In this section, the optimization problem for the joint power allocation in the multi-cast system with the physical-layer network coding is first established using the criterion of achievable rate maximization. As the problem is nonconvex, that is, difficult to solve, it is then modified to obtain a convex power allocation problem by using the high-SNR approximation. As an alternative, an iterative algorithm whose convergence is guaranteed is also developed to optimize the power coefficients of all sources and relays.
With (1), (5), and (8), d1 has received the symbols from S1 and S2. Thus, the received rate for d1 can be expressed as
Using (2), (5) and (9), d2 has received the symbols from S2 and S1, leading the received rate for d2 to
Note that the factor
for the two subcarriers has been neglected as in [
23] since it has no impact on the joint power allocation. Thus, the averaged sum rate of both d1 and d2 over all of the time slots can be calculated as
By maximizing the achievable rate (12), the joint power allocation problem can be established as
and
P is the total power available for the whole system over the two subcarriers and the
K time slots. It is easy to verify that (13) is not convex with respect to (w.r.t.) the whole parameter (
). In what follows, we would like to modify the cost function (14) by deriving an upper bound of the network's achievable rate to obtain a convex optimization problem.
3.2. Joint Power Allocation Using an Asymptotically Optimal Upper Bound
By examining the cost function (14), it is found that the nonconvexity only comes from the second and the fourth terms in
. If these two terms are modified into convex,
would become convex w.r.t. (
), thus significantly simplifying the joint power allocation problem.
Using the approximation of the high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), upper bound functions for the second term and that for the fourth term in (14) can be, respectively, obtained as
These upper bounds are very tight with the increase of SNR. Using (15) into (14), a lower bound of
can be obtained as
Obviously, (16) is convex w.r.t. the whole optimization parameters
. By replacing the original cost function in (13) with its lower bound (16), the modified joint power allocation problem can be expressed as
Here, the constrained minimization problem is convex since the Hessian matrix of
is always semidefinite positive and the constraint is also convex. Thus, many convex optimization methods such as the interior method and the Lagrangian multiplier method can be employed to solve (17). The complexity of solving (17) is very low since the existing convex optimization techniques are very efficient in computing the convex solution [
24].
3.3. Design of Iterative Algorithm for Joint Optimal Power Allocation
The joint power allocation problem (13) is not convex w.r.t. the whole parameter, yet it could be convex w.r.t. part of the whole parameter set
when the other elements are fixed. By calculating the Hessian matrix of
, it can be shown that the original cost function (13) is convex w.r.t.
with fixed
and convex w.r.t.
with fixed
. Therefore, the nonconvex joint power allocation problem can be solved by first optimizing the relays' power coefficients
with fixed
, and then optimizing the sources' power coefficients
while
is fixed. Moreover, each step in solving for
or
is convex [
24]. Therefore, by solving the nonconvex problem iteratively, a solution for (
) can finally be attained. The iterative algorithm is summarized as follows
Algorithm 1 (iterative optimization of the nonconvex problem (13)).
Step 1.
Initialize
and
; set the iteration index
and the termination condition
; compute the initial value of the cost function in (13).
Step 2.
Calculate the normalized power coefficients as
, and
. With the fixed
and
, optimize the subtotal power of both sources,
, as
where
is defined as
Step 3.
With the fixed
, optimize the following convex problem by using the interior method of convex optimizations to obtain
:
Step 4.
With the fixed
solve the following convex problem by optimizing
and
simultaneously with the interior method to attain
Step 5.
Calculate the cost function
; if
, terminate the iteration. Otherwise, update
and return to Step 2.
Convergence Analysis
The proposed algorithm iteratively solves the nonconvex problem by updating one part of the whole parameters while the other part is fixed. The convergence of the iterations is guaranteed. In Step 2 of the
n th iteration, the value of the cost function, denoted by
, achieves the minimum by optimizing
with the fixed
since the cost function of (18), shown in (19), is convex w.r.t.
; in Step 3 of the
n th iteration, the value of the cost function, denoted as
, is further minimized by optimizing
, leading to a smaller value of the cost function; that is,
; in Step 4 of the
n th iteration, the value of the cost function in the last iteration is further minimized by optimizing
, resulting in a smaller value as
. In the (
)th iteration, we have
, yielding
. Following a similar analysis, we finally have the following inequalities:
indicating that the cost function decreases with each iteration. Meanwhile, the cost function is lower-bounded since the sum rate of the whole system is upper bounded. Consequently, the lower bounded function decreases as iterations go on, ensuring the convergence of Algorithm 1.
Optimality Analysis
By exploiting the convex feature of the nonconvex cost function w.r.t. only a part of the optimization parameters, we have successfully designed an iterative algorithm to solve the nonconvex problem by using a convex optimization method, where the convergence of the iterative algorithm is ensured. Moreover, the solution obtained by Algorithm 1 for the problem (13) is guaranteed to be optimal, yet not necessarily globally optimal due to the nonconvexity of the joint power allocation problem. Namely, the solution realized by Algorithm 1 is at least one local optimum (possibly the global optimum).