Canonical Conditions for
K/2 Degrees of Freedom

Cadambe and Jafar [1, 2] proposed a signaling scheme—known as interference alignment—that exploits time-frequency selectivity to achieve $K/2$ degrees of freedom (DoF) in $K$-user single-antenna interference channels (ICs). In [3] and [4] it was shown that $K/2$ DoF can also be achieved in ICs with constant channel matrix, i.e, in the absence of channel selectivity. Gou et al. [5] furthermore demonstrated that even in the finite-state compound constant channel setting $K/2$ DoF can be achieved. Wu et al. [6] developed a general formula for the number of DoF in single-antenna ICs, extended to vector ICs in [7]. This formula can, however, be difficult to evaluate as it is expressed in terms of Rényi information dimension [8]. Building on the work by Wu et al. [6] and a breakthrough result in fractal geometry by Hochman [9], Stotz and Bölcskei [10] derived a DoF-formula for single-antenna ICs with constant channel matrix which is exclusively in terms of Shannon entropy. Based on this formula, the present paper establishes a necessary and sufficient condition for $1/2$ DoF for each user in constant $K$-user single-antenna ICs. This condition captures the essence of interference alignment by virtue of being expressed in terms of a generic injectivity condition that guarantees separability of signal and interference.

Relation to prior work. It was shown in [11] that the number of DoF in a $K$-user fully-connected IC¹¹ 1 Throughout the paper IC refers to a constant single-antenna IC. is upper bounded by $K/2$. What is more, almost all IC matrices allow $K/2$ DoF, albeit an explicit characterization of this almost all set does not seem to be available [4]. It is known [3], though, that i) $K/2$ DoF cannot be achieved if all elements of the IC matrix are rational numbers and ii) $K/2$ DoF can be achieved if the diagonal²² 2 Throughout the paper, the term diagonal actually refers to the main diagonal. elements of the IC matrix are irrational algebraic numbers and the off-diagonal elements are rational numbers. Further algebraic conditions on IC matrices to allow $K/2$ DoF were identified in [6, Th. 7 and Th. 8]. An explicit and almost sure sufficient condition for $K/2$ DoF was reported in [10]; the proof of this result rests on requiring linear independence—over the rational numbers—of monomials in the off-diagonal channel coefficients. We note, however, that the algebraic nature of these conditions renders them somewhat brittle.

Contributions. The necessary and sufficient condition for $1/2$ DoF for each user we obtain applies to all channel topologies, i.e., to fully-connected channels as well as channels that have individual links absent, reflected by corresponding zeros in the IC matrix. Moreover, we provide codebook constructions achieving full DoF in all ICs satisfying our condition.

Notation. We use uppercase letters for random variables, and lowercase letters for deterministic quantities. Matrices are represented by boldface uppercase letters, and sets by calligraphic letters. For $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $\lfloor x\rfloor$ denotes the largest integer not exceeding $x$, and $|x|$ refers to the absolute value of $x$. $\mathbb{N}$, $\mathbb{Q}$, and $\mathbb{R}$ stand for the natural numbers including zero, the rational numbers, and the real numbers, respectively. Entropy is denoted by $H(\cdot)$, differential entropy by $h(\cdot)$, $d(\cdot)$ refers to Rényi information dimension [8], and $I(X;Y)$ is the mutual information between the random variables $X$ and $Y$. $\mathbb{E}$ designates the expectation operator.

Outline of the paper. In Section II, we introduce the system model and we state definitions needed throughout the paper. Section III presents the main result. In Section IV, we develop the mathematical tools required in the proof of its sufficiency part, which, in turn, is established in Section V. In Section VI, we introduce the “entropy balancing” idea underlying the proof—presented in Section VII—of the necessity part. In Section VIII, we present a strengthened version of the necessity part of our main result for the $3$-user case. Section IX provides a corollary of our main statement, which, we feel, is of independent interest. The appendices collect various technical results.

We consider a single-antenna $K$-user IC with $K\geqslant 3$, channel matrix $\mathbf{H}=(h_{ij})_{1\leqslant i,j\leqslant K}\in\mathbb{R}^{K\times K}$, and input-output relation

where $X_{i}\in\mathbb{R}$ is the input at the $i$-th transmitter, $Y_{i}\in\mathbb{R}$ is the output at the $i$-th receiver, and $Z_{i}\in\mathbb{R}$ is noise of absolutely continuous distribution satisfying $h(Z_{i})>-\infty$ and $H(\lfloor Z_{i}\rfloor)<\infty$. The $X_{i}$ are assumed to be statistically independent across transmitters and noise is taken to be i.i.d. across receivers and channel uses. Note that we exclude the case $K=2$, as here both users can achieve $1/2$ DoF simply through time sharing. We restrict ourselves to real-valued signals and channel matrices for simplicity of exposition. An extension to the complex-valued case is possible based on a formula for the DoF of complex channel matrices provided in [7]. The IC matrix $\mathbf{H}$ is assumed to be known perfectly at all transmitters and receivers and we take $h_{ii}\neq 0$, for $i=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$, to avoid situations where direct links between transmitter-receiver pairs are absent. $\mathbf{H}$ is said to be fully connected if $h_{ij}\neq 0$, for all $i,j=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$.

We impose the average power constraint

and define the total number of DoF of the IC with channel matrix $\mathbf{H}$ as

where $\overline{C}(\mathbf{H};\mathsf{snr})$ stands for the sum-capacity of the IC. To define the DoF achieved by individual users, we start from the following multi-letter bound on the total number of DoF [6, Eq. 137]. For all $\varepsilon>0$ and sufficiently large $m$, there exist $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and independent $n$-sequences of random variables $X_{1}^{n},\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},X_{K}^{n}$ with $H(\lfloor X^{n}_{i}\rfloor)<\infty$, $i=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$, such that

where $[x]_{m}=\frac{\lfloor 2^{m}x\rfloor}{2^{m}}$. We now define the number of DoF of user $i$ in $\mathbf{H}$ as

for $i=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$. Noting that for $\varepsilon,m,$ and $n$ in (2), the following holds [6, Eq. 126]

combining (2) and (4), and letting $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$ yields

We note that, thanks to Lemma 4 in Appendix A, if each user is to achieve at least $1/2$ DoF, i.e., $\text{DoF}_{i}\geqslant 1/2,i=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$, then all input distributions yield the same $\text{DoF}_{i},i=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$.

Before stating the main result, we need to introduce some formalisms. Denote the vector containing the off-diagonal elements of $\mathbf{H}$ by $\mathbf{\widehat{h}}\in\mathbb{R}^{K(K-1)}$, and let $f_{1},f_{2},...$ be the monomials in the entries of $\mathbf{\widehat{h}}$ as follows: $f_{1},...,f_{\varphi(d)}$ are the monomials of degree³³ 3 The “degree” of the monomial $x_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}x_{2}^{\alpha_{2}}\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.}\hskip 2.56073ptx_{n}^{\alpha_{n}}$ in the variables $x_{1},x_{2},\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},x_{n}$ is given by $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.}+\alpha_{n}$. not larger than $d$, with $d\geqslant 0$, where [12, Ch. 9, Lem. 4]

We proceed to stating our main result, a necessary and sufficient condition on the IC matrix $\mathbf{H}$ to allow for $1/2$ DoF for each user. In addition, for ICs satisfying this condition, we provide an explicit construction of codebooks achieving $1/2$ DoF for each user. Throughout the paper “achieving (or allowing) $1/2$ DoF” will frequently mean that at least $1/2$ DoF is achieved (or allowed for). For simplicity of exposition, we shall not distinguish between these cases and the case where exactly $1/2$ DoF is achieved (or allowed for).

We first describe the central ideas behind the proof of the sufficiency part of the statement in Theorem 1. Recall that this part of the statement applies to “all” IC matrices $\mathbf{H}$. The tenets of the proof are i) a condition guaranteeing separability of signal and interference and ii) an alignment cardinality constraint for the codebook. We begin by restating a result from [10] needed in the proof.

The strategy for proving the sufficiency part of Theorem 1 will be to employ Proposition 1 with the $\Psi_{i}$ i.i.d. uniform on $\mathcal{W}^{(\mathbf{H})}_{N^{d},d}$ for some $d\geqslant 0$, $N>K-1$, and to show that the corresponding expression on the right-hand side (RHS) of (9) can be made to be arbitrarily close to $1/2$ for all $i=1,...,K$ concurrently. Henceforth, we shall drop the superscript in $\mathcal{W}^{(\mathbf{H})}_{N^{d},d}$ whenever it is clear from the context. The first step in the proof establishes that $H(\sum_{j\neq i}^{K}h_{ij}\Psi_{j})$, i.e., the entropy of the interference part of the signal received at user $i$, can not become too large relative to the entropy of the signal component given by $H(\Psi_{i})$. This will be accomplished by noting that $\sum_{j\neq i}^{K}h_{ij}\Psi_{j}\in\mathcal{W}_{(K-1)N^{d},d+1}\subseteq\mathcal{W}_{N^{d+1},d+1}$, where the inclusion is thanks to $N>K-1$, and then showing that the ratio $\frac{\log|\mathcal{W}_{N^{d+1},d+1}|}{\log|\mathcal{W}_{N^{d},d}|}$, where the denominator is equal to $H(\Psi_{i})$ (owing to the assumption of $\Psi_{i}$ being uniformly distributed on $\mathcal{W}_{N^{d},d}$), is close to $1$ for $d$ sufficiently large. This “alignment cardinality” result is formalized as follows.

The second step in the proof will be concerned with the separability of signal and interference and uses the injectivity of the map in Condition ($*$) to establish that

Upon resolving minor technicalities, Lemma 1 along with (18) will allow us to show that the RHS of (9) can be made to be arbitrarily close (from below) to $1/2$, for all $i=1,...,K$ concurrently.

Consider a channel matrix $\mathbf{H}$ satisfying Condition ($*$). As described in Section IV, the first step of the proof balances the entropies of the signal and interference components, $H(\Psi_{i})$ and $H\left(\sum_{j\neq i}^{K}h_{ij}\Psi_{j}\right)$, respectively. To this end, we choose $N>K-1$. As $K-1\geqslant 1$, we can apply Lemma 1 to find a subsequence $\{\mathcal{W}_{N^{d_{n}},d_{n}}\}_{n\geqslant 0}$ of $\{\mathcal{W}_{N^{d},d}\}_{d\geqslant 0}$ such that

Next, consider the set of discrete random variables $\Psi_{1}^{(n)},...,\Psi_{K}^{(n)}$ distributed i.i.d. uniformly on $\mathcal{W}_{N^{d_{n}},d_{n}}$ and construct the corresponding self-similar transmit signals

where the $\Psi_{i,k}^{(n)}$ are independent copies of $\Psi_{i}^{(n)}$, and $r\in(0,1)$. Using these codebooks, we now apply Proposition 1 with $r=|\mathcal{W}_{N^{d_{n}},d_{n}}|^{-2}$ to get that the $i$-th user, $i=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$, achieves

DoF, for $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Note that $\sum_{j\neq i}^{K}h_{ij}\Psi^{(n)}_{j}\in\mathcal{W}_{(K-1)N^{d_{n}},d_{n}+1}\subseteq\mathcal{W}_{N^{d_{n}+1},d_{n}+1}$ thanks to $N>K-1$. It follows from the cardinality bound for entropy that

where we used (19).

The second step of the proof concerned with separability of signal and interference starts by establishing that

for $i=1,...,K$. To this end, we apply the chain rule to find

Next, we note that injectivity of the map in Condition ($*$) implies

which, when combined with (23)–(25), yields (22). From (22) and the independence of the $\Psi_{i}^{(n)}$ across users $i=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$, it now follows that

where we used that $\Psi_{i}^{(n)}$ is uniformly distributed on $\mathcal{W}_{N^{d_{n}},d_{n}}$, for all $i=1,...,K$. This allows us to conclude that, for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we have

as either the first minimum on the left-hand side (LHS) of (29) coincides with the non-trivial term in which case by (27) and (28) the second minimum also coincides with the non-trivial term, and therefore the LHS of (29) equals $1/2\geqslant 1-\frac{\log|\mathcal{W}_{N^{d_{n}+1},d_{n}+1}|}{2\log|\mathcal{W}_{N^{d_{n}},d_{n}}|}$, for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, thanks to (21), or the first minimum coincides with $1$ in which case we upper-bound the second minimum according to $\frac{H\mathopen{}\left(\sum_{j\neq i}^{K}h_{ij}\Psi^{(n)}_{j}\right)}{2\log|\mathcal{W}_{N^{d_{n}},d_{n}}|}\leqslant\frac{\log|\mathcal{W}_{N^{d_{n}+1},d_{n}+1}|}{2\log|\mathcal{W}_{N^{d_{n}},d_{n}}|}$ again using (21). The proof is completed by noting that the RHS of (29) approaches $1/2$ (from below) as $n\to\infty$. We hasten to add that no restrictions had to be imposed on $\mathbf{H}$, so sufficiency in Theorem 1 applies to “all” channel matrices.

We have established that if $\mathbf{H}$ itself satisfies Condition ($\ast$), then each user achieves $1/2$ DoF. It remains to show that if at least one scaled version of $\mathbf{H}$ satisfies Condition ($\ast$), while $\mathbf{H}$ itself may or may not satisfy Condition ($\ast$), then each user achieves $1/2$ DoF in $\mathbf{H}$. To this end, let $\mathbf{H}$ be such that its scaled version $\mathbf{\widetilde{H}}$ satisfies Condition ($\ast$). Further let, for some $\varepsilon\in(0,1/2)$ and $r\in(0,1)$, $\widetilde{\Psi}_{1},\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},\widetilde{\Psi}_{K}$ be the random variables corresponding to the inputs $X_{1},\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},X_{K}$ for $\mathbf{\widetilde{H}}$ according to Proposition 1. Then, by Proposition 1 and what was established above for $\mathbf{H}$, specifically (29), user $i$ in $\mathbf{\widetilde{H}}$ achieves

DoF, for $i=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$. Next, note that $\mathbf{H}$ can be obtained as a scaled version of $\mathbf{\widetilde{H}}$ according to

where $p_{i},c_{j}$, $i,j=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$ are nonzero scalars. Applying Proposition 1 with $\Psi_{i}=\widetilde{\Psi}_{i}/c_{i}$, for $i=1,\makebox[10.00002pt][c]{.\hfil.\hfil.},K$, we conclude that for user $i$ in $\mathbf{H}$,

We note that (32) holds as scaling a random variable by a constant does not change its entropy.

We next establish “balancing” results on the entropies of signal and interference contributions that will turn out instrumental in the proof of the necessary part of Theorem 1. To this end, we need the following preparatory result, which is a simple modification of [10, Th. 3].

We are now ready to state our entropy balancing result.