMO BC
channel.
Fig. 2. The MIMO two-way relay channel. The second (BC) phase may be
different in general.

In the (structured) PNC approach [29], both terminals
transmit codewords generated from the same lattice code. Due
to the linearity property of the lattice code, the sum of the two
codewords is a valid lattice codeword. This sum is decoded
at the relay and sent to the terminals. Each terminal then
recovers the sum codeword and subtracts from it its own
lattice codeword, to obtain the codeword transmitted by the
other terminal. The rate achievable using this scheme is given
by [29], [30]:
)
(

+
1
1
RPNC = min
log
+P
, Ccommon . (24)
2
2
As is shown in [30], the PNC rate (24) is within half a
bit from the cut-set bound (23) and approaches the cut-set
bound in the limit of high SNR. We next extend the asymptotic
optimality of the PNC scheme to the MIMO setting.
We note that, in the scalar case, other strategies can also
be used rather than PNC, yielding better performance at
different parameter regimes. We address these strategies in
Section VII-D along with their extension to the MIMO setting.
C. PNC for the Gaussian MIMO TWRC

B. PNC for the Scalar Gaussian TWRC

The cut-set bound, in this case, is given by

In the scalar case, (10) reduces to
h1 = h2 = 1.
In this case, the min-cut max-flow theorem [32], [33]
reduces to the minimum between the individual capacities over
the MAC link and the common-message capacity of the BC
link (see, e.g., [30, Section III], [34, Section II-A]):


1
(23)
log (1 + P ) , Ccommon .
RCS = min
2
9 For

a treatment of the case of non-proper channel matrices, see [31].

RCS = min {C1 , C2 , Ccommon } ,
where
Ck , max
Kk

1
log I + Hk Kk HT
k ,
2

k = 1, 2 ,

are the individual capacities of the MIMO links, and the
maximization is carried over all Kk subject to the input power
constraint P .
The PNC approach can be extended to work for the MIMO
case by applying the JET of Section III-A to the channel matrices H1 and H2 . The off-diagonal elements of the resulting

8

triangular matrices are treated as interferences known at the
transmitters. Specifically, the following rate is achievable:10
R = min



Nr
log
2



P
Nr




, Ccommon .

(25)

To see this, use the scheme for MIMO DMAC of Section V
with the DMAC codes replaced with PNC ones: over each
sub-channel, each of the users transmits a codeword from
the (same) lattice, and the relay (who takes the role of the
receiver in the scheme for the MIMO DMAC) recovers the
sum codeword (modulo the coarse lattice) as in scalar PNC
and continues as in the standard scalar PNC scheme. The
achievable symmetric-rate is equal to the sum-rate achievable
by the MIMO DMAC scheme (17), which is equal, in turn,
to (25).
The achievability of (25) implies that when the channel
is “MAC-limited” (the bottleneck being the first phase), the
capacity in the high SNR regime is achieved by applying the
JET to the channel matrices and using PNC over the resulting
scalar channels.
Remark 5 (MIMO BC phase). The only assumption we used
regarding the BC section is that it has a common-message
capacity Ccommon . However, it seems likely that the links to
the terminal will be wireless MIMO ones as well. In that case,
depicted also in Fig. 2b, the complexity may be considerably
reduced by using a scheme that is based upon the JET, for
that section as well; see [17].
D. Extensions and Comparisons
A different approach to the MIMO TWRC was proposed
by Yang et al. [35]. In this approach, parallel scalar TWRCs
are obtained via a joint matrix decomposition, but instead
of the JET, the generalized singular value decomposition
(GSVD) [24], [36] is used, which may be seen as a different
choice of joint matrix triangularization (12); also, rather than
DPC, successive interference cancellation (SIC) is used.
We next compare the approaches, followed by a numerical
example; the reader is referred to [34] for further details.
1) High-SNR optimality. In the symmetric case (22), both
approaches achieve the high-SNR optimal rate (25).
2) Finite-SNR improvements. At finite SNR, one can easily
improve upon (25) to get a slightly better rate, see Remark 3. As we show in [34, Thm. 1] using the technique
of [37], the finite-SNR rate of the GSVD-based scheme
can also be slightly improved.11 Analytically comparing
the finite-SNR performance of the schemes after the
improvement is difficult, although numerical evidence
suggests that the JET-based scheme has better finite-SNR
performance in many cases (e.g., Example 1).
3) Use of any strategy. For the scalar case, we note
the following approaches, as an alternative to physical
PNC. In the decode-and-forward (DF) approach, the relay
10 Indeed, the same was proven using a different approach [35], see
Section VII-D in the sequel for a comparison.
11 [38] also introduces an improvement to the GSVD-based scheme for
certain special cases, but it is subsumed by the improvement in [34].

decodes both messages with sum-rate 2R. Instead of
forwarding both messages, it can use a network-coding
approach [39] and sum them bitwise modulo-2 (“XOR
them”). Then, each terminal can XOR out its own message
to obtain the desired one. In the compress-and-forward
(CF) approach, the noisy sum of the signals transmitted
by the sources is quantized at the relay, using remote
Wyner–Ziv coding [40], with each terminal using its
transmitted signal as decoder side-information. The CF
and DF strategies both have an advantage over physical
PNC for some parameters. Further, [41] presents various
layered combinations of the CF and DF approaches,
which yield some improvement over the two. Constructing an optimized scheme via time-sharing between these
approaches is pursued in [34].
Turning our attention to the MIMO setting, since the
JET approach uses DPC, any strategy can be used over
the subchannels; the decoder for each subchannel will
receive an input signal as if this were the only channel.
In contrast, the GSVD approach uses SIC, where the task
of canceling inter-channel interference is left to the relay.
In order to cancel out interference, the relay thus needs
to decode; this prohibits the use of CF.
4) Asymmetric case. The GSVD-based approach is suitable
for any ratio of rates and powers between the users, and in
fact it is optimal in the high-SNR limit for any such ratio.
Since the JET-based PNC scheme uses the MIMO DMAC
scheme of Section V for transmission during the MAC
phase, it is limited by the minimum of the powers of the
two terminals and cannot leverage excess power in case
the transmit powers are different.12 To take advantage of
the excess power in case of unequal transmit powers for
this scheme, one can superimpose a DF strategy for the
stronger user on top of the symmetric JET-based PNC
scheme, as was proposed in [43].
Example 1. Consider a Gaussian MIMO TWRC with a MAC
phase comprising two parallel asymmetric channels
H1 =



1/4 0
0 4



,

H2 =



4 0
0 1/4



,

and a common-message BC capacity of Ccommon = 20 bits,
where the terminals are subject to a per-antenna individual
power constraint P .
Fig. 3 depicts the different achievable rates mentioned in this
section as a function of P . In contrast to the case of general
channel matrices, in the case of parallel channels (corresponding to diagonal channel matrices), all the scalar asymmetric
techniques can be used. Nonetheless, when considering high
enough SNR, where PNC is advantageous, one observes that
such asymmetric techniques are inferior to their symmetric
counterparts (resulting after applying the JET). This gap is especially pronounced, if we compare the optimum asymmetric
strategy with the optimal JET-based hybrid strategy.
12 This statement is precise when the SNRs are high and the interferences
are strong. Otherwise, some improvements are possible [10], [42].

9

20

18

CS Upper bound
JET-Hybrid
JET-PNC
GSVD-PNC
DF
JET-CF
Scalar 2-Layer CF

(26b)

= I (w; y n ) + nǫn ,

(26c)

where ǫn → 0 as the error probability goes to zero and
n → ∞. By retracing (120)–(125) of [10] we attain
I (w; y n ) ≤ h (y n ) − h (z n ) − h (sn1 ) + h (H1 xn1 + z n ) .
(27)

16

By recalling that s1 ∼ N (0, INr ) and using the Cauchy–
Schwarz inequality, we have
n
(28a)
h (H1 xn1 + z n ) ≤ log INr + H1 K1 HT
1 ,
2
nNr
log (Q1 ) · (1 + o(1)) , (28b)
h (y n ) ≤
2

14

R [bits]

= H(w|y n ) + I (w; y n )

12

where o(1) → 0 for Q1 → ∞.
By substituting (28) in (27) and the outcome in (26c), and
taking Q1 → ∞, we attain

10

8

1
log INr + H1 K1 HT
1 + ǫn .
2
By switching roles between the users, the following upper
bound holds
1
R ≤ log INr + H2 K2 HT
2 + ǫn ,
2
and the desired result follows.

R≤

6
10

15

20

25

30

P [dB]

Fig. 3. Performance of the proposed strategies for H1 = diag(1/4, 4),
H2 = diag(4, 1/4) and Ccommon = 20bits.

VIII. D ISCUSSION : G ENERAL C HANNEL M ATRICES
In this paper we restricted attention to full rank channel
matrices having more columns than rows. In this case, the
column spaces of both matrices are equal. Indeed, the scheme
and inner bound of Sections V and VI can be extended to work
for the general case as well; this requires, however, introducing
an output projection at the receiver, which transforms the channel matrices to effective proper ones. Since all interferences
need to be canceled out for the recovery of the transmitted
messages, it seems that such a scheme would be optimal
in the limit of large transmit powers P1 , . . . , PK → ∞.
Unfortunately, the upper bound of Proposition 1, which is
equal to the maximal individual capacity, is not tight in the
non-proper matrix case, which calls for further research.

P ROOF

A PPENDIX
OF C OROLLARY 2

The proof of Corollary 2 is a simple adaptation of the proof
of the outer bound for the scalar case (3) of [10].
Take s2 ≡ 0 and s1 to be i.i.d. Gaussian with zero mean
and scaled-identity covariance matrix Q1 INr . Further assume
that both users wish to transmit the same common message
w, and denote the rate of this message by R. Clearly, the
supremum over all achievable rates R bounds from the above
the sum-capacity of the two-user MIMO DMAC.
By applying Fano’s inequality, we have
nR ≤ H(w)

(26a)

R EFERENCES
[1] M. H. M. Costa, “Writing on dirty paper,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 439–441, May 1983.
[2] A. S. Cohen and A. Lapidoth, “The Gaussian watermarking game,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1639–1667, Jun. 2002.
[3] U. Erez, S. Shamai, and R. Zamir, “Capacity and lattice strategies for
canceling known interference,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 11,
pp. 3820–3833, Nov. 2005.
[4] B. Nazer and R. Zamir, “Gaussian networks,” in R. Zamir, Lattice coding
for signals and networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[5] J. M. Cioffi and G. Ginis, “A multi-user precoding scheme achieving crosstalk cancellation with application to DSL systems,” in Proc.
Asilomar Conf. Sig., Sys and Comp., vol. 2, Pacific Grove, CA, USA,
Oct./Nov. 2000, pp. 1627–1631.
[6] G. Caire and S. Shamai, “On the achievable throughput of a multiantenna Gaussian broadcast channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 49,
no. 7, pp. 1649–1706, July 2003.
[7] W. Yu and J. M. Cioffi, “Sum capacity of Gaussian vector broadcast
channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1875–1892, Sep.
2004.
[8] H. Weingarten, Y. Steinberg, and S. Shamai, “The capacity region of
the Gaussian multiple-input multiple-output broadcast channel,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 3936–3964, Sep. 2006.
[9] Y. Jiang, W. Hager, and J. Li, “Uniform channel decomposition for
MIMO communications,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., vol. 53, no. 11, pp.
4283–4294, Nov. 2005.
[10] T. Philosof, R. Zamir, U. Erez, and A. Khisti, “Lattice strategies for the
dirty multiple access channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 8,
pp. 5006–5035, Aug. 2011.
[11] T. Philosof and R. Zamir, “On the loss of single-letter characterization:
The dirty multiple access channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55,
no. 6, pp. 2442–2454, June 2009.
[12] I. E. Telatar, “Capacity of the multiple antenna Gaussian channel,”
Europ. Trans. Telecommun., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 585–595, Nov. 1999.
[13] G. Foschini, “Layered space–time architecture for wireless communication in a fading environment when using multi-element antennas,” Bell
Sys. Tech. Jour., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 41–59, 1996.
[14] J. M. Cioffi and G. D. Forney Jr., “Generalized decision-feedback
equalization for packet transmission with ISI and Gaussian noise,” in
Comm., Comp., Cont. and Sig. Proc. US: Springer, 1997, pp. 79–127.

10

[15] P. W. Wolniansky, G. J. Foschini, G. D. Golden, and R. A. Valenzuela,
“V-BLAST: An architecture for realizing very high data rates over the
rich-scattering wireless channel,” in Proc. URSI Int. Symp. Sig., Sys.,
Elect. (ISSSE), Sep./Oct. 1998, pp. 295–300.
[16] B. Hassibi, “An efficient square-root algorithm for BLAST,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech and Sig. Proc. (ICASSP), vol. 2, Istanbul,
Turkey, June 2000, pp. 737–740.
[17] A. Khina, Y. Kochman, and U. Erez, “Joint unitary triangularization for
MIMO networks,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 326–336,
Jan. 2012.
[18] H. Weyl, “Inequalities between two kinds of eigenvalues of a linear
transformation,” in Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 35, no. 7, May 1949, pp.
408–411.
[19] A. Horn, “On the eigenvalues of a matrix with prescribed singular
values,” in Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 5, no. 1, Feb. 1954, pp. 4–7.
[20] Y. Jiang, W. Hager, and J. Li, “The generalized triangular decompostion,” Math. of Comput., vol. 77, no. 262, pp. 1037–1056, Oct. 2008.
[21] J.-K. Zhang and K. M. Wong, “Fast QRS decomposition of matrix and
its applications to numerical optimization,” Dpt. of Elect. and Comp.
Engineering, McMaster University, Tech. Rep. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ece.mcmaster.ca/~jkzhang/papers/sam_qrs.pdf
[22] P. Kosowski and A. Smoktunowicz, “On constructing unit triangular
matrices with prescribed singular values,” Computing, vol. 64, no. 3,
pp. 279–285, May 2000.
[23] A. Khina, I. Livni, A. Hitron, and U. Erez, “Joint unitary triangularization for Gaussian multi-user MIMO networks,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 2662–2692, May 2015.
[24] G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, 3rd ed.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.
[25] J.-K. Zhang, A. Kavčić, and K. M. Wong, “Equal-diagonal QR decomposition and its application to precoder design for successive-cancellation
detection,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 154–172, Jan.
2005.
[26] Y. Jiang, W. Hager, and J. Li, “The geometric mean decompostion,” Lin.
Algebra and Its Apps., vol. 396, pp. 373–384, Feb. 2005.
[27] E. Martinian, “Waterfilling gains at most O(1/SNR) at high SNR,”
Feb. 2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.rle.mit.edu/sia/wp-content/
uploads/2015/04/2004-martinian-unpublished.pdf
[28] R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Topics in Matrix Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[29] M. P. Wilson, K. Narayanan, H. Pfister, and A. Sprintson, “Joint physical
layer coding and network coding for bidirectional relaying,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 56, pp. 5641–5654, Nov. 2010.
[30] W. Nam, S.-Y. Chung, and Y. H. Lee, “Capacity of the Gaussian twoway relay channel to within 1/2 bit,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 56,
no. 11, pp. 5488–5494, Nov. 2010.
[31] X. Yuan, T. Yang, and I. B. Collings, “Multiple-input multiple-output
two-way relaying: a space–division approach,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 6421–6440, Oct. 2013.
[32] P. Elias, A. Feinstein, and C. E. Shannon, “A note on the maximum
flow through a network,” Proc. IRE, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 117–119, 1956.
[33] L. R. Ford Jr. and D. R. Fulkerson, “Maximal flow through a network,”
Canad. J. Math., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 399–404, 1956.
[34] A. Khina, Y. Kochman, and U. Erez, “Improved rates and coding for the
MIMO two-way relay channel,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Info. Theory
and Its Apps. (ISITA), Melbourne, Vic, Australia, Oct. 2014, pp. 658–
662.
[35] H. J. Yang, C. Joohwan, and A. Paulraj, “Asymptotic capacity of the
separated MIMO two-way relay channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 7542–7554, Nov. 2011.
[36] C. F. Van Loan, “Generalizing the singular value decomposition,” SIAM
J. Numer., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 76–83, Mar. 1976.
[37] B. Nazer, “Successive compute-and-forward,” in Proc. Biennial Int.
Zurich Seminar on Comm., Zurich, Switzerland, March 2012, pp. 103–
106.
[38] Y.-C. Huang, K. Narayanan, and T. Liu, “Coding for parallel Gaussian
bi-directional relay channels: A deterministic approach,” in Proc. Annual
Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control, and Comput., Monticello, IL, USA,
Sep.2011, pp. 400–407.
[39] R. Ahlsewede, N. Cai, S.-Y. Li, and R. Yeung, “Network information
flow,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1204–1216, July 2000.
[40] H. Yamamoto and K. Itoh, “Source coding theory for multiterminal
communication systems with a remote source,” Tran. IECE of Japan,
vol. E 63, no. 10, pp. 700–706, 1980.
[41] D. Gündüz, E. Tuncel, and J. Nayak, “Rate regions for the separated twoway relay channel,” in Proc. Annual Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control,
and Comput., Monticello, IL, USA, Sep. 2010, pp. 1333–1340.

[42] J. Zhu and M. Gastpar, “Gaussian (dirty) multiple access channels: a
compute-and-forward prespective,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Inf.
Theory (ISIT), Honolulu, HI, USA, June/July 2014, pp. 2949–2953.
[43] I.-J. Baik and S.-Y. Chung, “Network coding for two-way relay channels
using lattices,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm. (ICC), Beijing, China,
May 2008, pp. 3898–3902.

Anatoly Khina (S’08) was born in Moscow, USSR, on September 10, 1984.
He received the B.Sc. (summa cum laude), M.Sc. (summa cum laude) and
Ph.D. degrees from Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel in 2006, 2010 and
2016, respectively, all in electrical engineering. He is currently a Postdoctoral
Scholar in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA. His research interests include information
theory, control theory, signal processing and matrix analysis.
In parallel to his studies, Dr. Khina had been working as an engineer in various algorithms, software and hardware R&D positions. He is a recipient of the
Fulbright, Rothschild and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellowships,
Clore Scholarship, Trotsky Award, Weinstein Prize in signal processing, Intel
award for Ph.D. research, and the first prize for outstanding research work
in the field of communication technologies of the Advanced Communication
Center (ACC) Feder Family Award.

Yuval Kochman (S’06–M’09) received his B.Sc. (cum laude), M.Sc. (cum
laude) and Ph.D. degrees from Tel Aviv University in 1993, 2003 and
2010, respectively, all in electrical engineering. During 2009–2011, he was a
Postdoctoral Associate at the Signals, Informtion and Algorithms Laboratory
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA.
Since 2012, he has been with the School of Computer Science and Engineering
at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Outside academia, he has worked in
the areas of radar and digital communications. His research interests include
information theory, communications and signal processing.

Uri Erez (M’09) was born in Tel-Aviv, Israel, on October 27, 1971. He
received the B.Sc. degree in mathematics and physics and the M.Sc. and Ph.D.
degrees in electrical engineering from Tel-Aviv University in 1996, 1999,
and 2003, respectively. During 2003–2004, he was a Postdoctoral Associate
at the Signals, Information and Algorithms Laboratory at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA. Since 2005, he has
been with the Department of Electrical Engineering–Systems at Tel-Aviv
University. His research interests are in the general areas of information
theory and digital communications. He served in the years 2009–2011 as
Associate Editor for Coding Techniques for the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON
I NFORMATION T HEORY.

