30 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005Fig. 1. MIMO relay channel.the destination node). We present algorithms to compute thebounds accordingly. We also provide in Appendix B anotherlower bound by using the water-ﬁlling technique.Next, we generalize the study to a more interesting case—theRayleigh fading case. We focus on the ergodic capacity of theMIMO relay channel, assuming receiver channel state informa-tion (CSI) only. It is somewhat surprising that the upper boundcan meet the lower bound under certain conditions (not neces-sarily degradedness), indicating that the ergodic capacity can becharacterized exactly. Thus motivated, we investigate conditionsfor capacity achievability. In particular, we identify sufﬁcientconditions to achieve the ergodic capacity when all nodes havethe same number of antennas; and our intuition for this ﬁndingis as follows. The source node and the relay node can function asa “virtual” transmit antenna array when the relay node is locatedclose to the source node, thus making it possible to achieve thecapacity.We note that the ﬁndings on the ergodic capacity point toindependent coding strategies at the source node and the relaynode. Such independence of coding strategies is due to thechannel uncertainty (randomness) at the transmitters. Com-pared to the direct link, the relay channel offers a signiﬁcantcapacity gain, thanks to the multiple-access gain from the MACpart and the multiuser broadcast gain from the BC part. We notethat both the multiple-access gain and the broadcast gain beneﬁtfrom the full duplexity at the relay node. Needless to say, a keystep to reap the capacity gain is to develop coding strategies forthe cooperative MAC and the cooperative BC. We also providenumerical examples to illustrate the upper bound and the lowerbound on the ergodic capacity. Motivated by the capacity gainby using the relay node, we ﬁnally discuss the utility of theMIMO relay channel in cooperative communications in ad hocnetworks.During the ﬁnal stage of our preparation for this paper, wewere informed of independent work , which presents anelegant proof for the independence of the signals from thesource node and the relay node for the fading case. Buildingon this result and our preliminary works , , we haveobtained the results in Theorems 4.1 and 4.2. As noted above,we have also investigated in depth the sufﬁcient conditionsfor capacity achievability for two interesting cases, i.e., thehigh-signal–to–noise-ratio (SNR) regime and the scalar case.Loosely speaking, our capacity results for the Rayleigh fadingcase can be viewed as a generalization of Theorem 2 in .Throughout this paper, we use to denote the expectation op-erator (in some cases, subscripts are used to specify the randomvariable); “ ” stands for the conjugate transpose; denotes anidentity matrix; is an all-zero matrix of proper dimensions; thedistribution of a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian vectorwith mean and covariance matrix is denoted as ;, , , and are used in the matrix positive (semi)deﬁniteordering sense .The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II,we present the system model. We derive in Section III upperbounds and lower bounds on the capacity of the GaussianMIMO relay channel with ﬁxed channel gains. Next, we gen-eralize the study to the Rayleigh fading case. We present inSection IV an upper bound and a lower bound on the ergodiccapacity and give numerical results for different SNR cases.We then discuss sufﬁcient conditions for achieving the ergodiccapacity in Section V. Finally, a potential application of therelay channel in cooperative communications in ad hoc net-works is discussed in Section VI.II. SYSTEM MODELConsider a general MIMO relay channel where the receivedsignals at the relay and destination nodes can be written as==(1)where• , are and transmitted signalsfrom the source node and the relay node; the power con-straints on the transmit signals are and;• and are and received signals at thedestination node and the relay node. We assume that— the relay node has two sets of antennas, one for recep-tion and the other for transmission. That is, the relaynode operates in the full-duplex mode;— since the relay node has full knowledge of what totransmit therein, it can cancel out the interferencefrom its own transmit antennas at its receive antennas.• , , and are , , andchannel gain matrices, as depicted in Fig. 1. In what fol-lows, we consider two scenarios for the channel matrices:— all the channel matrices are ﬁxed and known at boththe transmitters and the receivers;— all the channel matrices are random and independent,where the entries of each matrix are independent andAuthorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
WANG et al.: ON THE CAPACITY OF MIMO RELAY CHANNELS 31identically distributed (i.i.d.) complex Gaussian vari-ables with zero mean, independent real and imagi-nary parts, each with variance , and they are avail-able at the corresponding receivers only (i.e., receiverCSI only).• , , and are parameters related to the SNR SNR SNR SNR(2)where SNR and SNR are the normalized power ratios ofto the noise (after fading) at each receiver antenna ofthe relay node and the destination node, and SNR is thenormalized power ratio of to the noise at each antennaof the destination node;• and are independent and circularlysymmetric complex Gaussian noise vectors with distribu-tions and , and are uncorrelatedto and .III. CAPACITY BOUNDS: THE FIXED CHANNEL CASEIn the following, we derive upper bounds and lower boundson the capacity of the Gaussian MIMO relay channel with ﬁxedchannel gains.A. Upper Bounds and Lower BoundsRecall from  that the channel capacity of a generalGaussian relay channel is upper-bounded by(3)where the ﬁrst term in can be treated as the sum ratefrom the source node to the relay node and the destination node,corresponding to a BC part; and the second term can be viewedas the sum rate from the source node and the relay node to thedestination node, corresponding to a MAC part. Indeed, (3) hasan interesting max-ﬂow min-cut interpretation , as illustratedin Fig. 2. Roughly speaking, the rate of the information ﬂowtransmitted on the relay channel is constrained by the bottle-neck corresponding to either the ﬁrst cut (BC) or the second one(MAC).Without loss of generality, let and be random vec-tors with zero-mean and covariance matrices , deﬁned asfor . Throughout, we assume thatand . Deﬁne .First, we need the following lemmas (the proof of Lemma 3.1is relegated to Appendix A).Lemma 3.1: There exists such that(4)and the equality can be achieved by a matrixwhen .Fig. 2. The relay channel: max-ﬂow min-cut.Intuitively speaking, Lemma 3.1 reveals that for any givenand , we can ﬁnd codebooks for and such thatthe covariance matrix satisﬁes the following inequality:Furthermore, if , then for any given , thereexists such that the equality is achieved.Lemma 3.2: For any two complex random vectors and ,, we have that(5)the equality is achieved if .The proof follows simply from the fact that the covariancematrix of a random vector is always positive semidef-inite. That is,Let and . It fol-lows thatIf signals and are chosen such that , thenApplying Lemma 3.2, for , we have that(6)It is clear that the optimal distribution in (3) isGaussian , [24 ] (see, e.g., Step following (19) andStep following (22)). Observe that if Gaussian codebooksare applied, the maximization problem on the RHS of (3)would be with respected to three covariance matrices ,Authorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
32 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005, and ; and this is nonconvex and highly nontrivialin general. In Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, we use one parameterto capture the correlation between and (in contrastto the cross-covariance matrix ), and this enables us tosolve the optimization by convex programming techniques (inAppendix A, we present the deﬁnition for ). In what follows,we present our results for the upper bound on the capacity ofGaussian MIMO relay channels.Theorem 3.1: [Fixed Channel Case] An upper bound on thecapacity of the MIMO relay channel is given by(7)where , ; and are given by(8)(9)Remarks: To ﬁnd the upper bound, we need to characterizethe optimal input covariance matrices and . DeﬁneIt can be seen that is concave in and that is con-cave in . It follows that is concave in. More precisely, for a given , the upper bound isconcave in ; and it can be found by convex program-ming. In what follows, we present an algorithm to compute theupper bound.Algorithm I1. Carry out a quantization of interval , and denote thecorresponding set of (ascending) values as;2. For a given , apply convex programming to ﬁnd the op-timal value of and corresponding optimal and, by solving the following optimization problem:maximizesubject to3. Pick another and repeat Step 2. Go to the next step whenthe set is exhausted;Algorithm I (Continued)4. Compare all the values of associated with, and ﬁnd the largest and identify thecorresponding optimal parameters , and ;5. Quantize and go to Step 2 usingfor a new search;6. Compare the reﬁned results from the new search with theold ones. If the error requirement is met, end the proce-dures; otherwise, go to previous steps for another newsearch.A few more words on Algorithm I. Since there is no a prioriinformation about in the initialization step, the quantization isequal-span. After the ﬁrst iteration, we choose the “best guess”of (namely, ), and then reﬁne the search around it. To guar-antee the convergency to the optimal point, the quantizationlevel should be reasonably large (e.g., ).In the above, we use to capture the correlation betweensignals transmitted from the source node and the relay node.Now, we discuss the structure of the corresponding codebooks.We can rewrite the transmitted signal aswith . Observe that is independentof . Intuitively speaking, the vector signal can be decom-posed into two orthogonal parts, which are independent of eachother. The second part, , stands for the projection ofonto the direction of . Thus,can be viewed as a generalization of [4, Theorem 5].For the special case where all the channel coefﬁcients arescalars (denoted as , , and , respectively), we have that. Accordingly, we have thatand(10)It follows that(11)which boils down to a result in .Consider channel models where the relay node may or maynot be used to aid the transmissions. If not used, the channelbecomes a point-to-point Gaussian MIMO channel. On the otherhand, if the relay node is used to aid the transmission and thedestination node treats the information directly from the sourcenode as noise, the channel boils down to a cascaded channel.We have the following lower bound by ﬁnding the maximumbetween the information rates for the two channel models.Authorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
WANG et al.: ON THE CAPACITY OF MIMO RELAY CHANNELS 33Theorem 3.2: [Fixed Channel Case] A lower bound on thecapacity of the Gaussian MIMO relay channel is given by(12)where(13)(14)(15)withWe outline the procedure to compute the lower boundas follows:Algorithm II1. Use the water-ﬁlling technique to ﬁnd ;2. Use the water-ﬁlling technique to ﬁnd and the corre-sponding optimal ;3. Substitute into (15) to ﬁnd by using the water-ﬁlling technique.In Appendix B, we provide another lower bound by using thefact that the following rate is achievable for any given distribu-tion :(16)We note that this lower bound does not admit to a closed-formsolution, but it may yield a tighter bound.B. Proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2Proof of Theorem 3.1:Proof: DeﬁneGiven , we can rewrite the channel model as follows:(17)The sum rate of the corresponding BC channel is given by(18)(19)wherefollows from the deﬁnition of conditional entropy;from the fact that circularly symmetric complexGaussian distribution maximizes entropy ;from the fact thatwhich is based on that given , the vectoris the sum of two independent circularly sym-metric complex Gaussian vectors;is because that is the conditional covari-ance matrix of given that , andwhich is independent of ;from the following proof.Applying Lemma 3.1, we have thatThen, by [11, p. 470]It follows thatObserving that both sides in the above expression are positivedeﬁnite, we have thatAuthorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
34 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005We conclude thatIn summary, we have shown that(20)Next, we turn the attention to the sum rate of the MAC part.Observe (21) and (22) at the bottom of the page, wherefrom the fact that the circularly symmetric complexGaussian distribution maximizes entropy  as men-tioned before;can be shown as follows. First, by Lemma 3.2, we havethat forNext, following the same procedures as above, it is easy to showthatFinally, taking the inﬁmum on both sides yields (22).Proof of Theorem 3.2:Proof: If there is no relay node, the channel is a point-to-point MIMO channel, and the corresponding channel capacityis given by(23)Consider the case where the destination node treats the signalfrom the source node as noise. In this case, the source nodeoptimizes its transmission only for the source–relay link, andthe relay node optimizes the transmission corresponding to therelay–destination link. That is, the channel boils down to a cas-caded channel. The following information rate is achievable forthe source–relay link:(24)and the corresponding optimal covariance matrix is . Forthe relay–destination link, the received signal at the destinationis distorted by both noise and the signal from the source node.Since the (optimal) signal from the source is also Gaussian, withcovariance matrix , the covariance matrix for noise plus thesource signal is . Therefore, the achievableinformation rate for the relay–destination link is given by(25)The lower bound follows by combining (23) with (24)and (25).(21)(22)Authorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
WANG et al.: ON THE CAPACITY OF MIMO RELAY CHANNELS 35IV. CAPACITY BOUNDS: THE RAYLEIGH FADING CASENow consider channel models where all the channel gain ma-trices are random, and suppose that the channel gains are knownat the corresponding receivers only. In this scenario, we studythe ergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channel with receiverCSI only. Simply put, the ergodic capacity is the highest achiev-able data rate by coding the transmission symbols over inﬁnitelymany blocks [34, p. 11].Theorem 4.1: [Rayleigh Fading Case] An upper bound onthe ergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channel is given by(26)with(27)(28)where the expectations are taken with respect to channel ma-trices , , and .Proof: Because of fading, the channel matrices are nowrandom. Then it follows that(29)where the expectations are taken with respect to correspondingchannel coefﬁcients.In the proof for Theorem 3.1, we have shown that(30)where(31)(32)with .Observe the power constraints on input signalsandThen it follows thatAlong the same lines as in , we conclude that the optimalsignal covariance matrices which maximize are iden-tity matrices, i.e., , , and .Therefore,(33)Note that is nonnegative with proba-bility [9, Theorem 3.2]. Along the same line of the proof ofTheorem 3.1, we have thatFurthermore, by [24, Theorem 1], can also maxi-mize the RHS of the preceding equation. We conclude that thecovariance matrices that maximize can also maximize, i.e.,(34)In a nutshell, the mutual information rates in (29) are max-imized by choosing and to be independent circularlysymmetric complex Gaussian vectors with ,, and .In what follows, we present a lower bound on the ergodiccapacity.Theorem 4.2: [Rayleigh Fading Case] A lower bound onthe ergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channel is given by(35)with(36)(37)where the expectations are taken with respect to correspondingchannel matrices.Proof: Based on [4, Sec. VI], the following rate is achiev-able by using block Markov coding:(38)Since the receivers have full CSI, it follows that(39)(40)where the expectations are taken with respect to the corre-sponding channel matrices. Note thatLet and be independent circularly symmetric complexGaussian random vectors with , , and. Then, the lower bound in (35) follows along the sameline of the proof of Theorem 4.1.Remarks: Interestingly, Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 reveal thatin a Rayleigh-fading channel, the corresponding codebooks atAuthorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
36 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005Fig. 3. Capacity bounds versus SNR for the case = = .the source node and the relay node are independent, i.e.,and are independent. (As shown later, the upper boundand the lower bound can “converge” under certain conditions,indicating that the ergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channelcan be characterized exactly.) In contrast, and are cor-related for the ﬁxed channel cases. Indeed, the capacity of theMAC part is achieved when the source node and the relay nodehave “complete” cooperation for the ﬁxed channel case .Our intuition for this ﬁnding is as follows. Since we considerthe relay channel with receiver CSI only, the transmitters haveno knowledge about the channel realizations. As a result, theoptimal codebooks at the source node and the relay node areindependent, due to the channel uncertainty at the transmitters.Intuitively speaking, it is the uncertainty (randomness) ofand at the transmitters that makes and independent.Recall that in a single-user MIMO channel with receiver CSIonly, the capacity is achieved when the power allocation acrosstransmit antennas is equal and the signals are independent [24,Theorem1]. If we treated the relay node and the source nodeas an antenna-clustering transmitter , the optimal signalingwould indicate independent signals across transmit antennas.It is clear that the communications between the source nodeand the destination node can be improved by using relaying (see,e.g., Case III in Section IV-A). From (27) and (28), the capacitygain for the MAC part is due to the multiple-access gain; and thecapacity gain for the BC part originates from the broadcast gain.Needless to say, a key to reap the capacity gains is to developcoding strategies for the cooperative MAC and the cooperativeBC therein.A. Numerical ExamplesWe now illustrate via numerical examples the bounds inTheorems 4.1 and 4.2. For the sake of clarity, we consider thecase where the numbers of antennas at all the transmitters andreceivers are equal (e.g., in ad hoc networks, all the nodes areequipped with identical RF devices). We study the upper boundand the lower bound with different SNR parameters (namely,, , and ). The SNR parameters play a key role in theupper bound and the lower bound. In what follows, we studythree cases with different SNR parameters. The number of theantennas is assumed to be two in all cases, and SNR ,with SNR being the SNR for the direct link.Case I: In this case, ; this models the scenariowhere the source node, the relay node, and the destination nodeare separated by equal distances. Fig. 3 depicts the upper boundand the lower bound.Case II: In this case, and , which “cap-tures” that the relay node is closer to the destination node thanto the source node. Comparing Fig. 4 with Fig. 3, we observethat the upper bound and the lower bound for Case I and Case IIare the same. We will elaborate further on this in Section V (seeLemma 5.3).Case III: In this case, and , which “cap-tures” a scenario that the relay node is closer to the source nodethan to the destination node. Surprisingly, as shown in Fig. 5,the upper bound and the lower bound “converge.” That is to say,the ergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channel over RayleighAuthorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
WANG et al.: ON THE CAPACITY OF MIMO RELAY CHANNELS 37Fig. 4. Capacity bounds versus SNR for the case = and = 10 .Fig. 5. Capacity bounds versus SNR for the case = and = 10 .Authorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
38 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005fading can be characterized under this SNR condition. We willdiscuss in Section V sufﬁcient conditions under which the er-godic capacity can be achieved.V. DISCUSSIONS ON CAPACITY ACHIEVABILITYThe Gaussian MIMO relay channel with ﬁxed channelgains can be viewed as a vector generalization of the classicalGaussian relay channel in , and is not degraded in general.Characterizing the corresponding capacity remains open. Inthe following, we turn our attention to the fading case. Specif-ically, we investigate in Section V-A sufﬁcient conditions thatgive exact characterization of the ergodic capacity. Since theergodic capacity involves expectations with respect to randommatrices and does not admit an “explicit” expression, we studyin Section V-B the high-SNR regime and use approximationsto identify SNR conditions for achieving the capacity; inSection V-C, we examine the scale case, for which we deriveexplicit conditions for capacity achievability and the explicitcapacity expression.A. Regularity Conditions for Capacity AchievabilityIn Section IV, we have presented a lower bound and an upperbound on the ergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channel andalso provided numerical examples for different SNR cases. In-terestingly, the upper bound and the lower bound in Fig. 5 “con-verge,” which indicates that under certain regularity conditions,the ergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channel can be charac-terized exactly. Indeed, we observe that in (26) and (35), there isa common term . If is smaller than both and , theergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channel is given by . Westate this important observation in the following proposition.Proposition 5.1: If and , then theergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channel is given by .In what follows, we study the conditions in Proposition 5.1in terms of SNR parameters. For tractability, we assume that allthe numbers of antennas are equal, i.e.,(for simplicity, we use to denote the number of the antennas).We ﬁrst need the following lemma.Lemma 5.1: The upper bound on the ergodic capacity of theMIMO relay channel is , if .Proof: Under the assumption on equal numbers ofantennas, it follows that and have identicalprobability distributions, for . Therefore,The second equality follows the fact that , ,and are i.i.d. Wishart matrices, and accordinglyand follow identical prob-ability laws. Furthermore, since increases monotonicallywith , we have that if .Lemma 5.1 gives the conditions under which the upper boundis . It remains to examine when would meet the lowerbound, that is, (it is easy to show that is alwaysgreater than ), and thus, the ergodic capacity can be charac-terized. In general, it is nontrivial to determine in terms of ,, and if (except the scalar case), because theergodic capacity expressions involve expectations with respectto random matrices. In light of this fact, we ﬁrst ﬁnd an upperbound on and compare it with . The following lemmaprovides an upper bound on .Lemma 5.2: For any andProof: First, we rewrite asAlong the same line of the proof in [24, Theorem 1], it canbe shown that if the total power is kept constant, i.i.d. inputsignals with the equal power allocation can maximize the mutualinformation. It then follows thatIt is clear that the equality can be achieved if .In Section V-B, we will derive sufﬁcient conditions forcapacity achievability by combining Proposition 5.1 withLemmas 5.1 and 5.2, building on which we elaborate furtheron the numerical results exhibited in Case III in Section IV-A.Next, we present in Lemma 5.3 the conditions under whichthe upper bound and the lower bound diverge. This sheds lighton the existence of the gap between the upper bound and thelower bound in Figs. 3 and 4.Lemma 5.3: If and , then the upper boundon the ergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channel is , andthe lower bound is .Proof: The ﬁrst statement directly follows Lemma 5.1,and it remains to show the second one. We have thatwhere follows from the fact that with proba-bility [9, Theorem 3.2]; and follows from the facts that, and and are i.i.d. random matrices, asmentioned earlier.Authorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
WANG et al.: ON THE CAPACITY OF MIMO RELAY CHANNELS 39Fig. 6. Capacity bounds versus SNR for the case of = and = 3 .Next, we examine two cases where the capacity-achievingconditions can be expressed in explicit form.B. Achievability of Ergodic Capacity: The High SNR RegimeIn the high-SNR regime [19, Proposition 2], i.e., , , andare large, can be approximated as(41)where is Euler’s constant. The same approxi-mation can be applied to the upper bound on in Lemma 5.2;i.e.,(42)Comparing the RHS of (41) with that of (42), we note thatif the following condition holds:(43)or equivalentlywhere (44)Combining (44) with the conditions in Lemma 5.1, we have thatthe ergodic capacity of the MIMO relay channel is .Recall that in Section IV-A, Case III reveals a somewhat sur-prising result that the upper bound meets the lower bound (inCase III, and ). Based on (44) and Lemma 5.1,it follows that if (which also implies ),then and . That is to say, the thresholdvalue for this case is , at which the upper bound and thelower bound “converge.” Accordingly, in Fig. 5, whereand , the upper bound meets the lower bound andthe ergodic capacity is achieved. To elaborate further on this,we present two different SNR parameters (cf. Case III in Sec-tion IV-A). As shown in Fig. 6, when , the upper boundis very close to the lower bound. Fig. 7 shows that the upperbound “meets” the lower bound perfectly when , in-dicating that the capacity can be characterized exactly.C. Achievability of Ergodic Capacity:If all the number of the antennas is one, the MIMO relaychannel boils down to a scalar relay channel. In this caseSince has distribution with freedom of (namely,exponential distribution), and , hasthe probability density functionAuthorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
40 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005Fig. 7. Capacity bounds versus SNR for the case of = and = 3:5 .We can ﬁnd by(45)Using the integral in [8, p. 568], we have that(46)where is the exponential integral function in [8, p. 875].Next, consider the random variable .Since , we have that(47)Hence, can be computed by(48)(49)Combining (46) with (49), we conclude that if(50)and , then the ergodic capacity of the relay channel isgiven byVI. AN APPLICATION OF MIMO RELAY CHANNELS INCOOPERATIVE COMMUNICATIONS IN AD HOC NETWORKSIn what follows, we explore the utility of the MIMO relaychannel for cooperative communications in ad hoc networks.We consider ad hoc networks using the IEEE 802.11 CSMA/CAstandard. In such a context, the medium access control protocoluses the RTS (request-to-send)/CTS (clear-to-send) handshaketo set up a communication link. More speciﬁcally, as shown inFig. 8, source node S transmits an RTS packet to request thechannel and destination node D replies with a CTS packet. Ifthe RTS/CTS dialogue is successful, S and D begin their datacommunication, whereas all other nodes that hear either the RTSpacket or the CTS packet are kept silent for a speciﬁed duration.A key observation is that the silent node (node R in Fig. 8within the shaded area) can be exploited to relay information.We use the capacity results on MIMO relay channel to charac-terize the performance gain therein over the direct transmissionwithout relaying. The union of the transmission region of S andD is the so-called RTS/CTS reserved ﬂoor; R would have beenkept silent while S communicates with D as RTS/CTS dialoguedictates; is the distance between S and D. Note that if R lies inAuthorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
WANG et al.: ON THE CAPACITY OF MIMO RELAY CHANNELS 41Fig. 8. A sketch of RTS/CTS dialogue.the shaded area depicted in Fig. 8, it would have a shorter dis-tance to both S and D than . Thus, during the communicationbetween S and D, R can function as a relay station to aid the datatransmission. Thus motivated, we call this shaded area a “relayregion,” because any silent node within such a region can act asa relay node. Moreover, if R is equipped with multiple antennas,S, R, and D form a MIMO relay channel.Consider the Rayleigh-fading channel. Deﬁne the relativegain of the capacity by using node R to relay data aswhere is the relay channel capacity, and is the channelcapacity corresponding to the direct link given in Theorem 4.2.Applying Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, we have that(51)Observe that and depend on the coordinates of the relaynode. Without loss of generality, let the coordinates of S, D, andR be , , and . It follows thatandwhere is the path loss parameter in wireless links; and andare constants.Since and change while the relay station moves,and are functions of accordingly. Assume that Roccurs with equal probability at any position within the shadedarea (deﬁned as ) depicted in Fig. 8. Then it follows thatwhere is the area of , given by ; and, , , and are areas deﬁned asBy using the lower bound and upper bound on the ergodic ca-pacity of the relay channel, we have the corresponding lowerand upper bounds on average relaying gain(52)VII. CONCLUSIONThe relay channel is a basic model for multiuser communi-cations in wireless networks. In this paper, we ﬁrst study ca-pacity bounds for the Gaussian MIMO relay channel with ﬁxedchannel gains. We derive an upper bound that involves convexoptimization over two covariance matrices and one scalar pa-rameter . Loosely speaking, parameter “captures” the coop-eration between the source node and the relay node, and leads tosolving the maximization problem using convex programming.We give an algorithm to computer the upper bound. We alsopresent lower bounds on the MIMO relay channel capacity andprovide algorithms to compute the bounds.Next, we consider the Rayleigh fading case. We give an upperbound and a lower bound on the ergodic capacity. It is somewhatsurprising that the upper bound can meet the lower bound undercertain conditions (not necessarily degraded), indicating that theergodic capacity can be characterized exactly. In particular, weidentify sufﬁcient conditions to achieve the ergodic capacitywhen all nodes have the same number of antennas; and our in-tuition for this ﬁnding is that the source node and the relay nodecan function as a “virtual” transmit antenna array when the relaynode is located close to the source node, thus making it possibleto achieve the capacity. Then we study the sufﬁcient conditionsunder which the ergodic capacity can be characterized exactly.We examine two interesting cases, namely the high-SNR regimeand the scalar relay channel case, and present the SNR condi-tions for achieving the capacity. The capacity results we obtainindicate independent coding schemes at the source node andthe relay node; and our intuition is that the channel uncertainty(randomness) at transmitters results in such independence ofthe codebooks. We ﬁnally discuss a potential application of theMIMO relay channel in cooperative communications in ad hocnetworks by using the capacity results.We are currently pursuing to generalize the study to the partialtransmitter CSI case.APPENDIX APROOF OF LEMMA 3.1Since , it follows from [11, 7.7.2] thatAuthorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
42 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 51, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005is positive semideﬁnite. Therefore, we have thatwhere “ ” is in terms of positive semideﬁnite ordering .Given , the covariance matrix ofis also positive semideﬁnite. It is easy to see thatIn summary, we have thatThus, by the continuity of in the vector space, there alwaysexists such thator equivalently(53)The equality in (53) can be achieved if .The converse of Lemma 3.1 holds by the continuity. That isto say, for a given , there exists such that .APPENDIX BANOTHER LOWER BOUND FOR THE FIXED CHANNEL CASEFollowing , we can ﬁnd another lower bound on thecapacity for the ﬁxed channel case. By using block-Markovcoding, the following rate is achieved for any given distribution:(54)Recall that the optimal distribution is Gaussian , ; andthe transmitted signal at the source node can be decomposedas(55)where, for brevity, we deﬁne . Based on thedecomposition above and Lemma 3.1, the power constraints onand are given byand(56)We can choose the signal to maximize the informa-tion rate for the source–relay link because. Then the corresponding solution for can befound by using the water-ﬁlling technique . More specif-ically, let the singular value decomposition (SVD) of beAccordingly, the water-ﬁlling solution for isgiven by(57)where is a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian vectorsatisfying(58)with being a diagonal matrix (see ).Now consider the multiple-access link from the source nodeand the relay node to the destination node, i.e., .We can view this as a MIMO channel withtransmit antennas and receive antennas. Deﬁne. Since ,we can choose the joint distribution to maximizethe sum information rate for the multiple-access link. To thisend, the received signal at the destination node can be written as(59)Let be a whitening matrix for , anddeﬁneLet be the SVD of . Rewrite the transmittedsignal as(60)where is a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian vectorsatisfying(61)with being a diagonal matrix (see ).Then the sum information rate for the multiple-access link ofthe MIMO relay channel is given by(62)This is a water-ﬁlling problem with respect to except thateach terminal has its own power constraint. Let denote theﬁrst rows of , and the remaining rows. Then thepower constraints are as follows:(63)(64)where is the nonzero eigenvalue of , and is thenonzero eigenvalue of ; and denotes the thelement along the diagonal of .The problem can be solved by using the Lagrange dual func-tion(65)where and are Lagrange multipliers.Authorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
WANG et al.: ON THE CAPACITY OF MIMO RELAY CHANNELS 43Alternatively, we can ﬁnd a suboptimal solution by ﬁrstﬁnding the standard water-ﬁlling solution subject to a totalpower constraint, following by scaling this to satisfy the indi-vidual power constraints. That is to say, rewrite(66)where and satisfy(67)(68)Then, we can maximize the achievable rate with respect to pa-rameter after plugging and into (54).ACKNOWLEDGMENTThe authors wish to thank Dr. Gerhard Kramer for  andhelpful comments on the proof of Theorem 4.1. They would alsolike to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-ments that greatly improved the presentation of the paper.REFERENCES (2004) Convex Opitmization. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe.[Online]. Available: http://www.stanford.edu/ boyd/cvxbook.html G. Caire and S. Shamai (Shitz), “On the achievable throughput of amulti-antenna Gaussian broadcast channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 1691–1706, Jul. 2003. R. S. Cheng and S. Verdú, “Gaussian multiaccess channels with ISI:Capacity region and multiuser water-ﬁlling,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 773–785, May 1993. T. M. Cover and A. A. El Gamal, “Capacity theorems for the relaychannel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-25, no. 6, pp. 572–584, Sep.1979. T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory. NewYork: Wiley, 1991. A. A. El Gammal, Lecture Notes 7: Relay Channel. Stanford, CA:EEE478 Stanford Univ. , 2002. M. Gastpar, G. Kramer, and P. Gupta, “The multiple-relay channel:Coding and antenna-clustering capacity,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp.Information Theory (ISIT 2002), Lausanne, Switzerland, Jun./Jul. 2002,p. 136. I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series and Prod-ucts. San Diego, CA: Academic, 2000. A. K. Gupta and D. K. Nagar, Matrix Variate Distributions. London,U.K.: Champman Hall, 2000. A. Høst-Madsen and J. Zhang, “Capacity bounds and power allocationfor wireless relay channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, submitted for pub-lication. R. A. Horn and G. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis. Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999. G. Kramer, M. Gastpar, and P. Gupta, “Capacity theorems for wirelessrelay channels,” in Proc. Allerton Conf. Communication, Control, andComputeing (Allerton 2003), Monticello, IL, Oct. 2003, pp. 1074–1083. G. Kramer, P. Gupta, and M. Gastpar, “Information-theoretic multi-hop-ping for relay networks,” in Proc. 2004 Int. Zurich Seminar, Zurich,Switzerland, Feb. 2004. J. N. Laneman, D. N. C. Tse, and G. W. Wornell, “Cooperative diversityin wireless networks: Efﬁcient protocols and outage behavior,” IEEETrans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3062–3080, Dec. 2004. , “Distributed space-time-coded protocols for exploiting coopera-tive diversity in wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 49, no.10, pp. 2415–2425, Oct. 2003. T. L. Marzetta and B. M. Hochwald, “Capacity of a mobile mulit-antennacommunication link in Rayleigh ﬂat fading,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 139–157, Jan. 1999. R. U. Nabar, H. Bölcskei, and F. W. Kneubühler, “Fading relay channels:Performance limits and space-time signal design,” IEEE J. Select. AreasCommun., to be published. R. U. Nabar, Ö. r Oyman, H. Bölcskei, and A. J. Paulraj, “Capacityscaling laws in MIMO wireless networks,” in Proc. Allerton Conf. Com-munication, Control, and Computeing (Allerton 2003), Monticello, IL,Oct. 2003, pp. 378–389. Ö. r Oyman, R. U. Nabar, H. Bölcskei, and A. J. Paulraj, “Character-izing the statistical properties of mutual information in MIMO chan-nels,” IEEE Trans. Signal Porcessing, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 2784–2795,Nov. 2003. W. Rhee and J. M. Ciofﬁ, “Ergodic capacity of multi-antenna Gaussianmultiple access channels,” in Proc. 35th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Systemsand Computers, Paciﬁc Grove, CA, Nov. 2001. A. Sendonaris, E. Erkip, and B. Aazhang, “User cooperation diversity-part I: System description,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 51, no. 11, pp.1927–1938, Nov. 2003. , “User cooperation diversity-part II: Implementation aspects andperformance analysis,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 51, no. 11, pp.1939–1948, Nov. 2003. S. K. Jayaweera and H. V. Poor, “Capacity of mutliple-antenna sys-tems with both receiver and transmitter channel state information,” IEEETrans. Inform. Theory, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 2697–2708, Oct. 2003. ˙I. E. Telatar, “Capacity of mulit-antenna Gaussian channels,” Europ.Trans. Telecommun., vol. 10, pp. 585–595, Nov. 1999. S. Vishwanath, N. Jindal, and A. Goldsmith, “Duality, achievable ratesand sum-rate capacity of Gaussian MIMO broadcast channels,” IEEETrans. Inf. Theory, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 2658–2668, Oct. 2003. P. Viswanath and D. N. C. Tse, “Sum capacity of the vector Gaussianbroadcast channel and uplink–downlink duality,” IEEE Trans. Inf.Theory, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1912–1921, Aug. 2003. B. Wang and J. Zhang, “MIMO relay channel and its application forcooperative communication in ad hoc networks,” in Proc. Allerton Conf.Communication, Control, and Computeing (Allerton 2003), Monticello,IL, Oct. 2003, pp. 1556–1565. B. Wang, J. Zhang, and A. Høst-Madsen, “On ergodic capacity of MIMOrelay channel,” in Proc. Conf. Information Sciences and Systems (CISS2004), Princeton, NJ, Mar. 2004, pp. 603–608. H. Weingarten, Y. Steinberg, and S. Shamai (Shitz), “The capacity regionof the Gaussian MIMO broadcast channel,” in Proc IEEE Int. Symp.Information Theory (ISIT2004), Chicago, IL, Jun./Jul. 2004, p. 174. A. D. Wyner, “Shannon-theorectic approach to a Gaussian cellularmultiple-access channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 41, no. 6, pp.1713–1727, Nov. 1994. L.-L. Xie and P. R. Kumar, “A network information theory for wirelesscommunication: Scaling laws and optimal operation,” IEEE Trans. Inf.Theory, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 748–767, May 2004. W. Yu and J. M. Ciofﬁ, “Sum capacity of a Gaussian vector broadcastchannel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, submitted for publication. W. Yu, W. Rhee, S. Boyd, and J. M. Ciofﬁ, “Iterative water-ﬁlling forGaussian vector multiple access channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.50, no. 1, pp. 145–152, Jan. 2004. L Zheng, “Diversity-multiplexing tradeoff: A comprehensive viewof multiple antenna systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. California,Berkeley, 2002.Authorized licensed use limited to: Arizona State University. Downloaded on April 20,2010 at 04:09:41 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.