1

Heterogeneous Multi-Tier Networks: Improper
Signaling For Joint Rate-Energy Optimization

arXiv:1603.00203v2 [cs.IT] 6 Nov 2017

Ali Kariminezhad, Student Member, IEEE, and Aydin Sezgin, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract
Wireless nodes in future communication systems need to overcome three barriers when compared
to their transitional counterparts, namely to support significantly higher data rates, have long-lasting
energy supplies and remain fully operational in interference-limited heterogeneous networks. This could
be partially achieved by providing three promising features, which are radio frequency (RF) energy
harvesting, improper Gaussian signaling and operating in full-duplex communication mode, i.e., transmit
and receive at the same time within the same frequency band. In this paper, we consider these aspects
jointly in a multi-antenna heterogeneous two-tier-network. In this network, the users in the femtocell are sharing the scarce resources with the cellular users in the macro-cell and have to cope with
the interference from the macro-cell base station as well as the transmitter noise and residual selfinterference (RSI) due to imperfect full-duplex operation. Interestingly enough, while these impairments
are detrimental from the achievable rate perspective, they are beneficial from the energy harvesting aspect
as they carry RF energy. In this paper, we consider this natural trade-off jointly and propose appropriate
optimization problems for beamforming and optimal resource allocation. Moreover, various receiver
structures are employed for both information detection (ID) and energy harvesting (EH) capabilities.
The paper aims at characterizing the trade-off between the achievable rates and harvested energies.
Rate and energy maximization problems are thoroughly investigated. Finally, the numerical illustrations
demonstrate the impact of energy harvesting on the achievable rate performance.
Index Terms
Heterogeneous networks, full-duplex communication, self-interference, energy harvesting, improper
Gaussian signaling, Pareto boundary, augmented covariance matrix.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Wireless communication systems are facing difficulties in fulfilling the ever increasing demands of the customers operating in various communication standards. In order to fulfill the
The authors are with the institute of Digital Communication Systems (DCS), Ruhr University Bochum (RUB),
Bochum 44801, Germany. email: {ali.kariminezhad, aydin.sezgin}@rub.de

2

... ...

... ...
: Base Station

..

..
: Access Point

: Mobile Users

: Coverage areas

Fig. 1: Full-duplex point-to-point (P2P) communication is performed in a femto-cell which is incorporated in a
macro-cell. P2P communication can be performed by two mobile users in proximity, i.e., D2D communication.

quality of service (QoS) demands of the users, the achievable rate region of the users need
to be improved. Enhancing the achievable rates of the users with limited transmission power
requires smart transceiver algorithms and techniques. Simultaneous transmission and reception
within the same frequency band and time slot, i.e., full-duplex communications is an outstanding
alternative for future communications, as it enables to almost doubling the spectral efficiency
when compared to half-duplex counterpart. However, this comes not for free and additional
hardware and processing is required to cancel the resulting self-interference due to the full-duplex
operation [1]. Self-interference can be partially suppressed passively by means of transmitter and
receiver isolation [2], [3], or it might be actively canceled in analog and digital domain by signal
processing methods, [4]–[6]. Thus, residual self-interference (RSI), which is assumed to be fully
canceled in most theoretical works, still remains in practice. Moreover, transmitter noise due to
non-linear behavior of the power amplifiers and limited dynamic range of the elements [7], [8] can
not be ignored as well for such applications. Accomplishing higher data rates with corresponding
signal processing tasks requires longer lasting energy supplies both for transmitters and receivers.
Senders need to transmit with limited power due to hardware constraint (battery life-time) while
the receivers are required to decode and process large amount of data under similar conditions.
Hence, the users without the option for plug-in recharging, demand energy which needs to be
provided in a wireless fashion. For this purpose, energy harvesting-capable (EHC) receivers could
be deployed which harvest the energy from the environment, e.g. solar or RF energy. Thus, the
life-time of the system can be improved from the energy in the air. The required energy is
sometimes available at a user’s surroundings and needs to be harvested, however, sometimes the

3

√
η

ID receiver
+

EH receiver

w

+

w

a) Time sharing

w
ID receiver

+

PS
√
1−η

+

EH receiver

ID receiver
EH receiver

w
c) Antenna separation

b) Power splitting

n

ID receiver:

Analog Proc.

EH receiver:

ADC

Rectifier

Digital Proc.

+

Decoding

Battery

Fig. 2: Different schemes for EH and ID purposes. In order to study the performance of these schemes and be able
to formulate optimization problems, we distribute the schemes among the users.

required energy is not at its disposal and needs to be provided by the network. Thus, the study of
power transmission and energy harvesting has become the focus of research community recently.
For instance, the authors in [9] study delay-limited communication with EHC nodes. In [10],
the authors develop an outer bound for the rate-energy region considering energy harvesting
constraints. Furthermore, [11] focuses on the sum rate optimization of an energy harvesting
MISO communication system with feedback. The authors in [12] study the performance limits
of MIMO broadcast channel, in which the base station (BS) is responsible for both information
and power transmission.
The above-mentioned results are valid for homogeneous networks. However, practical communication systems are heterogeneous in nature, an aspect which has not been investigated so far. To
this end, we consider a heterogeneous two-tier network with a single multiple-antenna macrocell base station (BS) serving K cellular users. Additionally, in a femto-cell, multiple pairs of
multiple-antenna D2D nodes exchanges information in a full-duplex mode. Hence, the full-duplex
D2D users suffer from both self-interference and interference from the cellular macro-cell users
and vice versa. All users in this heterogeneous network, i.e., both cellular and full-duplex D2D
users, are assumed to be equipped with an energy conversion chain that converts the incident
RF signal energy to direct current in order to load the energy buffer, [13]. By this capability, the
users’ demand go beyond the traditional information transfer as they demand energy as well.
Therefore, on one hand self-interference and the interference from the other users is deteriorating

4

the process of decoding the desired signal reliably, on the other hand the users could use the
energy of the interference for EH purposes. Considering energy and information rate demands
of the users, we study the performance limits of the cellular and D2D users in the network.
These limits are due to the intrinsic trade-off between the demands. Considering this trade-off,
the optimal rate tuples of the cellular users and full-duplex D2D users capable of EH are studied.
Moreover, the optimal rate-energy pairs are investigated. Thus, we address two main problems,
•

What are the achievable rate region of the cellular users and D2D pair under certain transmit
power and received energy constraints?

•

What are the optimal rate-energy tuples of the D2D users under cellular users’ QoS and
power constraints?

The two questions will be answered in an optimization framework. We will establish appropriate
optimization problems for joint information detection (ID) and EH transceiver structures and
compare their performance. In this work, different ID and EH receivers are investigated. The users
could be equipped with antenna separation (AS) receivers, where the energy and information
of RF signals are caught simultaneously over different antennas. Power splitting (PS) and timesharing (TS) are other alternatives for joint ID and EH purposes [14]. By splitting the received
signal power, the energy of one portion is converted to direct current for loading the energy buffer,
while the information out of the other portion is decoded [15], [16]. Time-sharing between energy
harvesting and information detection phases allows EH and ID in separate time instants, Fig.2.
Furthermore, within this context we compare proper Gaussian signaling with improper Gaussian
signaling [17] in the transmission phase. Improper Gaussian signaling has been shown to be
beneficial in interference channels (IC) and X-channels from the achievable rate and consumed
power perspectives [17]–[21].
By utilizing improper Gaussian signaling, the outermost rate region and rate-energy region is
investigated by formulating Chebyshev weighting function, [22]. Then, the problems are reformulated as semi-definite programs (SDP) with non-convex rank-1 constraints. These constraints are
relaxed and the resulting semidefinite relaxation (SDR) is solved efficiently, [23]. If the optimal
solutions are not rank-1, the Gaussian randomization process [24], [25] is further utilized to
acquire sub-optimal rank-1 solutions.
Contribution: To sum up, in this paper we utilize rather novel improper Gaussian signaling in
a two-tier network with full-duplex communication. Hence, we generalize the transmitter noise

5

model of the full-duplex users for this type of Gaussian transmission. Furthermore, the (self)interference in the network is proposed to be harvested in order to load the energy buffer instead
of being wasted. The rate-region and rate-energy region are studied and the performance of
improper Gaussian signaling is compared with the proper Gaussian signaling. Moreover, nonlinear precoding is compared with the utilized widely linear solutions.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
In this paper, we consider a cellular network as shown in Fig. 1 in which a base-station
equipped with N antennas is serving a set of K cellular users. This network operates in a halfduplex mode, i.e., the uplink and downlink operation is performed in successive time instances.
In order to overcome the limitations of their local battery supplies, the cellular users are equipped
with energy-harvesting (EH) receiver chains. Those receiver chains capture the energy of the RF
signals in their environment. Furthermore, in this cell several pairs of D2D users are deployed,
which exchange data in a full-duplex mode, i.e., the D2D users are able to receive and transmit
at the time within the same frequency band. Here, we follow the design proposed and utilized
in [26], [27], in which a full-duplex node is using a subset M of its antennas for transmission
and the remaining ones for reception. Similar to the cellular users, the D2D users are equipped
with EH receiver chains.
Now, let the set of cellular users be denoted as C. For convenience, we define the set of D2D
users as D. Furthermore, the number of cellular and D2D users are defined as K = |C| and

J = |D|, respectively. Then, the channel input-output relationships at each time instant (we skip
the time index) are given by
yk =hH
kB (xB

+ eB ) +

J
X
j=1

H
zj =gjB
(xB + eB ) +

J
X
i=1
i6=j

hH
kj (xj + ej ) + wk + nk ,

∀k ∈ C,
′

(cellular),

′

H
H
gji
(xi + ei ) + gjj
(xj + ej ) + wj + nj ,

∀j ∈ D,

(1)

(full-duplex),

(2)

where yk and zj denote the received signals at the kth cellular user and at jth D2D user,
respectively. Furthermore, the transmitter noise is expressed by e ∈ CM ×1 . Transmitter noise
′

appears mainly due to the limited transmitter dynamic range (DR). The entities n and n represent
realizations of independent and identically distributed zero-mean proper Gaussian noise with
variance σn2 , i.e., CN (0, σn2 ). This noise is due to the imperfections in the ID receiver chain
′

(e.g., phase noise, thermal noise and quantization noise). Antenna noise wk and wj are modeled
as zero-mean proper AWGN with variance σw2 , i.e., CN (0, σw2 ). The interference channel vector

Broadcast Channel

6

h 1B
h 2B

..
.
hM

FD-IC
..
Tx

B

g21
g12

..

gJ(J−1)
g(J−1)J

..

..

..

.
.
.

Direct channel
Inter-User interference channel
Self-Interference channel

Rx

Fig. 3: A two-tier network with cellular and D2D full-duplex communications. The base station and D2D users
are equipped with multiple antennas. Note that the interference between two tiers is not depicted for clarity in
illustration.

between the jth D2D user and the BS is denoted by gjB ∈ CN ×1 and the self-interference

channels are represented by gjj ∈ CM ×1 . The direct link between the jth and ith D2D users is
given by gji ∈ CM ×1 . The channel vectors from the BS and the jth D2D user to the kth cellular

user are represented by hkB ∈ CN ×1 and hkj ∈ CM ×1 , respectively. The system model with the

respective channels between the users is shown in Fig. (3).
The transmit signal of the BS is denoted as xB ∈ CN ×1 which is given by
xB =

N
X

k=1

xBk =

N
X

vBk dBk = VB dB ,

(3)

k=1

where dBk and vBk are the kth information symbol and beamforming vector intended for
the kth cellular user, respectively. The BS transmit beamforming matrix VB and the transmit
information signal vector dB are defined as VB = [vB1 , ..., vBK ] and dB = [dB1 , ..., dBK ]T ,
respectively. Similarly, the transmit signal of the D2D users is given by
xj =vj dj ,

∀j ∈ D,

(4)

where the information signal dj is beamformed in the direction of vj . Note that the information
symbols dBk , dj , ∀k ∈ C, j ∈ D are assumed to be independently identically distributed complex
Gaussian with unit variance. If the real and imaginary parts of dBk , ∀k ∈ C and dj , ∀j ∈ D
have equal power and are uncorrelated, then the signaling type is referred to as proper Gaussian

7

signaling. Otherwise, it is referred to as improper Gaussian signaling [28].
Moreover, we assume here that the D2D users are equipped with M + 1 antennas, where M
antennas are utilized for transmission and a single antenna is used for reception.
In this work, we assume perfect and global channel knowledge. The self-interference due
to full-duplex operation is assumed to be canceled to some significant extent (based on the SI
channel knowledge), but not completely (due to the transmitter noise). Thus, we rewrite the
received signals at the D2D users as
J
X

H
(xB + eB ) +
ẑj = gjB

′

′

H
H
gji
(xi + ei ) + gjj
ej + wj + nj ,

i=1
i6=j

∀j ∈ D,

H
where the residual self-interference (RSI) due to transmitter noise is represented by gjj
ej .

Assuming improper Gaussian signaling, the transmitter noise ej is modeled as

Q̃ej

ej ∼ N (0, Q̃ej ),


Cxj Ĉxj
,
= κC̃xj = κ 
Ĉ∗xj C∗xj
xj ,

(5)

|=

ej

(6)

which states that the transmitter noise follows an improper Gaussian distribution with zero
mean and augmented covariance matrix κC̃xj with κ ≪ 1. Notice that, the transmit signal
augmented covariance matrix C̃xj consists of the signal covariance, i.e., Cxj = E{xj xH
j }, and
pseudo-covariance, i.e., Ĉxj = E{xj xTj }, matrices. Hence, it characterizes the second-order
moment thoroughly. As given by (5), the transmitter noise is statistically independent from

the transmit signal. The assumption of an improper transmitter noise is due to the generated
improper information signal in baseband and imbalance between the in-phase and quadrature
(I/Q) components, where the latter is discussed in [29]. The authors in [5] propose a transmitter
noise model whose covariance is composed of the diagonals of the transmit signal covariance
matrix. By plugging their model in our general model, (6) is recast as
Q̃ej = κC̃xj


diag(Cxj )
= κ
Ĉ∗xj

Ĉxj



.
diag(C∗xj )

(7)

The transmitter noise undergoes self-interference channel and can not be canceled at the receiver.
This is due to the absence of transmitter noise knowledge at the receivers. However, except for
the D2D users the contribution of the transmitter noise can be ignored at all receivers. This
assumption is valid due to the low power of transmitter noise and relative strength of selfinterference channel compared to other channels. Hence, the system model is simplified to
yk =hH
kB xB +

J
X

hH
kj xj + wk + nk ,

∀k ∈ C,

j=1

H
ẑj =gjB
xB +

J
X
i=1
i6=j

′

′

H
H
gji
xi + gjj
ej + wj + nj ,

∀j ∈ D.

(8)

(9)

8

By plugging (3) and (4) into (8) and (9), the received signals are recast as
y k = hH
kB

M
X

vBm dBm +

m=1
m6=k

|

H
ẑj = gjB

j=1

{z

interference
M
X

vBm dBm +

m=1

|

J
X

J
X

i=1
i6=j,l

{z

interference

H
hH
kj vj dj + hkB vBk dBk +wk + nk ,
|
{z
}

∀k ∈ C,

(10)

desired

}

′

′

H
H
H
vl dl +wj + nj ,
gji
vi di + gjj
ej + gjl
| {z }

∀j ∈ D.

(11)

desired

}

Here, we observe the dilemma we are facing in harvesting energy in this network. While the
interference terms in expressions (10) and (11) are detrimental to the rate performance as they
represent harmful interference, they are beneficial for energy harvesting as they posses energy.
Note that index l in (11) is defined as
l=



j − 1,


j + 1,

j ∈ De = {D
j ∈ Do = {D

T

T

Ne }

,

(12)

No }

where Ne and No are the set of even and odd natural numbers, respectively.
In this work, we investigate various types of ID and EH chains at the receiver that will be
discussed in the following. We utilize the models introduced in [14] for simultaneous wireless
information and energy reception. For the purpose of ID, both cellular and full-duplex users
deploy single receive antenna. For the purpose of EH, different structures are utilized,
•

Antenna separation (AS): The users could be equipped with an extra receive antenna for EH
purpose. We assume that the signals arriving at both antennas (one for ID and one for EH)
are experiencing fully-correlated channels. Due to the small-size hand-held mobile stations,
the physical distance between the antenna elements in an array antenna is small. Thus the
received signals are highly correlated.

•

Power splitting (PS): The users could split received signal power for joint ID and EH in
one channel use. This could be achieved by utilizing a power splitter at the receivers.

•

Time sharing (TS): The users have the option to change the receive strategy and do timesharing between ID and EH phases, (ID and EH in different channel uses).

For simplicity in presenting the optimization problems, we distribute the aforementioned joint
ID and EH techniques among the users. We allow cellular users to harvest the energy of the
incident RF signal by AS structure, while full-duplex D2D users employ either PS or TS for
energy harvesting purpose. With this energy harvesting receivers for the users in the network,
we will formulate the achievable rates and energies in the next section.

9

III. ACHIEVABLE R ATES

AND

E NERGIES

In this section, we formulate the achievable rates of the users assuming Gaussian codebook at
the transmitters. In order to decode the desired signals, the users ignore interference, i.e., treat
interference as noise (TIN). The cellular and full-duplex users’ achievable rates are bounded by
rk ≤ I(yk ; xBk ) = h(yk ) − h(yk |xBk ),
′

rj ≤ I(ẑj ; xl ) = h(ẑj ) − h(ẑj |xl ),

∀k ∈ C,

∀j ∈ D,

(13)
(14)

respectively, where I(yk ; xBk ) is the mutual information between yk and xBk and h(yk ) is the
differential entropy of yk , [30]. Moreover, the differential entropy of yk given xBk is h(yk |xBk ).
Definition: The differential entropy of a complex Gaussian random variable yk is given by [28],
h(yk ) =



1
log (2πe)2 |C̃yk | ,
2

(15)

where yk ∈ C. For the case of proper Gaussian where Ĉyk = 0, the differential entropy
expression reduces to h(x) = log(2πeCyk ).
Now, by plugging (15) into (13) we obtain
!
!
Cy2k − |Ĉyk |2
1
1
|C̃yk |
rk ≤ log
= log
2 − |Ĉ
2
2
2
|C̃wk |
Cw
wk |
k
!


1 − Cy−2
|Ĉyk |2
1
Cyk
k
+ log
:= Rk , ∀k ∈ C,
= log
−2
2
Cw
2
1 − Cw
k |Ĉwk |
|
{z k } |
{z
}
Rproper
k

(16)

Rimproper
k

where Cwk and Ĉwk are the variance and pseudo-variance of the interference-plus-noise at the
kth cellular user. Notice that, the first terms in (16) and (17) correspond to the achievable rate
bound in case of proper signaling, i.e., Ĉyk = 0 and Ĉzj = 0. Similarly, the achievable rate of
the jth full-duplex user is given by
!
!
Cz2j − |Ĉzj |2
|C̃zj |
1
1
,
rj ≤ log
= log
2
2
|C̃qj |
Cq2j − |Ĉqj |2
!


2
|
|
Ĉ
1 − Cz−2
Czj
′
z
1
j
j
+ log
= log
:= Rj
−2
2
Cqj
2
1 − Cqj |Ĉqj |
| {z } |
{z
}
′

′

Rjproper

∀j ∈ D,

(17)

′

Rjimproper

where Cqj and Ĉqj are the variance and pseudo-variance of the interference-plus-noise at the
jth full-duplex user. Allowing the transmission to be improper Gaussian, we can enhance the
bound by improving the second terms in (16) and (17), [18], [19].
Here, we define the received signals and interference-plus-noise variances and pseudo-variances

10

that are required in (16) and (17). The variance of the received signals at the kth cellular and
jth full-duplex users are formulated as
Cyk =hH
kB CxB hkB +

J
X

2
2
hH
kj Cxj hkj + σw + σn ,

j=1

H
CxB gjB +
Czj =gjB

J
X

∀k ∈ C,

(18)

2
H
H
+ σn2 ,
diag(Cxj )gjj + σw
gji
Cxi gji + κgjj

i=1
i6=j

∀j ∈ D,

(19)

H
H
H
respectively, where CxB = VB E{dB dH
B }VB and Cxj = vj E{dj dj }vj are the BS and D2D

transmit covariance matrices, respectively. Moreover, we formulate the interference-plus-noise
variance as
Cwk = Cyk − hH
kB CxBk hkB ,
H
Cxl gjl ,
Cqj = Czj − gjl

∀k ∈ C,

(20)

∀j ∈ D,

(21)

H
is the kth cellular user’s desired stream covariance matrix.
where CxBk = vBk E{dBk d∗Bk }vB
k
In addition to the variances, the pseudo-variances of the received signals and interference-plusnoise are required in order to obtain the augmented covariance matrices required in the rate

expressions in (16) and (17) .We write the pseudo-variance of the received signal as
Ĉyk

∗
=hH
kB ĈxB hkB

+

J
X

∗
hH
kj Ĉxj hkj ,

∀k ∈ C,

j=1

∗
H
+
ĈxB gjB
Ĉzj =gjB

J
X

∗
∗
H
H
,
+ κgjj
Ĉxj gjj
gji
Ĉxi gji

i=1
i6=j

(22)

∀j ∈ D.

(23)

The interference-plus-noise pseudo-variance is
∗
Ĉwk = Ĉyk − hH
kB ĈxBk hkB ,
H
∗
Ĉxl gjl
,
Ĉqj = Ĉzj − gjl

∀k ∈ C,

∀j ∈ D,

(24)
(25)

T
.
where, ĈxBk = vBk E{dBk dBk }vB
k

Based on (16) and (17), we can denote the achievable rate region of the users as the union of all
achievable rates under certain power constraint while preserving the property of the covariance
matrix (Hermitian positive semi-definite). Thus, the set of all achievable rates in the network is
R,

[

Tr(Cxj )≤Pj ,
Tr(CxB )≤PB ,
C̃xj 0, ∀j∈D
C̃xB 0, ∀k∈C
k

{r|0 ≤ r ≤ r̄},

(26)

11

′

′

where r̄ = [R1 , ..., RJ , R1 , ..., RK ]T .
The amount of harvested energies at the users per unit time are
ek ≤ Ek =hH
kB CxB hkB +
′

′

H
ej ≤ Ej =gjB
CxB gjB +

J
X
j=1

J
X
i=1
i6=j

hH
kj Cxj hkj , ∀k ∈ C,

(27)

H
H
diag(Cxj )gjj , ∀j ∈ D,
gji
Cxi gji + κgjj

(28)

′

where Ek and Ej are the incident signal energies at the kth cellular user and jth D2D user,
′

respectively. The loaded energy is less than these amounts which are denoted by ek and ej .
Besides rate region, we define the rate-energy region of the jth D2D user as
Fj ,

[

Tr(Cxj )≤Pj ,
Tr(CxB )≤PB ,
C̃xj 0, ∀j∈D

{fj |0 ≤ fj ≤ f̄j },

(29)

C̃xB 0, ∀k∈C
k

′

′

ej ≤Ej
′

′

′

′

where fj = [rj , ej ]T is an achievable rate-energy tuple and f̄j = [Rj , Ej ]T is the achievable
upper-bound.
By defining the rate region and rate-energy region of the users, we will discuss the problems in
the next section.
IV. O PTIMIZATION P ROBLEMS
In what follows we present an overview of the considered optimization problems. In section
A. the optimal operating rates of the cellular users while fulfilling energy constraints is investigated.
B. we optimize the operating rate tuples of the full-duplex D2D users given rate demands for
the cellular users.
C. the optimal operating rate-energy pairs of D2D users under cellular users’ rate constraints
are delivered.
D. the optimization problem considers operating rates and energies of the network jointly under
transmit power constraints.
A. Broadcast Users’ Rate Region under EH Constraint
Cellular users are capable of simultaneous ID and EH which is assumed to be achieved by
AS receiver structure. In this section, we study the optimal achievable rate for these users while

12

fulfilling their energy demands. For this, we need to characterize the Pareto boundary of the rate
region, on which all the rate pairs are optimal. Here, the Pareto boundary defines the frontier
for the achievable rate tuples, such that an increment in the rate of one user inevitably coincides
with a decrement in the rate of at least one of the other users. One way to find the Pareto
boundary is to maximize sum of the weighted rates, [22] which is not an efficient way from
the complexity perspective. Maximizing the minimum of the weighted rates (known as weighted
Chebyshev goal function) is an alternative approach for determining the Pareto boundary, which
is shown to be efficient [22]. Here, we focus on the latter. Therefore, the optimization problem
that characterizes the Pareto boundary of the achievable rate region is formulated as the weighted
max-min problem (weighted Chebyshev problem). In what follows, we formulate this problem
under transmit power and harvested energy constraints as
max
Cx ,Ĉx

min
k∈C

Rk
αk

s.t. Ψk ≤ hH
kB CxB hkB +

(30)
J
X
j=1

hH
kj Cxj hkj , ∀k ∈ C,

(30a)

0 ≤ Tr(Cxj ) ≤ Pxj , ∀j ∈ D,

(30b)

0 ≤ Tr(CxB ) ≤ PxB ,

(30c)

C̃xj  0, ∀j ∈ D,

(30d)

C̃xB  0,

(30e)

rank(Cxj ) = 1, ∀j ∈ D,

(30f)

rank(CxBk ) = 1, ∀k ∈ C,

(30g)

where αk are the elements of vector α, which prioritize the maximization of the minimum of
the weighted rates. In other words, α specifies the direction of optimization over the field RK .
We define the set A as, A = {α ∈ RK | ||α||1 = 1}. Solving (30) and scanning the rate region
in different directions by means of setting α ∈ {A} with a predefined resolution will deliver the
Pareto-optimal operating points. The set of the Pareto-optimal points specify the Pareto boundary
of the rate region. Note that, the convex-hull of all achievable Pareto rate tuples describes the
achievable rate region defined in (26).
In problem (30), the transmission power is limited by constraints (30b), (30c). On the other
hand, the cellular users are required to harvest at least Ψk energy from the received RF signal
for full functionality. The energy that has to be obtained by user k is represented in (30a) which
needs to be provided by the BS and D2D users. The constraints (30f) and (30g) are due to the
feasibility of beamforming vector reconstruction from the optimum covariance matrices, Cxj

13

and CxBk , i.e., feasible beamforming vectors can only be reconstructed from any matrix in the
set of rank-1 positive semi-definite matrices.
Note that, the optimization parameters are Cxj , Ĉxj ∀j ∈ D and CxBk , ĈxBk ∀k ∈ C, however
we refer to all of them as Cx and Ĉx as the arguments of the objective functions.
Remark 1. The energy requirement Ψk , ∀k ∈ C might exceed the BS capability and should be
provided to the cellular users by the D2D users. However, this turns the system to a broadcast
interference channel. Thus, on one hand, the energy constraint would be fulfilled, and on the
other hand the achievable rate would demolish.
Apparently (30) is a non-convex problem. This can be verified by plugging the entities in (18)(21) and (22)-(25) into (16) and (17). Then we observe that, the objective function is neither a
convex nor a concave function with respect to the optimization parameters, i.e. Cxj , Ĉxj , CxBk
and ĈxBk .
Remark 2. The objective function is non-convex even in case of proper Gaussian signaling
′

where the achievable rates are bounded by Rkproper and Rjproper in (16) and (17). In this case
the objective function is the difference of concave functions which is not necessarily convex or
concave.
Problem (30) suffers from non-convexity in the constraint set as well. This is due to the rank-1
constraints (30f) and (30g). Thus, the optimization problem (30) can not be solved except by
exhaustive search over the feasible set. However, the computational complexity of exhaustive
search is high due to the dimensions of the 
optimization variables, i.e., M × M and N × N
Rk
complex matrices. Defining, Λ = mink∈C αk , the problem is reformulated as
max Λ

Λ,Cx ,Ĉx

s.t. Λ ≤

Rk
, ∀k ∈ C, (30a) − (30g),
αk

(31)

where the objective function is translated into the constraint set in the expense of adding an
extra scalar parameter. The auxiliary scalar variable Λ is maximized in the direction of α in
order to get the Pareto-optimal operating point in that direction. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.
Using the rate expressions in (16) we have
max Λ s.t.

(32)

Λ,Cx ,Ĉx

1
Λ≤
αk

log



(30a) − (30g),

Cyk
Cwk



1
+ log
2

1 − Cy−2
|Ĉyk |2
k

−2
2
1 − Cw
k |Ĉwk |

!!

, ∀k ∈ C,

(32a)

Λ ∗α

R2

14

Λ∗ α
R1
Pareto boundary

Scaling direc.

Scanning domain

Fig. 4: Pareto boundary of the achievable rate region of any two conflicting rates. The optimal scaling factor, i.e.,
Λ∗ , in the direction of α is the maximum of Λ while fulfilling the constraints. By formulating the weighted max-min
optimization problem and scanning the rate region, the whole point on the Pareto boundary are accessible.

where the constraint (32a) consists of the transmit covariance and pseudo-covariance matrices
(optimization parameters), which is evident by plugging (18), (20), (22) and (24) into (16).
Optimization problem (32) consists of a linear objective function with convex and non-convex
constraints.
In order to make the problem solvable with less complexity, we proceed with the following
separate optimization method:

a) In the first step, we decouple the optimization problem (32) into two optimization problems.
The first problem contains the first term in the rate expression in constraint (32a), therefore
the optimization variables would only be the transmit covariance matrices. In the second step,
we rewrite the problem as a semi-definite program and solve it numerically by interior point
methods, [31].

b) In the first step, The solutions of (a), i.e. covariance matrices obtained from (a), are used in the
second optimization problem which involves the second term of constraint (32a). Note that
the only optimization parameters in the second problem are the transmit pseudo-covariance
matrices. In the second step, after some definitions we rewrite the problem as a semi-definite
program and solve it numerically by interior point methods.
In the following we discuss the steps in details.
a) Optimization of Covariance Matrix: Step 1: First we focus on the first term in the rate

15

expression in (16) and (17) to optimize the covariance matrices individually. Thus, assuming
′
Rkimproper = 0 and Rjimproper = 0, we replace Cyk , Cwk , Czj and Cqj with the corresponding
expressions in (18)-(21). Consequently, problem (30) simplifies to
max

min

Cx

k∈C

Rkproper
αk

(33)

s.t., Ψk ≤ hH
kB CxB hkB +

J
X
j=1

hH
kj Cxj hkj , ∀k ∈ C,

(33a)

CxB  0,

Cxj  0, ∀j ∈ D,

(33b)

(30b) − (30c), (30f ), (30g).

By defining Γ = mink∈C



Rproper
k
αk

max Γ



, we rewrite the problem as
(34)

Γ,Cx

(1)

s.t. Γ ≤ Γk



CxBk , Cxj , ∀k ∈ C,

Ψ k ≤ hH
kB CxB hkB +
Cxj  0, ∀j ∈ D,

J
X
j=1

(34a)

hH
kj Cxj hkj , ∀k ∈ C,

(34b)

CxB  0,

(34c)

(30b) − (30c), (30f ), (30g).

where the BS transmit covariance matrix for a particular user, say user k, is denoted
 by CxBk .
(1)
(1)
We define Γk as a function of transmit covariance matrices, i.e., Γk CxBk , Cxj as
(1)
Γk

 1

hH
kB CxBk hiB
CxBk , Cxj =
log 1 + PK
PJ
H
H
2
2
αk
j=1 hkj Cxj hkj + σw + σn
m=1,m6=k hkB CxBm hkB +

!

,

(35)

Step 2: Now, we have the separate optimization problem which only depends on the transmit
signal covariance matrices. Now, we apply trace operation to (34b) and the numerator and
denominator of the expression inside the logarithm in (35). By using the shift property of trace
and defining Hij = hij hH
ij , the optimization problem reduces to
max Γ

(36)

Γ,Cx

(2)

s.t. Γ ≤ Γk



CxBk , Cxj ∀k ∈ C,

Ψk ≤ Tr(HkB CxB ) +
Cxj  0, ∀j ∈ D,

J
X
j=1

Tr(Hkj Cxj ), ∀k ∈ C,

CxB  0,

(30b) − (30c), (30f ), (30g),

(36a)
(36b)
(36c)

16

(2)

where, Γk is given as
(2)
Γk

 1

Tr(HkB CxBk )
log 1 + PK
CxBk , Cxj =
PJ
2
2
αk
j=1 Tr(Hkj Cxj ) + σw + σn
m=1,m6=k Tr(HkB CxBm ) +

!

.

(37)

By dropping the rank-1 constraints, i.e., (30f), (30g), problem (36) becomes a convex semidefinite program (SDP) for given Γ, since the constraint set is convex. In order to get the optimal
Γ that makes the constraint set feasible, we utilize bisection method. Therefore, optimization
problem (36) can be solved efficiently by checking the feasibility of the constraint set for a given
Γ. Thus, we solve the following feasibility problem for a given Γ,
find Cxj ∈ SM and CxBk ∈ SN , ∀j ∈ D and ∀k ∈ C
s.t.

(38)

(36a) − (36c), (30b), (30c),

where SM and SN are the cone of M ×M and N ×N Hermitian positive semi-definite matrices,
respectively. The solution of problem (36) coincides with the solution of (38) for the maximum
Γ that makes the constraint set non-empty when the rank-1 constraints are relaxed. In the rest of
the paper we denote the optimal covariance matrices of (36) by C⋆xj , ∀j ∈ D and C⋆xB , ∀k ∈ C,
k

and the solution of problem (36) by Γ⋆ .

Based on the solutions of problem (36), we proceed with the two following feasible solutions,
I. The solutions are intrinsically rank-1: Then the corresponding rates are achievable, i.e.
all the points on the Pareto boundary can be achieved by linear beamforming [31]. Thus,
an eigenvalue decomposition of a particular optimal solution, say C⋆xj yields,
1

1

H
H
2
2
C⋆xj = uj βk uH
j = uj βj βj uj = tj tj ,

(39)

where uj is the eigenvector corresponding to the single eigenvalue βj . Notice that, the
beamforming vector for the jth D2D user is represented by tj .
II. The solutions have higher ranks: We utilize Gaussian randomization procedure, [23],
which delivers sub-optimal rank-1 solutions. Gaussian randomization starts by generating
finite number of vectors from the Gaussian distribution with zero mean and C⋆xj covariance
matrix, i.e. N ∼ (0, C⋆xj ). Then, out of the feasible beamforming solutions, the optimal one
which satisfies the constraint set is chosen. Gaussian randomization provides a sub-optimal
solution and the quality of the sub-optimality depends on the number of randomizations.

17

b) Optimization of Pseudo-covariance matrix: Step 1: By considering the optimal covariance matrix of problem (38), we have the optimal value for the first term in the rate expression
in (16) which is denoted by Γ⋆ . By plugging Γ⋆ into the first term of (16), we optimize the
pseudo-covariance matrices. Thus, the optimization problem is written as
max

Λ

(40)

Λ,Ĉx

1
log
s.t. Λ ≤ Γ +
2αk
⋆

C̃xj  0, ∀j ∈ D,

−2

1 − Cy∗k |Ĉyk |2

∗−2 |Ĉ
2
1 − Cw
wk |
k

!

, ∀k ∈ C,

(40a)

C̃xB  0

(40b)

where the power and energy constraints are dropped since they are embedded in the covariance
part of the augmented covariance matrix.
Step 2: The optimization problem (40) is solved efficiently in the Appendix.
B. Rate Region of the D2D users
The coexistence of D2D communication in the crowd of cellular users requires the study of
the achievable rate region of the full-duplex D2D users while guaranteeing rate demands of the
other users. We can resemble this case as a network with cognitive users, where the cellular users
are the primary users and the D2D users are the secondary users with cognition. Particularly,
in an underlay cognitive network where D2D users are active only in case of fulfilling the
primary users’ demands. In this section we assume the case that the primary users request
only information and we formulate the maximum achievable rate-tuples for the D2D users. The
problem is written as
′

max
Cx ,Ĉx

Rj
min
j∈D αj

(41)
(1)

s.t. Σk ≤ Σk



CxBk , Cxj , ∀k ∈ C,

(41a)

(30b) − (30g),
′

where, Rj is the achievable rate for the jth full-duplex D2D user that is given in (17) and Σk
(1)
is the rate demand for kth cellular user. Note that, Σk is given by
(1)
Σk



CxBk , Cxj



hH
kB CxBk hkB
= log 1 + PK
PJ
H
H
2
2
j=1 hkj Cxj hkj + σw + σn
m=1,m6=k hkB CxBm hkB +

!

.

(42)

18

Hence, the objective functions are composed of the covariance and pseudo-covariance matrices
of the transmit signals. To solve this problem we proceed with the same procedure as described
′
in the last section. First we optimize the covariance matrix assuming Rjimproper = 0, which is
′

Rjproper
min
j∈D
αj

max
Cx

(43)
(1)

s.t. Σk ≤ Σk

(30b) − (30g).




CxBk , Cxj , ∀k ∈ C,

(43a)

′

By defining, Γ =

R proper
minj∈D jαj

we formulate the respective SDP problem as

max Γ

(44)

Γ,Cx



CxBk , Cxj , ∀j ∈ D,


(2)
Σk ≤ Σk CxBk , Cxj , ∀k ∈ C,
(3)

s.t. Γ ≤ Γj

(44a)
(44b)

(30b) − (30g),

(3)

where Γj

(2)

and Σk are defined as



 1

Tr(Gjl Cxl )
(3)
,
CxBk , Cxj = log 1 +
Γj

P
2 + σ2
αj
Tr(GjB CxB ) + Ji=1 Tr(Hji Cxi ) + κTr Gjj diag(Cxj ) + σw
n
i6=j,l

(45)

(2)

Σk

Tr(HkB CxBk )
PJ
2
2
j=1 Tr(Hkj Cxj ) + σw + σn
m=1,m6=k Tr(HkB CxBm ) +



CxBk , Cxj = log 1 + PK

!

,

(46)

respectively. By ignoring the rank-1 constraints, we solve the SDP efficiently. Furthermore, we
compensate the relaxation by Gaussian randomization method in order to get a feasible optimal
solution. Note that the optimization problem of (44) yields the optimal transmit covariance matrices while the rate region can be further improved by optimization over the pseudo-covariance
matrices. Optimizing pseudo-covariance matrices for this problem is similar to problem (32)
which can be solved similarly as in Appendix.
C. Joint Rate-Energy Optimization (full-duplex D2D users)
In this subsection we present the rate-energy region of the D2D users assuming self-interference
and transmitter noise with active base station. The full-duplex D2D users are equipped with a
single receive antenna. In a single-antenna receiver, either information out of the received signal
can be extracted or the energy unless by power splitting (PS) or time sharing (TS). First, we study
the PS receiver structure, where each D2D user splits the received signals power and decodes

19

the information of one portion and captures the energy from the other portion. We formulate the
optimization problem that achieves the Pareto boundary of the rate-energy region as
′

max

min

Cx ,Ĉx

′

Rj Ej
,
α1 α2

!

(2)

s.t. Σk ≤ Σk

(30b) − (30g),

(47)



CxBk , Cxj , ∀k ∈ C,

(47a)

where, 0 ≤ α1 ≤ 1 and α2 = 1 − α1 .
We define η as the power splitting factor, so that η = 1 corresponds with pure information
detection and η = 0 is associated with pure energy harvesting. Thus, simultaneous EH and ID
occurs by setting 0 < η < 1. By this definition, we first optimize the covariance matrices as,
!
′
′
Rjproper (η) Ej (η)
max min
,
Cx ,η
α1
α2


(2)
s.t. Σk ≤ Σk CxBk , Cxj , ∀k ∈ C,

(48)
(48a)

(30b) − (30g),

′

where Rjproper (η) and Ej (η) are the achievable rates and energies at the jth full-duplex D2D
user, respectively. The achievable energy is formulated as
′

′

Ej (η) =(1 − η)(Tr(Gji Cxi ) + Tr(GjB CxB ) + κTr(Gjj diag(Cxj ))),

(49)

and the achievable rate is expressed as



′
Rjproper (η) = log 
1 +




ηTr(Gjl Cxl )
,




PJ
2
2
η Tr(GjB CxB ) + i=1 Tr(Hji Cxi ) + κTr Gjj diag(Cxj ) + σw + σn

(50)

i6=j,l

Note that the achievable
rates and energies
are functions of the power splitting coefficient, η.
 ′ proper

′
Rj
(η) Ej (η)
We define, Γ = min
, α2 . Then problem (48) is rewritten as
α1
max
Cx ,η

Γ

(51)
′

Rjproper (η)
s.t. Γ ≤
, ∀j ∈ D,
α1

(51a)

′

Ej (η)
, ∀j ∈ D,
α2


(2)
Σk ≤ Σk CxBk , Cxj , ∀k ∈ C,

Γ≤

(51b)
(51c)

(30b) − (30g).

By exhaustive search over η and bisection over Γ, the feasibility check problem can be efficiently
solved (the feasibility check problem for (51) can be formulated in a similar way as Problem

20

(30)). If the optimal solutions do not fulfill the rank-1 constraints, the Gaussian randomization
procedure finds a sub-optimal solution correspondingly. The pseudo-covariance matrices are
optimized by some vector definitions similar to the procedure elaborated in the Appendix.
Time sharing is the other strategy that could be utilized for joint ID and EH in a single antenna
receivers. The achievable rate-energy region for TS receivers can be found by determining the
two extremum points which are achievable by pure ID and pure EH.
Power splitting and TS receivers characterize the trade-off between energy and rate of a particular
′

′

′

′

user (R1 -E1 or R2 -E2 ). By setting one user to purely decode information and the other user
to purely harvest energy, we can study the trade-off between the objectives of different users.
Suppose one user, say user 1, harvests energy while the other user, say user 2, detects information
′
′
′
′
and vice versa. Therefore, we are interested in the rate-energy region (R2 -E1 or R1 -E2 ) while
guaranteeing cellular users’ demands. This is achieved by scanning the rate-energy region in the
positive quadrant of R2 .
In this case, the problem is expressed as
!
′
′
Ri Ej
,
max
min
α1 α2
Cx ,Ĉx , j6=i


(2)
s.t. Σk ≤ Σk CxBk , Cxj , ∀k ∈ C,

(52)
(52a)

(30b) − (30g),

It is important to note that, not only the optimum covariance and pseudo-covariance but also the
optimum rate-energy pair is crucial, so that one could decide which user to detect information
and which user to harvest energy. This problem is solved similarly and we skip reformulations.
D. Joint Rate-Energy Optimization Simultaneously
Simultaneous optimization of the rates and the energies jointly might be considered if the
nodes are capable of EH and ID at the same time. We can think of this by implementing
one extra antenna at the receivers. Thus, one antenna is used for information detection, while
the other harvests energy, (AS). In this paper we do not discuss the optimality of using both
antennas at the receivers for improving achievable rates of the users. Thus, we stick to a
single-antenna information reception system and an auxiliary antenna for energy harvesting.
The problem delivers the (2K + J)-dimensional rate-energy region, where K cellular users
simultaneously harvest energy and decode information by AS and J full-duplex D2D users are
decoding information only. We formulate the joint rate and energy maximization problem as
max min

Cx ,Ĉx φ∈Φ



Ωφ
βφ



s.t. (30b) − (30g),

(53)

21

where,

P2K+J
φ=1

βφ = 1 and Ωφ is defined as

′


Rφ ,
φ = 1, ..., J



Ωφ = Rφ−J ,
φ = J + 1, ..., K + J




E
φ−K−J , φ = K + J + 1, ..., 2K + J

(54)

This optimization problem is solved using separate optimization method that has already been
discussed. According to this optimization problem we can observe all optimal rate-energy pairs
of the system.
We proceed with the numerical results of the proposed optimization problems in the next section.
V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, we study the simulation results and discuss the insights for the rate and energy
optimization problems formulated in the former sections.
Proper Gaussian signaling is numerically shown not to be optimal for the investigated setup.
Different aspects of the network are discussed and the achievable rate region and rate-energy
trade-off are delivered. For simplicity in illustration,
•

We assume two active cellular users in the network,

•

We limit transmit antennas to two.

The transmit power budget at the BS and full-duplex nodes as assumed to be PB = 4 and
Pj = 2, ∀j, respectively. The AWGN variance is assume to be σn2 = 1.
A. Cellular Users’ Rate Region
In this subsection, we discuss the rate region improvement of the cellular users when allowing
improper Gaussian signaling. We assume that an extra receive antenna is employed in the cellular
users in order to obtain the required amount of energy from the RF signals. The channel that
is experienced by the information decoding chain and energy harvesting chain is assumed to be
fully correlated. The discussions in this section are based on the solution of problem (30).
It is of importance to note that, the capacity of the MIMO Gaussian broadcast channel is
achieved by treating interference as noise (TIN) in the receivers and dirty paper coding (DPC)
and time-sharing at the transmitter with proper Gaussian signaling, [32], [33]. In order to show
the performance of Gaussian signaling with linear precoding, we compare the achievable rate
region with the optimal scheme (DPC which is a non-linear precoding scheme). Figure 5(a)

22

MRT, proper Gaussian
Optimal proper Gaussian
Optimal improper Gaussian
Capacity

R2 (bits/channel use)

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

1.6

Proper Gaussian (no EH constraints)
Improper Gaussian (no EH constraints)
Proper Gaussian (with EH constraints)
Improper Gaussian (with EH constraints)

1.4
R2 (bits/channel use)

1.6

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
R1 (bits/channel use)

1.2

1.4

1.6

0

0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
R1 (bits/channel use)

1.2

1.4

1.6

(a) Rate region improvement of broadcast channel by im-

(b) Rate region improvement by improper signaling under EH

proper Gaussian signaling.

constraint, Ψk = 6, ∀k.

Fig. 5: Achievable rate region of the cellular users.

compares the achievable rate region of improper Gaussian signaling, proper Gaussian signaling
and DPC scheme. Moreover, we compare the performance of optimized beamforming solution
with the solution of maximum ratio transmission (MRT). Notice that, by MRT each user transmits
in the direction of its own channel. Hence, the power allocation problem for MRT turns to be
a geometric program which can be solved efficiently. Notice that, since MRT is not an optimal
solution, some energy demands are not satisfied. Therefore, the problem becomes infeasible by
MRT, however it is feasible by the optimized beamforming solution.
Remark 3. The broadcast channel investigated in this paper suffers from interference caused
by the D2D users which are active in order to satisfy the cellular users’ energy demands. Note
that, for the Gaussian broadcast channel with EH constraints, the capacity is still unknown.
Now, it is required that, the cellular users should obtain particular RF energy from the
environment. The case might happen that the required energy is far more than that exists in
their surroundings. Hence, power should be transmitted to the cellular users in order to fulfill
the energy demands. Assuming that the demanded energy is provided by the BS, it is rateoptimal for the cellular users if the D2D users remain silent or do zero-forcing in order not
to cause interference at the cellular users. But if the demanded energy is more than the BS
capability, the D2D users get activated to fulfill the cellular users’ energy demands. In this case,
on one hand the interference from the D2D users fulfills the energy demands of the cellular

23

Proper Gaussian
Improper Gaussian
DPC, proper Gaussian
DPC, Improper Gaussian, TS

0.8
0.6
0.4

0.6
0.4

No interference and Tx noise (Upperbound)
Tx noise + RSI, R1 = R2 = 0
Tx noise + RSI, R1 = R2 = 0.4, proper sig.
Tx noise + RSI , R1 = R2 = 0.4, improper sig.

0.2

0.2
0

0.8

′

R2 (bits/channel use)

1

R2 (bits/channel use)

1

1.2

0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
R1 (bits/channel use)

1

1.2

0

0 5 · 10−2 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
′
R1 (bits/channel use)

(a) Antenna separation is the receiver structure for ID and

(b) Rate region of D2D users under cellular users’ rate

EH purposes. Note that, TS refers to time-sharing between

constraints

decoding orders.

Fig. 6: Achievable rate region of the cellular and D2D users

users and on the other hand, this interference reduces the achievable rates of the cellular users.
Hence, in order to guarantee the cellular users’ demands, simultaneous information and power
transmission is required to fulfill the network constraints. If the interference from the D2D users
appear, improper Gaussian signaling helps in enlarging the achievable rate region. Figure 5(b)
illustrates the rate region improvement by allowing improper Gaussian signaling. Considering
energy demands, the rate region of DPC is improved by improper Gaussian signaling which is
depicted in Fig. 6(a). When the BS utilizes DPC, it codes the transmit signal in a way that the
received signal in one user is free from the interference from the other user. This type of coding
is beneficial from information rate perspective but it is detrimental from the energy viewpoint.
In this case, if the cellular users’ energy demands are high enough, DPC becomes an inefficient
coding scheme. The inefficiency of DPC is shown in Fig. 6(a), where the rate region of the
cellular users is almost the same as the case of not utilizing DPC.
B. Full-Duplex D2D
The performance of full-duplex D2D users is evaluated in this subsection. We consider the
case, where D2D users behave as underlay cognitive radios. Hence, they are allowed to be active
just in case that the demands of the primary users (cellular users) are fulfilled. Having this in
mind that the primary users are supposed to fulfill certain rate constraints, D2D users maximize

24

the achievable rates and energies. By utilizing improper signaling, the rate region of the D2D
users is enlarged as shown in Fig. 6(b). Rate-energy region for full-duplex communication is
studied, where PS and TS are the joint ID and EH techniques. Assuming PS receiver (refer to
problem (47)), in order to achieve maximum rate at a full-duplex user, BS needs to be silent.
This is due to the fact that, maximum power delivered to the D2D user is achieved when the
BS transmits with maximum power. Consider a case where a full-duplex D2D user runs out of
power. Then, it is optimal to restrict the operating at the receivers to EH mode. Moreover, the
transmitters need to direct their beams into the direction that delivers maximum power for that
user (maximum ratio transmission in direction of the user). This operating point is depicted in
Fig. 7(a), where the plots cross the vertical axis. The maximum rate for a full-duplex node is
achieved when the BS forms its beam so that the least power hits the user (achieved by zeroforcing). This can be observed in Fig. 7(a), where the plots cross the horizontal axis. According
to this figure, the efficiency of improper Gaussian signaling from the rate and energy perspective
is vivid. If we share time (TS structure) between EH and ID phases in a particular D2D user, the
black solid line consists of the outermost achievable rate and energy tuples. Moreover, we study
the trade-off between the rates and energies of two full-duplex D2D users as well, where the first
user is assumed to purely harvest energy and the second user requires information only and vice
versa. The numerical results of the achievable rate-energy region for this strategy is depicted in
Fig. 7(b), (refer to problem (52)). Intuitively, maximum ratio transmission (MRT) beamforming
at the BS and D2D users toward the first D2D user, maximizes the received signal energy at the
′

first D2D user, i.e., E1 , while this type of transmission is not rate optimal for the second D2D
′

users, i.e., R2 . Thus, due to the priority weights of the rate and the energy optimization, all the
points on the rate-energy region boundaries are achievable by optimum beamforming vectors.
C. Joint rate and energy maximization
In this subsection, we discus the performance of the investigated setup, when each receive
antenna either decodes information or extracts the energy of the incident RF signal. Cellular
users are able to harvest energy from the RF signal in the environment and decode information
simultaneously with maximum power through AS receiver structure. However, D2D users are
equipped with a single receive antenna and the receivers consume the whole received signal with
its maximum power for ID purpose. In other words, D2D users are not demanding energy at a
particular time and their main concern is information, (refer to problem (53)).

25

2.5
E2 (Energy unit)

1.2
1
0.8

′

0.6

′

E1 (Energy unit)

3

PS, Proper sig. rate-energy region frontier
PS, Improper sig. rate-energy region frontier
TS between EH and ID phases

1.4

2
1.5
1

0.4
0.5

0.2
0

0

0.1

0.2
0.3
R1 (bits/channel use)

0.4

0.5

′

0

Proper sig. R1 = R2 ≥ 0.2
Improper sig. R1 = R2 ≥ 0.2

0 5 · 10−2 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
′
R1 (bits/channel use)

0.3

0.35

0.4

(a) Rate-energy region of a full-duplex node in the network.

(b) Improvement in the rate-energy region for ID in one full-

Other users are neither demanding information nor energy.

duplex node and EH in the other.

Fig. 7: Rate-energy region of the full-duplex nodes.

For two cellular users (demanding information and energy) and two D2D users (demanding
information only), some interesting operating point on the boundary of six-dimensional rateenergy region is depicted in Table I. According to this table, by allowing improper Gaussian
signaling, the achievable sum rate can be improved compared to proper Gaussian signaling. This
improvement in the achievable sum rate can be manifested in the energy as well. That means,
considering the rate demands to be fulfilled by proper Gaussian signaling, the users can harvest
more energy if the transmission scheme is improper Gaussian signaling.
VI. M ULTIPLE U SERS
In this section we discuss the performance of a full-duplex interference channel (FD-IC, J > 2)
in proximity of a broadcast channel with multiple users K > 2.
A. Cellular Users
In order for the BS to convey independent messages to downlink users in a single channel
use, the number of transmit antennas at the BS should be at least as many as K, (i.e., N = K).
Hence, due to limited power available at the BS, power allocation for the messages of the cellular
users results in lower achievable rates for individual users. Thus, the K-dimensional rate region
(e.g., Fig. 5(a) for K = 2) shrinks as the number of users increase. This region tends to shrink
as a function of EH demands and the channel realizations as well. That means, for high EH

26

Optimal Gaussian signalig
′

′

Signaling

r1

r2

r1

r2

e1

e2

Proper

0.08

0.54

0.54

0.54

3.23

2.88

Improper

0.11

0.61

0.71

0.61

3.23

2.88

Signaling

r1

r2

r1

r2

e1

e2

Proper

0.00

0.43

0.72

0.54

2.52

2.56

Improper

0.02

0.49

0.83

0.67

2.52

2.56

′

′

TABLE I: Pareto-optimal operating points for different Chebyshev weights.

demands, the BS becomes unable of satisfying them, thus FD users get activated. The undesired
interference imposed by FD users to satisfy the cellular users demand results in lower achievable
rates for cellular users.
B. Full-Duplex Users
Presence of multiple FD communication pairs in proximity aids them in satisfying high EH
demands on one hand. On the other hand, the individual achievable rates will diminish due to
the undesired interference in signal detection and decoding. Assuming time-sharing for ID and
EH purposes among any pair of FD users (at a particular time instant, one user does ID and the
other user does EH), a 2D rate-energy region can be derived (e.g., Fig. 7(b)). As the number
of FD users increase (compared to J = 2 in Fig. 7(b)), the intersection of the Pareto boundary
′

with R2 -axis will remain unchanged. This is due to zero-forcing by the other users (i.e., transmit
′

in the null space of the channel). Meanwhile the Pareto boundary will intersect the E1 -axis at
higher energy level. This is due to an increase in the number of energy providers.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we studied the rate and energy performance of a two-tier network which is
composed of multiple full-duplex device-to-device communications incorporated in a macrocell with a base station. Furthermore, we investigated the advantage of full-duplex D2D users
in aiding the cellular users. Due to the energy and information demands of the users, different
practical receiver structures for joint energy harvesting and information detection are investigated,
namely, antenna separation, power splitting and time sharing. The performance of these types
of receivers are manifested while improper Gaussian signaling is proposed to be utilized at the

27

transmitters. we observed that, if the energy demands of the cellular users is out of the capability
of the BS, the full-duplex D2D users aid in fulfilling the demands and it is not necessary to
utilize non-linear dirty paper coding at the BS in case of high-enough energy demands. The
achievable rate region of the users in the network and the achievable rate-energy region of the
full-duplex users are studied and the optimal beamforming and resource allocation solutions are
delivered.
VIII. A PPENDIX
For converting the problem into a SDP, we use the following Lemma.
Lemma 1, [20]. The positive semi-definite constraint in (30d) is satisfied if and only if Ĉxj =
Sj t̂j t̂Tj ∀j ∈ D and ĈxBk = SBk t̂Bk t̂TBk ∀k ∈ C. Notice that Sj and SBk are complex scalar

variables satisfying |Sj | ≤ ||tj ||2 and |SBk | ≤ ||tBk ||2 , and t̂j =
and tBk are defined as is (39).

tj
||tj ||

and t̂Bk =

tbk
,
||tbk ||

where tj

proof: The proof can be found in [20].
By using this lemma, optimizing over positive semi-definite matrices of sizes M × M and
N × N reduces to optimizing over complex scalars, i.e., Sj , ∀j and SBk , ∀k. For convenience in

formulation and readability, we consider two full-duplex users J = 2, while formulation can be
generalized for any arbitrary J. We rewrite the pseudo-variance of the received signal as,
Ĉyk =

K
X

2
X

2
(hH
kj t̂j ) Sj , ∀k ∈ C,

(55)

H
H
t̂j )2 Sj , ∀j ∈ D,
(gjB
t̂Bm )2 SBm + κ(gjj

(56)

2
(hH
kB t̂Bm ) SBm +

m=1

j=1

H
t̂i )2 Si +
Ĉzj =(gji

K
X

m=1

The pseudo-variance of the interference-plus-transmitter noise (Ĉwk and Ĉqj ) is written as,
Ĉwk =

K
X

2
(hH
kB t̂Bm ) SBm +

m=1
m6=k

Ĉqj =

K
X

2
X
j=1

2
(hH
kj t̂j ) Sj , ∀k ∈ C,

(57)

H
H
t̂j )2 Sj , ∀j ∈ D.
(gjB
t̂Bm )2 SBm + κ(gjj

(58)

m=1

For simplicity in formulation and without loss of generality, we assume two active cellular
users, i.e., K = 2. We define the following vectors,
s = [S1

S2
−1

a1 = Cy∗1

−1

a2 = Cy∗2







′

−1

′


∗−1

a1 = Cz∗1
a2 = Cz2

SB1

2
(hH
11 t̂1 )

SB2 ]T ,
2
(hH
12 t̂2 )

(59)
2
(hH
1B t̂B1 )

2
(hH
1B t̂B2 )

2
2
H
2
H
2
H
(hH
21 t̂1 ) (h22 t̂2 ) (h2B t̂B1 ) (h2B t̂B2 )

H

H
H
H
H
t̂B2 )2
t̂B1 )2 (g1B
t̂2 )2 (g1B
κ(g11
t̂1 )2 (g12

,

H

H

,

(60)
(61)

,

(62)

H
H
H
H
H
t̂B2 )2 .
(g21
t̂1 )2 κ(g22
t̂2 )2 (g2B
t̂B1 )2 (g2B

(63)

28

We also define the transmit noise covariance matrices and the corresponding interference vectors
as,
−1

b1 = Cy∗1




∗−1

b2 = Cy2
′

−1

b1 = Cz∗1
′

−1

b2 = Cz∗2
′





2
(hH
11 t̂1 )

2
(hH
12 t̂2 )

2
(hH
21 t̂1 )

2
(hH
22 t̂2 )

0

2
(hH
1B t̂B2 )

2
(hH
2B t̂B1 )

0

H

H

0

H
(g1B
t̂B1 )2

H
(g1B
t̂B2 )2

H
0 κ(g22
t̂2 )2

H
(g2B
t̂B1 )2

H
(g2B
t̂B2 )2

H
κ(g11
t̂1 )2

′

We define the matrices A, A , B, B , and S as,
′

Ak = ak aH
k ,

′

′H

Aj = aj aj ,

′

′

B k = bk bH
k ,

,

(64)

,

(65)

H

H

,

(66)

.

(67)

′H

B j = bj bj ,

S = ssH .

(68)

By the defined vectors and matrices, we can state the following equalities,
2
Cy−2
|Ĉyk |2 = |aH
k s| = Tr(Ak S),
k
′H

′

|Ĉzj |2 = |aj s|2 = Tr(Aj S),
Cz−2
j

2
H 2
C−2
wk |Ĉwk | = |bk s| = Tr(Bk S),
′H

′

2
2
C−2
qj |Ĉqj | = |bj s| = Tr(Bj S).

(69)
(70)

Considering lemma 1 and aforementioned equalities, we reformulate (40a) as,
1
log
Γ = Λ − λ⋆ ≤
2αi



1 − Tr(Ak S)
1 − Tr(Bk S)



.

(71)

Constraints (40b) can also be reformulated as,
Tr(Mj S) ≤ ||tj ||4 , ∀j ∈ {1, 2},

Tr(Mk S) ≤ ||tBk ||4 , ∀k ∈ {1, 2}

(72)

where Mi = mi mTi and mi is the ith column of 4 × 4 identity matrix.

Therefore, the optimization problem (40) can be written as a SDP as follows:
max

Γ,S0

Γ

s.t. Γ ≤

(73)
1
log
2αk



1 − Tr(Ak S)
1 − Tr(Bk S)



, ∀k ∈ {1, 2},

(73a)

Tr(Mk S) ≤ ||tBk ||4 , ∀k ∈ {1, 2},

(73b)

Tr(Mj S) ≤ ||tj ||4 , ∀j ∈ {1, 2},

(73c)

where the rank-1 constraint of S is dropped. Thereof the solution is an upper bound for the
original problem, unless the optimal S is intrinsically rank-1. If optimal S has a higher rank,
a sub-optimal rank-1 solution can be obtained by the Gaussian randomization procedure [34],
[35].
Theorem 1, [20]. For any matrix S that satisfies (73c), the following inequalities fulfill,
1 − Tr(Ak S) ≥ Cy−2
σ 4 ≥ 0, ∀k ∈ {1, 2},
k

(74)

−2 4
1 − Tr(Bk S) ≥ Cw
σ ≥ 0, ∀k ∈ {1, 2}.
k

(75)

29

If (74) and (75) fulfills, then problem (40) becomes a quasi-convex problem and can be solved
by bisection [31]. We consider the following feasibility problem by bisecting over Γ.
find S ∈ S2

s.t. (73a) − (75),

(76)

where S⋆ is found with a certain bisection accuracy. If the solution, i.e. S⋆ is rank-1 the s⋆
can be calculated by eigen-value decomposition. Then, by replacing the elements of s⋆ , i.e., Sj
and SBk , ∀j, k ∈ {1, 2}, in the equation of lemma 1, that is, Ĉxj = Sj t̂j t̂Tj , ∀j ∈ {1, 2} and
ĈxBk = SBk t̂Bk t̂TBk , ∀k ∈ {1, 2}, the optimal pseudo-covariance matrices are delivered.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Sabharwal, P. Schniter, D. Guo, D. 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, Sept 2014.
[2] E. Everett, A. Sahai, and A. Sabharwal, “Passive Self-Interference Suppression for Full-Duplex Infrastructure Nodes,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 680–694, February 2014.
[3] M. Duarte, A. Sabharwal, V. Aggarwal, R. Jana, K. Ramakrishnan, C. Rice, and N. Shankaranarayanan, “Design and
Characterization of a Full-Duplex Multiantenna System for WiFi Networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 63, no. 3, pp.
1160–1177, March 2014.
[4] A. Sahai, G. Patel, C. Dick, and A. Sabharwal, “Understanding the impact of phase noise on active cancellation in wireless
full-duplex,” in Conference Record of the Forty Sixth Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, Nov 2012, pp.
29–33.
[5] B. Day, A. Margetts, D. Bliss, and P. Schniter, “Full-Duplex MIMO Relaying: Achievable Rates Under Limited Dynamic
Range,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 1541–1553, September 2012.
[6] A. Elsayed and A. Eltawil, “All-Digital Self-Interference Cancellation Technique for Full-Duplex Systems,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 3519–3532, July 2015.
[7] H. Suzuki, T. V. A. Tran, I. Collings, G. Daniels, and M. Hedley, “Transmitter Noise Effect on the Performance of a
MIMO-OFDM Hardware Implementation Achieving Improved Coverage,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 6,
pp. 867–876, August 2008.
[8] M. Vehkapera, T. Riihonen, and R. Wichman, “Asymptotic analysis of full-duplex bidirectional MIMO link with transmitter
noise,” in Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Commun., Sept 2013, pp. 1265–1270.
[9] D. Niyato and P. Wang, “Delay-Limited Communications of Mobile Node With Wireless Energy Harvesting: Performance
Analysis and Optimization,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1870–1885, May 2014.
[10] R. Zhang and C. K. Ho, “MIMO Broadcasting for Simultaneous Wireless Information and Power Transfer,” in Proc. IEEE
Global Telecommun. Conf., Dec 2011, pp. 1–5.
[11] R. Gangula, D. Gesbert, and D. Gunduz, “Optimizing feedback in energy harvesting MISO communication channels,” in
Proc. IEEE Global Conf. on Signal and Inf. Proc., Dec 2013, pp. 359–362.
[12] R. Zhang and C. K. Ho, “MIMO Broadcasting for Simultaneous Wireless Information and Power Transfer,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1989–2001, May 2013.
[13] X. Zhou, R. Zhang, and C. K. Ho, “Wireless information and power transfer: architecture design and rate-energy tradeoff,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 4754–4767, 2013.

30

[14] S. Bi, C. K. Ho, and R. Zhang, “Wireless powered communication: opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 117–125, 2015.
[15] L. Liu, R. Zhang, and K. C. Chua, “Wireless Information and Power Transfer: A Dynamic Power Splitting Approach,”
IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 3990–4001, September 2013.
[16] A. Kariminezhad, S. Gherekhloo, and A. Sezgin, “Optimal power splitting for simultaneous information detection and
energy harvesting,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 963–967, July 2017.
[17] V. Cadambe, S. A. Jafar, and C. Wang, “Interference Alignment with Asymmetric Complex Signaling-Settling the HostMadson Nosratinia Conjecture,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2010.
[18] Z. Ho and E. Jorswieck, “Improper Gaussian Signaling on the Two-User SISO Interference Channel,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 3194–3203, September 2012.
[19] Y. Zeng, C. Yetis, E. Gunawan, Y. L. Guan, and R. Zhang, “Transmit Optimization With Improper Gaussian Signaling for
Interference Channels,” EEE Trans. Signal Proc., vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 2899–2913, June 2013.
[20] Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, E. Gunawan, and Y. L. Guan, “Optimized Transmission with Improper Gaussian Signaling in the
K-User MISO Interference Channel,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 6303–6313, December 2013.
[21] A. Kariminezhad, A. Sezgin, and M. Pesavento, “Power efficiency of improper signaling in MIMO full-duplex relaying
for K-user interference networks,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), May 2017, pp. 1–6.
[22] E. Bjornson, E. Jorswieck, M. Debbah, and B. Ottersten, “Multiobjective Signal Processing Optimization: The way to
balance conflicting metrics in 5G systems,” IEEE Signal Proc. Magazine, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 14–23, Nov 2014.
[23] Z.-Q. Luo, W.-K. Ma, A.-C. So, Y. Ye, and S. Zhang, “Semidefinite Relaxation of Quadratic Optimization Problems,”
IEEE Signal Proc. Magazine, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 20–34, May 2010.
[24] Z.-Q. Luo and W. Yu, “An introduction to convex optimization for communications and signal processing,” IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1426–1438, Aug 2006.
[25] N. Sidiropoulos, T. Davidson, and Z.-Q. Luo, “Transmit beamforming for physical-layer multicasting,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Proc., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 2239–2251, June 2006.
[26] A. Gorokhov, M. Collados, D. Gore, and A. Paulraj, “Transmit/receive MIMO antenna subset selection,” in Proc. IEEE
International Conf. on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Proc., vol. 2, May 2004, pp. ii–13–16 vol.2.
[27] D. Gore and A. Paulraj, “MIMO antenna subset selection with space-time coding,” IEEE Trans. Signal Proc., vol. 50,
no. 10, pp. 2580–2588, Oct 2002.
[28] P. Schreier and L. Scharf, Statistical Signal Processing of Complex-Valued Data: The Theory of Improper and Noncircular
Signals.

Cambridge University Press, 2010.

[29] T. Adali, P. Schreier, and L. Scharf, “Complex-Valued Signal Processing: The Proper Way to Deal With Impropriety,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Proc., vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 5101–5125, Nov 2011.
[30] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory.
[31] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization.

New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Interscience, 1991.

Cambridge University Press, 2004.

[32] S. Vishwanath, N. Jindal, and A. Goldsmith, “Duality, achievable rates, and sum-rate capacity of Gaussian MIMO broadcast
channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 2658–2668, Oct 2003.
[33] P. Viswanath and D. Tse, “Sum capacity of the vector Gaussian broadcast channel and uplink-downlink duality,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1912–1921, Aug 2003.
[34] R. Mochaourab and E. Jorswieck, “Optimal Beamforming in Interference Networks with Perfect Local Channel Information,” IEEE Trans. Signal Proc., vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 1128–1141, March 2011.
[35] X. C. Shang and V. B. Poor, “Multiuser MISO Interference Channels With Single-User Detection: Optimality of
Beamforming and the Achievable Rate Region,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 7, July 2011.

