1

Degrees of Freedom of Interference Networks
with Transmitter-Side Caches
Antonious M. Girgis, Ozgur Ercetin, Mohammed Nafie, and Tamer ElBatt

arXiv:1712.05957v1 [cs.IT] 16 Dec 2017

Abstract
This paper studies cache-aided interference networks with arbitrary number of transmitters and
receivers, whereby each transmitter has a cache memory of finite size. Each transmitter fills its cache
memory from a content library of files in the placement phase. In the subsequent delivery phase,
each receiver requests one of the library files, and the transmitters are responsible for delivering the
requested files from their caches to the receivers. The objective is to design schemes for the placement
and delivery phases to maximize the sum degrees of freedom (sum-DoF) which expresses the capacity
of the interference network at the high signal-to-noise ratio regime. Our work mainly focuses on a
commonly used uncoded placement strategy. We provide an information-theoretic bound on the sumDoF for this placement strategy. We demonstrate by an example that the derived bound is tighter than the
bounds existing in the literature for small cache sizes. We propose a novel delivery scheme with a higher
achievable sum-DoF than those previously given in the literature. The results reveal that the reciprocal of
sum-DoF decreases linearly as the transmitter cache size increases. Therefore, increasing cache sizes at
transmitters translates to increasing the sum-DoF and, hence, the capacity of the interference networks.
Index Terms
Coded caching, Interference networks, Degrees of freedom, Interference management.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Wireless networks are experiencing an exponential growth of user traffic load due to the rapid
proliferation of wireless devices. In particular, video content contributes to more than half of
the overall data traffic, and it is expected that it will grow to about 75 percent in the next
few years [1]. Caching of popular content close to user terminals has the potential to tackle
this dramatic growth. In particular, on-demand video content is usually non-real-time, i.e., it is
available prior to the transmission. The main idea of caching is to exploit the under-utilized
Antonious M. Girgis is with Wireless Intelligent Networks Center (WINC), Nile University, Cairo. Ozgur Ercetin is with
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey. Mohammed Nafie is with Wireless Intelligent
Networks Center (WINC), Nile University, Cairo, Egypt and the Dept. of EECE, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza,
Egypt. Tamer ElBatt is with the Depart. of Computer Science and Engineering, American University, Cairo, Egypt.

2

network resources during off-peak hours by prefetching the most popular content in the edge
servers close to users without any knowledge of the future user demands. During the peak-hours
when the network is congested, the caches at the edge servers can be exploited to partly serve
the user requests without accessing the central server to improve the system performance as well
as the users’ experience (See [2]–[7] and references therein). It was shown in [2] that serving a
portion of requests proactively and storing the data in the user caches yield a significant reduction
in the outage probability. In [3], the authors proposed a proactive caching strategy under the
objective of minimizing the transmission costs. In [4], the authors developed distributed caching
networks to minimize the transmission latency with constraints on the capacity of the backhaul
links. The work in [5]–[7] aim to design caching systems under the objective of maximizing the
energy efficiency of the network.
Recently, Maddah-Ali and Niesen introduced an information-theoretic approach, called coded
caching, for an error-free broadcast channel in which each user is equipped with an isolated
cache memory [8]. It was shown that the network traffic can be significantly reduced by jointly
designing the content placement and delivery phases which in turn generates multicast coding
opportunities in the delivery phase. Coded caching has received considerable attention for several
settings [9]–[18]. The work in [9] characterized in closed form the memory-rate tradeoff for the
coded caching problem introduced in [8] under uncoded placement. Decentralized coded caching
was introduced in [10], where each user randomly stores some bits from each file independently
of each other. In [11]–[13], the authors studied the coded caching problem for an arbitrary file
popularity. The work in [14] and [15] studied decentralized coded caching under heterogeneous
cache sizes at the users. Additionally, the concept of coded caching was extended for online
caching systems in [16], multi-server networks in [17], and hierarchical networks in [18].
The role of caches at the transmitters of interference networks was first studied in [19].
It was shown that the caches at transmitters can improve the sum degrees of freedom (sumDoF) of the network by allowing cooperation between transmitters for interference mitigation.
However, in [19], the authors considered only the case of three transmitters and three receivers.
A lower bound on the transmission latency of cache-aided interference networks was derived
in [20], where the authors propose the normalized delivery time (NDT) as a performance metric
which is proportional to the inverse of the sum-DoF. In [21], the authors derived the exact
characterization of the NDT of Fog radio access networks (F-RAN) with caches equipped at
each transmitter. The extension for an arbitrary number of transmitters and receivers was studied

3

F bits

N files

MF bits

TX1

RX1

MF bits

TX2

RX2

MF bits

TX KT

RXKR

Fig. 1: Cache-aided interference network with KT transmitters and KR receivers.
in [22]. The authors in [23] investigated the NDT of the binary-fading interference channel
with two receivers served by a small-cell base station with a finite-size cache and a macro
base station. The problem of interference networks with caches at both the transmitters and the
receivers was studied in [24]–[27]. In [24], the NDT of an F-RAN with two transmitters and an
arbitrary number of receivers was characterized under a decentralized content placement scheme,
where it was shown that the proposed coding scheme achieves a performance comparable to the
derived lower bound. The authors in [25] focused on designing one-shot linear delivery schemes
for cache-aided interference networks in which the channel extension is not allowed. In [26], the
approximate characterization of the sum-DoF for interference channels with caches at both the
transmitters and receivers was investigated wherein the authors proposed a separation strategy
between the physical and the network layers. In [27], the authors proposed an order-optimal
delivery scheme for minimizing the NDT of cache-aided interference networks.
In this paper, we consider a KT × KR interference network with a library of N files, where
each transmitter is equipped with a cache memory of size M F bits. We study the fundamental
limits on the sum-DoF of interference networks as a function of the transmitter cache size M ,
under an uncoded placement strategy that was originally introduced in [19] and [25]. Our main
contributions in this work are as follows:
• We introduce a new communication paradigm in the delivery phase called cooperative Xnetworks in which each

KT M
N

transmitters has a dedicated message for every receiver. We derive

4

an information-theoretic bound on the sum-DoF for such network by using genie-aided, cut-set
arguments. Hence, there is no delivery scheme for cache-aided interference networks achieving
a sum-DoF higher than that of the derived upper bound using such uncoded caching scheme.
• This derived bound gives important insights on the sum-DoF of the cache-aided interference
networks. We show that the delivery scheme in [27] is optimal in the case τ = KR −1, τ =

KT M
.
N

Additionally, the derived bound is tighter than the upper bound in [20] (developed for arbitrary
caching schemes) for small cache sizes. Hence, by using an uncoded caching scheme, the bound
in [20] is not achievable in general.
• We propose a novel delivery scheme based on zero forcing (ZF) and interference alignment
(IA) techniques. The main idea of the proposed delivery scheme is to first schedule the requested
bits into groups such that each group of bits (messages) would be sent in the same transmission
blocks. The scheduling strategy is designed in such a way that each transmitter has a dedicated
message to every receiver. In addition, the messages assigned to a transmitter is available as a
side information at

KT M
N

−1 consecutive transmitters, i.e., those are called cooperative (cognitive)

transmitters. The benefits of cognitive messages on the sum-DoF have been studied in [28]–[30]
for interference networks, and in [31] for multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) X-networks
with two transmitters and two receivers. Therefore, in each transmission block, we design twolayer precoding matrices at each transmitter. The first precoding layer is designed based on ZF
to leverage the partial cooperation between transmitters in order to null out some interference
signals at each receiver, while, the second precoding layer is designed based on IA to align the
remaining interference signals at each receiver into smaller dimensions.
• Although, the work in [25]–[27] have studied a similar setup, we show that our proposed
coding scheme achieves a higher sum-DoF than those of state-of-the-art schemes, where the
differences between our results and those in [25]–[27] are discussed throughout the paper.
Our analytical analysis indicates that the reciprocal of the sum-DoF decreases linearly as the
transmitter cache size increases. Moreover, we show that the achievable sum-DoF is within a
multiplicative factor of 2 from the upper bound which is derived without any restrictions on the
caching and delivery schemes, independent of system parameters.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we introduce the system model and
the problem formulation. In Section III, the main results of the paper are presented. A rigorous
comparison between our coding scheme and the state-of-the-art schemes is also presented in
Section III. Section IV describes the uncoded placement. The converse results for cache-aided

5

interference networks with this uncoded placement strategy is presented in Section IV. We
prove the achievable bound of the sum-DoF for a generic cache-aided interference network in
Section V. Finally, the paper is concluded in Section VI. Some technical proofs are relegated to
appendices.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
Notations: The set of natural numbers and complex numbers are denoted by N+ and C,
respectively. For a square matrix M, we use (M)−1 and detM to denote the inverse and the
determinant, respectively. ()T denotes transpose. We use calligraphic symbols for sets, e.g., S.
|S| denotes the cardinality of set S. [K] denotes the set of integers {1, . . . , K}, and [a : b]
denotes the set of integer numbers between a and b: {a, . . . , b} for b ≥ a. For set [i : j] of
transmitters, the indices are taken to modulo KT which is the total number of transmitters such
that [i : j] ⊆ [KT ]. Similarly, for set [i : j] of receivers, the indices are taken to modulo KR
which is the total number of receivers such that [i : j] ⊆ [KR ].
We consider an interference network of KT transmitters connected to KR receivers over a
time-varying Gaussian channel as depicted in Figure 1. There is a content library of N files,
W , {W1 , . . . , WN }, each of size F bits, where each file Wf ∈ W is chosen independently
 
and uniformly from 2F at random. Each transmitter TXi , i ∈ [KT ], has a local cache memory
Zi of size M F bits, where M refers to the memory size in files, where M ≤ N .
The system operates in two separate phases, a placement phase and a delivery phase. In
the placement phase, the transmitters have access to the content library W, and hence, each
transmitter fills its cache memory as an arbitrary function of the content library W under its
cache size constraint. We emphasize that the caching decisions are taken without any prior
knowledge of the future receiver demands and channel coefficients between the transmitters
(TXs) and the receivers (RXs).
In the delivery phase, receiver RXj requests a file Wdj out of N files of the library. We consider
d = [d1 , . . . , dKR ] ∈ [N ]KR as the vector of receiver demands. The transmitters are aware
of all receiver demands . Thus, transmitter TXi , i ∈ [KT ], responds by sending a codeword
Xi , (Xi (t))Tt=1 of block length T over the interference channel, where Xi (t) ∈ C is the
transmitted signal of transmitter TXi at time t ∈ [T ]. We impose an average transmit power
constraint over the channel input

1
||Xi ||
T

≤ P . In this phase, each transmitter has only access

to its own cache contents, so that, codeword Xi is determined by an encoding function of the

6

receiver demands d, the cache contents Zi , and the channel coefficients between TXs and RXs.
Afterwards, each receiver RXj implements a decoding function to estimate the requested file
Ŵdj from the received signal Yj , (Yj (t))Tt=1 which is given by
Yj (t) =

KT
X

hji (t) Xi (t) + Nj (t) ,

(1)

i=1

where Yj (t) ∈ C is the received signal by receiver RXj at time t ∈ [T ], and Nj (t) is the additive
white Gaussian noise at receiver RXj at time t ∈ [T ]. Let hji (t) ∈ C represent the channel gain
between transmitter TXi and receiver RXj at time t. We assume all channel coefficients are
drawn independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) from a continuous distribution. For a
given coding scheme (caching, encoding, and decoding), the probability of error is obtained by


(2)
Pe = max max P Ŵdj 6= Wdj ,
d∈[N ]KR j∈[KR ]

which is the worst-case probability of error over all possible demands d and over all receivers.
The transmission rate for a given coding scheme for a fixed cache size of M F bits, and power
constraint P is R (M, P ) = KR F/T , where KR F is the number of bits required to be delivered
to receivers and T is the time required to send these bits. We say that the rate R (M, P ) is
achievable if and only if there exists a coding scheme that achieves R (M, P ) such that Pe → 0
as F → ∞. The optimum rate R∗ (M, P ) is defined as the supremum of all achievable rates.
Furthermore, we define the sum degrees of freedom of the network as a function of the cache
size M by

R∗ (M, P )
.
P →∞ F log (P )

DoF (M ) = lim

(3)

The sum-DoF is a performance metric that defines the pre-log capacity or the multiplexing gain
of the network. In other words, the capacity can be expressed by R∗ (M, P ) = DoF log (P ) +
o (log (P )) at the high Signal-to-Noise-Ration (SNR) regime, where the o (log (P )) term vanishes
as P → ∞. Our objective in this work is to characterize the trade-off between the cache size at
the transmitter and the sum degrees of freedom of the cache-aided interference network. Note
that the transmitter cache size should satisfy KT M ≥ N to guarantee that every bit of the library
content is stored, at least, at one of the transmitter caches in the network. Moreover, if the cache
size is larger than the library size, i.e., M > N , then each transmitter is able to cache all files and
the remaining cache memory would not be used, and hence, the problem will be meaningless.
Therefore, we are interested in characterizing the DoF of the network for cache sizes such that
N
KT

≤ M ≤ N.

7

III. M AIN R ESULTS
In this section, we present the main results of this paper. Our main contribution is proposing a
novel delivery scheme for cache-aided interference networks that outperforms the coding schemes
of prior work in the literature, for almost all values of the cache size. Moreover, we show that
the proposed scheme is within a multiplicative factor of 2 from the information-theoretic bound,
independent of system parameters.
Theorem 1. For a general KT ×KR cache-aided interference network with a library of N ≥ KR
files, and cache size M ∈ [N/KT : N ] files at each transmitter, the sum degrees of freedom
satisfies

min

KT K R
, KR
KT + KR − KT M/N




≤ DoF (M ) ≤ min 2


K T KR
, KR . (4)
KT + KR − KT M/N

The proposed coding scheme that achieves the lower bound on the sum-DoF in Theorem 1
is obtained by applying both zero-forcing and interference alignment techniques. In particular, we schedule the bits needed to be transmitted to receivers as groups, where each group
contains KR KT messages transmitted simultaneously in the same transmission block such that
each transmitter has a dedicated message intended to each receiver. Furthermore, the messages
assigned to a specific transmitter are available at KT M/N − 1 adjacent transmitters which we
call cooperative or, equivalently cognitive transmitters. Thus, we design transmit beamforming
matrices comprising of two layers of precoders, i.e., two precoders are multiplied by each other.
The first layer (ZF precoder) is designed to null out messages intended to a specific receiver at
KT M/N − 1 unintended, neighboring receivers. The second layer (IA precoder) is designed to
align the remaining interference signals at each receiver to occupy smaller dimensions of space.
The detailed description of the achievable coding scheme is presented in Section V. Theorem 1
also shows that the proposed coding scheme is within at most a multiplicative factor of 2 from
the information-theoretic bound for all system parameters (the number of transmitters KT , the
number of receivers KR , the number of files N , and the cache size M ). The proof is provided
in Appendix A.
Before going into the details of our proposed scheme, we compare the achievable sum-DoF

8

of our proposed coding scheme with those of the coding schemes in prior work [19], [25]–[27]1 .
It is convenient to define a parameter τ = KT M/N to compare between the different schemes
at corner points M = τ N/KT for τ ∈ [KT ]. The reciprocal sum degrees of freedom 1/DoF (M )
for M ∈ [N/KT : N ] is obtained from the lower convex envelope of these corner points, since
1/DoF (M ) is a convex function of cache size M (See [19, Lemma 1]).
In [19], the authors have exactly characterized the sum-DoF of cache-aided interference
networks for the special case of KT = KR = 3 at corner points τ ∈ [3]. When τ ∈ {1, 3},
the coding scheme in [19] and our proposed scheme achieve the same sum-DoF, where the
optimal sum-DoF can be achieved by only using interference alignment for τ = 1, and the
zero-forcing for τ = 3. When τ = KR − 1 = 2, the authors in [19] have proposed a coding
scheme that jointly uses both the zero-forcing and interference alignment techniques to achieve
DoF = 18/7. Meanwhile our proposed scheme achieves DoF = 9/4 by using a novel scheduling
technique at the delivery phase. Although the scheme in [19] is optimal at the point τ = KR − 1,
this scheme cannot be generalized for the other corner points 1 < τ < KR − 1 for a general
KT × KR interference network as we will elaborate more in Section IV.
For comparison, we summarize the achievable sum-DoF of our proposed scheme and the
schemes in [25]–[27] as follows
DoF

proposed


=min


KT KR
, KR ,
KT + KR − τ

DoF[25]

=min {τ, KR } ,

DoF[26]

=

DoF[27]

KT KR
,
KT + KR − 1


KR



 τ (KτT )KR
=
τ (KτT )+1





 max max

(5)
(6)
(7)
τ ≥ KR
τ = KR − 1 .

KT
τ̀

τ̀ (
KT
τ̀

1≤τ̀ ≤τ τ̀ (

)KR

T
)+(KR −τ̀ )(τ̀K−1
)

(8)


,τ

τ < KR − 1

In [25], the authors have introduced a one-shot linear scheme to achieve the sum-DoF in (6) by
applying the zero-forcing technique. It is easy to show that our proposed coding scheme achieves
the same sum-DoF when τ ≥ min {KT , KR }. Actually, the coding schemes that are based
on zero-forcing only can achieve the optimal DoF as τ ≥ min {KT , KR } (See Appendix A).
However, our proposed coding scheme achieves a strictly higher sum-DoF when 1 ≤ τ <
1

It is worth mentioning that [25]–[27] investigate the problem of a general interference channel with caches at both the

transmitters and the receivers. Therefore, to compare their coding schemes to our proposed one, we consider the special case
of their results in which the caches are available only at the transmitters, i.e., the caches at receivers are equal to zero.

9

1/DoF(M)

100/2500

75/2500

Proposed coding scheme
Naderializadeh [25]
Hachem [26]
Fan Xu [27]
50/2500
1

25

50

M

Fig. 2: Comparison of the reciprocal sum degrees of freedom versus the transmitter cache size
for interference network with KT = 50 transmitters and KR = 50 receivers.
min {KT , KR } which indicates that using zero-forcing alone is not sufficient to achieve a good
performance for all cache size M .
A delivery scheme using only interference alignment has been introduced in [26] to get the
sum-DoF in (7), where the authors have neglected the gain that can be obtained from the
cooperation between the transmitters when the cache size increases. In contrast, our coding
scheme achieves a strictly higher DoF when 1 < τ ≤ KT . Moreover, the multiplicative gap
between the achievable sum-DoFs is given by

DoFprposed
DoF[26]

= 1+

τ −1
.
KT +KR −τ

Observe that this gap

is approximately small when the number of transmitters or receivers is large. This is because,
when KT → ∞ or KR → ∞, the delivery scheme based on interference alignment achieves
approximately the optimal DoF of the KT × KR interference network which is min {KT , KR }.
However, at a small or moderate number of transmitters or receivers, this gap increases as the
transmitter cache size increases, and hence, using both zero-forcing and interference alignment
become mandatory to obtain a better performance.
Finally, [27] has developed a delivery scheme using both zero-forcing and interference alignment to obtain the sum-DoF in (8). We show in Section IV that the scheme in [27] achieves the
optimal sum-DoF when τ = KR − 1. However, our proposed scheme outperforms their delivery
scheme when 1 < τ < KR − 1. To see this, we multiply the numerator and denominator of

τ (KτT )KR
−1
the achievable sum-DoF in (5) with KτT−1
to get DoFproposed = τ (KT )+(K
KT −1 . The reason
)
R −τ )(
τ

τ −1

behind this is that our delivery scheme is designed to efficiently minimize the space dimensions
spanned by the interference signals at each receiver, compared to the scheme in [27].

10

Example 1. Consider an interference network with KT = 50 transmitters, KR = 50 receivers,
and a library of N = 50 files. Figure 2 shows the inverse of the sum-DoF of our proposed scheme
and the other schemes in [25]–[27] as a function of the transmitter cache size. It is observed
that the proposed coding scheme outperforms the other schemes, specifically for moderate cache
sizes. For example, when the transmitter cache size is M = 25 files, our proposed scheme
achieves DoFproposed = 33.33, while ZF scheme in [25] achieves DoF[25] = 25, IA scheme in [26]
achieves DoF[26] = 25.25, and the delivery scheme in [27] achieves DoF[27] = 25.49.
IV. C ONTENT P LACEMENT AND T HE C OOPERATIVE X -N ETWORK
In this section, we first present the content placement strategy for cache-aided interference
networks that was introduced in [19] and [25]. Then, we show that for this content placement
strategy, there arises a new network topology in the delivery phase which we call the cooperative
X-network. For the cooperative X-network, we derive an upper bound on the sum-DoF which
is considered an upper bound for any delivery scheme using such uncoded placement strategy.
A. Content Placement
Assume each transmitter has a cache of size M = τ N/KT , where τ ∈ [KT ]. In the placement


phase, we split each file Wf ∈ W into KτT disjoint subfiles, each of size F/ KτT bits. As a
result, file Wf is represented by
Wf = {Wf,S : S ⊆ [KT ] , |S| = τ } .

(9)

For every file Wf ∈ W, the subfile Wf,S is stored at the cache of transmitter TXi , if i ∈ S.

−1
Thus, each transmitter stores N KτT−1
subfiles. Accordingly, the number of bits stored at each

−1
F
transmitter is equal to N KτT−1
= M F bits. Note that this placement strategy satisfies the
(KτT )
cache size constraint for each transmitter. Moreover, we emphasize that the content placement is
performed without any prior knowledge of the receiver demands or channel gains in the delivery
phase, which is a practically relevant assumption, since there is a large time separation between
the placement and delivery phases. This placement strategy has been first proposed in [19]
and [25] for cache-aided interference networks. For an illustration of the content placement,
please refer to Example 1 in Subsection IV-C.

11

B. Cooperative X-network
In the delivery phase, consider a demand vector d, where the receiver RXj requests file Wdj ,
j ∈ [KR ]. The transmitters should send the requested subfiles Wdj ,S : j ∈ [KR ] , S ⊆ [KT ] , |S| = τ

to the receivers with a total of KR KτT subfiles. In this case, each subset S of τ transmitters


has a dedicated message Wdj ,S to be delivered to the receiver RXj , j ∈ [KR ]. This transmission
problem is called a cooperative X-network, where τ is the cooperation order between transmitters. Note that the cooperative X-network formulation involves several types of transmission
problems discussed next:
• (X-networks): When τ = 1, the problem is reduced to the traditional X-network studied
in [32] in which each transmitter has a dedicated message for every receiver with no cooperation
between the transmitters. The optimal sum-DoF of KT × KR X-networks is given by

KT KR
KR +KR −1

that is obtained by employing interference alignment.
• (MISO broadcast channel): When τ = KT , all transmitters fully cooperate with each other
to deliver KR messages, one for each receiver. Thus, the problem becomes a MISO broadcast
channel with a single transmitter of KT antennas connected to KR receivers, each equipped with a
single antenna. The maximum sum-DoF of a MISO broadcast channel is given by min {KT , KR }
which is obtained using zero-forcing [33].
R
• (MISO X-networks): For general 1 < τ < KT , observe that the messages {Wdj ,S }K
j=1

are available at τ transmitters {TXi }, i ∈ S, i.e., these messages can be transmitted using

τ antennas. Hence, the cooperative X-network can be seen as a MISO X-network with KτT
virtual transmitters each with τ antennas and KR single-antenna receivers. The MISO X-network

was studied in [34], where the optimal sum-DoF for KτT transmitters each with τ antennas
KT

) R
. However, there is a subtle, yet,
and KR single-antenna receivers is determined as τ (K(T )τ+K
R −τ
τ
important difference between the cooperative X-network and the actual MISO X-network. The
τ

K

channels between the multi-antenna transmitters and receivers in the actual MISO X-network

are i.i.d. drawn from continuous distributions; however, the channels between the KτT virtual
transmitters and KR receivers in the cooperative X-network are dependent random variables
derived from only KR KT actual channels. Therefore, this raises an unsettled key question:
Does the cooperative X-network with cooperation order 1 < τ < KR have the same sumDoF as the MSIO X-network? In [19], a delivery scheme for a 3 × 3 cooperative network was



proposed to achieve a sum-DoF of τ KτT / τ KτT + 1 for τ = KR − 1 = 2. Moreover, the

12

authors in [27] proposed a delivery scheme for cooperative X-network achieving sum-DoF of



τ KτT / τ KτT + 1 for τ = KR − 1 for arbitrary number of transmitters and receivers. The
achievability proofs in [19] and [27] are mainly based on generating independent precoding
factors at the transmitters to deal with the dependence of the derived channel coefficients.
Therefore, both cooperative X-networks and MISO X-networks have the same sum-DoF of



τ KτT / τ KτT + 1 when τ = KR − 1. However, is it possible to achieve the same results for
cooperative X-networks for all cooperation orders 1 < τ < KR ? To answer this open question,
we derive an upper bound on the sum-DoF of the cooperative X-networks presented in the
following theorem.
Theorem 2. The sum degrees of freedom of the cooperative X-network of KT transmitters, KR

receivers, and KR KτT messages satisfies

τ KτT KR


(10)
DoF (τ ) ≤
min
τ ≤σ≤min{KT ,KR } τ KT + (KR − σ) σ−1
τ
τ −1
Proof. The proof is presented in Appendix B.



In Theorem 2, it is shown that the upper bound on the sum-DoF of the cooperative X-network
coincides with the sum-DoF of the MISO X-network when τ = KR − 1. Hence, the achievable
schemes in [19] and [27] are optimal when τ = KR −1. However, the upper bound in Theorem 2
shows that the cooperative X-network has a smaller sum-DoF than the MISO X-network when
1 < τ < KR − 1. Therefore, we cannot proceed along the lines of the delivery scheme in [19]
KT

) R
for 1 < τ < KR − 1 which is fundamentally different from
to achieve sum-DoF of τ (K(T )τ+K
R −τ
τ
the case of τ = KR − 1.
τ

K

Theorem 2 not only gives an upper bound on the sum-DoF of cooperative X-networks, but
also gives an upper bound on the sum-DoF of cache-aided interference networks that uses the
placement strategy introduced in Subsection IV-A. In other words, there is no delivery scheme for
cache-aided interference networks with transmitter caches of size M = τ N/KT files achieving
a sum-DoF higher than the bound given in Theorem 2 under the content placement strategy
introduced in Subsection IV-A.
In [20], an information-theoretic bound on the normalized delivery time (NDT) of the cacheaided interference networks is proposed. The NDT refers to the worst case delivery time for
satisfying the receivers requests. Thus, the relation between NDT and the sum-DoF is given by
NDT = KR /DoF. Figure 3 depicts the inverse of the upper bound on the sum-DoF proposed

13

20/100

Achievable bound Theorem 1
Upper bound Theorem 2
Upper bound [20, Theorem 1]

1
15/100
D oF∗

10/100
1/10

5/10

1

M
N

Fig. 3: Comparison of the reciprocal of the upper bound on the sum-DoF proposed in [20] and
the reciprocal of the upper bound in Theorem 2 for the 10×10 cache-aided interference network.
in [20, Theorem 1] for the 10 × 10 cache-aided networks and the inverse of the upper bound
on the sum-DoF of the cooperative X-networks in Theorem 2 for M = τ N/KT , τ ∈ [10]. Note
that, as demonstrated in Figure 3, the upper bound on the cooperative X-networks is tighter than
the upper bound introduced in [20] for smaller cache sizes. This may be due to two possible
explanations. First, it is possible that the content placement introduced in Section IV-A is not
sufficient to achieve the upper bound in [20]. Second, the upper bound in [20] is not achievable
for small cache sizes. This observation motivates future work to find better placement strategies
or upper bounds for cache-aided interference networks.
Before presenting the achievable scheme for the general case, we first illustrate the main idea
of the achievable scheme, using an example.
C. Achievable scheme for 3 × 3 cache-Aided interference networks
Consider a cache-aided interference network with KT = 3 transmitters each with a cache
{Zi }3i=1 of size M = 2 files, KR = 3 receivers, and a library of N = 3 files: W = {A, B, C},
each consisting of F bits.
In the placement phase, each file Wf is split into

3
2



= 3 subfiles of equal size F/3 bits. We

label each subfile with Wf,S , where S ⊂ [3] and |S| = 2 such that the subfile Wf,S is stored
at transmitters TXi , i ∈ S. For example, file A is split as follows A = (A12 , A13 , A23 ), where
subfile A12 is stored at transmitters TX1 and TX2 , subfile A13 at TX1 and TX3 , and subfile A23

14

at TX2 and TX3 . Hence, the cache contents at each transmitter are given by
Z1 = (A12 , A13 , B12 , B13 , C12 , C13 )
Z2 = (A12 , A23 , B12 , B23 , C12 , C23 )
Z3 = (A13 , A23 , B13 , B23 , C13 , C23 )

Hence, each transmitter stores 3 ∗ 3−1
= 6 subfiles with each of it having a size of F/3 bits
2−1
resulting in a total of 2F bits that satisfies the memory size constraint.
In the delivery phase, we assume that the receiver demand files Wd1 = A, Wd2 = B, and
Wd3 = C. Consider subfile Wf,{ij} , i < j, (i, j) ∈ [3] stored at two transmitters TXi and TXj .
j
i
, Wf,{ij}
. For
We split subfile Wf,{ij} into two disjoint smaller subfiles of equal sizes Wf,{ij}
i
, the transmitter TXi is the primary (master) transmitter responsible for delivering
subfile Wf,{ij}

this subfile, while transmitter TXj represents the cooperative transmitter that has this subfile as
a side information. For example, subfile A13 is split into A13 = (A113 , A313 ), where subfile A113 is
assigned to transmitter TX1 while it is also available at transmitter TX3 as a side information.
Consequently, we schedule the 18 small subfiles into 2 sets with each set containing 9 subfiles,
such that the subfiles in the same set are delivered simultaneously in the same transmission
block. In other words, it requires 2 transmission blocks to complete the transmission, where
each transmission block occurs over µn -symbol extensions. The value of µn will be specified
later. Figure 4 illustrates the scheduling strategy and the set of subfiles transmitted in each
transmission block. In each transmission block, each transmitter has a distinct subfile intended
to each receiver, and also has the subfiles of an adjacent transmitter as a side information.
For example, consider the first transmission block (Fig. 4a). Transmitter TX1 has subfiles A112 ,
1
1
B12
, and C12
intended to receivers RX1 , RX2 , and RX3 , respectively. In addition, the subfiles
3
3
A313 , B13
, C13
are available as a side information at transmitter TX1 . Thus, we consider transmitter

TX1 as a cooperative (cognitive) transmitter to the transmitter TX3 .
We now present the delivery scheme at the first transmission block. The delivery scheme is
based on designing two-layer beamforming matrices at the transmitters, where the first layer is
responsible for applying zero-forcing and the second layer is responsible for applying asymptotic
1
1
interference alignment. For transmitter TX1 , the subfiles A112 , B12
, C12
are transmitted using
1
1
1
3
3
beamforming matrices Va,12
, Vb,12
, Vc,12
, respectively, and subfiles A313 , B13
, C13
are transmitted
1
1
1
using beamforming matrices Va,13
, Vb,13
, Vc,13
, respectively. Each beamforing matrix consists

15

A 121 B 121 C 121
A 133 B 133 C 133
A 232 B 232 C 232
1
A 121 B 121 C 12

A 133 B 133 C 133
A 232 B 232 C 232

TX1

RX1

TX 2

RX2

TX 3

RX3

(a) First transmission block

A 131 B 131 C 131

A 122 B 122 C 122
A 122 B 122 C 122
3
A 233 B 233 C 23

A 233 B 233 C 233
A 131 B 131 C 131

TX1

RX1

TX 2

RX2

TX 3

RX3

(b) Second transmission block

Fig. 4: Description of the delivery scheme for the 3 × 3 cache-aided interference network with
a library of 3 files and transmitter cache size M = 2 files.
1,ZF IA
1,ZF
1
= Va,12
of two layers, e.g., Va,12
Va , where the first layer precoder Va,12
is different for each

transmitter while the second precoder VaIA is the same for each transmitter.
The first precoder is designed such that the messages intended to receiver RXi from all
transmitters are canceled at the adjacent receiver RXi+1 . In other words, the objective of the
3
2
1
)
, B13
, B23
first layer is to zero-force the subfiles (A112 , A223 , A313 ) at receiver RX2 , subfiles (B12
3
2
1
) at receiver RX1 . For example, to cancel the interference of
, C13
, C23
at receiver RX3 , and (C12
1,ZF
2,ZF
and Va,12
as follows
subfile A112 at receiver RX2 , we set precoders Va,12
1,ZF
Va,12
(u) = h22 (u) , ∀u ∈ [µn ]

(11)

2,ZF
Va,12
(u) = −h21 (u) , ∀u ∈ [µn ] ,
1,ZF
2,ZF
1,ZF
2,ZF
where Va,12
(u), Va,12
(u) are the u-th diagonal element of matrices Va,12
, Va,12
, respectively.
IA
12 IA
Thus, subfile A112 is received with directions M12
12 Va , 0, M23 Va at receivers RX1 , RX2 , and

RX3 , respectively, where Mlm
gk is a µn × µn diagonal matrix with the u-th element given by


hgl (u) hgm (u)
lm
.
(u) = det 
(12)
Mgk
hkl (u) hkm (u)
The received directions of all subfiles after the first layer of precoding at all receivers is shown in
Table I. Thus, each receiver has three desired signals and three interference signals. Therefore,
we design the second layer of precoders VaIA , VbIA , VcIA such that the interference signals at
receiver RX1 are aligned at a space of dimension |VbIA |. Similarly, the interference signals at

16

TABLE I: The received directions of the subfiles at each receiver after the first layer of precoding

Subfiles

Received directions
RX1

RX2

RX3

A112

IA
M12
12 Va

0

IA
M12
23 Va

A223

IA
M23
12 Va

0

IA
M23
23 Va

A313

IA
M13
12 Va

0

IA
M13
23 Va

1
B12

IA
M12
13 Vb

IA
M12
23 Vb

0

2
B23

IA
M23
13 Vb

IA
M23
23 Vb

0

3
B13

IA
M13
13 Vb

IA
M13
23 Vb

0

1
C12

0

IA
M12
12 Vc

IA
M12
13 Vc

2
C23

0

IA
M23
12 Vc

IA
M23
13 Vc

3
C13

0

IA
M13
12 Vc

IA
M13
13 Vc

receiver RX2 are aligned at a space of dimension |VcIA |, and the interference signals at receiver
RX3 are aligned at a space of dimension |VaIA |. We can satisfy these alignment conditions by
applying asymptotic interference alignment scheme as in [32]. The main challenge here is that
the derived channel coefficients are polynomial functions of the original channel coefficients.
Thus, we prove that the interference alignment conditions are still feasible in our scenario in
Appendix D. For symmetry, we set |VaIA | = |VbIA | = |VcIA | = |V|. As a result, at each receiver,
the desired signals occupy a space of dimension 3|V| and after applying the alignment strategy,
the interference occupies a space of dimension |V|. Hence, if we consider µn ≈ 4|V| symbol
extensions such that each desired signal spans a space linearly independently of the other desired
signals and the interference spaces, then each receiver achieves a DoF of

3|V|
.
4|V|

Thus, a total of

9/4 sum-DoF is achievable in the first transmission block. In a similar manner, we repeat the
same scheme in the second transmission block. Therefore, the sum-DoF of 9/4 is achievable,
overall.
In the rest of the paper, we focus on proving the achievability of the lower bound on the
sum-DoF in Theorem 1 for corner points M = τ N/KT with τ ∈ [KT ].
V. ACHIEVABLE S CHEME
In this section, we propose a new delivery scheme that achieves the lower bound in Theorem 1
for corner points of transmitter cache size M = τ N/KT for τ ∈ [KT ]. Without loss of
generality, consider a demand vector d in which the receiver RXj requests file Wdj under the
content placement strategy introduced in Subsection IV-A. Thus, the transmitters should send

17


the requested subfiles Wdj ,S : j ∈ [KR ] , S ⊆ [KT ] , |S| = τ

which means a total of KR

KT
τ



subfiles are delivered to the receivers.
A. When τ ≥ KR

The transmission is performed over KτT time slots. At each slot, the set S of τ transmitters

KR
cooperates to send subfiles Wdj ,S j=1
to the receivers, where the network becomes as a MISO
broadcast channel with a single transmitter of τ antennas and KR single-antenna receivers.
Thus, beamforming and zero-forcing are sufficient to achieve DoF = KR , where the sum-DoF
is bounded by the number of receivers KR (See Appendix B).
In the following, for a given set G, we use ΠG to denote the set of |G|! permutations of set G, and
2
Πcirc
G to denote the set of (|G| − 1)! circular permutations of set G. For a permutation π ∈ ΠG , we

use π (i) = π (i + |G|) to denote the ith element in permutation π, and π [i : j] = [π (i) , . . . , π (j)]
for j ≥ i.
B. When τ < KR
First, we split each subfile Wdj ,S for j ∈ [KR ], S ⊆ [KT ] such that |S| = τ into τ ! (KT − τ )!
disjoint smaller subfiles as follows
n
o
π(1)
Wdj ,S , Wdj ,π,π̃ : π ∈ ΠS , π̃ ∈ Π[KT ]\S ,

(13)

π(1)

where the index π (1) of subfile Wdj ,π,π̃ refers to the primary (master) transmitter TXπ(1) responsible for delivering this subfile, while transmitters π [2 : τ ] represent the cooperative transmitters
π(1)

that have this subfile as a side information. Furthermore, subfile Wdj ,π,π̃ is not available at the
cache of transmitters TXi , i ∈ π̃. This splitting strategy helps us to schedule the smaller subfiles
required to be delivered to the receivers into (KT − 1)! sets, where each set has KR KT smaller
subfiles that would be delivered in the same transmission block.
Lemma 1. The set of smaller subfiles needed to be delivered to the receivers can be partitioned
into (KT − 1)! disjoint sets each of size KR KT smaller subfiles as follows
o
[ n π(i)
Wdj ,π[i:i+τ −1],π[i+τ :KT +i−1] : i ∈ [KT ] , j ∈ [KR ] .

(14)

π∈Πcirc
[K T ]
2

A circular permutation of a set is an ordered selection of the set elements arranged along a fixed circle. For example, for

the set G = {1, 2, 3}, Πcirc
G = {[1, 2, 3] , [1, 3, 2]}.

18



Proof. The proof is presented in Appendix C

According to Lemma 1, we have (KT − 1)! sets, where each set is defined by a unique permutation π ∈ Πcirc
[KT ] , and each set contains KR KT smaller subfiles that we call messages from now.
For a given π ∈ Πcirc
[KT ] , we sort the transmitters in the permutation order π. Thus, each transmitter
TXπ(i) , i ∈ [KT ], has a dedicated message intended to every receiver RXj , j ∈ [KR ]. Furthermore,
π(i)

R
the messages assigned to transmitter TXπ(i) , {Wdj ,π[i:i+τ −1],π[i+τ :KT +i−1] }K
j=1 , are available at

the adjacent τ − 1 cooperative transmitters {TXl : l ∈ π [i + 1 : i + τ − 1]}, while these messages are not available at the remaining (KT − τ ) transmitters TXl , l ∈ π [i + τ : KT + i − 1].
For any arbitrary n ∈ N+ , we consider each transmission block occurs over µn = KT nΓ +
(KR − τ ) (n + 1)Γ symbol extensions of the original channel, where Γ = KT (KR − τ ). We design a coding scheme to deliver the messages in each block with a sum-DoF of
Note that as n → ∞, we obtain DoF =

KR KT
.
KR +KT −τ

K R K T nΓ
.
KT nΓ (KR −τ )(n+1)Γ

The main idea behind the proposed coding

scheme in each transmission block is that each transmitter has KR messages, where each message
is required by a dedicated receiver, and these messages are available at τ − 1 cooperative
transmitters as a side information. Thus, we develop two-layer beamforming matrices at each
transmitter. In the first layer, each transmitter with the help of the cooperative transmitters nulls
out the message intended to a specific receiver into the neighboring τ − 1 receivers. Hence,
for every receiver, there are KT desired messages, one from each transmitter, in addition to
KT (KR − τ ) interference messages. Then, we design an asymptotic interference alignment
scheme in the second layer to let the interference signals span a (KR − τ ) dimensional space by
aligning every KT interference signals into a single-dimensional space. Therefore, every receiver
can decode the desired KT messages over KT + KR − τ dimensional spaces to get a DoF of
KT
KT +KR −τ

per receiver.

Without loss of generality, let us focus on the transmission block for π = [1, . . . , KT ] for
n
o
delivering subfiles Wdij ,[i:i+τ −1],[i+τ :KT +i−1] : i ∈ [KT ] , j ∈ [KR ] , where the delivery scheme
of the remaining blocks is performed in the same manner. The input-output relation of the
original channel in (1) over µn -symbol extensions is given by
Yk =

KT
X

Hki Xi + Nk ,

(15)

i=1

where Yk and Nk represent µn × 1 column vectors of the received signal and the Gaussian
noise of the receiver RXk over µn -symbol extension, respectively. Xi is a µn × 1 column vector

19

representing the transmitted vector of transmitter TXi . Hki is a µn × µn diagonal matrix of
channel coefficients from transmitter TXi to receiver RXk over µn symbol extension.


hki (1)
0
...
0



 0
h
(2)
.
.
.
0
ki


Hki =  .
.
..
.. 
...
 ..

.
.


0
0
. . . hki (µn )

(16)

Each message Wdij ,[i:i+τ −1],[i+τ :KT +i−1] , i ∈ [KT ], j ∈ [KR ], is encoded into nΓ independent
streams represented by a nΓ ×1 column vector Xj,[i:i+τ −1] . Note that each vector Xj,[i:i+τ −1] can be
constructed at transmitters TXl , l ∈ [i : i + τ − 1], i.e., it can be sent from τ transmitters. Hence,
l
transmitter TXl uses beamforming matrix Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] for precoding the vector Xj,[i:i+τ −1] , where
Γ
l
Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] is a µn × n matrix. Therefore, we can describe the transmitted vector of transmitter

TXi as follows:
Xi =

KR
i
X
X

i
Vj,[l:l+τ
−1] Xj,[l:l+τ −1] ,

(17)

j=1 l=i−τ +1

where it can be verified that transmitter TXi is a cooperative transmitter for transmitters l ∈
[i − τ + 1 : i], i.e., transmitter TXi has the messages of transmitters TXl , l ∈ [i − τ + 1 : i], as
a side information. Furthermore, the received signal at receiver RXk is given by
!
KT
KR
i
X
X
X
i
Yk =
Vj,[l:l+τ −1] Xj,[l:l+τ −1] + Nk
Hki
i=1

=

j=1 l=i−τ +1

KR X
KT i+τ
−1
X
X
j=1 i=1

(18)

l
Hkl Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] Xj,[i:i+τ −1] + Nk .

l=i

Note that the received signal spans a space of dimension µn = KT nΓ + (KR − τ ) (n + 1)Γ .
o
n
l
Our objective is to design the beamforming matrices Vj,[i:i+τ −1] such that the interference
signals occupy a subspace of dimension (KR − τ ) (n + 1)Γ , leaving the desired signals to span
an interference-free subspace of dimension KT nΓ out of µn dimensions. We propose the beaml
forming matrix Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] comprising of two layers (two precoder matrices) as follows
l,ZF
l
IA
Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] = Vj,[i:i+τ −1] Vj,[i:i+τ −1] ,

(19)

l,ZF
where Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] is a µn × µn diagonal matrix designed based on zero-forcing technique. The
T
objective of these precoders is to null out the signals {Xj,[i:i+τ −1] }K
i=1 , intended to receiver RXj

from all transmitters, at the neighboring τ − 1 undesired receivers; however, these signals still
l,ZF
cause interference at the remaining (KR − τ ) receivers. Observe that the precoders {Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] }

20

l,ZF
Vj,[i:i+τ
−1]

l̃,ZF
Vj,[i:i+τ
−1]




˜
for l, l ∈

are different at each transmitter TXl , l ∈ [i : i + τ − 1], i.e.,
6
=
IA
Γ
[i : i + τ − 1] and l 6= ˜l. The second precoder Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] is a µn × n matrix designed to
apply asymptotic interference alignment such that the signals intended to receiver RXj from
all transmitters are aligned at (KR − τ ) undesired receivers into a single space of dimension
(n + 1)Γ , where this precoder is the same at all transmitters TXl , l ∈ [i : i + τ − 1]. In the
following, we give the design of these two-layers of precoders in detail.
1) Design of the Zero-forcing Precoder: Given the beamforming matrix design in (19), we
can rewrite the received signal at receiver RXk as
Yk =

KR X
KT
X

i+τ
−1
X

j=1 i=1

l=i

!
l,ZF
IA
Hkl Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] Vj,[i:i+τ −1] Xj,[i:i+τ −1] + Nk .

(20)

Observe that the signal Xj,[i:i+τ −1] intended to receiver RXj is available at τ transmitters, and
hence, these transmitters can cooperate with each other to null out this signal at τ −1 unintended
l,ZF
receivers. Thus, we aim to design precoders {Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] } such that the signal Xj,[i:i+τ −1] does

not cause interference at receivers RXk , k ∈ [j + 1 : j + τ − 1]. For given i ∈ [KT ], it is required
l,ZF
for precoders {Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] }, l ∈ [i : i + τ − 1], to satisfy the conditions

i+τ
−1
X

l,ZF
Hkl Vj,[i:i+τ
−1]

l=i

P
i+τ −1
l,ZF
hkl (1) Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] (1)
 l=i
..

=
.

0

...
..
.
...

0
..
.





 = 0µn ×µn

Pi+τ −1
l,ZF
h
(µ
)
V
(µ
)
kl
n
n
l=i
j,[i:i+τ −1]
(21)

l,ZF
for all k ∈ [j + 1 : j + τ − 1], where Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] (u) is the u-th diagonal element of the precoder
l,ZF
matrix Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] . Let H (u) denote the KR × KT channel matrix between KT transmitters and

KR receivers at time slot u ∈ [µn ]. Moreover, HSSTR (u) represents |SR | × |ST | submatrix of the
channel matrix H (u) formed by taking rows indexed by SR and columns indexed by ST . For
arbitrary vector a = (a1 , · · · , aτ ), we consider the determinant of the following matrix using
cofactor expansion



hj+1,i (u) . . . hj+1,i+τ −1 (u)


..
..
τ

 X
.
.


det 
=
al cl (u) ,

hj+τ −1,i (u) . . . hj+τ −1,i+τ −1 (u)

 l=1
a1
...
aτ

(22)

21

where cl (u) is the cofactor of element al . By taking

hj+1,i (u)

..
i+τ
−1

X
.

l,ZF
hkl (u) Vj,[i:i+τ −1] (u) = det 
hj+τ −1,i (u)
l=i

hki (u)

 0
=
 M [i:i+τ −1]

l,ZF
Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] (u) = cl (u), we can verify that

. . . hj+1,i+τ −1 (u)

..

.


. . . hj+τ −1,i+τ −1 (u)

(23)
...
hk,i+τ −1 (u)

{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1]

if k ∈ [j + 1 : j + τ − 1]
(u) otherwise

[i:i+τ −1]

[i:i+τ −1]

where M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] (u) is the determinant of the submatrix H{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] (u). Therefore,
the conditions in (21) are satisfied. Thus, the received signal at receiver RXk can be rewritten
as
Yk =

KT
X

[i:i+τ −1]
IA
M[k:k+τ −1] Vk,[i:i+τ
−1]

i=1

+

KT KRX
+k−τ
X
i=1

[i:i+τ −1]

IA
M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] + Nk ,

(24)

j=k+1
[i:i+τ −1]

where M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] is a µn ×µn diagonal matrix with the u-th diagonal element M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] (u)
for u ∈ [µn ]. As a result, the signals intended to receiver RXj from all transmitters are canceled at receivers k ∈ [j + 1 : j + τ − 1], while these signals interfere at receivers RXk , k ∈
[j + τ : KR + j − 1].
Remark 1. (Full rank of the first-layer precoder): Note that the entries of the channel matrix
H (u) are drawn i.i.d. from a continuous distribution. Hence, H (u) has full rank with probability
one for all u ∈ [µn ]. Furthermore, any square submatrix from H (u) also has full rank with
n
probability one. Thus, cofactors {cl (u)}µu=1
have non-zero values, and they are independent

of each other, since they are formed from i.i.d. channel coefficients. Therefore, the first-layer
l,ZF
precoder Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] is a full rank matrix almost surely.

2) Design of the Interference Alignment Precoder: The received signal at receiver RXk
given in (24) consists of two terms: the first term represents KT desired data streams, and
the second term is the interference signals from the data streams intended to receivers RXj ,
j ∈ [k + 1 : KR + k − τ ]. Our objective is to align the interference signals at receiver RXk into a
subspace of dimension (KR − τ ) (n + 1)Γ in order to let the remaining µn −(KR − τ ) (n + 1)Γ =
KT nΓ dimensions to the desired signals. Consider the signals desired by receiver RXj that causes
interference at (KR − τ ) receivers RXk , k ∈ [j + τ : KR + j − 1)]. We would like to align these
signals into a single subspace of dimension (n + 1)Γ at receivers RXk , k ∈ [j + τ : KR + j − 1)].

22

IA
Towards this objective, precoders Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] , i ∈ [KT ], are chosen to satisfy the following

alignment conditions.
[i:i+τ −1]

IA
IA
M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] ≺ Vj ,

∀i ∈ [KT ] , ∀k ∈ [j + τ : KR + j − 1] ,

(25)

where P ≺ Q means that the column space of matrix P is a subspace of the column space of
the matrix Q. First, we choose
IA
IA
Vj,[i:i+τ
−1] = Vj1 .

(26)

IA
Therefore, the problem is reduced to finding precoders Vj1
, VjIA for all j ∈ [KR ] satisfying
[i:i+τ −1]

IA
M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] Vj1
≺ VjIA ,

∀i ∈ [KT ] , ∀k ∈ [j + τ : KR + j − 1] .

(27)

IA
In (27), there are Γ = KT (KR − τ ) conditions that Vj1
and VjIA are required to satisfy. First,

we generate random vectors aj = [aj (1) , . . . , aj (µn )]T , j ∈ [KR ], i ∈ [KT ], where its elements
are i.i.d. drawn from a continuous distribution. Then, we choose
( K K +j−1
)
R
T
α[k,i]
Y
Y  [i:i+τ −1]
j
[k,i]
IA
Vj
=
M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1]
aj : 0 ≤ αj ≤ n ,
i=1 k=j+τ
IA
Vj1

=

( K K +j−1
R
T
Y
Y 

[i:i+τ −1]

M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1]

α[k,i]
j

)
[k,i]

aj : 0 ≤ αj

(28)

≤n−1 .

i=1 k=j+τ

Thus, we can verify that the conditions in (27) are satisfied and the precoder matrices VjIA and
IA
, j ∈ [KR ], have full column rank of (n + 1)Γ and nΓ , respectively. The proof is presented
Vj1

in Appendix D. Now consider receiver RXk . The desired streams of receiver RXk have arrived
with directions of KT nΓ column vectors
h
[1:τ ]
[2:τ +1]
IA
IA
Dk = M[k:k+τ −1] Vk1
M[k:k+τ −1] Vk1

···

[K :K +τ −1]

T
T
M[k:k+τ
−1]

i
IA
Vk1
,

(29)

while the interference signals have arrived after alignment with directions of (KR − τ ) (n + 1)Γ
column vectors


Ik = VjIA , j ∈ [k + 1 : KR + k − τ ]
 IA

IA
· · · VK
= Vk+1
+k−τ
R

(30)

To ensure that the receiver RXk can decode the desired streams, we should maintain that the
directions of all desired streams are linearly independent of each other and independent of all
directions of the interference streams. This can be ensured if the following matrix
Rk = [Dk

Ik ]

(31)

23

has full rank of µn almost surely for all channel realizations. We left the proof of full rank to
Appendix D. As a result, each receiver RXk can decode KT nΓ desired streams over µn -symbol
extensions, and hence, a total of

KR KT nΓ
KT nΓ +(KR −τ )(n+1)Γ

DoF is achievable in each transmission block.

VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have studied the degrees of freedom of interference networks with caches at
the transmitters. Our main result is the characterization of the sum degrees of freedom of cacheaided interference channels within a multiplicative factor of 2 from the information-theoretic
bound, independent of all system parameters. To achieve this result, we have proposed a novel
delivery scheme for arbitrary number of transmitters and receivers that outperforms state-of-theart schemes in literature, for almost all transmitter cache sizes. The achievability proof depends
mainly on scheduling the messages needed to be delivered to receivers into groups, where the
groups are delivered in subsequent transmission blocks. Then, we construct two-layer precoding
matrices based on ZF and IA techniques to deliver each group of messages in each transmission
block. Moreover, we have derived an upper bound on the sum-DoF of delivery schemes that uses
the uncoded caching scheme. We have shown that the derived upper bound is tighter than the
upper bound that exists in the literature under small cache sizes. Even with these improvements,
there still exists a multiplicative gap of at most a factor of 2 between the achievable scheme and
upper bounds. It is an interesting point to find more sophisticated bounds to narrow this gap.
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF M ULTIPLICATIVE FACTOR 2
In this Appendix, we present the converse proof of Theorem 1. We first derive a simple
upper bound on the sum-DoF for general cache-aided networks without any restrictions on the
caching and delivery schemes. Then, we show that the multiplicative gap between the achievable
lower bound in Theorem 1 and the derived upper bound is less than 2 independent of all system
parameters. Assume that there exists full cooperation among KT transmitters to construct a single
transmitter of KT antennas that has access to cache memories of all KT transmitters. Moreover,
assume that KR receivers are allowed to fully cooperate with each other to construct a single
receiver with KR antennas. Note that this cooperation can not reduce the sum-DoF, and hence,
this assumption does not violate the upper bound. The constructed multi-antenna transmitter

24

has the KR requested files of the single, multi-antenna receiver. Thus, the system becomes a
point-to-point MIMO channel [35]. Hence the total sum-DoF is bounded by
DoF∗ ≤ min {KT , KR } .

(32)

Let τ = KT M/N . When τ ≥ min {KT , KR }, it is easily to see that both the upper and lower
bounds are the same, i.e., the achievable scheme is optimal in this case.
When 1 ≤ τ ≤ min {KT , KR }, the proposed coding scheme achieves DoF =

KT KR
.
KT +KR −τ

Hence, the multiplicative gap between the upper bound and the achievable DoF is given by
KT KR
DoF∗
= min {KT , KR } /
≤ 2.
DoF
KT + KR − τ

(33)

Therefore, the achievable sum-DoF is within a factor of 2 from the derived upper bound.
A PPENDIX B
C ONVERSE OF C OOPERATIVE X - NETWORK
Here, we present an upper bound on the sum-DoF of the cooperative X-network defined in
Subsection IV-B. The upper bound is mainly based on genie-aided and cut-set arguments. In

such cooperative X-networks, we have KR KτT messages defined by
W , {Wj,S : j ∈ [KR ] , S ⊆ [KT ] , |S| = τ } ,
such that each subset S ⊆ [KT ] of τ transmitters has a dedicated message to every receiver
RXj , j ∈ [KR ]. Let Rj,S (P ) =

|Wj,S |
T

denote the rate of the codeword encoding the message
R∗ (P )

j,S
. Thus,
Wj,S , where the DoF associated with message Wj,S is given by dj,S = limP →∞ log(P
)
P
P
the sum-DoF of the cooperative X-network is given by DoFP = S⊆[KT ] j∈[KR ] dj,S . Let YK

|S|=τ

be a |K|T × 1 concatenated vector of the received signals of receivers RXj , j ∈ K, and XK be
a |K|T × 1 concatenated vector of the transmitted signals of transmitters in set K. Moreover, we
consider H is a KR T × KT T channel matrix between transmitters and receivers over T slots,
t
and HK
Kr is a |Kr |T × |Kt |T submatrix of H.

Lemma 2. The degrees of freedom of cooperative X-networks satisfies
X X
X X
dj,S +
dj,S ≤ σ
S⊆[KT ] j∈Sr
|S|=τ

(34)

S⊆St j∈S r
|S|=τ

for a subset St of transmitters such that |St | = σ and a subset Sr of receivers such that |Sr | = σ,
where τ ≤ σ ≤ min {KT , KR }. Moreover S t = [KT ] \ St , and S r = [KR ] \ Sr .

25

Proof. We first define the following three disjoint subsets of messages:
WSt

= {Wj,S : j ∈ [KR ] , S ⊆ St , |S| = τ } ,

WSr

= {Wj,S : j ∈ Sr , S ⊆ [KT ] , S 6⊆ St , |S| = τ } ,

= Wj,S : j ∈ S r and S 6⊆ St , |S| = τ .

W

(35)

Now assume that a genie provides receivers in set Sr with messages W, and receivers in set
S
S r with messages W WSr . Since the messages W are given to all receivers, we are only
S
concerned of the degrees of freedom of the remaining messages WSt WSr . Assume that there
is full cooperation between receivers RXj , j ∈ Sr . The main idea of the proof is to show that
S
the set Sr of σ receivers can decode the messages WSr WSt from its received signals using
messages W as a side information. We represent the received signals of Sr and S r receivers as
Y Sr

= HSStr XSt + HSSrt XS t + ZSr ,

YS r =

HSSt XSt
r

+

HSS t XS t
r

(36)

+ ZS r .

Consider receivers in set Sr that can decode messages WSr . Using genie-aided messages W and
decoded messages WSr , receivers j ∈ Sr can compute the transmitted signals Xi , i ∈ S t and
S
subtract it from the received signal. Similarly, receivers in set S r have messages W WSr as a
side information, and hence, they can compute the transmitted signals Xi , i ∈ S t and subtract
it from the received signal. Therefore, we can rewrite the signals of Sr and S r receivers as
ỸSr

= HSStr XSt + ZSr ,

ỸS r =

HSSt XSt
r

(37)

+ ZS r ,

where receivers j ∈ S r are able to decode their intended messages {Wj,S : j ∈ S r , S ⊆ St }
from the received signal vector ỸS r , and receivers j ∈ Sr are able to decode their intended
messages {Wj,S : j ∈ Sr , S ⊆ St } from the received signal vector ỸSr . Notice that the σT × σT
submatrix channel HSStr is invertable almost surely. Thus, by reducing noise at receivers Sr and
−1
multiplying the constructed signal ỸSr at receivers Sr by HSSt HSStr
, we have
r

ỸS0 r = HSSt XSt + Z̃S r ,
r

(38)

which is a degraded version of ỸS r , where Z̃S r represents the reduced noise at receivers Sr .
Thus, receivers Sr can decode all messages WSt . Thus, by using Fano’s inequality, we have


H WSt |YSr , W ≤ H WSt |YS r , W, WSr ≤ |WSt |T .

(39)

26

Notice that the applied assumptions (genie-aided information, cooperation between subset of
receivers, reducing noise) cannot hurt the coding scheme. Thus, we have
X X
X X
∗
∗
Rj,S
T+
H (WSt , WSr )=
Rj,S
T
S⊆St j∈S r
|S|=τ
(a)

=H WSt , WSr |W

S⊆[Kt ] j∈Sr
|S|=τ



(b)



= I WSt , WSr ; YSr |W + H WSt , WSr |YSr , W
(c)


≤ I X[KT ] ; YSr + H WSt , WSr |YSr , W
(d)


≤T σ log (P ) + H WSr |YSr , W + H WSt |YSr , W, WSr

(40)

(e)

≤T σ log (P ) + |Sr |T  + |St |T 
where (a) follows from the fact that the messages are independent. Step (b) follows from the
chain rule. Step (c) follows from data processing inequality, where the signal X[KT ] is a function
S
of messages WSt WSr . Step (d) follows from the bound of the degrees of freedom of multiple
access channel (MAC) with KT single-antenna transmitters and a receiver with |Sr | antennas.
Finally, step (e) follows from Fano’s inequality. By diving on T log (P ) and taking P → ∞ and
 → 0, we get (34).



Repeating the inequality (34) for every subset Sr ⊆ [KR ] and every subset St ⊆ [KT ], or for
simplicity consider a symmetric case where {dj,S = d}, we have

τ KτT KR
P

DoF ≤ KT 
τ τ + (KR − σ) σ−1
τ −1

(41)

To get the best tighter bound we optimize the bound in (41) on σ such that τ ≤ σ ≤
min {KT , KR }. This completes the proof.
A PPENDIX C
P ROOF OF L EMMA 1

For given receivers demand d, we have KR KτT subfiles that need to be delivered to the
receives. In (13), we split each subfile into τ ! (KT − τ )! smaller subfiles. Thus, a total of KR KT !
smaller subfiles needed to be delivered to all receivers. In Lemma 1, KR KT ! smaller subfiles are
partitioned into groups such that each group of smaller subfiles is defined by a unique permutation
π ∈ Πcirc
[KT ] of total (KT − 1)! groups. Furthermore inside each group, we have KR KT smaller
subfiles. Accordingly, the total number of smaller subfiles in all groups is given by
(KT − 1)! KR KT = KR KT !

(42)

27

which is equal to the total number of smaller subfiles required to be delived, i.e., this partitioning
strategy contains all smaller subfiles needed to be delivered. However, we should ensure that this
groups contains disjoint smaller subfiles, and each smaller subfile is an actual smaller subfile
needed to be delivered to maintain the correctness of the partitioning strategy.
π(1)

From splitting strategy in (13), we can see that each smaller subfile Wdj ,π[1:τ ],π[τ +1:KT ] , for
π ∈ Π[KT ] , j ∈ [KR ], is required to be delivered to the receivers. Moreover, for a given circular
permutation π ∈ Πcirc
[KT ] , if we circularly shift π with 1 ≤ i < KT times, it generates another
permutation π̃, where π̃ ∈ Π[KT ] but, π̃ ∈
/ Πcirc
[KT ] . Therefore, for a given circular permutation
π(i)

π ∈ Πcirc
[KT ] , smaller subfile Wdj ,π[i:i+τ −1],π[i+τ :KT +i−1] , for i ∈ [KT ], j ∈ [KR ], is an actual
smaller subfiles required to be delivered to the receivers. Now, we prove that the groups are
π(i)

disjoint. To prove this, consider an arbitrary subfile Wdj ,π[i:i+τ −1],π[i+τ :KT +i−1] . We should ensure
that this subfile does not appear at another group, where we prove this by contradiction. Assume
that there exists a smaller subfile satisfying that
π̃ (ĩ)

π(i)

Wdj ,π[i:i+τ −1],π[i+τ :KT +i−1] ≡ Wd

j ,π̃

[ĩ:ĩ+τ −1],π̃[ĩ+τ :KT +ĩ−1]

(43)

for π̃, π ∈ Πcirc
[KT ] , π̃ 6= π, 1 ≤ i, ĩ ≤ KT . The condition in (43) is satisfied if and only if


π [i : KT + i − 1] = π̃ ĩ : KT + ĩ − 1 . In other words, we can construct a circular permutation
from another by circular shift process; however, this condition is not achievable. Therefore, each
smaller subfile appears only at a single group, i.e., the groups are disjoint. Hence, the proof is
completed.
A PPENDIX D
F ULL R ANK OF M ATRICES VjIA

AND

Rk

IA
In this Appendix, we prove that the matrices VkIA , Vk1
have full column rank of (n + 1)Γ ,

nΓ , respectively. Then, we prove that the matrix Rk has full rank of µn . Before that, we present
an important Lemma that is essential in the proofs.
Lemma 3. Let H be a KR × KT channel matrix whose entries are i.i.d. generated from a
continuous distribution. For given j ∈ [KR ], π ∈ Πcirc
[KT ] , and 1 ≤ τ ≤ min {KT , KR }, any subset
π[i:i+τ −1]

of monomials of M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] for i ∈ [KT ], k ∈ [j + τ : KR + j], are linearly independent.
π[i:i+τ −1]
KT
Proof. Note that monomials of {M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ
−1] }i=1 are linearly independent of monomials of
π[i:i+τ −1]

T
{M{l}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] }K
i=1 for l

T
∈ [j + τ : KR + j], l 6= k, since the channel coefficients {hkπ(i) }K
i=1 only

π[i:i+τ −1]
KT
contribute in {M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ
−1] }i=1 and the channels are i.i.d. variables. Thus, it is only required

28

π[i:i+τ −1]
KT
to prove the linearly independence of monomials of {M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ
−1] }i=1 . Observe that each
π[i:i+τ −1]
π[i:i+τ −1]
KT
minor M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ
−1] is a polynomial of degree τ . Therefore, monomials of {M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] }i=1

with different degrees are linearly independent due to the different exponents of the channel
coefficients. This implies that we only need to prove the linearly independence of monomials of
π[i:i+τ −1]

M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1]

with the same degree. Consider a linear combination of a set of N monomials

of degree L.
N
X
n=1

cn

KT 
αi (n)
Y
π[i:i+τ −1]
M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1]
=0

(44)

i=1

PKT
N
where
i=1 αi (n) = L, and c = [c1 , . . . , cN ] ∈ C . If these monomials are not linearly
independent, then, there exists c 6= 0 satisfying (44). Note that the linear combination in (44) can
π[i:i+τ −1]
KT
be factored into multiplied terms, where each term is a linear combination of {M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ
−1] }i=1 .
π[i:i+τ −1]
KT
As a result monomials of {M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ
−1] }i=1 of the same degree are linearly independent if
π[i:i+τ −1]
KT
and only if the minors {M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ
−1] }i=1 are linearly independent. Using cofactor expansion,
P
π[i:i+τ −1]
π[i:i+τ −1]\π(l)
π[i:i+τ −1]\π(l)
i+τ −1
we represent M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ
hkπ(l) C[j+1:j+τ −1] , where C[j+1:j+τ −1]
is the cofactor of
l=i
−1] =

hkπ(l) .

Thus, the linear combination of these minors is given by
KT
X

π[i:i+τ −1]
ci M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1]

i=1

=

KT
X

hkπ(l)

l=1

!

l
X

π[i:i+τ −1]\π(l)
ci C[j+1:j+τ −1]

=0

(45)

i=l−τ +1

T
Since {hkπ(l) }K
l=1 are i.i.d. variables, (45) is satisfied if and only if

π[i:i+τ −1]\π(l)
i=l−τ +1 ci C[j+1:j+τ −1]

Pl

=0

π[i:i+τ −1]\π(l) l
for every l ∈ [KT ]. Note that if τ = 2, then {C[j+1:j+τ
}i=l−τ +1 are i.i.d. channel coefficients.
−1]
π[i:i+τ −1]\π(l) l
Otherwise, we can use cofactor expansion to represent {C[j+1:j+τ
}i=l−τ +1 . Then, the same
−1]

argument can be iteratively applied until we reach to a linear combination of some channels
T
that are i.i.d. random variables. Therefore, we reach to the result that {ci }K
i=1 must be zero to

π[i:i+τ −1]
KT
satisfy (45), i.e., {M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ
−1] }i=1 are linearly independent. The details are omitted here due



to the space limitations.

Consider first the µn × (n + 1)Γ matrix VjIA given in (28). At any row u ∈ [µn ], the entries of different columns are different monomials in
h
ii∈[KT ]
[k,i]
αj (l)

n
o
π[i:i+τ −1]
M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ −1] (u)
h
ii∈[KT ]
[k,i]
6= αj (l0 )

for i ∈ [KT ], k ∈

[j + τ : KR + j − 1]. In other words,
for (l, l0 ) ∈
k∈[j+τ
:K
+j−1]
k∈[j+τ
:K
+j−1]
R
R
h
i
Γ
(n + 1) with l 6= l0 . Furthermore, the exponents of monomials at the same column with different

rows are equal. Thus, using [29, Lemma 3], the matrix VjIA has full rank almost surely if and
n

o

π[i:i+τ −1]
only if M{k}∪[j+1:j+τ
−1] for i ∈ [KT ], k ∈ [j + τ : KR + j − 1], are linearly independent. Using

IA
Lemma 3, matrix VjIA has full rank of (n + 1)Γ . Similarly, we can prove that matrix Vj1
has

full rank of nΓ , where it is designed in the same manner as matrix VjIA . Now, consider matrix
Rk given in (31). Using [29, Lemma 3], matrix Rk is full rank if and only if there does not
exist an annihilating polynomial satisfying

29

Γ

KT X
n
X

π[i:i+τ −1] IA
ckil M[k:k+τ −1] Vk1

i=1 l=1

(l) +

Γ
KRX
+k−τ (n+1)
X

j=k+1

cjl VjIA (l) = 0,

(46)

l=1

IA
(l) is the entry in the l-th column and an arbitrary
where {ckil } and {cjl } are non-zero factors. Vk1
IA
, and VjIA (l) is the entry in the l-th column and an arbitrary row of matrix
row of matrix Vk1
(n+1)Γ

VjIA . Note that the variable aj appears with exponent one in the monomials {VjIA (l)}l=1

and

does not appear in the other monomials. Therefore, these monomials are linearly independent of
R
other monomials in (46), since {aj }K
j=1 are i.i.d. random variables. As a result, we need only to

prove that the monomials of the first term in (46) are linearly independent. Observe that the first
[i:i+τ −1]
term is monomials in {M{j}∪[k+1:k+τ
−1] } for i ∈ [KT ], j ∈ [k + τ : KR + k]. Using Lemma 3, the

monomials of these minors are linearly independent. As a result matrix Rk has full rank of µn .
R EFERENCES
[1] Cisco, “Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic forecast white paper,” Mar. 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://goo.gl/OL6mYY
[2] H. El Gamal, J. Tadrous, and A. Eryilmaz, “Proactive resource allocation: Turning predictable behavior into spectral gain,”
in Forty-Eighth Annual Allerton Conference, 2010, pp. 427–434.
[3] J. Tadrous and A. Eryilmaz, “On optimal proactive caching for mobile networks with demand uncertainties,” IEEE/ACM
Trans. Netwo., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 2715–2727, 2016.
[4] N. Golrezaei, K. Shanmugam, A. G. Dimakis, A. F. Molisch, and G. Caire, “Femtocaching: Wireless video content delivery
through distributed caching helpers,” in in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 2012, pp. 1107–1115.
[5] M. Gregori, J. Gómez-Vilardebò, J. Matamoros, and D. Gündüz, “Joint transmission and caching policy design for energy
minimization in the wireless backhaul link,” in in Proc. IEEE ISIT, 2015, pp. 1004–1008.
[6] A. M. Girgis, A. El-Keyi, M. Nafie, and R. Gohary, “Proactive location-based scheduling of delay-constrained traffic over
fading channels,” in IEEE 84th VTC-Fall, Sept 2016, pp. 1–6.
[7] D. Liu and C. Yang, “Energy efficiency of downlink networks with caching at base stations,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,
vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 907–922, April 2016.
[8] M. A. Maddah-Ali and U. Niesen, “Fundamental limits of caching,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 2856–2867,
2014.
[9] Q. Yu, M. A. Maddah-Ali, and A. S. Avestimehr, “The exact rate-memory tradeoff for caching with uncoded prefetching,”
in in Proc. IEEE ISIT, 2017, pp. 1613–1617.
[10] M. A. Maddah-Ali and U. Niesen, “Decentralized coded caching attains order-optimal memory-rate tradeoff,” IEEE/ACM
Trans. Netwo., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1029–1040, 2015.
[11] U. Niesen and M. A. Maddah-Ali, “Coded caching with nonuniform demands,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 63, no. 2,
pp. 1146–1158, 2017.
[12] M. Ji, A. M. Tulino, J. Llorca, and G. Caire, “On the average performance of caching and coded multicasting with random
demands,” in in Proc. IEEE ISWCS, Aug. 2014, pp. 922–926.
[13] J. Zhang, X. Lin, and X. Wang, “Coded caching under arbitrary popularity distributions,” in in Proc. ITA, Feb. 2015.

30

[14] S. Wang, W. Li, X. Tian, and H. Liu, “Coded caching with heterogenous cache sizes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.01123,
2015.
[15] M. M. Amiri, Q. Yang, and D. Gündüz, “Decentralized coded caching with distinct cache capacities,” in in 50th Asilomar
Conf. Signals, Systems and Computers, Nov. 2016, pp. 734–738.
[16] R. Pedarsani, M. A. Maddah-Ali, and U. Niesen, “Online coded caching,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netwo., vol. 24, no. 2, pp.
836–845, 2016.
[17] S. P. Shariatpanahi, S. A. Motahari, and B. H. Khalaj, “Multi-server coded caching,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 62,
no. 12, pp. 7253–7271, 2016.
[18] N. Karamchandani, U. Niesen, M. A. Maddah-Ali, and S. N. Diggavi, “Hierarchical coded caching,” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3212–3229, 2016.
[19] M. A. Maddah-Ali and U. Niesen, “Cache-aided interference channels,” in in Proc. IEEE ISIT, 2015, pp. 809–813.
[20] A. Sengupta, R. Tandon, and O. Simeone, “Cache aided wireless networks: Tradeoffs between storage and latency,” in in
Proc. Annu. Conf. Info. Sci. Syst., Mar 2016, pp. 320–325.
[21] R. Tandon and O. Simeone, “Cloud-aided wireless networks with edge caching: Fundamental latency trade-offs in fog
radio access networks,” in in Proc. IEEE ISIT, 2016, pp. 2029–2033.
[22] A. Sengupta, R. Tandon, and O. Simeone, “Cloud and cache-aided wireless networks: Fundamental latency trade-offs,”
arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01690, 2016.
[23] S. M. Azimi, O. Simeone, and R. Tandon, “Fundamental limits on latency in small-cell caching systems: An informationtheoretic analysis,” in in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Dec. 2016, pp. 1–6.
[24] A. M. Girgis, O. Ercetin, M. Nafie, and T. ElBatt, “Decentralized coded caching in wireless networks: Trade-off between
storage and latency,” in in Proc. IEEE ISIT, June 2017, pp. 2443–2447.
[25] N. Naderializadeh, M. A. Maddah-Ali, and A. S. Avestimehr, “Fundamental limits of cache-aided interference management,”
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 3092–3107, 2017.
[26] J. Hachem, U. Niesen, and S. Diggavi, “Degrees of freedom of cache-aided wireless interference networks,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1606.03175, 2016.
[27] F. Xu, M. Tao, and K. Liu, “Fundamental tradeoff between storage and latency in cache-aided wireless interference
networks,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 7464–7491, Nov 2017.
[28] A. Lapidoth, S. Shamai, and M. A. Wigger, “On cognitive interference networks,” in IEEE ITW, Sept. 2007, pp. 325–330.
[29] V. S. Annapureddy, A. El Gamal, and V. V. Veeravalli, “Degrees of freedom of interference channels with comp transmission
and reception,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 5740–5760, 2012.
[30] C. Huang and S. A. Jafar, “Degrees of freedom of the mimo interference channel with cooperation and cognition,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 4211–4220, 2009.
[31] S. A. Jafar and S. Shamai, “Degrees of freedom region of the mimo x channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 54, no. 1,
pp. 151–170, 2008.
[32] 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, 2009.
[33] H. Weingarten, Y. Steinberg, and S. S. Shamai, “The capacity region of the gaussian multiple-input multiple-output broadcast
channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 3936–3964, 2006.
[34] H. Sun, C. Geng, T. Gou, and S. A. Jafar, “Degrees of freedom of mimo x networks: Spatial scale invariance, one-sided
decomposability and linear feasibility,” in in Proc. IEEE ISIT, 2012, pp. 2082–2086.
[35] L. Zheng and D. N. C. Tse, “Diversity and multiplexing: A fundamental tradeoff in multiple-antenna channels,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. theory, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1073–1096, 2003.

