Joint Uplink-Downlink Cell Associations for
Interference Networks with Local Connectivity
Manik Singhal and Aly El Gamal

arXiv:1701.07522v3 [] 22 Feb 2018

ECE Department, Purdue University
Email: {msingha,elgamala}@purdue.edu

Abstract—We study information theoretic models of interference networks that consist of K Base Station (BS) Mobile Terminal (MT) pairs. Each BS is connected to the MT
carrying the same index as well as L following MTs, where the
connectivity parameter L ≥ 1. We fix the value of L and study
large networks as K goes to infinity. We assume that each
MT can be associated with Nc BSs, and these associations are
determined by a cloud-based controller that has a global view
of the network. An MT has to be associated with a BS, in
order for the BS to transmit its message in the downlink, or
decode its message in the uplink. In previous work, the cell
associations that maximize the average uplink-downlink per
user degrees of freedom (puDoF) were identified for the case
when L = 1. Further, when only the downlink is considered, the
problem was settled for all values of L when we are restricted to
use only zero-forcing interference cancellation schemes. In this
work, we first propose puDoF inner bounds for arbitrary values
of L when only the uplink is considered, and characterize
the uplink puDoF value when only zero-forcing schemes are
allowed. We then introduce new achievable average uplinkdownlink puDoF values. We show that the new scheme is
optimal for the range when Nc ≤ L2 when we restrict our
attention to zero forcing schemes. Additionally we conjecture
that the having unity puDoF during uplink is optimal when
Nc ≥ L.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The fifth generation of cellular networks is expected
to bring new paradigms to wireless communications, that
exploit recent technological advancements like cloud computing and cooperative communication (also known as Coordinated Multi-Point or CoMP). In particular, the rising
interest in Cloud Radio Access Networks (C-RAN) (see
e.g., [1]-[6]) holds a promise for such new paradigms. These
paradigms require new information theoretic frameworks to
identify fundamental limits and suggest insights that are
backed by rigorous analysis. The focus of this work is to
identify associations between cell edge mobile terminals
and base stations, that maximize the average rate across
both uplink and downlink sessions, while allowing for
associating one mobile terminal with more than one base
station and using cooperative transmission and reception
schemes between base stations in the downlink and uplink
sessions, respectively. With a cloud-based controller, optimal
decisions for these associations can take into account the
whole network topology, with the goal of maximizing a sum
rate function.

Cloud-based CoMP communication is a promising new
technology that could significantly enhance the rates of cell
edge users (see [7] for an overview of CoMP). In [8], an
information theoretic model was studied where cooperation
was allowed between transmitters, as well as between receivers (CoMP transmission and reception). CoMP transmission and reception in cellular networks are applicable in the
downlink and uplink, respectively. The model in [8] assumed
that each message can be available at Mt transmitters and
can be decoded through Mr received signals. It was shown
that full Degrees of Freedom (DoF) can be achieved if
Mt + Mr ≥ K + 1, where K is the number of transmitterreceiver paris (users) in the network.
Recently in [9], alternative frameworks for cooperation
in both downlink and uplink were introduced. The new
frameworks are based on the concept of message passing
between base stations. In the downlink, quantized versions
of the analog transmit signals are being shared between
base station transmitters. The supporting key idea is that
information about multiple messages can be shared from
one transmitter to another with the cost of sharing only
one whole message (of the order of log P , where P is
the transmit power), if we only share information needed
to cancel the interference caused by the messages at unintended receivers, through dirty paper coding (see [10]).
In the uplink, decoded messages are shared from one base
station receiver to another, where they are used to cancel
interference. It was shown in [9] that there is a duality
in this framework between schemes that are used in the
downlink and those that are used for the uplink, with the
clear advantage that the same backhaul infrastructure can
be used to support both scenarios.
In this work, we first characterize the puDoF of message passing decoding in the uplink of locally connected
interference networks when Nc < L2 . We then consider the
problem of jointly optimizing the assignment of messages
over the backhaul to maximize the average puDoF across
both downlink and uplink sessions. We assume that each
base station can be associated with Nc mobile terminals, and
that an association is needed whenever a mobile terminal’s
message is used by a base station in either the downlink
or the uplink. This usage of a message could be either for
delivering the message in downlink, decoding the message
in uplink, or for interference cancellation. This problem

was first considered in [13], where the average puDoF was
characterized for the case when L = 1. Here, we consider
general values of L, and first show how our new result
for the uplink settles the average puDoF problem when
Nc ≤ L2 . We then tackle this problem when Nc > L,
by fixing the uplink scheme to the optimal uplink-only
scheme, that associates each mobile terminal with the L + 1
base stations connected to it, and characterize the optimal
downlink scheme under this constraint. The intuition behind
this step is that full DoF is achieved in the uplink when
Nc > L through associating each mobile terminal with all
L + 1 base stations connected to it: any change in that cell
association is expected to decrease the uplink puDoF with
a factor greater than the gain achieved for the downlink
puDoF.
When considering this work, it is important to note that
the assumptions in a theoretical framework need not reflect
directly a practical setting, but are rather used to define a
tractable problem whose solution can lead to constructive
insights. For example, it was shown in [11] that imposing
a downlink backhaul constraint where each message can be
available at a specified maximum number of transmitters
(maximum transmit set size constraint), can lead to solutions
that are also useful to solve the more difficult and more
relevant to practice problem, where an average transmit
set size constraint is used instead of the maximum. Also,
in [12], it was shown that solutions obtained for the locally
connected network models, that are considered in this work,
can be used to obtain solutions for the more practical cellular
network models, by viewing the cellular network as a set
of interfering locally connected subnetworks and designing
a fractional reuse scheme that avoids interference across
subnetworks.
A. Prior Work
In [13], the considered problem was studied for Wyner’s
linear interference networks (channel model was introduced
in [14]). The optimal message assignment and puDoF value
were characterized. Linear networks form the special case
of our problem when L = 1. Here, all our results are
for general values of the connectivity parameter L. Also,
in [11], the downlink part of our problem was considered,
and the optimal message assignment (cell association) and
puDoF value were characterized for general values of the
connectivity parameter L, when we restrict our attention to
zero-forcing (or interference avoidance) scheme.
B. Document Organization
In Section II, we present the problem setup. In Section III,
we discuss previous work on zero-forcing CoMP transmission schemes for the downlink. We then present bounds
for the puDoF of the uplink in Section IV, and prove the
converse in Sections V and VI. In Section VII, we present
new achievable puDoF values when the average of the uplink
and downlink is considred. We finally present concluding
remarks in Section IX.

II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND N OTATION
For each of the downlink and uplink sessions, we use the
standard model for the K−user interference channel with
single-antenna transmitters and receivers,
Yi (t) =

K
X

Hi,j (t)Xj (t) + Zi (t),

(1)

j=1

where t is the time index, Xj (t) is the transmitted signal of
transmitter j, Yi (t) is the received signal at receiver i, Zi (t)
is the zero mean unit variance Gaussian noise at receiver i,
and Hi,j (t) is the channel coefficient from transmitter j to
receiver i over time slot t. We remove the time index in the
rest of the paper for brevity unless it is needed. The signals
Yi and Xi correspond to the receive and transmit signals
at the ith base station and mobile terminal in the uplink,
respectively, and the ith mobile terminal and base station in
the downlink, respectively. For consistency of notation, we
will always refer to Hi,j as the channel coefficient between
mobile terminal i and base station j.
A. Channel Model
We consider the following locally connected interference
network. The mobile terminal with index i is connected to
base stations {i, i − 1, · · · , i − L}, except the first L mobile
terminals, which are connected only to all the base stations
with a similar or lower index. More precisely,
Hi,j = 0 iff i ∈
/ {j, j + 1, · · · , j + L}, ∀i, j ∈ [K],

(2)

and all non-zero channel coefficients are drawn from a
continuous joint distribution. Finally, we assume that global
channel state information is available at all mobile terminals
and base stations.
B. Cell Association
For each i ∈ [K], let Ci ⊆ [K] be the set of base
stations, with which mobile terminal i is associated, i.e.,
those base stations that carry the terminal’s message in the
downlink and will have its decoded message for the uplink.
The transmitters in Ci cooperatively transmit the message
(word) Wi to mobile terminal i in the downlink. In the
uplink, one of the base station receivers in Ci will decode Wi
and pass it to the remaining receivers in the set. We consider
a cell association constraint that bounds the cardinality of
the set Ci by a number Nc ; this constraint is one way to
capture a limited backhaul capacity constraint where not all
messages can be exchanged over the backhaul.
|Ci | ≤ Nc , ∀i ∈ [K].

(3)

We would like to stress on the fact that we only allow full
messages to be shared over the backhaul. More specifically,
splitting messages into parts and sharing them as in [15], or
sharing of quantized signals as in [9] is not allowed.

C. Degrees of Freedom
Let P be the average transmit power constraint at each
transmitter, and let Wi denote the alphabet for message
Wi . Then the rates Ri (P ) = log n|Wi | are achievable if
the decoding error probabilities of all messages can be
simultaneously made arbitrarily small for a large enough
coding block length n, and this holds for almost all channel
realizations. The degrees of freedom di , i ∈ [K], are defined
i (P )
as di = limP →∞ Rlog
P . The DoF region D is the closure
of the set of all achievable DoF tuples. The total number of
degrees of freedom (η) is the maximum value ofPthe sum of
the achievable degrees of freedom, η = maxD i∈[K] di .
For a K-user locally connected with connectivity parameter L, we define η(K, L, Nc ) as the best achievable η on
average taken over both downlink and uplink sessions over
all choices of transmit sets satisfying the backhaul load
constraint in (3). In order to simplify our analysis, we define
the asymptotic per user DoF (puDoF) τ (L, Nc ) to measure
how η(K, L, Nc ) scales with K while all other parameters
are fixed,
η(K, L, Nc )
.
(4)
K→∞
K
We further define τD (L, Nc ) and τU (L, Nc ) as the puDoF
when we optimize only for the downlink and uplink session,
respectively.
τ (L, Nc ) = lim

IV. U PLINK -O NLY S CHEME

D. Interference Avoidance Schemes
We consider in this work the class of interference avoidance schemes, where every receiver is either active or
inactive. An active receiver can observe its desired signal
with no interference. In the downlink, we are considering
cooperative zero-forcing where a message’s interference is
cancelled over the air through cooperating transmitters. In
the uplink, we are considering message passing decoding
where a decoded message is passed through a cooperating
receiver to other receivers wishing to remove the message’s
interference.
We add the superscript zf to the puDoF symbol when
we impose the constraint that the coding scheme that can
be used has to be a zero-forcing scheme. For example,
τUzf (L, Nc ) denotes the puDoF value when considering
only the uplink and impose the restriction to zero-forcing
schemes.
III. P RIOR W ORK : D OWNLINK -O NLY S CHEME
In [11], the considered setting was studied for only downlink transmission. When restricting our choice of coding
scheme to zero-forcing schemes, the puDoF value was
characterized as,
zf
τD
(L, Nc ) =

2Nc
,
2Nc + L

transmitters in each subnetwork are inactive to avoid intersubnetwork interference. The zero-forcing scheme aims to
deliver 2Nc messages free of interference in each subnetwork, so that the acheived puDoF value is as in (5). In order
to do that with a cooperation constraint that limits each message to be available at Nc transmitters, we create two Multiple Input Single Output (MISO) Broadcast Channels (BC)
within each subnetwork; each with Nc transmitter-receiver
pairs, and ensure that interference across these channels is
eliminated. We now discuss the cell association in the first
subnetwork, noting that the remaining subnetworks follow
an analogous pattern. The first MISO BC consists of the first
Nc transmitter-receiver pairs. For each i ∈ {1, 2, · · · , Nc },
message Wi is associated with base stations with indices in
the following set, Ci = {i, i+1, · · · , Nc }. The second MISO
BC consists of the Nc transmitters with indices in the set
{Nc +1, Nc +2, · · · , 2Nc } and the Nc receivers with indices
in the set {Nc + L + 1, Nc + L + 2, · · · , 2Nc + L}. Note that
the middle L receivers in each subnetwork are deactivated
to eliminate interference between the two MISO BCs. For
each i ∈ {Nc + L + 1, Nc + L + 2, · · · , 2Nc + L}, message
Wi is associated with transmitters that have indices in the
set Ci = {i−L, i−L−1, · · · , Nc +1}. It was shown in [11]
that the puDoF value of (5) achieved by this scheme is that
best achievable value in the downlink using the imposed
cooperation constraint and zero-forcing schemes.

(5)

and the achieving cell association was found to be the
following. The network is split into subnetworks; each with
consecutive 2Nc + L transmitter-receiver pairs. The last L

We discuss in this section backhaul designs that optimize
only the uplink rate, and consider only zero-forcing coding schemes. More precisely, we show that the following
theorem holds.
Theorem 1: The asymptotic puDoF for the uplink when
considering message passing schemes is characterised by the
following equation:


L + 1 ≤ Nc ,
1
zf
Nc +1
L
(6)
τU (L, Nc ) =
L+2
2 ≤ Nc ≤ L,

 2Nc
L
1 ≤ Nc ≤ 2 − 1.
2Nc +L
The cell association that is used to achieve the above
is as follows. When Nc ≥ L + 1, each mobile terminal
is associated with the L + 1 base stations connected to
it. The last base station, with index K, in the network
decodes the last message and then passes it on to the L
other base stations connected to the K th mobile terminal,
eliminating all interference caused by that mobile terminal.
Each preceding base station then decodes its message and
passes it on to the other base stations, eliminating the
interference caused by the message. Thus, one degree of
freedom is achieved for each user.
In the second range L2 ≤ Nc ≤ L, the cell association
c +1
that is used to achieve a puDoF value of NL+2
is as follows.
The network is split into subnetworks, each with consecutive
L + 2 transmitter-receiver pairs. In each subnetwork, the
last Nc + 1 words are decoded. For each i ∈ {L + 2, L +

1, · · · , L + 2 − Nc + 1}, message Wi is associated with base
stations {i, i−1, · · · , L+2−Nc +1} ⊆ Ci . Thus the last Nc
words are decoded. The base stations with indices in the set
{2, 3, · · · , L + 2 − Nc } are inactive as there is interference
from the last transmitter in the subnetwork which cannot
be eliminated. The first base station decodes WL+2−Nc . To
eliminate the interference caused by the transmitters in the
set S = {L + 2 − Nc + 1, L + 2 − Nc + 2, · · · , L + 1} at the
first base station of the subnetwork, we add the first base
station to each Ci , ∀i ∈ S. Now for messages with indices
in the set S, we have used βi = 2 + i − (L + 2 − Nc + 1)
associations up to this point; the factor of two comes from
the base station resolving Wi and the first base station of
the subnetwork. But each transmitter with indices in the
set S\{L + 1} also interferes with the subnetwork directly
preceding this subnetwork. ∀i ∈ S\{L + 1}, the message
Wi interferes with the bottom L + 1 − i base stations of
the preceding subnetwork, which is precisely the number
of associations left for the respective message i.e. Nc −
βi = L + 1 − i, thus inter-subnetwork interference can be
eliminated at those base stations.
In the third range 1 ≤ Nc ≤ L2 −1, the cell association that
c
is used to achieve the lower bound of 2N2N
is similar to the
c +L
one described in Section III for the downlink. The network is
split into disjoint subnetworks; each with consecutive 2Nc +
L transmitter-receiver pairs. For the uplink, we consider
two sets of indices for transmitters AT = {1, 2, · · · , Nc }
and BT = {Nc + L + 1, Nc + L + 2 · · · , 2Nc + L}, and
corresponding sets of receivers AR = {1, 2, · · · , Nc } and
BR = {Nc + 1, Nc + L + 2 · · · , 2Nc }. For each i ∈ AT ,
the message Wi is associated with the receivers receiving
it in AR . Receiver i decodes Wi and the other associations
in Ci exist for eliminating interference. Similarly For each
j ∈ BT , the message Wj is associated with the receivers
receiving it in BR , but now receiver j − L decodes Wj and
the other associations in Cj are for eliminating interference.
We observe that if we were not restricted to the zeroforcing coding scheme then for the third range, we could
achieve 12 puDoF using asymptotic interference alignment [16], which is higher than the value achieved by zeroforcing. The next sections complete the proof of Theorem
1
V. C ONVERSE P ROOF WHEN

L
2

≤ Nc ≤ L

In this section, we provide a converse proof for the second
range of (6). More precisely, we show that the following
holds.
τUzf (L, Nc ) =

Nc + 1
,
L+2

L
≤ Nc ≤ L.
2

(7)

We start by proving the case when Nc = L, The optimal
zero-forcing puDoF for the uplink can be characterised as:
τUzf (L, L) =

L+1
.
L+2

(8)

We begin by dividing the network into subnetworks of
L + 2 consecutive transmitters-receiver pairs. We observe
that in any subnetwork, if we have Nc + 1 = L + 1 consecutive active receivers (base stations), then the transmitter
connected to all these receivers must be inactive, because a
message’s interference cannot be canceled at Nc or more receivers. Let ΓBS be the set of subnetworks where all Nc +2
receivers are active, and ΦBS be the set of subnetworks with
at most Nc active receivers. Similarly, let ΓM T and ΦM T
be the subnetworks with Nc + 2 active transmitters and at
most Nc active transmitters, with respect to order. To be
able to achieve a higher puDoF than (8), it must be true that
both conditions hold: |ΓBS | > |ΦBS | and |ΓM T | > |ΦM T |.
Now note that for any subnetwork that belongs to ΓBS , at
most Nc transmitters will be active, because the interference
caused by any message cannot be canceled at Nc or more
receivers. Hence ΓBS ⊆ ΦM T . Further, the same logic
applies to conclude that for any subnetwork with Nc + 1
active receivers, the number of active transmitters is at
most Nc + 1, and hence ΓM T ⊆ ΦBS . It follows that
if |ΓBS | > |ΦBS |, then |ΓM T | < |ΦM T |, and hence the
statement in (8) is proved.
To aid in the next step we define MT-BS pairs (mi , bj ) as
decoding pairs if Wi is decoded at base station j. To prove
c +1
when L2 ≤ Nc < L, we use the
that τUzf (L, Nc ) = NL+2
following lemmas :
Lemma 1: For any zero-forcing scheme, one of the
following is true for any two decoding pairs (mi1 , bj1 )
and (mi2 , bj2 ): j2 ∈
/ {i1 , i1 − 1, · · · , i1 − L} or j1 ∈
/
{i2 , i2 − 1, · · · , i2 − L}.
Proof: If the claim were not true, i.e. j2 ∈ {i1 , i1 −
1, · · · , i1 − L} and j1 ∈ {i2 , i2 − 1, · · · , i2 − L} then
Wi1 and Wi2 would interfere with one another and could
not be decoded using the zero-forcing scheme. This is a
consequence of the work done in [17].
Lemma 2: For any set L ⊆ [K] of L + 1 consecutive
indices, a maximum of Nc mobile terminals with indices in
L can be decoded at base stations with indices in L for any
zero-forcing scheme.
Proof: We prove this claim by contradiction. If Nc + 1
or more mobile terminals with indices in L are decoded
at base stations with indices in L, then at least one of the
mobile terminals would be associated with more than Nc
base stations. This violates the constraint in (3).
From Lemma 1, we have the following corollary:
Corollary 1: For any two decoding pairs (mi1 , bj1 ) and
(mi2 , bj2 ) in a zero-forcing scheme, if i1 > i2 then j1 > j2
and vice versa.
Immediately from Lemma 2 we have that subnetwork only
decoding, i.e. transmissions from a subnetwork are decoded
in the same subnetwork, can only decode at most Nc + 1
words in each subnetwork of L+2 consecutive BS-MT pairs.
Our proof will be based on the concept that to break the
inner bound described in (6), at least one subnetwork of L+2
consecutive MT-BS pairs must have more than Nc +1 active

mobile terminals. And all such subnetworks must borrow
base stations from the subnetwork above it to decode words
corresponding to its own mobile terminals. This happens
because for a consecutive set of L + 2 mobile terminals, the
only base stations that can help decode their transmissions
are the corresponding base stations or the other L base
stations with preceding indices that are connected to the
set.
To aid in the writing we define : αk = (L + 2) × (k − 1),
here αk denotes the first index of each subnetwork Lk .
In this sense Lk is topologically below Lk−1 , i.e. mobile
terminals from Lk are connected to some base stations in
Lk−1 . Additionally M Ti denotes mobile terminal i, and
BSj denotes base station j
We use the above lemmas and definitions to define a best
case scenario for inter-subnetwork interference. A best case
scenario is where the interference from one subnetwork’s
(e.g., Lk ) mobile terminals to another subnetwork’s (e.g.,
Lk−1 ) base stations is focused on the bottom most base
stations. This is defined as the best case scenario because
from Lemma 1, we know that for Lk−1 ’s own mobile
terminals to be decoded in Lk−1 , we need base stations
that are indexed outside the range of the interference from
the mobile terminals of Lk . We also define that if there
exists decoding pairs (mi , bj ) such that i ≥ αk and j < αk ,
i.e. the mobile terminal is in Lk and the base station is in
Lk−1 , then Lk borrows a base station from Lk−1 . Similarly,
if there exists certain consecutive base stations in Lk−1
indexed by (αk − µ, αk − µ + 1, · · · αk − 1) such that no
words can be decoded here in the zero-forcing scheme due
to the cooperation constraint being met in Lk , we say that
Lk blocks µ base stations in Lk−1 .
We introduce two new variables x and δ. Here x defines
the number of extra mobile terminals (beyond Nc +1) active
in a subnetwork of L + 2 consecutive mobile terminals and
base stations, and δ defines the number of base stations
that Lk borrows from Lk−1 to help decode words from
Lk . When L2 ≤ Nc ≤ L it follows from the network
topology and the defined cooperation constraint that we have
1 ≤ x, δ ≤ Nc .
c +1
when L >
We want to show that τUzf (L, Nc ) ≤ NL+2
L
Nc ≥ 2 . It follows from the pigeonhole principle that to
break this bound, there must be at least one subnetwork (say
Lk ) where we have Nc +1+x mobile terminals active. Now
by Lemma 2, we have that Lk must borrow at least x base
stations from Lk−1 , thus x ≤ δ ≤ Nc . We now consider
possible cases for the value of δ.
When δ = 1, thus x = 1, so Lk has Nc + 2 active mobile
terminals. As Lk is borrowing one base station, say base
station j, Nc + 1 words must have been decoded in Lk . By
Lemma 2, there exists at least one decoding pair (mi , bn )
where i, n ≥ αk , such that bn is not connected to the highest
indexed active mobile terminal in Lk . Due to the size of the
subnetwork, this forces n = αk . Hence, mobile terminal i’s
transmission is decoded at the first base station of Lk . By

Lemma 1, this implies that j ∈
/ {i, i − 1, ...i − L}. It follows
that the best case scenario occurs when i = αk + (L + 2 −
(Nc + 1)), making j ≤ αk − Nc = αk−1 + L + 2 − Nc .
Let the number of available base stations left in Lk−1 be
θ. As Nc ≥ L2 , it follows that θ ≤ L + 2 − Nc ≤ Nc + 2.
Additionally, due to the borrowed base station, the number
of associations allowed for M Tαk−1 +L+1 (the last mobile
terminal in Lk−1 ) has effectively reduced by one. From
Lemma 2, we have that a maximum of Nc mobile terminals
can be decoded in Lk−1 . It follows that either the average
number of active mobile terminals over the two subnetworks
is still Nc + 1 per subnetwork, or Lk−1 will have to borrow
at least one base station from Lk−2 . We do not consider
the former case, as we just have to restart our argument
from Lk−2 because all subnetworks with higher indexes
will have an average of Nc + 1 active mobile terminals per
subnetwork. Hence, we only consider the latter case where
Lk−1 borrows at least one base station from Lk−2 . As base
station αk−1 is being used in Lk−1 , the lowest possible
indexed base station that Lk−1 borrows from Lk−2 is base
station αk−2 + (L + 2 − Nc ). Therefore the argument for
Lk−2 borrowing base stations from Lk−3 is exactly the same
as the argument shown for Lk−1 borrowing from Lk−2 . It
follows that this borrowing will continue till either we stop
borrowing at some subnetwork Li , where i < k, or L1
needs to borrow at least one more base station, which is
not possible. If Li does not borrow from Li−1 , we have
that Li and Lk have at most Nc and Nc + 1 + 1 active
mobile terminals, respectively, and all other subnetworks
between them have at most Nc + 1 active mobile terminals,
resulting in an average of Nc + 1 active mobile terminals
per subnetwork over these k − i subnetworks. Thus we can
discard them as they do not break the inner bound and
start the same argument over from Li−1 . If we continue
borrowing till L1 , we have that L1 and Lk have at most
Nc and Nc + 1 + 1 active mobile terminals respectively and
all other subnetworks have at most Nc + 1 active mobile
terminals, resulting that the average number of active mobile
terminals over the whole network is Nc + 1 per subnetwork
c +1
. This presents the
which implies that τUzf (L, Nc ) ≤ NL+2
simplest case for our iterative argument.
When δ > 1, we have a similar argument as described
in the previous paragraph. By Lemma 1, we have that
the borrowed base stations in Lk−1 will have to send the
associations downwards, i.e. the lowest indexed borrowed
base station in Lk−1 will have to be exclusively connected
to the lowest indexed active mobile terminal of Lk . As
the index of the lowest active mobile terminal in Lk is
at most αk + (L + 2 − (Nc + 1 + x)) − 1, we have
that the index of the lowest borrowed base station in
Lk−1 is αk−1 + (L + 3 − Nc − x). Therefore the number
of available base stations in Lk−1 can be expressed as
L + 3 − Nc − x. These available base stations must at least
decode Nc + 1 + (1 − x) mobile terminals’ transmissions
to have an average greater than Nc + 1 active mobile

terminals per subnetwork over Lk and Lk−1 without Lk−1
borrowing base stations from Lk−2 . This cannot happen
when L + 3 − Nc − x < Nc + 1 + 1 − x, which is only
L+1
possible when Nc > L+1
2 . Hence, the condition Nc > 2
implies that Lk−1 has to borrow at least one base station
from Lk−2 , which presents an iterative argument as the one
shown when δ = 1.
Now we consider the case when L2 ≤ Nc ≤ L+1
2 .
By Lemma 2, we also have that the maximum number of
mobile terminals from Lk−1 decoded in Lk−1 ’s available
base stations is Nc . As we only need Nc + 2 − x active
mobile terminals decoded to break the inner bound defined,
Lk−1 will not have to borrow from Lk−2 when x ≥ 2.
At least Nc + 2 − x mobile terminals’ transmissions must
be decoded in Lk−1 , but M Tαk−1 +L+1 has its associations
reduced by δ ≥ x. Using M Tαk−1 +L+1 , a maximum of
Nc − δ + 1 ≤ Nc + 1 − x transmitted words can be decoded
within Lk−1 , which will lead us to have Lk−1 borrowing
at least one base station from Lk−2 . This presents another
iterative argument, akin to the one shown above.
In order to achieve a case where Lk−1 does not have
to borrow base stations from Lk−2 , our best case scenario guides us to find the first mobile terminal in Lk−1 ,
which is connected to at most x − 2 base stations that
are being borrowed by Lk , but still connected to at least
Nc + 2 − x available base stations in Lk−1 . Assume that
the index of that mobile terminal is αk−1 + ν. Clearly,
ν ≤ (L+2−Nc −x)+(x−2) = L−Nc . So in Lk−1 we have
Nc + 2 − x active mobile terminals without borrowing from
Lk−2 , but mobile terminal αk−1 + ν has already used up all
its associations and it is connected to some base stations in
Lk−2 , specifically at least Nc base stations. Hence, Lk−2 has
a maximum L+2−Nc ≤ Nc +2 base stations available to decode more transmissions, and we need at least Nc +1 words
to be decoded here, which can be done, but this would imply
that at least two mobile terminals are associated with Nc
base stations. These two mobile terminals are indexed higher
than κ, where κ = αk−2 + L + 1 − (Nc + 1). Hence, Lk−2
blocks at least Nc of the bottom L base stations in Lk−3 , and
one can see that each further subnetwork blocks at least one
base station from the preceding subnetwork for the average
number of active mobile terminals per subnetwork to remain
above Nc + 1. If say Li does not block any base stations in
Li−1 , then Li can have at most Nc active mobile terminals
decoded in Li . It follows that either Li borrows from Li−1
or only has Nc active mobile terminals. If Li borrows from
Li−1 we have a similar iterative argument as shown above.
Otherwise, Li has only Nc active mobile terminals, making
the average number of active mobile terminals through
the considered k − i subnetworks Nc + 1 per subnetwork.
Hence, each subnetwork continues blocking base stations
in the preceding subnetwork and the extra active mobile
terminals in the whole network does not scale and is fixed
by the constant x, which shows that the average number of
active mobile terminals asymptotically approaches Nc + 1

for every subnetwork of size L + 2.
We have shown that if any subnetwork has more than
Nc + 1 active mobile terminals when L ≥ Nc ≥ L2 , either
the number of extra active mobile terminals do not scale
with size of the network, or the average over the whole
network remains bounded by Nc +1 active mobile terminals
per subnetwork. This forces that the average number of
decoded words per subnetwork is at most Nc + 1, implying
that the asymptotic puDoF during the uplink using zero
c +1
. We have shown in Section IV
forcing, τUzf (L, Nc ) ≤ NL+2
Nc +1
zf
c +1
that τU (L, Nc ) ≥ L+2 , implying that τUzf (L, Nc ) = NL+2
L
whenever 2 ≤ Nc ≤ L. The proof of (7) is thus complete.
VI. C ONVERSE P ROOF FOR UPLINK WHEN Nc <

L
2

In this section, we provide a converse proof for the third
range of (6). More precisely, we show that the following
holds.
L
2Nc
,
Nc < .
(9)
τUzf (L, Nc ) =
2Nc + L
2
Similar to Section V Our proof will be based on the
concept that to break the inner bound described in (6),
at least one subnetwork of 2Nc + L consecutive MT-BS
pairs must have more than 2Nc active mobile terminals.
And all such subnetworks must either borrow or block base
stations from the subnetwork above it to decode words
corresponding to its own mobile terminals.
This happens because for a consecutive set of 2Nc + L
mobile terminals, the only base stations that can help decode
their transmissions are the corresponding base stations or
the other L base stations with preceding indices that are
connected to the set.
Using the Lemmas and definitions from Section V we
start our proof. We present cases on x, and δ.
Firstly we notice as each subnetwork has 2Nc +L mobileterminals, base-stations pairs so there is a possibility of
decoding more then 2Nc transmissions using subnetworkonly-decoding (SO-decoding) in Lk . We first show that only
a maximum of 2Nc + 1 transmissions can be decoded using
SO-decoding.By Lemma 2, to decode 2Nc +2 transmissions
using SO-decoding you need a subnetwork of 2 ∗ L + 1
mobile-terminal and base stations pairs which is larger than
2Nc + L. Thus Lk can decode at most 2Nc + 1 using SOdecoding
Thus, our first case is x = 1 and δ = 0. In Lk we have
that the highest indexed base stations that can decode the
2Nc + 1 transmissions are the L + 1 + Nc + 1 = L + Nc + 2
highest indexed base stations. But to transmit and decode
2Nc + 1 transmissions in Lk there will be at least 3 mobile
terminals that achieve the maximum number of associations.
By topology, only the lowest indexed such terminal is the
one that blocks base stations in Lk−1 . Specifically it blocks
L − 2Nc + 3 base stations, thus only 4Nc − 3 base stations
are left to decode at least 2Nc + 1 − 1 base stations.
From these 4Nc − 3, Lk−1 needs at least L + 2 − (L −
2Nc + 3) base stations to decode Nc + 1 transmissions.

But at least 2 of the mobile terminals transmitting to these
base stations would meet its max constraint, and if you
utilize exactly L + 2 − (L − 2Nc + 3) base stations then
by Corollary 1 only 1 of the highest L − 2Nc + 3 can
be transmitting. Similar to above we only consider the
lower indexed mobile terminal which reaches its maximum
association constraint. This mobile terminal is indexed at
most αk−1 + 4Nc − 5, which results that including the
base stations which are decoding transmissions and those
which cant due association constraints at least L + 2 of
the 4Nc − 3 base stations are used up. We are left with
4Nc − 3 − (L + 2) = 4Nc − L − 5 ≤ 2Nc − 6 base
stations as Nc ≤ L−1
2 . Now these 2Nc − 6 base stations
must decode at least NC − 1 transmissions, thus at least
Nc − 2 of these transmissions must come from lowest
indexed 2Nc −7 mobile terminals, and the other transmission
is transmitted from at most the αk−1 + (2Nc + L − (L +
2)) − 1 = αk−1 + (2Nc − 3). Which forces that in Lk−2
the highest indexed L + 1 − (2Nc − 2) = L − 2Nc + 3
can decode at most 1 transmission and the highest indexed
L + 1 − (2Nc − 7) = L − 2Nc + 8 can decode at most 2
transmissions.
So in Lk−2 the remaining 2Nc + L − (L − 2Nc + 8) =
4Nc − 8 base stations must decode at least 2Nc − 2. Using
a similar argument as above L + 2 of these available base
stations are used to decode Nc + 1 transmissions. So in
Lk−2 , 4Nc − 8 − (L + 2) = 4Nc − L − 10 ≤ 2Nc − 11
of the lowest indexed base stations must decode at least
Nc − 3 transmissions. So compared to Lk−1 where the
lowest indexed 2Nc − 6 base stations had to decode Nc − 1
transmissions, in Lk−2 the lowest indexed 2Nc − 11 have
to decode at least Nc − 3 transmissions, so even though the
number of needed transmissions decreased by 2, the number
of available base stations decreased by 5. This propagation
of interference would continue through all preceding subnetworks and the number of available base stations would keep
decreasing faster than the number of transmissions to be
decoded. So either we reach L1 or we stop this propagation
of interference at some Li , where i < k. If the latter
happens, then in Li one could decode at most Nc +1, which
would bring the average number of decoded words between
c
the k − i subnetworks to less than 2N2N
, so we just restart
c +L
our argument from Li−1 . If the former happens then the
number of extra decoded transmissions did not scale with
the network size, and thus the asymptotic puDOF is still
2Nc
2Nc +L .
If x = 1, and δ = 1, one observes that the interference
from Lk to Lk−1 is actually worse than as described above.
This is due to the fact that the extra active mobile terminal’s
transmission will be either decoded at one of the highest
indexed L−2Nc +3 base stations of Lk−1 or a lower indexed
base station. This either causes the same interference as
described above or by Lemma 1 the effective max constraint
of some of the higher indexed mobile terminals is reduced,
which is worse than before. Thus a similar argument follows.

If x = 1, and δ > 1, then by Lemma 1, we have that
the borrowed base stations in Lk−1 would be lower indexed
than the highest indexed L − 2Nc + 3 base stations, thus the
interference is worse than the first argument, which leads
to the same conclusion that the asymptotic puDoF is still
2Nc
2Nc +L .
Now if x > 1, by Lemma 1, and the first argument we
have that either the highest indexed L−2Nc +3 base stations
are blocked in Lk−1 and some lower indexed base stations
are borrowed, or all borrowed base stations have a lower
index than the highest indexed L − 2Nc + 3 base stations,
which from above arguments leads us to the same conclusion
c
.
that the asymptotic puDoF is still 2N2N
c +L
So we have shown that We have shown that if any
subnetwork has more than 2Nc active mobile terminals when
Nc < L2 , either the number of extra active mobile terminals
do not scale with size of the network, or the average over
the whole network remains bounded by 2Nc active mobile
terminals per subnetwork. This forces that the average
number of decoded words per subnetwork is at most 2Nc ,
implying that the asymptotic puDoF during the uplink using
c
zero forcing, τUzf (L, Nc ) ≤ 2N2N
. We have shown that
c +L
2Nc
zf
c
τU (L, Nc ) ≥ 2Nc +L , implying that τUzf (L, Nc ) = 2N2N
c +L
L
whenever Nc < 2 .
VII. AVERAGE U PLINK -D OWNLINK D EGREES OF
F REEDOM
In [13], the puDoF value τ (L = 1, Nc ) was characterized.
Here, we present zero-forcing schemes, with the goal of
optimizing the average rate across both uplink and downlink
for arbitrary values of L ≥ 2. We propose the following
theorem
Theorem 2: The average uplink-downlink puDoF that can
be achieved utilizing the interference avoidance schemes
described in Section II is characterized by
(
1
(1 + γD (Nc , L)) L + 1 ≤ Nc ,
zf
τ (L, Nc ) ≥ 2 2Nc
(10)
1 ≤ Nc ≤ L,
2Nc +L
where γD (Nc , L) is the downlink component of the puDoF
when Nc ≥ L + 1, and is given by

γD (L, Nc ) =

2

 L+1 

L+2



+ Nc − (L + 1)
2L+1 
.
+ Nc − (L + 1)
2

(11)

The coding scheme that achieves the inner bound for
the second range of (10) is essentially the union of the
scheme described in Section III and the scheme that achieves
the third range of (6). The network is split into disjoint
subnetworks; each with consecutive 2Nc + L transmitterreceiver pairs. We consider two sets of base stations ABS =
{1, 2, · · · , Nc } and BBS = {Nc + 1, Nc + 2 · · · , 2Nc }, and
two sets of mobile terminals AM T = {1, 2, · · · , Nc } and
BM T = {Nc +L+1, Nc +L+2 · · · , 2Nc +L}. Now for each
i ∈ AM T , Ci = ABS . Similarly for each j ∈ BM T , Cj =

BBS . Thus, for the downlink and uplink, we can get the optimal puDoF described in Sections III and IV when Nc < L2 .
For the case where Nc ≥ L + 1, the coding scheme that
achieves the inner bound in (10) is as follows. First, we
associate each mobile terminal with the L + 1 base stations
connected to it. This achieves the puDoF value of unity
during the uplink in the same way as the scheme that
achieves it in Section IV. Hence, we know so far that
Ci ⊇ {i, i − 1, i − 2, · · · , i − L} ∩ [K], ∀i ∈ [K]. When
sending messages from base stations to mobile terminals,
the cooperative zero-forcing scheme works in a ”downward”
fashion as shown in [13]. Due to the network topology,
the uplink message passing scheme that achieves the unity
puDoF works in an ”upward” manner as shown in Section
IV. So to maximize the downlink puDoF, we need to find a
coding scheme that optimizes these opposing trends.
We define CiD as the set of extra associations that the
downlink scheme requires for MT i. Thus, ∀i ∈ [K] we
have that Ci = CiD ∪ {i, i − 1, · · · , i − L}.
For the downlink, we divide the network
 into disjoint sub-

+ Nc − (L + 1)
networks; each consists of L + 2 L+1
2
consecutive transmitter-receiver pairs. We define  = d L+1
2 e,
and κ = +Nc −(L+1). The cell association has a repeated
pattern every 2κ + L BS-MT pairs, and hence, it suffices to
describe it for the first 2κ + L BS-MT pairs. We consider
two cases based on the parity of the connectivity parameter
L. If L is odd, we partition the indices of mobile terminals
in the subnetwork into three sets:

Fig. 1: Scheme for average uplink (green shade) and downlink (blue shade) communication when Nc ≤ L

(a) L odd

S1

= {,  + 1, · · · ,  + κ − 1},

S2

= {2 + κ, 2 + κ + 1 · · · , 2 + 2κ − 1},

S3

= {1, 2, · · · , L + 2κ} \ (S1 ∪ S2 ).

(b) L even

Fig. 2: Scheme for downlink, with all the associations
needed for optimal uplink, that achieves the lower bound
defined in equation (10) when Nc ≥ L + 1

The mobile terminals indexed in S3 are kept inactive. The
cell associations for downlink are given by the following words during the downlink, and hence our average puDoF
description.
during the downlink is
(
{1,
2,
·
·
·
,
κ
−
1},
∀i
∈
S
,
1
2( L+1
2κ
CiD =
2 + (Nc − (L + 1)))
=
.
{ + κ,  + κ + 1, · · · ,  + 2κ − 1},
∀i ∈ S2 .
L + 2κ
L + 2( L+1
2 + (Nc − (L + 1)))
If L is even, we partition the indices of mobile terminals
A similar argument follows for the case when L is even. We
in the subnetwork into three sets:
have that (10) is valid thus Theorem 2 holds.
Figures 1 and 2 serve as examples for the average uplinkS 0 1 = {,  + 1, · · · ,  + κ − 1},
downlink inner bounds defined in this section .
0
S 2 = {2 + κ − 1, 2 + κ + 1 · · · , 2 + 2κ − 2},
In the case of L = 1, the optimal puDoF is characterized
S 0 3 = {1, 2, · · · , L + 2κ} \ (S1 ∪ S2 ).
in [13]. The findings there coincide with our findings, as
L = 1 we find that for Nc ≥ L + 1, it directly implies
The mobile terminals indexed in S30 are kept inactive. The that  = 1, andκ = (N − L) = N − 1 which results in
c
c
2(Nc −1)
cell associations
are given by the following description.
(
.
γD (Nc , L) = 2(N
c −1)+1
{1, 2, · · · , κ − 1},
∀i ∈ S 0 1 ,
CiD =
{ + κ,  + κ + 1, · · · ,  + 2κ − 1},
∀i ∈ S 0 2 . VIII. AVERAGE U PLINK -D OWNLINK D O F WITH F ULL
U PLINK D O F
So If L is odd we have a subnetwork of L+2κ transmitterWe show that the downlink puDoF as described in (11)
receiver pairs and we decode
is optimal when we have unity DoF for uplink, i.e., each
( + κ − 1 −  + 1) + (2 + 2κ − 2 − (2 + κ) + 1) = 2κ mobile terminal is associated with all the base stations con-

nected to it. In other words, we are restricted in this section
to cell associations that satisfy the following definition.
Definition 1: We say that an association scheme is called
a Full coverage association if each mobile terminal is
associated with all the base stations connected to it. More
precisely, ∀i ∈ K, {i, i − 1, · · · i − L} ∈ Ci .
We then have the following theorem:
Theorem 3: Optimal downlink puDoF when we have a
full coverage association and Nc > L is characterized as
γD (L, Nc ) =
.

2(d L+1
2 e + (Nc − L + 1))
L + 2(d L+1
2 e + (Nc − L + 1))

To help in proving Theorem 3, we define the following:
 = d L+1
2 e and κ =  + Nc − (L + 1). In order to prove
Theorem 3, we first break up the network into subnetworks
of 2κ + L consecutive base station (transmitter) and mobile
terminal (receiver) pairs. Label each subnetwork Lk such
that the lowest index of a base station and mobile terminal
in Lk is k×(2κ+L). Our proof will be based on the concept
that to break the puDoF described in Theorem 3, at least one
subnetwork of 2κ + L consecutive MT-BS pairs must have
more than 2κ + 1 active mobile terminals.
First, we show that without borrowing base stations
from preceding subnetworks, surpassing the puDoF value in
Theorem 3 is impossible. To do so, we first define a special
class of downlink schemes and then formulate a lemma.
Definition 2: We say that a downlink scheme relies
on Subnetwork-only downlink decoding if transmissions
from a subnetwork can only be decoded in the same subnetwork.
Lemma 3: Utilizing subnetwork-only downlink when we
already have a full coverage association scheme, a subnetwork can decode a maximum of 2κ words. Furthermore, for
a subnetwork to decode 2κ words it must be that the last
receiver in the subnetwork is active.
Proof: We prove Lemma 3 by contradiction. Say 2κ+1
words are decoded, then at least 2κ + 1 transmitters are
active in the subnetwork. So there exists at least one active
transmitter, say BS i, indexed between the indices of two
sets of κ active transmitters. Let ν1 and ν2 be the sets of
indices of the active transmitters above and below i, with
respect to order. Also, let x = max ν1 , and y = min ν2 .
We first observe that the smallest possible value for x
is κ and similarly the largest possible value of y is κ + ,
so we have i ∈ ν3 = {κ + 1, κ + 2, · · · , κ +  − 1}. For
there to be 2κ + 1 words decoded words in the subnetwork,
we also need 2κ + 1 active receivers, thus we can make
corresponding disjoint index sets ν10 , ν20 , and ν30 . Where
receivers with indices in ν10 receive the first κ words,
receivers with indices in ν20 receive the last κ words, and ν30
is the set of indices of receivers that can decode the extra
word, say Wj . Now, x0 = max ν10 and y 0 = min ν20 , so we
observe that the smallest possible value for x0 is κ +  − 1
and the largest possible value of y 0 is κ+L. Hence, we have
j ∈ ν30 = {κ + , · · · κ + L − 1} ∩ {i, i + 1, · · · i + L}.

We then observe that at least +1 active receivers indexed
in the set ν 0 = ν10 ∪ ν20 observe the extra transmitted signal.
To aid in writing, we define µ0j as the index set of receivers
listening to transmitters which are transmitting Wj . Hence,
for every receiver indexed µ0j there must be a unique active
transmitter indexed in ν = ν1 ∪ ν3 such that the transmitter
is associated with Wj to deliver the message at MT j and
cancel interference at all other receivers indexed in ν 0 ; call
this set of indices µj . With just the full association scheme
there are at most  − 1 such active transmitters, thus we
must activate more transmitters indexed in ν3 , or add more
active transmitters indexed in ν1 ∪ ν2 to Cj . Either of those
actions increases the size of µ0j thus we must then increase
the size of µj to cancel interference. So to cancel the
interference of the extra transmitter we will always introduce
more interference in the channel. So we cannot get more
than 2κ words decoded through Subnetwork-only decoding.
Additionally if the last receiver was not active we would
have that the largest possible value of y 0 is κ + L − 1 which
would imply that it would be observing transmissions from
BS x, and to erase that interference an extra transmitter
indexed in {κ + 1, · · · y 0 } must be activated during the
downlink and associated with everything that BS x is
associated with during the downlink. But this would mean
at least one of the messages associated with BS x during
the downlink would be associated with more than Nc base
stations overall (uplink and downlink), which is not possible,
thus the last active receiver must be active. This method of
reasoning validates Lemma 3
If Theorem 3 were not true then we would have that at
least one subnetwork in the entire network must decode at
least 2κ + x words. We present cases on x.
If x = 1, let the first subnetwork that decodes 2κ + 1
words be Lk . Lemma 3 would then imply that at least one
base station is active in Lk−1 such that this base station
is either canceling the interference induced from the extra
base stations active in Lk or is the extra base station that
is carrying the extra word for Lk , but this implies that in
Lk−1 at least the last mobile terminal cannot be active,
which using Lemma 3 implies that at most 2κ − 1 words
can be decoded in Lk−1 . Thus the average over the two
subnetworks is still 2κ words decoded per subnetwork.
When x > 1, one observes that the maximum number
of base stations that can help from Lk−1 when trying to
decode words in Lk is L−1. These extra L−1 base stations
are being used to cancel interference induced from extra
base stations in Lk . That would imply that the preceding
subnetwork would only help with decoding a maximum of
L + Nc − (L + 1) words, so the smallest index of an active
receiver in Lk that is being helped by transmitters in Lk−1 is
at most L + Nc − (L + 1), which implies that the next active
receiver must have an index that is at least 2L+Nc −L + 1,
which leaves at most κ +  − L receivers to decode at least
2κ + 1 − (L + Nc − (L + 1)) = κ +  − L + 1 words.
Thus, in order to decode 2κ + x words where x > 1 in

subnetwork Lk , we require that κ +  − L receivers decode
at least κ +  − L + 1 words. Clearly this is impossible.
Thus, only an average of 2κ words per subnetwork can be
2κ
words decoded per receiver,
decoded, which results in 2κ+L
which is exactly what Theorem 3 states.
IX. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS
In this work, we presented an effort to understand optimal
cell association decisions in locally connected interference
networks, focusing on optimizing for the average uplinkdownlink puDoF problem. We consider a backhaul constraint that allows for associating each mobile terminal with
Nc base stations (cells), and an interference network where
each base station is connected to a corresponding mobile
terminal as well as L mobile terminals with succeeding
indices. We characterized the optimal association and puDoF
for the uplink problem when zero-forcing schemes are
considered. We also found that the characterization of the
optimal association for the average uplink-downlink puDoF
problem when Nc < L2 follows from our uplink characterization and previous work for the downlink problem. We
also presented the optimal zero-forcing downlink scheme if
we fix the uplink scheme to the uplink-only-optimal scheme
when Nc ≥ L + 1. We conjecture that it is in fact optimal to
have full DoF in the uplink when Nc ≥ L + 1, and hence it
would follow that the presented cell association and average
puDoF are optimal in this case.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Veetil, K. Kuchi and R. K. Ganti. (2015, Dec.). Performance of cloud radio access networks. [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.05904v1.pdf
[2] A. Checko, H. L. Christiansen, Y. Yan, L. Scolari, G. Kardaras,
M. S. Berger and L. Dittmann, “Cloud RAN for mobile networks
- a technology overview,” IEEE Communication Surveys Tutorials,
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 405-426, First Quart. 2015.
[3] China Mobile, “Next generation fronthaul interface,” White Paper,
Oct. 2015.
[4] The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership. (2015, Jan.). 5GXhaul Project. [Online]. Available: https://5g-ppp.eu/5g-xhaul/
[5] O. Simeone, A. Maeder, M. Peng, O. Sahin and W. Yu.
(2015, Dec.). Cloud radio access network: Virtualizing wireless access for dense heterogeneous systems. [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.07743.
[6] S. -H. Park, O. Simeone and S. Shamai. (2016, Jan.). Joint optimization of cloud and edge processing for fog radio access networks.
[Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.02460.
[7] P. Marsch and G. P. Fettweis, Coordinated Multi-Point in Mobile
Communications: From Theory to Practice, 1st ed. New York, NY:
Cambridge, 2011.
[8] V. S. Annapureddy, A. El Gamal, V. V. Veeravalli, “Degrees of
Freedom of Interference Channels with CoMP Transmission and
Reception,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 5740-5760,
Sep. 2012.
[9] V. Ntranos, M. Maddah-Ali, G. Caire. (2014, Jul.). On
uplink-downlink duality for cellular IA. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3538.
[10] M. H. M. Costa, “Writing on dirty paper (corresp.),” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 29, pp. 439-441, May 1983.
[11] A. El Gamal, V. S. Annapureddy, and V. V. Veeravalli, “Interference
channels with coordinated multi-point transmission: Degrees of freedom, message assignment, and fractional reuse”, IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 3483-3498, Mar. 2014.

[12] M. Bande, A. El Gamal, V. V. Veeravalli. (2016, Oct.). Degrees
of Freedom in Wireless Interference Networks with Cooperative
Transmission and Backhaul Load Constraints. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.09453.
[13] A. El Gamal, “Cell associations that maximize the average uplinkdownlink degrees of freedom,” in Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Barcelona, Spain, Jul. 2016.
[14] A. Wyner, “Shannon-theoretic approach to a Gaussian cellular
multiple-access channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 40, no. 5,
pp. 1713-1727, Nov. 1994.
[15] M. Wigger, R. Timo and S. Shamai (2016, Mar.). Conferencing in
Wyner’s Asymmetric Interference Network: Effect of Number of
Rounds. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05540
[16] V. Cadambe and S. A. Jafar, “Interference alignment and degrees of
freedom of the K-user interference channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 3425-3441, Aug. 2008.
[17] V. Ntranos, M. Maddah-Ali, G. Caire. (2014, Feb.). Cellular Interference Alignment [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3119.

