1

Degrees-of-Freedom of the MIMO
Three-Way Channel with Node-Intermittency
Joachim Neu, Anas Chaaban, Aydin Sezgin, Mohamed-Slim Alouini

Abstract

arXiv:1708.08161v1 [cs.IT] 28 Aug 2017

The characterization of fundamental performance bounds of many-to-many communication systems in which
participating nodes are active in an intermittent way is one of the major challenges in communication theory. In
order to address this issue, we introduce the multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) three-way channel (3WC)
with an intermittent node and study its degrees-of-freedom (DoF) region and sum-DoF. We devise a non-adaptive
encoding scheme based on zero-forcing, interference alignment and erasure coding, and show its DoF region (and
thus sum-DoF) optimality for non-intermittent 3WCs and its sum-DoF optimality for (node-)intermittent 3WCs.
However, we show by example that in general some DoF tuples in the intermittent 3WC can only be achieved
by adaptive schemes, such as multi-hop or decode-forward relaying. This shows that non-adaptive encoding
is sufficient for the non-intermittent 3WC and for the sum-DoF of intermittent 3WCs, but adaptive encoding
is necessary for the DoF region of intermittent 3WCs. Our work contributes to a better understanding of the
fundamental limits of multi-way communication systems with intermittency and the impact of adaptation therein.

Index Terms
Degrees-of-freedom, three-way channel, intermittency, multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO), interference
alignment, zero forcing, relaying.

I. I NTRODUCTION
In multi-way communication scenarios multiple nodes communicate with each other, each acting as a source,
a destination, and possibly a relay at the same time. This mode of communication is especially important for
future systems employing full-duplex and device-to-device (D2D) communication, [2]–[4]. It is an important
technique for efficient resource utilization that is expected to gain more prominence in future communication
systems, especially with the rise of mesh networks, e.g., in industrial and vehicular networks.
Parts of the results of this paper were presented at ISIT 2017 [1].
The work of J. Neu, a student at Technische Universität München (TUM), 80333 München, Germany, was conducted during a research
internship at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). Email: joachim.neu@tum.de.
A. Chaaban and M.-S. Alouini are with the Division of Computer, Electrical, and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering (CEMSE) at
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia. Email: {anas.chaaban,slim.alouini}@kaust.edu.sa.
A. Sezgin is with the Institute of Digital Communication Systems at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (RUB), 44780 Bochum, Germany.
Email: aydin.sezgin@rub.de.
This work was supported in part by the German Research Foundation (DFG), under grant SE 1697/16.

2

1
1
2

1

1
1

τ

3

2

(a) no intermittency

τ

1

3

(b) node-intermittency

Fig. 1: MIMO 3WC with no intermittency such that all nodes are always connected (a) and node-intermittency
where node 1 is available only τ fraction of the time (b)

Several multi-way communication scenarios have been studied in the literature, [5]. It started with the twoway channel which was first studied by Shannon in [6] and subsequently in [7]–[10] for instance. Then, the
scope was extended to two-way networks where two groups of nodes communicate with each other in a two-way
fashion [11]–[13], and two-way relay networks where two nodes communicate with each other in a two-way
fashion via a relay node [14]–[17]. This line of research has been further extended to multi-way networks
where multiple nodes communicate with each other in a multi-way fashion, each node being a source and a
destination at the same time [18]–[22], and to multi-way relay networks where the same communication as in
multi-way networks takes place via a relay node [23]–[34].
A. The Three-Way Channel with Intermittency
In this work, we focus on the multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) three-way channel (3WC) which can
be described as follows: Consider a system consisting of three terminals communicating with each other in a
multi-way fashion, e.g., two D2D user terminals and a base station (BS) where the D2D users communicate
with each other while exchanging signals with the BS (control signals or data). This 3WC is an extension of
Shannon’s two-way channel [6] and has been studied in [20]–[22].
Therein, it is assumed that the three nodes are connected all the time (Fig. 1a). In practice however,
connectivity might be intermittent. For instance, a pair of D2D users, commonly chosen to be nearby users
[3], [4], might be both disconnected from the BS due to shadowing (Fig. 1b). Future generations of mobile
communication systems (e.g., using mmWaves, where line-of-sight (LOS) propagation will become dominant)
are expected to be heavily susceptible to this type of shadowing. In another scenario, the D2D users might
operate in an underlay mode over a resource block used by the BS to communicate to cellular users (CUs). The
BS connects to the D2D users whenever it does not communicate with a CU, and disconnects from the D2D
users otherwise (see Fig. 2). Note that D2D users are chosen so that they cause/receive negligible interference
(relative to the desired signals) to/from other nodes using the same resource block [35], [36]. In both cases the
two links from the D2D users to the BS are jointly intermittent, i.e., both are available or blocked at the same
time. We call this node intermittency and call the BS an intermittent node (from the D2D users’ perspective).
Motivated by these scenarios, we study the 3WC with this type of intermittency. The impact of intermittency
in various networks was studied in [37]–[40] for instance.

3

D2D
ere
interf
gible
negli

BS

D2D

BS

nce

D2D
(a) BS serving D2D users

CU

D2D

(b) BS serving CU

Fig. 2: A D2D pair sharing the same resources with a cellular user (CU), where the BS communicates with
the D2D pair part of the time (a) and with the CU the rest of the time (b). The D2D pair is far enough from
both the BS and the CU and thus causes/receives negligible interference (dotted).

B. Degrees-of-Freedom and Intermittency
In many previously mentioned works, the focus is generally on the capacity of the studied network. Since
finding the capacity is elusive in most cases, some works (and also this work) focus on the degrees-offreedom (DoF) which provide a good capacity approximation at high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) [41], thereby
highlighting the interaction between the signals of the different nodes while diminishing the impact of noise.
This is of interest since state-of-the-art wireless communication systems operate in a regime where they are
essentially interference-limited rather than noise-limited.
The concept of intermittency as a form of channel impairment also fits well with the philosophy of DoFs:
With increasing SNR, signal components ‘harden’ in the sense that some allow (almost) noise- and interferencefree communication at a rate that scales with SNR on a logarithmic scale, while others are hopelessly burried
in uncancelable interference and are therefore useless. This effect is exactly what the DoF perspective captures as it essentially counts available Shannon-Hartley communication ‘units’. Intermittency is the channel
impairment that goes well together with this ‘all or nothing’ perspective, capturing the notion that some signal
dimensions might become useless due to stochastic processes in the channel, such as shadowing of dominant
LOS components.
C. Scope of this Work
Here, we study the impact of node-intermittency on the DoF region and sum-DoF, i.e., the capacity scaling
versus SNR in a dB scale, of a full-duplex MIMO 3WC. In this MIMO network, each node generally has two
independent messages, each intended for one of the remaining two nodes. We pay particular attention to the
necessity (or the lack thereof) of adaptive encoding for reaching DoF region/sum-DoF. Adaptive encoding
enables cooperative communication schemes by allowing the transmit signal of a node to depend on its
previously received signals, which can be interpreted as a form of feedback. In contrast, with non-adaptive
encoding transmit signals depend only on the messages to be sent, and cooperation (e.g., in the form of

4

relaying) is excluded. The issue of (non-)adaptive encoding has been studied for other networks earlier in
[9]–[11] for instance.
We assume that nodes have causal knowledge of the intermittency state of adjacent links. This can be
obtained by estimating the connectivity from the receive signals (e.g., signal strength). Note that in some cases
the intermittency state can be known without the need for estimation, occasionally even ahead of time, e.g., in
the scenario of D2D/CU/BS users, where the BS knows its scheduling of users in advance and can anticipate
when it will not be able to receive the D2D user signals.
D. Outline and Overview of Results
After introducing the details of the system model in Section II and highlighting the main results in Section III,
we examine the (node-)intermittent 3WC in Section IV. We devise a non-adaptive encoding scheme based on
zero-forcing (ZF), interference alignment (IA) and erasure coding (EC) and derive its achievable DoF region
and sum-DoF. We present the genie-aided converse techniques used to derive DoF region and sum-DoF upper
bounds, both under non-adaptive and adaptive encoding. We conclude that for the intermittent 3WC the presented
non-adaptive scheme is sum-DoF optimal, so adaptation is not necessary to achieve sum-DoF. Then, we provide
examples of adaptive relaying schemes that can achieve a DoF region point that no non-adaptive scheme can
achieve. This shows that adaptive schemes can achieve strictly larger DoF regions, and therefore adaptation
is required to achieve the DoF region of intermittent 3WCs. To complete the picture, we examine the nonintermittent 3WC as special case of intermittent 3WCs in Section V. We show that for the non-intermittent 3WC
the presented scheme is DoF region optimal (and thus also sum-DoF optimal) and therefore adaptive encoding
is not required. This reveals an interesting interplay between intermittency and adaptation. In Section VI we
provide conclusive remarks and directions for future research.
E. Notation
Throughout the paper, we use xni := (xi,1 , . . . , xi,n ) for some index i, and xni,` := (xi,` , . . . , xi,n ). We use
regular letters to denote scalar-valued quantities, boldface letters to denote vector- und matrix-valued quantities;
lowercase letters for scalar and vector values (e.g., realizations of random variables), uppercase letters for matrix
values and for random variables. The N × N identity matrix is denoted IN , the N × N all-zero matrix is 0N .
We write X ∼ CN (0, Q) to indicate that X is a multivariate complex Gaussian random variable with zero
mean and covariance matrix Q, and S ∼ Bern(τ ) to indicate that S is Bernoulli distributed with Pr[S = 1] = τ
and Pr[S = 0] = 1 − τ =: τ . We write x+ to denote max{0, x} for some x ∈ R, and H † , H T , H H , and
span(H) to denote the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse, the transpose, the Hermitian transpose, and the subspace
spanned by the columns of the matrix H. By log(x) we denote the logarithm of x to base 2, by i → j the
communication from node i to node j one-way, and by i ↔ j both i → j and j → i. By pX (x) we denote the
probability density function (PDF) of random variable X.
II. T HE MIMO T HREE -WAY C HANNEL WITH N ODE -I NTERMITTENCY
Throughout this section we assume i, j, k ∈ {1, 2, 3} and mutually distinct, and n is the number of channel
accesses. The MIMO 3WC with node-intermittency is comprised of three terminals 1, 2 and 3 communicating

5

with each other in full-duplex mode over a shared medium. Each node i has two messages wij and wik
(wi := (wij , wik )) to be delivered to the remaining nodes j and k, and two messages ŵji and ŵki to be
decoded from the receive signals (Fig. 3). Each message wij is a realization of the random variable Wij . All
random variables Wij are independent. In the (node-)intermittent 3WC one link is always available and two
links are jointly intermittent with probability of being available τ (Fig. 1b and 3).
Our objects under investigation (sum-DoF and DoF region of the intermittent 3WC – both are introduced
in the sequel) depend on how the numbers of antennas at each node relate to each other, i.e., whether the
intermittent node has most, second most, or least antennas. To reduce the number of cases one has to analyze,
yet study the system without loss of generality (w.l.o.g.), two symmetries come to mind that can be exploited:
Either a) fix a certain node to be intermittent (e.g., node 1 is intermittent), and investigate all possible relations
among the numbers of antennas, or b) fix a relation between the numbers of antennas, and allow any one of
the three nodes to be intermittent. The respective remaining cases follow by renaming. Preliminary work [1]
fixed node 1 to be intermittent and further assumed a relation on the numbers of antennas, which is not w.l.o.g.
We fix node 1 to be intermittent, but allow for any combination of numbers of antennas, which is approach a)
and w.l.o.g.
Node i is equipped with Mi antennas that are used for reception and transmission simultaneously. We assume
channel accesses of the nodes are synchronized and time-discretized: At time instance ` the transmit signal
xi,` ∈ CMi is a realization of a random vector Xi,` satisfying the power constraint
n
X

E[kXi,` k22 ] ≤ nP.

(1)

`=1

The receive signals yi,` ∈ CMi are (Fig. 4)

 
y1,`
0M1

 

 
y  = s H
 2,`   ` 12

 
y3,`
s` H13

s` H21

s` H31

0M2

H32

H23

0M3


 

x1,`
z1,`

 


 

 x  + z  .
  2,`   2,` 

 

x3,`
z3,`

(2)

Hij ∈ CMj ×Mi represents the channel matrix from node i to node j and is constant over time and known
to all nodes in advance. The elements of these matrices are drawn independently from the same continuous
distribution, such that rank(Hij ) = min(Mj , Mi ) almost surely. zi,` ∈ CMi is a realization of the noise process
Zi,` ∼ CN (0, σ 2 IMi ) independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) with respect to (w.r.t.) `, and s` ∈ {0, 1}
is a realization of the intermittency state process S` . S` ∼ Bern(τ ) is assumed to be i.i.d. w.r.t. `. The state
sequence sn is causally known at all nodes (i.e., in time instance ` all nodes know s`−1 ). All random variables
Hij , Zin and S n are mutually independent. We denote ρ :=

P
σ2

and call it SNR (signal-to-noise-power-ratio)

throughout the paper.
The messages Wij are each uniformly distributed over Wij = {1, . . . , |Wij (ρ)|}. Using an encoding function
Ei,` node i constructs xi,` either from (wij , wik ) (non-adaptive encoding) or from (wij , wik , yi`−1 ) (adaptive
encoding). After n transmissions (where n is the code length), node i decodes its desired messages using a
decoding function Fi to obtain (ŵji , ŵki ) = Fi (sn , yin , wij , wik ). Transmission is considered successful if all
messages are recovered successfully (wij = ŵij ), otherwise an error is reported. The average over all messages
of the error probability is denoted by Pe,n .

6

W12 , W13

Ŵ21 , Ŵ31

Node 1

S

Node 2

W21 , W23

Node 3

Ŵ12 , Ŵ32

W31 , W32

Ŵ13 , Ŵ23

Fig. 3: Every node i in the MIMO 3WC with node-intermittency sends messages wij and wik to nodes j and
k, respectively (with i, j, k ∈ {1, 2, 3} mutually distinct). W.l.o.g. node 1 is assumed to be intermittent.

M1
Y1

X1
H12

Z1

H13
S

S
Z3
H21
X2

Y3

H23
H31

M2

M3

H32
Y2

Z2

X3

Fig. 4: AWGN channel model of the shared medium in the MIMO 3WC with node-intermittency, with channel
inputs Xi and outputs Yi , channel gains Hij , noise Zi and intermittency state S (time index ` omitted)

A rate tuple
R(ρ) := (R12 (ρ), R13 (ρ), R21 (ρ), R23 (ρ), R31 (ρ), R32 (ρ)) ∈ R6+
with Rij (ρ) =

log(|Wij (ρ)|)
n

(3)

is said to be achievable if there exists a sequence of encoder-decoder pairs for

increasing code length n, where Pe,n → 0 as n → ∞. The capacity region C(ρ) is the set of all achievable
rate tuples.
The DoF region D is the set of achievable DoF tuples
d := (d12 , d13 , d21 , d23 , d31 , d32 ) ∈ R6+

(4)

7

defined as in [42]. Roughly speaking, if a rate tuple R(ρ) as a function of ρ is achievable, i.e., R(ρ) ∈ C(ρ) for
all ρ > 0, then the DoF tuple d with dij = lim supρ→∞

Rij (ρ)
log(ρ)

is achievable. We denote DoF regions with D

and use suitable subscripts when further restricting assumptions apply (e.g., under non-adaptive encoding). We
P
define the corresponding sum-DoF as dsum = maxd∈D i,j∈{1,2,3},i6=j dij . The DoF perspective only captures
rate contributions that are non-vanishing relative to log(ρ) as we let ρ → ∞. It neglects vanishing rate portions
f (ρ) that grow sublinear in log(ρ) and are therefore o [log(ρ)], i.e., where limρ→∞

f (ρ)
log(ρ)

= 0.

III. M AIN R ESULTS
In this section, we summarize the main results of this paper. We denote the DoF region of the intermittent
3WC under adaptive encoding by DI , the DoF region of the intermittent 3WC under non-adaptive encoding
I
I
, and the sum-DoF by dIsum . Obviously, DA
⊆ DI . We denote the DoF region of the non-intermittent
by DA

3WC by DN and the sum-DoF by dN
sum . In Section IV-A we devise a non-adaptive encoding scheme whose
I
achievable DoF region we denote by DIB,A
. We start with this achievable DoF region given in the following

theorem.
I
satisfying the
Theorem 1 (DoF Region Inner Bound for Node-Intermittent 3WC). All DoF tuples d ∈ DIB,A

following set of inequalities are achievable in the node-intermittent 3WC using non-adaptive encoding:
max{d12 + d13 , d21 + d31 } ≤ τ M1
max{d21 + τ d23 , d12 + τ d32 } ≤ τ M2
max{d31 + τ d32 , d13 + τ d23 } ≤ τ M3
max{d12 + d13 + τ d23 , d21 + d31 + τ d32 } ≤ τ max {M1 , M3 }
max{d12 + d13 + τ d32 , d21 + d31 + τ d23 } ≤ τ max {M1 , M2 }
max{d12 + d31 + τ d32 , d21 + d13 + τ d23 } ≤ τ max {M2 , M3 }
min{d12 , d13 , d21 , d23 , d31 , d32 } ≥ 0
I
Therefore, DIB,A
constitutes an inner bound on the DoF region of the node-intermittent 3WC, such that
I
I
DIB,A
⊆ DA
⊆ DI .

Proof. This theorem follows by the construction in Section IV-A.
Subsequently we investigate whether this non-adaptive scheme is optimal. For the intermittent 3WC it turns
out to be sum-DoF optimal, establishing the sum-DoF of the intermittent 3WC and the fact that adaptive
encoding is not necessary to achieve it.
Theorem 2 (Sum-DoF of Node-Intermittent 3WC). A non-adaptive encoding scheme achieves the sum-DoF of
the node-intermittent 3WC given by
dIsum = 2τ min{M2 , M3 } + 2τ (M1 + M2 + M3 − min{M1 , M2 , M3 } − max{M1 , M2 , M3 }).
Proof. The theorem follows from achievability and converse results developed in Sections IV-B1 and IV-B2
(Lemmas 1 and 2).

8

From a DoF region perspective however it turns out that non-adaptive schemes cannot be optimal, and
therefore the presented scheme is not DoF region optimal in the intermittent 3WC.
Theorem 3 (Necessity of Adaptive Encoding for DoF Region of Node-Intermittent 3WC). Adaptive encoding
is required to achieve the DoF region of the node-intermittent 3WC, i.e.
I
6= ∅
D I \ DA

Proof. The theorem follows from an upper bound on d31 under non-adaptive encoding, presented in Section IV-C1, and counterexamples of adaptive schemes exceeding this bound, devised in Section IV-C2.
Theorems 2 and 3 show that non-adaptive encoding is sufficient to achieve sum-DoF, but not sufficient to
achieve the DoF region of the intermittent 3WC. This is particularly interesting in light of the fact, that nonadaptive encoding is sufficient to achieve the DoF region of the non-intermittent 3WC, which the presented
non-adaptive scheme does.
Theorem 4 (DoF Region of Non-Intermittent 3WC). The DoF region of the non-intermittent 3WC DN (with
M1 ≥ M2 ≥ M3 w.l.o.g.) is given by
max{d12 + d13 + d23 , d12 + d13 + d32 } ≤ M1
max{d21 + d31 + d32 , d21 + d31 + d23 } ≤ M1
max{d21 + d13 + d23 , d12 + d31 + d32 } ≤ M2
max{d31 + d32 , d13 + d23 } ≤ M3
min{d12 , d13 , d21 , d23 , d31 , d32 } ≥ 0
and achievable using a non-adaptive encoding scheme.
Proof. The theorem follows from Lemmas 5 and 6 in Sections V-A and V-B.
This complements earlier work [18] that characterized the sum-DoF of the non-intermittent 3WC and showed
its achievability using non-adaptive encoding. Our results show that intermittency does not decrease sum-DoF
as long as node 1 has the smallest number of antennas. Otherwise, intermittency does affect sum-DoF, which
is affine-linearly increasing in τ .
Fig. 5 and 6 plot sum-DoF of non-intermittent and node-intermittent 3WC against M3 , for different values
of τ and M2 , respectively, in a scenario where node 1 has the largest number of antennas. The resulting graphs
are piecewise linear with a change in slope at M3 = M2 . For M3 < M2 the sum-DoF of the 3WC is a constant
depending only on M2 , for M3 > M2 it is linear in M3 . The slope of the sum-DoF of the intermittent 3WC
is proportional to τ for M3 < M2 and proportional to τ for M3 > M2 .
The sum-DoF of the intermittent 3WC with 0 < τ < 1 is a convex time-sharing combination of the two
extreme cases τ = 0 and τ = 1 (Fig. 5). Note, that such a time-sharing combination is the best any non-adaptive
coding scheme can achieve, when each node knows the intermittency state ahead of time and codes optimally
for the respective state in each time instance `. The achievability scheme presented in this work does not use
intermittency state information at all, yet achieves the same sum-DoF, averaging out intermittency state through

9

M1 = 10, M2 = 7
20
18
14τ + 18τ = 15

Sum-DoF

15

14
14

10
6τ + 14τ = 8
6

5

0

0

2

3WC
τ = 0.00
τ = 0.25
τ = 1.00

4

6

8

10

M3
Fig. 5: Sum-DoF of 3WC (red) and intermittent 3WC (blue) with varying τ (marks show case τ = 0.25 as
convex combination of extreme cases τ = 0 and τ = 1)

M1 = 10, τ = 0.7
20

Sum-DoF

15

10
M2
M2
M2
M2
M2
M2

5

0

0

2

4

6

8

=2
=5
=9
=2
=5
=9

10

M3
Fig. 6: Sum-DoF of 3WC (red) and intermittent 3WC (blue) with varying M2

erasure coding. This shows that intermittency state information is dispensable for the non-adaptive scheme in
this case. Furthermore, note that the sum-DoF of the 3WC is larger than the sum-DoF of the intermittent 3WC
(Fig. 6).
In the sequel we provide detailed derivations and proofs of our main results highlighted in this section.

10

Node 1
S3 ∼ Bern(τ3 )

Node 2

S2 ∼ Bern(τ2 )

Node 3

S1 ∼ Bern(τ1 )

Fig. 7: Rationale behind the aliases s1,` := 1, s2,` := s3,` := s` , τ1 := 1, τ2 := τ3 := τ introduced in
Section IV-A: treating every link j ↔ k as potentially intermittent with intermittency state variable si,`
(marginally distributed as Bern(τi )) allows to derive general expressions for, e.g., yi,` based on xj,` , xk,` ,
sj,` and sk,` , independent of whether i = 1, i = 2 or i = 3

IV. N ODE I NTERMITTENCY
In this section we first introduce a non-adaptive ZF/IA/EC-based scheme and derive its achievable sumDoF and DoF region. We then show, using enhanced genie-aided bounds for both adaptive and non-adaptive
encoding, that this scheme is sum-DoF optimal, but not DoF region optimal. Furthermore, no non-adaptive
scheme can be DoF region optimal, since tighter outer bounds hold for non-adaptive schemes, that however can
be exceeded by adaptive schemes, as we show by examples of multi-hop and decode-forward relaying. This
establishes that adaptive encoding is necessary from a DoF region perspective, but non-adaptive encoding is
sufficient to achieve sum-DoF.
A. A Non-Adaptive Scheme Based on ZF, IA and EC
In this subsection we present a non-adaptive transmission scheme based on ZF, IA and EC that provides an
inner bound on sum-DoF and DoF region of 3WCs. Throughout this section we continue to assume i, j, k ∈
{1, 2, 3} and mutually distinct. For notational simplicity (capturing the symmetries inherent in the model thereby
avoiding case distinctions), we introduce the following aliases that will be resubstituted towards the end of the
section:
s1,` := 1

s2,` := s3,` := s`

τ1 := 1

τ2 := τ3 := τ

(5)

The idea behind these aliases is visualized in Fig. 7: Using these aliases we can, for instance, find a general
expression for the receive signal yi,` of node i in terms of the transmit signals xj,` and xk,` of nodes j and
k, and the intermittency states sk,` and sj,` (marginally distributed as Bern(τk ) and Bern(τj ), respectively) of
the links j ↔ i and k ↔ i, respectively. The fact that 2 ↔ 3 is not intermittent, and 1 ↔ 2 and 1 ↔ 3 are
jointly intermittent, is accounted for by the appropriate resubstitution at due time.
[ZF]

1) Encoding: Each node splits each message wij into wij

interference alignment, respectively. At node i, the four messages
[q]n

codewords xij

[q]

with symbols xij,` ∈ C

[q]
aij

[IA]

and wij
[q]
wij

to be sent via zero-forcing and

(q ∈ {ZF, IA}) are encoded into
[q]

each, for some vector lengths aij ∈ N0 . The symbols of these

11

TX space
Z12

Z13

A21

TX space

A31

Z21

Z23 A12 A32

Node 1

Node 2
Node 3

Z13 Z23 A31 A32
Z23

A21

A32

A12

τ

A12

τ

RX space
Fig. 8: Visualization of transmit (TX) signal spaces at nodes 1 and 2 and receive (RX) signal space at node 3
depending on intermittency state of 1 ↔ 3 where the first and second row are received with probability τ and
[IA]

[ZF]

τ , respectively (Zij denotes wij , Aji denotes wij , desired signals in red, interfering signals in blue)

codewords are chosen i.i.d. CN (0, pi Ia[q] ) respectively, where pi is the power. The power constraints on xni
ij

stated in Section II are satisfied by choosing
pi =

P
[ZF]
aij

+

[IA]
aij

[ZF]

+ aik

[IA]

.

(6)

+ aik

For encoding, the codes are designed to employ EC to be able to tolerate a certain number of symbol erasures
(e.g., caused by intermittency), by not using all codeword symbols for net user data, but deliberately adding
some redundancy. The rates and DoFs are thereby reduced accordingly. While for the non-intermittent 3WC
this additional layer of EC is not required, it is made use of for intermittent 3WCs to cope with intermittency.
2) Transmission: At time `, node i sends
h

X

xi,` =

[q]

[q]

[q]

[q]

Vij xij,` + Vik xik,`

i

(7)

q∈{ZF,IA}
[q]

[q]

where Vij ∈ CMi ×aij are pre-coding matrices with unit-norm column vectors. Zero-forcing is achieved by
[ZF]

choosing the Vij

such that
[ZF]

Hik Vij
[ZF]

Such matrices Vij

= 0.

(8)
[ZF]

exist if node i has enough antennas to send aij

streams to node j without interfering

with node k, i.e.
[ZF]

aij

≤ (Mi − Mk )+ .

(9)

To avoid any overlap of the different transmit signal subspaces, we require furthermore that
[ZF]

aij

[IA]

[ZF]

+ aij + aik

[IA]

+ aik ≤ Mi .

(10)

12

3) Decoding: Node i receives (Fig. 8)
yi,` = sk,` Hji xj,` + sj,` Hki xk,` + zi,`

(11)



[IA]
h
i
x
X
 jk,` 
[q] [q]
[q] [q]
=
sk,` Hji Vji xji,` + sj,` Hki Vki xki,` + Gi 
 + zi,`
[IA]
xkj,`
q∈{ZF,IA}
[IA]
with Gi = [ sk,` Hji Vjk

[IA]

sj,` Hki Vkj

[ZF]

[ZF]

[ZF]

(12)

[ZF]

]. Note that the terms Hji Vjk xjk,` and Hki Vkj xkj,` vanished due to

the zero-forcing condition (8). The first summand represents the four desired signals from j → i and k → i,
the second summand represents occasional interference from j ↔ k, and the third summand is noise.
[q]n

To decode a desired signal xji , node i zero-forces the remaining signals by multiplying yin with a suitable
[q]

[q]

post-coder Tji ∈ Caji ×Mi with unit-norm row vectors satisfying:
[q]

[q]H

Tji Tji
[q]

Tji

h

[q]

Hji Vji

[ZF]

Hki Vki

[IA]

Hki Vki
[q]

= Ia[q]

(13)

ji

i

with q ∈ {ZF, IA} \ {q}

Gi = 0
[q]

[q]

rank(Tji Hji Vji ) = aji

(14)
(15)

Here, (14) ensures zero-forcing of the remaining three messages and the interference and (15) ensures post[q]

coding without loss of meaningful signal dimensions. The existence of such post-coders Tji is guaranteed as
long as the columns of
h
[ZF]
Hji Vji

[IA]

[ZF]

Hji Vji

Hki Vki

[IA]

Hki Vki

Gi

i

[IA]

(16)
[IA]

are linearly independent. Let γi be the dimension of span(Hji Vjk ) ∩ span(Hki Vkj ). Then, the dimension
[IA]

[IA]

of span(Gi ) is ajk + akj − γi , and the above linear independence is possible almost surely if we choose
[ZF]

aji

[IA]

[ZF]

+ aji + aki

[IA]

[IA]

[IA]

+ aki + (ajk + akj − γi ) ≤ Mi .

(17)

[q]

To minimize the impact of interference, we choose the pre-coders Vij such that all γi are maximized, i.e.,
we ‘maximally’ align the interference subspaces at the receivers. The γi cannot be chosen arbitrarily large,
the dimension of the intersection of the interference subspaces (γi ) is upper bounded by the dimensions of the
[IA]

[IA]

interference subspaces (ajk and akj ). Furthermore, γi needs to be smaller than the dimension of span(Hji )∩
span(Hki ), which is (Mj + Mk − Mi )+ almost surely. Therefore, we require that
[IA]

[IA]

γi ≤ min{ajk , akj , (Mj + Mk − Mi )+ }.

(18)

After post-coding, node i is left with the signals
[q]

[q]

[q]

[q]

[q]

yji,` = sk,` Tji Hji Vji xji,` + Tji zi,` .

(19)

The resulting channel is an erasure-Gaussian MIMO channel with erasure probability τ k , i.e., a channel whose
output is
[q]

[q]

[q]

[q]

[q]

Yji = Sk Tji Hji Vji Xji + Tji Zi

(20)

13

[q]

with random variables Sk ∼ Bern(τk ), Xji ∼ CN (0, pj Ia[q] ) and Zi ∼ CN (0, σ 2 IMi ). We treat this as a
ji

channel with state known causally to the receiver [43, ch. 7.4], such that for large n, the achievable rate over
[q]

[q]

this channel is the mutual information between Xji and (Yji , Sk ):
[q]

[q]

[q]

[q]

I(Xji ; Yji Sk ) = I(Xji ; Yji | Sk )
[q]

(21)
[q]

[q]

[q]

= τk I(Xji ; Yji | Sk = 1) + τ k I(Xji ; Yji | Sk = 0)


pj [q]
[q] [q]H
H [q]H
Tji
= τk log det Ia[q] + 2 Tji Hji Vji Vji Hji
ji
σ

(22)
(23)

[q]

Due to (6) and (15), this leads to a DoF of τk aji , and the code that achieves it is an EC.
[ZF]

4) Achievable DoF Region: For n large, i → j has a total of τk aij
[ZF]

dij = τk aij

[IA]

+ τk aij

DoFs per channel use,

[IA]

+ τk aij .

(24)
[q]

Collecting (9), (10), (17) and (18) as well as non-negativity of every aij , we obtain:
[ZF]

aij
[ZF]

aji

[IA]

[ZF]

+ aji + aki

[IA]

[ZF]

+ aij + aik

[IA]

[IA]

[IA]

+ aik ≤ Mi

(25)

[IA]

+ aki + (ajk + akj − γi ) ≤ Mi
[ZF]

aij

(26)

≤ (Mi − Mk )+
[IA]

(27)

[IA]

γi ≤ min{ajk , akj , (Mj + Mk − Mi )+ }
[q]

0 ≤ aij

(28)
(29)

Using (24), we obtain:
τj dij + τk dik ≤ τj τk Mi
[ZF]

[ZF]

τj τi dji + τk τi dki + τj τk djk + τk τj dkj − τi τj τk ajk − τi τk τj akj − τi τj τk γi ≤ τi τj τk Mi
[ZF]

τi (γi + ajk ) ≤ djk

(30)
(31)
(32)

γi ≤ (Mj + Mk − Mi )+ (33)
[ZF]

aij
[ZF]

≤ (Mi − Mk )+

min{aij , dij , γi } ≥ 0

(34)
(35)

Instantiating these constraints for every possible combination of i, j, k ∈ {1, 2, 3} mutually distinct, resubstituting all τi from (5), collecting the resulting bounds and eliminating redundant bounds, finally yields (for
both (i, i) ∈ {(2, 3), (3, 2)}):

[ZF]

d12 + d13 ≤ τ M1

(36)

di1 + τ dii ≤ τ Mi

(37)

[ZF]

(38)

d21 + d31 + τ d23 + τ d32 − τ a23 − τ a32 − τ γ1 ≤ τ M1
[ZF]

d1i + τ dii + d1i + di1 − τ a1i

[ZF]

− τ ai1

− τ γi ≤ τ Mi

(39)

[ZF]

(40)

[ZF]

(41)

0 ≤ (γ1 + aii ) ≤ dii
0 ≤ τ (γi + a1i ) ≤ d1i

14

[ZF]

0 ≤ τ (γi + ai1 ) ≤ di1

(42)

0 ≤ γ1 ≤ (M2 + M3 − M1 )+

(43)

0 ≤ γi ≤ (M1 + Mi − Mi )+

(44)

[ZF]

≤ (M1 − Mi )+

(45)

[ZF]

≤ (Mi − Mi )+

(46)

[ZF]

≤ (Mi − M1 )+

(47)

0 ≤ a1i

0 ≤ ai1
0 ≤ aii

In order to resolve the (.)+ expressions, we do the following for each of the twelve cases of Mi ≥ Mj +Mk ≥
Mj ≥ Mk and Mj + Mk ≥ Mi ≥ Mj ≥ Mk (for all possible combinations i, j, k ∈ {1, 2, 3} mutually distinct):
1) Instantiate the (.)+ expressions under the respective assumption on the numbers of antennas, therefore
[ZF]

some of the aij

and γi will be forced to zero.
[ZF]

2) Perform Fourier-Motzkin’s elimination to remove all remaining aij

and γi and obtain the achievable

DoF region.
We then combine the resulting achievable DoF regions into the following compact formulation:
max{d12 + d13 , d21 + d31 } ≤ τ M1

(48)

max{d21 + τ d23 , d12 + τ d32 } ≤ τ M2

(49)

max{d31 + τ d32 , d13 + τ d23 } ≤ τ M3

(50)

max{d12 + d13 + τ d23 , d21 + d31 + τ d32 } ≤ τ max {M1 , M3 }

(51)

max{d12 + d13 + τ d32 , d21 + d31 + τ d23 } ≤ τ max {M1 , M2 }

(52)

max{d12 + d31 + τ d32 , d21 + d13 + τ d23 } ≤ τ max {M2 , M3 }

(53)

min{d12 , d13 , d21 , d23 , d31 , d32 } ≥ 0

(54)

This region is achievable for tuples d with non-negative integer entries. Tuples with non-negative real entries
(such as the corner points of the region) are first approximated by non-negative rationals which then can be
achieved using symbol extension, as in [44].
I
. This proves Theorem 1.
The set of all DoF tuples d satisfying constraints (48) to (54) is denoted by DIB,A

What is the rationale behind the DoF region inner bound (48) to (54)?
The first three inequalities constrain the sum-DoF of outbound and inbound streams at each node, similar to
cut-set bounds. The next three inequalities follow this rule: For each of the three links 1 ↔ 2, 1 ↔ 3 and 2 ↔ 3
there are two DoF variables, one for each direction (i.e., d12 and d21 , etc.). For each link pick one direction.
There are eight such combinations. Whenever a combination contains both DoF variables that occur in a node’s
outbound or inbound sum-DoF constraint, the number of antennas at this node appears in the max{.} operator
at the right side of the inequality. This means that whenever a node’s index appears two times as left or two
times as right index, this node’s index appears also in the max{.} on the right side.
As can be seen above, there are six cases where each case applies to two nodes each, while for the third
node it does not, because the third node’s index appears once as left and once as right index. There are two
cases missing altogether, d12 + d31 + τ d23 and d21 + d13 + τ d32 , where the indices of all three nodes appear

15

once as left and once as right index. Depending on numbers of antennas, this achievable DoF region yields
four bounds for the largest and two bounds for the second largest node from the inequalities (51) to (53), and
two bounds for the third largest node from (48) to (50). The remaining bounds from (48) to (50) are inactive
due to the tighter bounds from (51) to (53).
Although we proved that the above region is achievable, it is still useful to provide a ‘recipe’ which describes
[q]

how a specific DoF tuple can be achieved. To obtain the actual allocation of signal dimensions aij for a DoF
tuple d satisfying (48) to (54), proceed as follows: First, use as many ZF resources as possible. Only once the
ZF dimensions are exhausted, assign IA resources and align as much of the resulting interference as possible.
Throughout the process, account for redundancy required by EC to be able to tolerate intermittency. As an
example (Fig. 9), assume (M1 , M2 , M3 , τ ) = (5, 7, 4, 0.5). There is one ZF dimension 1 → 2, three ZF
dimensions 2 → 1 and two ZF dimensions 2 → 3, all other communication cannot be zero-forced. We try to
achieve d = (0.5, 0, 0.5, 4, 0, 4). To transmit on average half a symbol per channel access full-duplex over the
intermittent 1 ↔ 2, we use a rate

1
2

[ZF]

[ZF]

EC over one available ZF dimension in each direction (a12 = a21 = 1),
[IA]

[IA]

the remaining two ZF dimensions 2 → 1 remain unused. IA is not required for 1 ↔ 2 (a12 = a21 = 0). No
[ZF]

communication 1 ↔ 3 takes place (a13

[IA]

[ZF]

= a13 = a31

[IA]

= a31 = 0). To transmit four symbols per channel
[ZF]

access 2 → 3, we use the two available ZF dimensions for two of them (a23

= 2), and two IA dimensions

[IA]

(a23 = 2) that occupy a two-dimensional interference subspace at node 1. To transmit four symbols per channel
[IA]

[ZF]

access 3 → 2, we use four IA dimensions (a32 = 4), since ZF is not possible (a32 = 0). All of them create
interference at node 1, but this four-dimensional interference subspace can be aligned with the two-dimensional
interference subspace caused by 2 → 3 (γ1 = 2). As a result, four of the five receive dimensions at node 1
are interference of 2 ↔ 3 communication, while the remaining was used for zero-forced and erasure-coded
communication 2 → 1. At nodes 2 and 3 no interference is caused, such that no interference alignment takes
place (γ2 = γ3 = 0).
B. Sum-DoF
The devised non-adaptive encoding scheme based on ZF, IA and EC is sum-DoF optimal in the intermittent
3WC, as we will prove in this section.
1) Lower Bounds: Using (36) to (47), we derive a lower bound on the sum-DoF of the intermittent 3WC with
intermittent node 1. For each of the six cases of Mi ≥ Mj ≥ Mk (for all possible combinations i, j, k ∈ {1, 2, 3}
mutually distinct), we solve the linear program maximizing sum-DoF using, e.g., the simplex algorithm.
Definition 1. We denote
dIsum,LB,A := max [d12 + d13 + d21 + d23 + d31 + d32 ] .
d∈D I

IB,A

The resulting lower bounds for each of the different cases are listed in Table I, and are condensed into a
single expression in the following lemma:
Lemma 1 (Sum-DoF Lower Bound for Node-Intermittent 3WC). The sum-DoF
dIsum,LB,A = 2τ min{M2 , M3 } + 2τ (M1 + M2 + M3 − min{M1 , M2 , M3 } − max{M1 , M2 , M3 }) ≤ dIsum

16

TX Z12
RX Z21

A32

A23

τ
τ

Node 1
Node 3

Node 2
TX Z21
RX Z12

Z23

A32

A23

TX

A23

τ RX

Z23

A32

τ

A23

τ

Z23

A32

τ

Fig. 9: Visualization of transmit (TX) and receive (RX) signal spaces achieving d = (0.5, 0, 0.5, 4, 0, 4) under
the assumption of (M1 , M2 , M3 , τ ) = (5, 7, 4, 0.5) (depending on intermittency state, where the first and second
[ZF]

[IA]

row are received with probability τ and τ , respectively; Zij denotes wij , Aji denotes wij )
TABLE I: Achievable Sum-DoFs of Intermittent 3WC
Case

Sum-DoF Lower Bound

M1 ≥ M2 ≥ M3

dI

= 2M3 + 2τ M2 − 2τ M3

M2 ≥ M1 ≥ M3

dI

= 2M3 + 2τ M1 − 2τ M3

M2 ≥ M3 ≥ M1
M1 ≥ M3 ≥ M2
M3 ≥ M1 ≥ M2
M3 ≥ M2 ≥ M1

sum,LB,A

sum,LB,A
dI
sum,LB,A
dI
sum,LB,A
dI
sum,LB,A
dI
sum,LB,A

= 2M3
= 2M2 + 2τ M3 − 2τ M2
= 2M2 + 2τ M1 − 2τ M2
= 2M2

is achievable in the node-intermittent 3WC and therefore constitutes a lower bound on the sum-DoF of the
node-intermittent 3WC.
2) Upper Bounds: We first motivate the converse techniques used throughout this section and in the sequel
provide rigorous proofs. The general approach for upper bounding the sum-DoF of the intermittent 3WC is as
follows: Partition the DoF sum dij + dik + dji + djk + dki + dkj into two partial sums dij + dkj + dki and
dik + djk + dji (Fig. 10), where wij , wkj , wki are to be decoded by node j and wik , wjk , wji are to be decoded
by node k. There are three such partitions, and the partition is fully determined by choosing which node takes
the role of node i. While nodes j and k function exclusively as source and sink in any one of the partial sums,
node i is an intermediary node in both.
Have an imaginary genie provide just enough side information to node j and k (hence the name ‘genie-aided’
bound), respectively, such that they can recover the receive signal yin of node i, then (assuming existence of
a suitable coding scheme) nodes j and k can decode the additional messages wki and wji , respectively. The
details of this decoding process and the required side information will be presented in due course. Here we

17

i

j

i

k
(a)

j

k
(b)

Fig. 10: Partition the DoF sum dij + dik + dji + djk + dki + dkj into two partial sums dij + dkj + dki to be
decoded at node j (a) and dik + djk + dji to be decoded at node k (b), where nodes j and k are provided
enough side information such that they can recover the receive signal yin of node i and from it decode the one
message not originally intended for them (additional dki and dji DoFs, respectively).

only remark, that the side information can serve for the following four purposes (some cases might not require
some of the types of side information):
1) An additional message is required such that node j (or k) can decode the additional message wki (or
wji ) from the recovered yin , because decoding requires knowledge of wi , and node j (or k) only knows
wij (or wik ) from decoding its own receive signal yjn (or ykn ).
2) Node j (or k) might be incapable of capturing enough information about yin because Mj (or Mk ) is
small. In this case, additional measurements about yin (or alternatively about the unknown ‘ingredient’
of interest, xnk or xnj , respectively) need to be provided by side information.
3) Node j (or k) might be incapable of capturing enough information about yin because of intermittency. In
this case, additional measurements about yin for those time instances ` where s` = 0 need to be provided
by side information.
4) For rather technical reasons a noise correction signal is required to accurately recover yin . However, the
information contained in this signal about the three desired messages in question scales only o [log(ρ)].
Assuming reliable communication, the partial DoF sum of each three messages is necessarily upper bounded
by a mutual information expression, using Fano’s inequality. Adding the two resulting bounds yields an upper
bound on the sum-DoF. The challenge with this approach is two-fold: a) provide as little side information as
possible to the respective nodes, b) use tight bounding when expanding the mutual information expression from
Fano’s inequality.
For the intermittent 3WC the partition that yields the tightest upper bound on the sum-DoF depends on the
numbers of antennas. The node with largest number of antennas should take the role of the intermediary node
i (Fig. 11). The order among the remaining two nodes decides about which side information to give to which
node, to compensate for insufficient number of antennas or intermittency. We prove upper bounds for the three
cases M1 ≥ M2 ≥ M3 , M2 ≥ M1 ≥ M3 and M2 ≥ M3 ≥ M1 , the remaining three cases go by renaming
node 2 and 3.
a) Case 1: M1 ≥ M2 ≥ M3 : For the case where M1 is the largest number of antennas, we develop two
partial sums around nodes 3 and 2 (Fig. 11a and 11b), respectively. We start with the bound around node 2
(Fig. 11b), as it requires less side information and is therefore simpler to argue, and in the sequel extend the

18

1

2

1

3

2

3

(a)

(b)

1

1

2

3

2

(c)

3
(d)

Fig. 11: Partition of sum-DoF into partial sums for case M1 ≥ M2 ≥ M3 (a)/(b) and cases M2 ≥ M1 ≥ M3
and M2 ≥ M3 ≥ M1 (c)/(d).
sn , w2 , y2n

Enc. E1,`

Dec. F2

x1,`

Enc. E2,`

Cancel x1,`
H32 x3,` + z2,`

w13

ŵ32 , ŵ12

`++

Invert
x3,` +

ŵ31

Dec. F1

y1,`

x2,`
†
H32
z2,` ,

if s` = 1

Combine
zcorr,`

Fig. 12: Decoding of w31 at node 2 by iterative reconstruction of y1n from a-priori knowledge w2 and
n
observations (y2n , sn ) using side information (w13 , zcorr
) (grey box: a-priori knowledge and channel output,

dashed boxes: side information): successively obtain x1,` , cancel its effect from y2,` to obtain a noisy version
of x3,` , and combine this with x2,` and zcorr,` to finally obtain y1,` ; repeat for next `.

basic technique to develop the bound around node 3 (Fig. 11a), which requires more side information and is
therefore slightly more involved.
Which side information does node 2 need to be able to recover y1n and decode w31 from it, assuming a
scheme allowing every node to decode its desired messages with high probability? We present a suitable process
depicted in Fig. 12. At the end of the transmission, node 2 has w2 , y2n , sn and xn2 , as shown on the top left
of the figure. Using the decoder F2 it can decode (ŵ12 , ŵ32 ) = (w12 , w32 ) with high probability. Assume we
provide w13 as side information, so that node 2 can decode messages intended for node 1 using F1 as soon
as it obtains y1n , as shown on the bottom left of the figure. Node 2 can now obtain x1,1 from w1 using E1,1 .

19

From (s1 , y2,1 ) it can obtain H32 x3,1 + z2,1 using x1,1 . Since H32 is a tall matrix, a noisy version of x3,1
†
can be obtained from H32 x3,1 + z2,1 using the pseudo-inverse H32
, i.e.,
†
†
z2,1 .
(H32 x3,1 + z2,1 ) = x3,1 + H32
H32

Using the noisy version of x3,1 , node 2 can obtain a noisy version of y1,1 , i.e.,



†
†
z2,1 .
z2,1
= s1 H21 x2,1 + s1 H31 x3,1 + s1 H31 H32
s1 H21 x2,1 + H31 x3,1 + H32
†
Given a suitably formed noise correction term zcorr,1 := z1,1 − s1 H31 H32
z2,1 as side information, node 2

can finally obtain y1,1 , i.e.
†
z2,1 + zcorr,1 .
y1,1 = s1 H21 x2,1 + s1 H31 x3,1 + s1 H31 H32

Then, this reconstruction cycle repeats for the next ` = 2, ..., n, where all previous y1`−1 are used to obtain x1,`
using E1,` . From the four abstract types of side information introduced before, only two are required for the
reconstruction and subsequently for this bound: a message and a noise correction term. No side information to
compensate for insufficient number of antennas or intermittency is required.
n
In a nutshell, side information w13 and zcorr
is provided to node 2 by a genie, defined as
†
Zcorr,` := Z1,` − S` H31 H32
Z2,` .

Since the scheme ought to be reliable, we bound the sum rate of w12 , w32 and w31 using Fano’s inequality:
side information

n(R12 + R32 + R31 −

ε(1)
n )

≤

I(W12 W32 W31 ; W2 Y2n S n

z }| {
n
W13 Zcorr
)

(a)

n
= I(W12 W32 W31 ; Y2n | W13 W2 S n Zcorr
)
n
X
(b)
n
=
I(W12 W3 ; Y2,` | Y2`−1 S n W13 W2 Zcorr
)
`=1
n
X


n
n
h(Y2,` | Y2`−1 S n W13 W2 Zcorr
) − h(Y2,` | Y2`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
)
=
`=1
n
X


n
≤
h(Y2,` | S` ) − h(Y2,` | Y2`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
X1,` X3,` )

(c)

(d)

=

=
(b)

=

`=1
n
X
`=1
n
X
`=1
n
X

[h(Y2,` | S` ) − h(Y2,` | S` Zcorr,` X1,` X3,` )]
I(Zcorr,` X1,` X3,` ; Y2,` | S` )
[I(X1,` X3,` ; Y2,` | S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Y2,` | S` X1,` X3,` )]

`=1
(e)

=

n
X



=o[log(ρ)]

z
}|

I(X1,` X3,` ; Y2,` | S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Z2,`

`=1
(f)

≤ n [τ M2 + τ M3 ] log(ρ) + no [log(ρ)]
These steps are justified as follows:
n
(a) (W12 , W3 ) is independent of (W13 , W2 , S n , Zcorr
)


{
| S` )

20

(b) Chain rule for mutual information
(c) Conditioning reduces entropy
n
`−1
n
(d) Y2,` is independent of (Y2`−1 , S `−1 , S`+1
, Zcorr
, Zcorr,`+1
, W1 , W2 , W3 ) given (S` , X1,` , X3,` )

(e) Zcorr,` is independent of (X1,` , X3,` ) and Y2,` given (X1,` , X3,` ) is only noise with a mean Z2,` + const
(f) (X1,` , X3,` )

Y2,` is a MIMO channel with min{M1 + M3 , M2 } = M2 DoFs if s` = 1, and min{0 +

M3 , M2 } = M3 DoFs if s` = 0
Dividing both sides by n log(ρ) and letting ρ, n → ∞ we obtain
d12 + d32 + d31 ≤ τ M2 + τ M3 .

(55)

We turn to the second partial sum, developed around node 3 (Fig. 11a). This bound is slightly more involved,
as an additional type of side information is required which compensates for the small number of antennas M3 .
Which side information does node 3 need to be able to recover y1n and decode w21 from it, assuming a scheme
allowing every node to decode its desired messages with high probability? A suitable process is depicted in
Fig. 13. At the end of the transmission, node 3 has w3 , y3n , sn and xn3 , as shown on the top left of the figure.
Using the decoder F3 it can decode (ŵ13 , ŵ23 ) = (w13 , w23 ) with high probability. Assume we provide w12 as
side information, so that node 3 can decode messages intended for node 1 using F1 as soon as it obtains y1n ,
as shown on the bottom left of the figure. Node 3 can now obtain x1,1 from w1 using E1,1 . From (s1 , y3,1 )
it can obtain H23 x2,1 + z3,1 using x1,1 . Assume we ‘virtually’ increase the number of antennas at node 3 so
that it can fully observe x2,1 whenever node 1 can, by providing ỹ3,1 = H̃23 x2,1 + z̃3,1 as side information
h
i
H
if s1 = 1, with H̃23 ∈ C(M2 −M3 )×M2 such that rank( H̃23
) = M2 . Note that if s1 = 0 then x2,1 does not
23
contribute to y1,1 . In this case, x2,1 does not need to be reconstructed, and therefore no side information to
compensate for insufficient number of antennas is required. We define shortcuts to group receive signal y3n and
side information ỹ3n into a joint signal ŷ3n , i.e.,
i
h
i
h
y3,1
H
,
ŷ3,1 := ỹ3,1 ,
Ĥ23 := H̃23
23

ẑ3,1 :=

h

z3,1
z̃3,1

i

.

−1
ẑ3,1 if
A matrix H̃23 satisfying rank(Ĥ23 ) = M2 exists almost surely and it allows to obtain x2,1 + Ĥ23
−1
s1 = 1. Assume we provide zcorr,1 = z1,1 − s1 H21 Ĥ23
ẑ3,1 as side information. Then node 3 can obtain y1,1
−1
from zcorr,1 if s1 = 0, and from x3,1 , x2,1 + Ĥ23
ẑ3,1 and zcorr,1 if s1 = 1, i.e.,
−1
y1,1 = s1 H21 (x2,1 + Ĥ23
ẑ3,1 ) + s1 H31 x3,1 + zcorr,1 = s1 H21 x2,1 + s1 H31 x3,1 + z1,1 .

Using (y1,1 , w1 ) and the encoder E1,2 node 3 can obtain x1,2 and the cycle repeats, for ` = 2, ..., n. Finally,
node 3 obtains y1n , and decodes w21 from (y1n , w1 , sn ). Side information to compensate for intermittency is
not required.
n
In a nutshell, side information w12 , ỹ3n and zcorr
is provided to node 3 by a genie, following the definitions

Ỹ3,` := S` (H̃23 X2,` + Z̃3,` ),

−1
Zcorr,` := Z1,` − S` (H21 Ĥ23
Ẑ3,` ),

where

Z̃3,`

h

H23
H̃23

i

H̃23 ∈ C(M2 −M3 )×M2 s.t. rank(Ĥ23 ) = M2 ,
hZ i
hY i
3,`
3,`
∼ CN (0, σ 2 IM2 −M3 ),
Ẑ3,` := Z̃3,` ,
Ŷ3,` := Ỹ3,` .

Ĥ23 :=

,

21

sn , w3 , y3n

x1,`

Enc. E1,`

Dec. F3

Enc. E3,`

Cancel x1,`
H23 x2,` + z3,`

w12

ŵ23 , ŵ13

`++

ỹ3,`

Invert

x3,`

−1
ẑ3,` , if s` = 1
x2,` + Ĥ23

Dec. F1

ŵ21

Combine

y1,`

zcorr,`
Fig. 13: Decoding of w21 at node 3 by iterative reconstruction of y1n from a-priori knowledge w3 and
n
observations (y3n , sn ) using side information (w12 , ỹ3n , zcorr
) (grey box: a-priori knowledge and channel output,

dashed boxes: side information): successively obtain x1,` , cancel its effect from y3,` (using side information
ỹ3,` ) to obtain a noisy version of x2,` , and combine this with x3,` and zcorr,` to finally obtain y1,` ; repeat for
next `.

Since the scheme ought to be reliable, we again bound the sum rate of w13 , w23 and w21 using Fano’s
inequality, and following similar steps as before (for details see appendix A) we obtain
d13 + d23 + d21 ≤ τ M2 + τ M3 .

(56)

The two bounds on partial DoF sums are combined into a sum-DoF upper bound for the case M1 ≥ M2 ≥ M3 :
Proposition 1 (Sum-DoF of Node-Intermittent 3WC for M1 ≥ M2 ≥ M3 ).
dIsum ≤ 2τ M2 + 2τ M3
Proof. The proposition follows by adding (55) and (56).
b) Case 2: M2 ≥ M1 ≥ M3 : Since M2 is the largest number of antennas, we develop two partial sums
around nodes 3 and 1 (Fig. 11c and 11d), respectively.
The reasoning around node 3 in this case proceeds in close analogy to the bound around node 3 in the
previous case, just with 1 and 2 interchanged. We provide as side information w21 (to allow for decoding using
n
F2 ), ỹ3n (to compensate for small number of antennas M3 ) and zcorr
(a noise correction), defined as

Ỹ3,` := S` (H̃13 X1,` + Z̃3,` ),

−1
Zcorr,` := Z2,` − S` (H12 Ĥ13
Ẑ3,` ),

where

Z̃3,`

h

H13
H̃13

i

H̃13 ∈ C(M1 −M3 )×M1 s.t. rank(Ĥ13 ) = M1 ,
hZ i
hY i
3,`
3,`
∼ CN (0, σ 2 IM1 −M3 ),
Ẑ3,` := Z̃3,` ,
Ŷ3,` := Ỹ3,` .

Ĥ13 :=

,

With this information, node 3 can construct x2,1 from w2 using E2,1 (since w23 is a message intended for node
3 and assumed to have been decoded from y3n using F3 , and w21 is side information), obtain a noisy version

22

of x1,1 from channel output y3,1 and side information ỹ3,1 as necessary for y2,1 (i.e., if s1 = 1), combine all
relevant signals into y2,1 , encode w2 using E2,2 and y2,1 to obtain x2,2 , and continue this cycle for the next
` = 2, ..., n until y2n is complete, from which w12 can be decoded with the help of w2 using F2 .
After similar steps as before (see appendix B for details) we obtain
d13 + d23 + d12 ≤ τ M1 + τ M3 .

(57)

We turn to the second partial sum, developed around node 1 (Fig. 11d), where node 1 should be enabled to
decode w32 . The main difference to the previous cases is that the link 3 ↔ 2 is always available, while the
link 3 ↔ 1 is intermittent. Therefore, y1,` does not contain information about x3,` if s` = 0; this needs to be
compensated for by side information, here ỹ1n defined as
ỹ1,` := s` (H31 x3,` + z̃1,` ),
which provides measurements of xn3 for those time instances where node 1 is intermittent, i.e., s` = 0. This
is an instance of the fourth type of side information, that for previous bounds was not necessary, namely side
information that compensates for intermittency. Given this side information and the customary side information
(a message, to allow for decoding, and a noise correction signal), the reconstruction proceeds in analogy to the
n
to node 1, defined as
previous cases. In a nutshell, the genie provides w23 , ỹ1n and zcorr
†
Zcorr,` := Z2,` − H32 H31
(S` Z1,` + S ` Z̃1,` ),

Ỹ1,` := S ` (H31 X3,` + Z̃1,` ),
with
Z̃1,` ∼ CN (0, σ 2 IM1 ),

Ẑ1,` := (Z1,` , S ` Z̃1,` ),

Ŷ1,` := (Y1,` , Ỹ1,` ).

At the end of the transmission, node 1 has w1 , y1n , sn and xn1 . It decodes (w21 , w31 ) from y1n using its decoder
F1 , and gets w23 from side information. It generates x2,1 , then uses its channel output y1,1 (if s1 = 1) or side
information ỹ1,1 (if s1 = 0) to obtain a noisy version of x3,1 , and with it y2,1 . From there the cycle repeats,
until y2n is obtained and w32 can be decoded.
After similar steps as before (see appendix C for details) we obtain
d21 + d31 + d32 ≤ τ M1 + τ M3 .

(58)

Proposition 2 (Sum-DoF of Node-Intermittent 3WC for M2 ≥ M1 ≥ M3 ).
dIsum ≤ 2τ M1 + 2τ M3
Proof. The proposition follows by adding (57) and (58).
c) Case 3: M2 ≥ M3 ≥ M1 : Since M2 is still the largest number of antennas, we again develop two
partial sums around nodes 3 and 1 (Fig. 11c and 11d), respectively. The only difference to the previous case
is that this time M3 ≥ M1 , therefore the number of antennas at node 1 needs to be augmented ‘virtually’ to
obtain sufficient measurements of xn3 , while node 3 remains unchanged.
n
We turn to the partial sum around node 3 and provide as side information w21 and zcorr
with
†
Zcorr,` := Z2,` − S` (H12 H13
Z3,` ).

23

Note that x1,` contributes to y2,` only if s` = 1. In these instances, node 3 has sufficient information about
x1,` from y3,` . If s` = 0, node 3 does not have information about x1,` , but x1,` does not contribute to y2,`
anyhow, so node 3 does not need additional side information in these cases. Therefore, with the given side
information, node 3 can construct x2,1 from w2 , obtain a noisy version of x1,1 from channel output y3,1 as
necessary for y2,1 (i.e., if s1 = 1), generate y2,1 , and continue this cycle for the next ` = 2, ..., n until y2n is
complete, from which w12 can be decoded with the help of w2 .
After similar steps as before (see appendix D for details) we obtain
d13 + d23 + d12 ≤ M3 .

(59)

We turn to the second partial sum, developed around node 1 (Fig. 11d), where node 1 should be enabled
to decode w32 . Again the main difference to the previous cases is that the link 3 ↔ 2 is always available,
while the link 3 ↔ 1 is intermittent. Therefore, y1,` does not contain information about x3,` if s` = 0; this
effect of intermittency needs to be compensated for by side information, here ỹ1n (a formal definition follows).
Furthermore, the number of antennas at node 1 needs to be increased to fully capture x3,` , here accomplished
by side information y̆1n (a formal definition follows). In addition, the genie provides the message w23 and noise
n
to node 1. In a nutshell, side information variables are defined as
correction zcorr

Ỹ1,` := S ` (H31 X3,` + Z̃1,` ),

Y̆1,` := H̆31 X3,` + Z̆1,` ,

−1
Zcorr,` := Z2,` − H32 Ĥ31

h

S` Z1,` +S ` Z̃1,`
Z̆1,`

i

,

with auxiliary variables
Z̃1,` ∼ CN (0, σ 2 IM1 ),
Z̆1,` ∼ CN (0, σ 2 IM3 −M1 ),
i
h
H
,
H̆31 ∈ C(M3 −M1 )×M3 s.t. rank(Ĥ31 ) = M3 ,
Ĥ31 := H̆31
31
Ŷ1,` := (Y1,` , Ỹ1,` , Y̆1,` ),

Ẑ1,` := (Z1,` , S ` Z̃1,` , Z̆1,` ).

At the end of the transmission, node 1 has w1 , y1n , sn and xn1 . It decodes (w21 , w31 ) using F1 , and gets w23
from side information. It generates x2,1 using E2,1 , then uses side information y̆1,1 and channel output y1,1 (if
s1 = 1) or side information y̆1,1 and ỹ1,1 (if s1 = 0) to obtain a noisy version of x3,1 , and with it y2,1 using
zcorr,1 . From there the cycle repeats, until y2n is obtained and w32 can be decoded using F2 .
After similar steps as before (see appendix E for details) we obtain
d21 + d31 + d32 ≤ M3 .
Proposition 3 (Sum-DoF of Node-Intermittent 3WC for M2 ≥ M3 ≥ M1 ).
dIsum ≤ 2M3
Proof. The proposition follows by adding (59) and (60).
Lemma 2 (Sum-DoF Upper Bound for Node-Intermittent 3WC).
dIsum ≤ 2τ min{M2 , M3 } + 2τ (M1 + M2 + M3 − min{M1 , M2 , M3 } − max{M1 , M2 , M3 })
Proof. The lemma follows by Propositions 1, 2 and 3, and symmetry of node 2 and 3.

(60)

24

Using the achievability and converse results developed in Sections IV-B1 and IV-B2, we establish the sumDoF of the intermittent 3WC for which non-adaptive encoding is sufficient, i.e.
dIsum,LB,A = 2τ min{M2 , M3 } + 2τ (M1 + M2 + M3 − min{M1 , M2 , M3 } − max{M1 , M2 , M3 }) = dIsum .
This proves Theorem 2.
C. DoF Region
In this section we first derive an upper bound on d31 under the assumption of non-adaptive encoding. We
then show adaptive schemes that can exceed this bound, namely multi-hop and decode-forward relaying. This
proves that some DoF region points are only achievable by adaptive encoding schemes, hence adaptive encoding
is in general required to achieve the DoF region of the intermittent 3WC.
1) Upper Bound on d31 under Non-Adaptive Encoding: Node 1 is able to decode w31 from its channel
output (y1n , sn ) and a-priori knowledge w1 with high probability. We further provide w2 as side information
and bound the rate of w31 using Fano’s inequality:
side information

n(R31 − εn ) ≤

I(W31 ; W1 Y1n S n

z}|{
W2

)

(a)

= I(W31 ; Y1n | W1 W2 S n )
n
(b) X
=
I(W31 ; Y1,` | Y1`−1 W1 W2 S n )
`=1
n
X


h(Y1,` | Y1`−1 W1 W2 S n ) − h(Y1,` | Y1`−1 W1 W2 W31 S n )
=
`=1
n
X


≤
h(Y1,` | W2 S` ) − h(Y1,` | Y1`−1 W1 W2 W31 S n X2,` X3,` )

(c)

`=1
(d)

≤

=

n
X
`=1
n
X

(b)

`=1
n
X

(e)

`=1
n
X

=

=

[h(Y1,` | W2 S` ) − h(Y1,` | W2 S` X2,` X3,` )]
I(X2,` X3,` ; Y1,` | W2 S` )
[I(X2,` ; Y1,` | W2 S` ) + I(X3,` ; Y1,` | X2,` W2 S` )]
I(X3,` ; Y1,` | X2,` W2 S` )

`=1
(f)

≤ nτ M3 log(ρ) + nτ o [log(ρ)]

(61)

These steps are justified as follows:
(a) W31 is independent of (W1 , W2 , S n )
(b) Chain rule for mutual information
(c) Conditioning reduces entropy
n
(d) Y1,` is independent of (Y1`−1 , S `−1 , S`+1
, W1 , W31 ) given (S` , X2,` , X3,` )

(e) X2,` is independent of Y1,` given (W2 , S` ) because x2,` = E2,` (w2 ) under the assumption of non-adaptive
encoding

25

2
1
w31

3

τ
τ

ŵ31

1

Fig. 14: All messages except w31 are fixed to 0, node 2 supports node 3 in communicating w31 to node 1

(f) X3,`

Y1,` given X2,` is a MIMO channel with maximum DoF M3 and 0 for s` = 1 and s` = 0,

respectively
The following lemma provides the desired upper bound.
Lemma 3 (Upper Bound on d31 under Non-Adaptive Encoding). The achievable DoFs of non-adaptive encoding
schemes are restricted by
d31 ≤ τ M3 .

(62)

Proof. We divide both sides of (61) by n log(ρ) and take ρ, n → ∞.
2) Adaptive Schemes Achieving d31 > τ M3 : We assume all messages are fixed to 0, except for w31 , which
node 3 wants to convey to node 1, potentially with the help of node 2 (Fig. 14).
If τ M2 ≥ M3 , multi-hop relaying can be used to achieve M3 DoFs: Assume a block-Markov transmission
scheme over B blocks consisting of n channel accesses each. In each of the first B − 1 blocks, nM3 symbols
are transmitted 3 → 2. In the final block B node 3 remains silent, as does node 2 in block b = 1. In each
block b ≥ 2, node 2 retransmits the message it received in the previous block b − 1, using EC to protect against
intermittency. If τ M2 ≥ M3 , 2 → 1 can carry all nM3 symbols it received in the previous block. Node 1 uses
backwards-decoding to successively cancel the interference from 3 → 1 and decode the messages.
While multi-hop relaying achieves d31 larger than τ M3 if τ M2 ≥ M3 , this condition can be relaxed: Consider
using decode-forward relaying at node 2. This can be used to achieve min{τ M1 , τ (M2 + M3 ), M3 } DoFs and
outperforms any non-adaptive scheme as soon as M1 > M3 . We derive the achievable DoF for d31 based on
the well-known lower bound for decode-forward relaying [45]:
C ≥ max min{I(X3 X2 ; Y1 S), I(X3 ; Y2 S | X2 )}
pX 3 X 2

≥ min{I(X3 X2 ; Y1 | S), I(X3 ; Y2 | X2 )}

with X2 , X3 Gaussian

= min{τ min{M1 , (M2 + M3 )}, M3 } log(ρ) + o [log(ρ)]
= min{τ M1 , τ (M2 + M3 ), M3 } log(ρ) + o [log(ρ)]

(63)

The following lemma provides the desired lower bound.
Lemma 4 (Lower Bound on d31 under Adaptive Encoding). Decode-forward relaying achieves
d31 ≥ min{τ M1 , τ (M2 + M3 ), M3 }.
Proof. We divide both sides of (63) by log(ρ) and take ρ → ∞.

(64)

26

Note that if τ M2 > τ M3 and τ M1 > M3 , then we can transmit at M3 DoF from node 3 to node 1 using
this adaptive scheme, compensating all the the loss due to intermittency.
We proved in Lemma 3 that the DoF region point
d = (0, 0, 0, 0, d31,A , 0)

d31,A := min{τ M1 , τ (M2 + M3 ), M3 }

is not achievable for any non-adaptive encoding scheme if M1 > M3 , while we showed in Lemma 4 that there
exist adaptive schemes that achieve it. This proves Theorem 3, which states that adaptive encoding is in general
required to achieve the DoF region of the intermittent 3WC.
Theorems 2 and 3 show that non-adaptive encoding is sufficient to achieve sum-DoF, but not sufficient to
achieve the DoF region of the intermittent 3WC. This is particularly interesting in light of the next section,
where we show that adaptive encoding is not beneficial in the non-intermittent 3WC even from a DoF region
perspective.
V. N O I NTERMITTENCY
The sum-DoF of the non-intermittent 3WC was investigated in [18]. We present the DoF region of the nonintermittent 3WC and show that the non-adaptive encoding scheme presented in Section IV-A is sufficient to
achieve it; therefore, adaptive encoding is neither required from a sum-DoF nor from a DoF region perspective
in the non-intermittent 3WC. The non-intermittent 3WC is a special case of the intermittent 3WC with τ = 1.
We may assume without loss of generality M1 ≥ M2 ≥ M3 .
A. Achievability
From (48) to (54) we obtain with τ = 1:
d12 + d13 + d23 ≤ M1

(65)

d12 + d13 + d32 ≤ M1

(66)

d21 + d31 + d32 ≤ M1

(67)

d21 + d31 + d23 ≤ M1

(68)

d21 + d13 + d23 ≤ M2

(69)

d12 + d31 + d32 ≤ M2

(70)

d31 + d32 ≤ M3

(71)

d13 + d23 ≤ M3

(72)

min{d12 , d13 , d21 , d23 , d31 , d32 } ≥ 0

(73)

N
Definition 2. We denote the set of all DoF tuples d satisfying constraints (65) to (73) by DIB,A
.
N
Lemma 5 (DoF Region Inner Bound for Non-Intermittent 3WC). All d ∈ DIB,A
are achievable in the nonN
intermittent 3WC. Therefore, DIB,A
constitutes an inner bound on the DoF region of the non-intermittent 3WC,

i.e.
N
DIB,A
⊆ DN .

27

Proof. The lemma follows by construction in Section IV-A.
B. Converses
Besides cut-set outer bounds [46] on pairs of DoFs (involving two messages either intended for or originating
at a certain node), we use tighter genie-aided outer bounds [18], [19], [21] on triplets of DoFs (involving two
messages either intended for or originating at a certain node, and one message exchanged between the remaining
two nodes):
R13 + R23 ≤ M3 log(ρ) + o [log(ρ)]

(74)

R31 + R32 ≤ M3 log(ρ) + o [log(ρ)]

(75)

R21 + R31 + R32 ≤ min{M1 , M2 + M3 } log(ρ) + o [log(ρ)]

(76)

R21 + R31 + R23 ≤ min{M1 , M2 + M3 } log(ρ) + o [log(ρ)]

(77)

R12 + R32 + R13 ≤ M1 log(ρ) + o [log(ρ)]

(78)

R13 + R23 + R12 ≤ M1 log(ρ) + o [log(ρ)]

(79)

R12 + R32 + R31 ≤ M2 log(ρ) + o [log(ρ)]

(80)

R13 + R23 + R21 ≤ M2 log(ρ) + o [log(ρ)]

(81)

Note that if M2 + M3 ≤ M1 , then (76) and (77) are redundant given (75) and (81), therefore min{M1 , M2 +
M3 } can be replaced with M1 in (76) and (77). Dividing these bounds by log(ρ) and taking ρ → ∞ yields to
the following DoF region outer bounds:
d21 + d31 + d32 ≤ M1

(82)

d21 + d31 + d23 ≤ M1

(83)

d12 + d32 + d13 ≤ M1

(84)

d13 + d23 + d12 ≤ M1

(85)

d12 + d32 + d31 ≤ M2

(86)

d13 + d23 + d21 ≤ M2

(87)

d13 + d23 ≤ M3

(88)

d31 + d32 ≤ M3

(89)

Note that (86) and (87) can also be obtained from (55) and (56), respectively, with τ = 1.
N
Definition 3. We denote the set of all DoF tuples d satisfying constraints (82) to (89) by DOB
.
N
Lemma 6 (DoF Region Outer Bound for Non-Intermittent 3WC). None of the d 6∈ DOB
are achievable in the
N
non-intermittent 3WC. Therefore, DOB
constitutes an outer bound on the DoF region of the non-intermittent

3WC, i.e.
N
DN ⊆ DOB
.

Proof. The lemma follows by the DoF region outer bounds (82) to (89).

28

1
1
2

τ1

1
1

τ3

3

2

(a) 1-link interm.

τ2
τ1

3

(b) 3-link interm.

Fig. 15: Examples of different link-intermittent MIMO 3WCs

C. DoF Region and Sum-DoF of Non-Intermittent 3WC
The previous achievability and converse results establish the DoF region (and thus sum-DoF) optimality of
non-adaptive schemes, rendering adaptive encoding dispensable, i.e.
N
N
= DN = DOB
DIB,A
.

This proves Theorem 4. From the DoF region of the 3WC and using the sum-DoF of the intermittent 3WC,
we reproduce the sum-DoF of the 3WC given in [18]:
Corollary 1 (Sum-DoF of Non-Intermittent 3WC).
= 2M2 = dN
dN
sum
sum,LB,A
Proof. The statement follows as corollary of Theorems 2 and 4.
VI. C ONCLUSION
We introduced the MIMO 3WC with node-intermittency and studied its DoF region and sum-DoF. In
particular, we devised a non-adaptive encoding scheme based on zero-forcing, interference alignment and erasure
coding, and showed its DoF region (and thus sum-DoF) optimality for non-intermittent 3WCs and its sumDoF optimality for node-intermittent 3WCs. This shows that adaptive encoding is not required in those cases.
However, we showed by example that in general there are DoF region points in the node-intermittent 3WC
that can only be achieved by adaptive schemes, such as multi-hop or decode-forward relaying, making adaptive
encoding a necessity. Our work contributes to a better understanding of the necessity of adaptive schemes such
as relaying in multi-way communications with intermittency.
As remarked in the introduction, node-intermittency is only one of a multitude of practically relevant intermittency scenarios. Links might be intermittent independently of each other, e.g., moving objects passing by only
interrupt the link between the two D2D users from time to time, while the other links remain intact (Fig. 15a).
Or all links being intermittent, but independently of each other, and with different probabilities (Fig. 15b). Here,
we speak of link intermittency and intermittent links. Intermittent 3WCs with other intermittency models are
interesting directions for future research.

29

A PPENDIX
A. Sum-DoF Upper Bound for Intermittent 3WC with M1 ≥ M2 ≥ M3 (Part II)
Since the scheme ought to be reliable, we bound the sum rate of w13 , w23 and w21 using Fano’s inequality:
side information

}|
{
z
n n
n n
n(R13 + R23 + R21 − ε(2)
n ) ≤ I(W13 W23 W21 ; W3 Y3 S W12 Ỹ3 Zcorr )
(a)

n
= I(W13 W23 W21 ; Y3n Ỹ3n | W12 W3 S n Zcorr
)
n
(b) X
n
=
I(W13 W2 ; Ŷ3,` | Ŷ3`−1 S n W12 W3 Zcorr
)
`=1
n h
i
X
n
n
=
h(Ŷ3,` | Ŷ3`−1 S n W12 W3 Zcorr
) − h(Ŷ3,` | Ŷ3`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
)
`=1
n h
i
X
n
≤
h(Ŷ3,` | S` ) − h(Ŷ3,` | Ŷ3`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
X1,` X2,` )

(c)

`=1
n h
i
(d) X
=
h(Ŷ3,` | S` ) − h(Ŷ3,` | S` Zcorr,` X1,` X2,` )
`=1

=
(b)

=

n
X

I(Zcorr,` X1,` X2,` ; Ŷ3,` | S` )

`=1
n h
X

I(X1,` X2,` ; Ŷ3,` | S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Ŷ3,` | S` X1,` X2,` )

i

`=1


(e)

=

=o[log(ρ)]

}|
z
n
X

I(X1,` X2,` ; Ŷ3,` | S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Ẑ3,`

`=1


{
| S` )


(f)

≤ n [τ M2 + τ M3 ] log(ρ) + no [log(ρ)]
These steps are justified as follows:
n
(a) (W13 , W2 ) is independent of (W12 , W3 , S n , Zcorr
)

(b) Chain rule for mutual information
(c) Conditioning reduces entropy
n
`−1
n
, Zcorr,`+1
, W1 , W2 , W3 ) given (S` , X1,` , X2,` )
, Zcorr
(d) Ŷ3,` is independent of (Ŷ3`−1 , S `−1 , S`+1

(e) Zcorr,` is independent of (X1,` , X2,` ) and Ŷ3,` given (X1,` , X2,` ) is only noise with a mean Ẑ3,` + const
(f) (X1,` , X2,` )

(Y3,` , Ỹ3,` ) is a MIMO channel with min{M1 + M2 , M3 + (M2 − M3 )} = M2 DoFs if

s` = 1, and min{M1 + M2 , M3 + 0} = M3 DoFs if s` = 0
Dividing both sides by n log(ρ) and letting ρ, n → ∞ we obtain
d13 + d23 + d21 ≤ τ M2 + τ M3 .
B. Sum-DoF Upper Bound for Intermittent 3WC with M2 ≥ M1 ≥ M3 (Part I)
Since this scheme ought to be reliable, we bound the sum rate of w13 , w23 and w12 using Fano’s inequality:
side information

z
}|
{
n n
n n
n(R13 + R23 + R12 − ε(1)
n ) ≤ I(W13 W23 W12 ; W3 Y3 S W21 Ỹ3 Zcorr )
(a)

n
= I(W13 W23 W12 ; Y3n Ỹ3n | W21 W3 S n Zcorr
)

30

(b)

=

n
X

n
I(W1 W23 ; Ŷ3,` | Ŷ3`−1 S n W21 W3 Zcorr
)

`=1

=

n h
X

i
n
n
h(Ŷ3,` | Ŷ3`−1 S n W21 W3 Zcorr
) − h(Ŷ3,` | Ŷ3`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
)

`=1
(c)

≤

n h
X

n
h(Ŷ3,` | S` ) − h(Ŷ3,` | Ŷ3`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
X1,` X2,` )

i

`=1
n h
i
(d) X
=
h(Ŷ3,` | S` ) − h(Ŷ3,` | S` Zcorr,` X1,` X2,` )
`=1

=
(b)

=

n
X

I(Zcorr,` X1,` X2,` ; Ŷ3,` | S` )

`=1
n h
X

i
I(X1,` X2,` ; Ŷ3,` | S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Ŷ3,` | S` X1,` X2,` )

`=1


(e)

=

n
X
`=1


I(X1,` X2,` ; Ŷ3,`



=o[log(ρ)]
}|
{
z
| S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Ẑ3,` | S` )


(f)

≤ n [τ M1 + τ M3 ] log(ρ) + no [log(ρ)]
These steps are justified as follows:
n
)
(a) (W1 , W23 ) is independent of (W21 , W3 , S n , Zcorr

(b) Chain rule for mutual information
(c) Conditioning reduces entropy
n
`−1
n
(d) Ŷ3,` is independent of (Ŷ3`−1 , S `−1 , S`+1
, Zcorr
, Zcorr,`+1
, W1 , W2 , W3 ) given (S` , X1,` , X2,` )

(e) Zcorr,` is independent of (X1,` , X2,` ) and Ŷ3,` given (X1,` , X2,` ) is only noise with a mean Ẑ3,` + const
(f) (X1,` , X2,` )

(Y3,` , Ỹ3,` ) is a MIMO channel with min{M1 + M2 , M3 + (M1 − M3 )} = M1 DoFs if

s` = 1, and min{M1 + M2 , M3 + 0} = M3 DoFs if s` = 0
Dividing both sides by n log(ρ) and letting ρ, n → ∞ we obtain
d13 + d23 + d12 ≤ τ M1 + τ M3 .
C. Sum-DoF Upper Bound for Intermittent 3WC with M2 ≥ M1 ≥ M3 (Part II)
We bound the sum rate of w21 , w31 and w32 using Fano’s inequality:
side information

z
}|
{
n n
n n
n(R21 + R31 + R32 − ε(2)
)
≤
I(W
W
W
;
W
Y
S
W
Ỹ
Z
21
31
32
1
23
1
corr )
n
1
(a)

n
= I(W21 W31 W32 ; Ŷ1n | W1 W23 S n Zcorr
)
n
X
(b)
n
=
I(W21 W3 ; Ŷ1,` | Ŷ1`−1 S n W1 W23 Zcorr
)
`=1
n h
i
X
n
n
=
h(Ŷ1,` | Ŷ1`−1 S n W1 W23 Zcorr
) − h(Ŷ1,` | Ŷ1`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
)
`=1
n h
i
X
n
≤
h(Ŷ1,` | S` ) − h(Ŷ1,` | Ŷ1`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
X2,` X3,` )

(c)

`=1

31

(d)

=

n h
X

h(Ŷ1,` | S` ) − h(Ŷ1,` | S` Zcorr,` X2,` X3,` )

i

`=1

=
(b)

=

n
X

I(Zcorr,` X2,` X3,` ; Ŷ1,` | S` )

`=1
n h
X

i
I(X2,` X3,` ; Ŷ1,` | S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Ŷ1,` | S` X2,` X3,` )

`=1


(e)

=

n
X
`=1

(b)

=


I(X2,` X3,` ; Ŷ1,`



=o[log(ρ)]
}|
{
z
| S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Ẑ1,` | S` )


n h
i
X
I(X2,` X3,` ; Y1,` | S` ) + I(X2,` X3,` ; Ỹ1,` | S` Y1,` )
`=1

(f)

≤ n [τ M1 + τ M3 ] log(ρ) + no [log(ρ)]
These steps are justified as follows:
n
(a) (W21 , W3 ) is independent of (W1 , W23 , S n , Zcorr
)

(b) Chain rule for mutual information
(c) Conditioning reduces entropy
n
n
`−1
, Zcorr,`+1
, W1 , W2 , W3 ) given (S` , X2,` , X3,` )
(d) Ŷ1,` is independent of (Ŷ1`−1 , S `−1 , S`+1
, Zcorr

(e) Zcorr,` is independent of (X2,` , X3,` ) and Ŷ1,` given (X2,` , X3,` ) is only noise with a mean Ẑ1,` + const
(f) (X2,` , X3,` )

Y1,` is a MIMO channel with min{M2 + M3 , M1 } = M1 DoFs if s` = 1, and 0 DoFs

if s` = 0; (X2,` , X3,` )

Ỹ1,` is a MIMO channel with 0 DoFs if s` = 1 (because then Ỹ1,` = 0), and

min{0 + M3 , M1 } = M3 DoFs if s` = 0 (because then Y1,` is noise, and Ỹ1,` is independent of X2,` )
Dividing both sides by n log(ρ) and letting ρ, n → ∞ we obtain
d21 + d31 + d32 ≤ τ M1 + τ M3 .
D. Sum-DoF Upper Bound for Intermittent 3WC with M2 ≥ M3 ≥ M1 (Part I)
We bound the sum rate of w13 , w23 and w12 using Fano’s inequality:
side information

n(R13 + R23 + R12 −

ε(1)
n )

≤

I(W13 W23 W12 ; W3 Y3n S n

z }| {
n
W21 Zcorr
)

(a)

n
= I(W13 W23 W12 ; Y3n | W21 W3 S n Zcorr
)
n
X
(b)
n
=
I(W1 W23 ; Y3,` | Y3`−1 S n W21 W3 Zcorr
)
`=1
n
X


n
n
=
h(Y3,` | Y3`−1 S n W21 W3 Zcorr
) − h(Y3,` | Y3`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
)
`=1
n
X


n
≤
h(Y3,` | S` ) − h(Y3,` | Y3`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
X1,` X2,` )

(c)

(d)

=

=

`=1
n
X
`=1
n
X
`=1

[h(Y3,` | S` ) − h(Y3,` | S` Zcorr,` X1,` X2,` )]
I(Zcorr,` X1,` X2,` ; Y3,` | S` )

32

(b)

=

n
X

[I(X1,` X2,` ; Y3,` | S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Y3,` | S` X1,` X2,` )]

`=1



=o[log(ρ)]
n
}|
{
z
X
(e)


=
I(X1,` X2,` ; Y3,` | S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Z3,` | S` )
`=1
(f)

≤ n [M3 ] log(ρ) + no [log(ρ)]
These steps are justified as follows:
n
(a) (W1 , W23 ) is independent of (W21 , W3 , S n , Zcorr
)

(b) Chain rule for mutual information
(c) Conditioning reduces entropy
n
`−1
n
(d) Y3,` is independent of (Y3`−1 , S `−1 , S`+1
, Zcorr
, Zcorr,`+1
, W1 , W2 , W3 ) given (S` , X1,` , X2,` )

(e) Zcorr,` is independent of (X1,` , X2,` ) and Y3,` given (X1,` , X2,` ) is only noise with a mean Z3,` + const
(f) (X1,` , X2,` )

Y3,` is a MIMO channel with min{M1 + M2 , M3 } = M3 DoFs if s` = 1, and

min{M2 , M3 } = M3 DoFs if s` = 0 (because X1,` is independent of Y3,` )
Dividing both sides by n log(ρ) and letting ρ, n → ∞ we obtain
d13 + d23 + d12 ≤ M3 .
E. Sum-DoF Upper Bound for Intermittent 3WC with M2 ≥ M3 ≥ M1 (Part II)
We bound the sum rate of w21 , w31 and w32 using Fano’s inequality:
side information

n(R21 + R31 + R32 −

ε(2)
n )

≤

I(W21 W31 W32 ; W1 Y1n S n

}|
{
z
n
W23 Ỹ1n Y̆1n Zcorr
)

(a)

n
= I(W21 W31 W32 ; Ŷ1n | W1 W23 S n Zcorr
)
n
X
(b)
n
I(W21 W3 ; Ŷ1,` | Ŷ1`−1 S n W1 W23 Zcorr
)
=
`=1
n h
i
X
n
n
=
h(Ŷ1,` | Ŷ1`−1 S n W1 W23 Zcorr
) − h(Ŷ1,` | Ŷ1`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
)
`=1
n h
i
X
n
≤
h(Ŷ1,` | S` ) − h(Ŷ1,` | Ŷ1`−1 S n W1 W2 W3 Zcorr
X2,` X3,` )

(c)

`=1
n h
i
(d) X
=
h(Ŷ1,` | S` ) − h(Ŷ1,` | S` Zcorr,` X2,` X3,` )
`=1

=
(b)

=

n
X

I(Zcorr,` X2,` X3,` ; Ŷ1,` | S` )

`=1
n h
X

i
I(X2,` X3,` ; Ŷ1,` | S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Ŷ1,` | S` X2,` X3,` )

`=1


(e)

=

n
X
`=1


I(X2,` X3,` ; Ŷ1,`



=o[log(ρ)]
z
}|
{
| S` ) + I(Zcorr,` ; Ẑ1,` | S` )


(f)

≤ n [M3 ] log(ρ) + no [log(ρ)]

33

These steps are justified as follows:
n
(a) (W21 , W3 ) is independent of (W1 , W23 , S n , Zcorr
)

(b) Chain rule for mutual information
(c) Conditioning reduces entropy
n
`−1
n
(d) Ŷ1,` is independent of (Ŷ1`−1 , S `−1 , S`+1
, Zcorr
, Zcorr,`+1
, W1 , W2 , W3 ) given (S` , X2,` , X3,` )

(e) Zcorr,` is independent of (X2,` , X3,` ) and Ŷ1,` given (X2,` , X3,` ) is only noise with a mean Ẑ1,` + const
(f) (X2,` , X3,` )

(Y1,` , Ỹ1,` , Y̆1,` ) is a MIMO channel with min{M2 + M3 , M1 + 0 + (M3 − M1 )} = M3

DoFs if s` = 1, and min{M2 + M3 , 0 + M1 + (M3 − M1 )} = M3 DoFs if s` = 0
Dividing both sides by n log(ρ) and letting ρ, n → ∞ we obtain
d21 + d31 + d32 ≤ M3 .
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Chaaban, A. Sezgin, and M.-S. Alouini, “On the Degrees-of-Freedom of the MIMO Three-Way Channel with Intermittent
Connectivity,” Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), 2017.
[2] A. Sabharwal, P. Schniter, D. Guo, D. W. Bliss, S. Rangarajan, and R. Wichman, “In-band full-duplex wireless: Challenges and
opportunities,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1637–1652, Sep. 2014.
[3] M. N. Tehrani, M. Uysal, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Device-to-device communications in 5G cellular networks: Challenges, solutions,
and future directions,” IEEE Commun. Mag., pp. 86–92, May 2014.
[4] A. Asadi, Q. Wang, and V. Mancuso, “A Survey on Device-to-Device Communication in Cellular Networks,” IEEE Commun. Surveys
Tuts., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1801–1819, 4th quarter 2014.
[5] A. Chaaban and A. Sezgin, “Multi-way communications: An information theoretic perspective,” Found. Trends Commun. Inf. Theory,
vol. 12, no. 3-4, pp. 185–371, 2015.
[6] C. E. Shannon, “Two-way communication channels,” in Proc. of 4th Berkeley Symp. Math. Stat. Probab., vol. 1, 1961, pp. 611–644.
[7] A. P. Hekstra and F. M. J. Willems, “Dependence balance bounds for single output two-way channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 44–53, Jan. 1989.
[8] T. S. Han, “A general coding scheme for the two-way channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 35–44, 1984.
[9] L. R. Varshney, “Two way communication over exponential family type channels,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), July
2013, pp. 2795–2799.
[10] L. Song, F. Alajaji, and T. Linder, “Adaptation is useless for two discrete additive-noise two-way channels,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp.
Inf. Theory (ISIT), July 2016, pp. 1854–1858.
[11] Z. Cheng and N. Devroye, “Two-way networks: When adaptation is useless,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1793–1813,
March 2014.
[12] C. Suh, I.-H. Wang, and D. Tse, “Two-way Interference Channels,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), Cambridge, MA,
USA, July 2012, pp. 2801–2805.
[13] Z. Cheng and N. Devroye, “On constant gaps for the two-way Gaussian interference channel,” in Ann. Allerton Conf. Commun.,
Control, and Comput., Oct. 2012, pp. 1783–1789.
[14] W. Nam, S.-Y. Chung, and Y. H. Lee, “Capacity of the Gaussian two-way relay channel to within 1/2 bit,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 5488–5494, Nov. 2010.
[15] Y. Song, N. Devroye, H. R. Shao, and C. Y. Ngo, “Lattice coding for the two-way line network,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,
vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1707–1720, Sep. 2014.
[16] R. Vaze and J. Robert W. Heath, “On the capacity and diversity-multiplexing tradeoff of the two-way relay channel,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 4219–4234, July 2011.
[17] M. P. Wilson, K. Narayanan, H. D. Pfister, and A. Sprintson, “Joint physical layer coding and network coding for bidirectional
relaying,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 5641–5654, Nov. 2010.
[18] H. Maier, A. Chaaban, and R. Mathar, “Degrees of Freedom of the MIMO 3-way channel,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Inf. Theory Appl.
(ISITA), Melbourne, Australia, Oct. 2014, pp. 625–629.

34

[19] ——, “Symmetric degrees of freedom of the MIMO 3-Way channel with MT × MR antennas,” in Proc. IEEE Inf. Theory Workshop
(ITW), Hobart, Tasamania, Australia, Nov. 2014.
[20] A. Chaaban, H. Maier, A. Sezgin, and R. Mathar, “Three-Way Channels With Multiple Unicast Sessions: Capacity Approximation
via Network Transformation,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 7086–7102, Dec. 2016.
[21] A. M. Elmahdy, A. El-Keyi, Y. Mohasseb, T. ElBatt, M. Nafie, and K. G. Seddik, “Asymmetric degrees of freedom of the full-duplex
MIMO 3-way channel,” in Proc. IEEE Inf. Theory Workshop (ITW), Sep. 2016, pp. 469–473.
[22] L. Ong, “Capacity results for two classes of three-way channels,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Commun. Inf. Tech. (ISCIT), Gold Coast,
QLD, Oct. 2012.
[23] D. Gündüz, A. Yener, A. Goldsmith, and H. V. Poor, “The multi-way relay channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 59, no. 1, pp.
51–63, Jan. 2013.
[24] L. Ong, C. M. Kellett, and S. J. Johnson, “On the equal-rate capacity of the AWGN multiway relay channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 5761–5769, Sep. 2012.
[25] A. Sezgin, A. S. Avestimehr, M. A. Khajehnejad, and B. Hassibi, “Divide-and-conquer: Approaching the capacity of the two-pair
bidirectional Gaussian relay network,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 2434–2454, Apr. 2012.
[26] A. Zewail, Y. Mohasseb, M. Nafie, and H. El-Gamal, “The deterministic multicast capacity of 4-node relay networks,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), Istanbul, Turkey, July 2013.
[27] B. Matthiesen, A. Zappone, and E. A. Jorswieck, “Resource allocation for energy-efficient 3-way relay channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 4454–4468, Aug. 2015.
[28] H. Q. Ngo and E. G. Larsson, “Large-scale multipair two-way relay networks with distributed AF beamforming,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1–4, 2013.
[29] L. Ong, G. Lechner, S. J. Johnson, and C. M. Kellett, “The three-user Finite-field multi-way relay channel with correlated source,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 3125–3135, Aug. 2013.
[30] R. Wang and X. Yuan, “MIMO multiway relaying with pairwise data exchange: A degrees of freedom perspective,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 20, pp. 5294–5307, Oct. 2014.
[31] Y. Tian and A. Yener, “Degrees of freedom for the mimo multi-way relay channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 5, pp.
2495–2511, May 2014.
[32] N. Lee and J. Chun, “Degrees of freedom for the MIMO Gaussian K-way relay channel: Successive network code encoding and
decoding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1814–1821, Mar. 2014.
[33] C. Wang, “Beyond one-way communication: Degrees of freedom of multi-way relay MIMO interference networks,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 7174–7186, Oct. 2016.
[34] Z. Cheng, N. Devroye, and T. Liu, “The Degrees of Freedom of full-duplex bidirectional interference networks with and without a
MIMO relay,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 2912–2924, April 2016.
[35] P. Mach, Z. Becvar, and T. Vanek, “In-Band Device-to-Device Communication in OFDMA Cellular Networks: A Survey and
Challenges,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1885–1922, Nov. 2015.
[36] A. Celik, R. M. Radaydeh, F. S. Al-Qahtani, and M.-S. Alouini, “Joint interference management and resource allocation for Deviceto-Device (D2D) communications underlying Downlink/Uplink Decoupled (DUDe) heterogeneous networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Commun. (ICC), Paris, France, May 2017, to appear.
[37] C. Karakus, I. H. Wang, and S. Diggavi, “Gaussian interference channel with intermittent feedback,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 61,
no. 9, pp. 4663–4699, Sep. 2015.
[38] I. H. Wang, C. Suh, S. Diggavi, and P. Viswanath, “Bursty interference channel with feedback,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory
(ISIT), July 2013, pp. 21–25.
[39] A. Vahid, M. A. Maddah-Ali, and A. S. Avestimehr, “Binary fading interference channel with no CSIT,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp.
Inf. Theory (ISIT), June 2014, pp. 666–670.
[40] S. Y. Yeh and I. H. Wang, “Degrees of freedom of the bursty MIMO X channel without feedback,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf.
Theory (ISIT), July 2016, pp. 1312–1316.
[41] V. R. Cadambe and S. A. Jafar, “Interference alignment and the degrees of freedom of wireless X networks,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 3893–3908, Sep. 2009.
[42] S. A. Jafar and S. Shamai, “Degrees of freedom region for the MIMO X channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 54, no. 1, pp.
151–170, Jan. 2008.
[43] A. E. Gamal and Y.-H. Kim, Network Information Theory.

Cambridge University Press, 2011.

35

[44] A. Chaaban and A. Sezgin, “The approximate capacity region of the Gaussian Y-Channel via the deterministic approach,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 939–962, Feb. 2015.
[45] T. M. Cover and A. El-Gamal, “Capacity theorems for the relay channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-25, no. 5, pp. 572–584,
Sep. 1979.
[46] T. Cover and J. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory (Second Edition).

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2006.

