arXiv reader

Fading Cognitive Multiple-Access Channels With Confidential Messages

Ruoheng Liu, Yingbin Liang and H. Vincent Poor

arXiv
0910.4613v2 · PDF · 29 December 2009
Categories
cs.IT, cs.CR, math.IT
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

The fading cognitive multiple-access channel with confidential messages (CMAC-CM) is investigated, in which two users attempt to transmit common information to a destination and user 1 also has confidential information intended for the destination. User 1 views user 2 as an eavesdropper and wishes to keep its confidential information as secret as possible from user 2. The multiple-access channel (both the user-to-user channel and the user-to-destination channel) is corrupted by multiplicative fading gain coefficients in addition to additive white Gaussian noise. The channel state information (CSI) is assumed to be known at both the users and the destination. A parallel CMAC-CM with independent subchannels is first studied. The secrecy capacity region of the parallel CMAC-CM is established, which yields the secrecy capacity region of the parallel CMAC-CM with degraded subchannels. Next, the secrecy capacity region is established for the parallel Gaussian CMAC-CM, which is used to study the fading CMAC-CM. When both users know the CSI, they can dynamically change their transmission powers with the channel realization to achieve the optimal performance. The closed-form power allocation function that achieves every boundary point of the secrecy capacity region is derived.

Items 6

Theorem

Theorem 1

N0F7

For the parallel CMAC-CM, the secrecy capacity region is given by

\begin{aligned} {\mathcal C}_s^{\rm [P]}=& \bigcup_{ \substack{\prod_j p(q_j,x_{2,j})p(u_j|q_j)p(x_{1,j}|u_j)\\p(y_j,y_{2,j}|x_{1,j},x_{2,j})}} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} (R_0,\,R_1):\\ ~~R_0\ge 0,\; R_1\ge 0;\\ ~~R_1\le \sum_{j=1}^{L} [I(U_j; Y_j|X_{2,j},Q_j) -I(U_j;Y_{2,j}|X_{2,j},Q_j)] \\ ~~R_0\le \sum_{j=1}^{L} I(Q_j,X_{2,j}; Y_j) \end{array} \right\} \end{aligned}

where Q_j and U_j’s are auxiliary random variables, and Q_j can be chosen to be a deterministic function of U_j for j=1,\dots,L.

Theorem

Theorem 2

IMS7

For the parallel CMAC-CM with degraded subchannels, the secrecy capacity region is given by

\begin{aligned} {\mathcal C}_s^{\rm [D]}=& \bigcup_{ \substack{ \prod_{j} p(q_j,x_{2,j})p(x_{1,j}|q_j)\\p(y_j,y_{2,j}|x_{1,j},x_{2,j})}} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} (R_0,\,R_1):\\ R_0\ge 0,\; R_1\ge 0;\\ ~~R_1\le \sum_{j\in {\mathcal A}} [I(X_{1,j}; Y_j|X_{2,j},Q_j) -I(X_{1,j};Y_{2,j}|X_{2,j},Q_j)] \\ ~~R_0\le \sum_{j\in {\mathcal A}} I(Q_j,X_{2,j}; Y_j) +\sum_{j\in \bar{{\mathcal A}}} I(X_{1,j},X_{2,j}; Y_j) \end{array} \right\} \end{aligned}

where Q_j, for j=1,\dots,L, are auxiliary random variables that satisfy the Markov chain relationship

\begin{aligned} Q_j\rightarrow (X_{1,j},X_{2,j}) \rightarrow (Y_j,Y_{2,j}). \end{aligned}
Theorem

Theorem 3

HXCI

For the parallel Gaussian CMAC-CM, the secrecy capacity region is given by

\begin{aligned} {\mathcal C}_s^{\rm [G]}=& \bigcup_{\underline{p}\in {\mathcal P}} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} (R_0,\,R_1):\\ ~~R_0\ge 0,\; R_1\ge 0;\\ ~~R_1\le \sum_{j\in {\mathcal A}} \left[\frac{1}{2}\log\left(1+\frac{b_j}{\nu_j}\right) -\frac{1}{2}\log\left(1+\frac{b_j}{\mu_j}\right)\right] \\ ~~R_0\le \sum_{j\in {\mathcal A}} \frac{1}{2}\log\left(1+\frac{a_j+p_{2,j}+2\sqrt{a_jp_{2,j}} }{b_j+\nu_j}\right) \\ \qquad + \sum_{j\in \bar{{\mathcal A}}} \frac{1}{2}\log\left(1+\frac{a_j+p_{2,j}+2\sqrt{ a_jp_{2,j}}}{\nu_j}\right) \end{array} \right\} \end{aligned}

where \underline{p} is the power allocation vector, which consists of (a_j,b_j,p_{2,j}) for j\in{\mathcal A} and (a_j,0,p_{2,j}) for j\in \bar{{\mathcal A}} as components, and the set {\mathcal P} includes all power allocation vectors \underline{p} that satisfy the power constraint

\begin{aligned} {\mathcal P}:=\left\{\underline{p}: \sum_{j=1}^{L} (a_j+b_j) \le P_1~\text{and}~\sum_{j=1}^{L} p_{2,j} \le P_2\right\}. \end{aligned}
Theorem

Theorem 4

4Z5B

Let \underline{p}^{\star} be an optimal solution to the optimization problem of (?) that achieves the boundary of the secrecy capacity region of the parallel Gaussian CMAC-CM. Then, \underline{p}^{\star} can be written as follows.

For j\in {\mathcal A}, if

\begin{aligned} \frac{2\lambda_1^2\ln2}{\lambda_1+\lambda_2} < \frac{\gamma_1(\mu_j-\nu_j)-\mu_j}{\mu_j\nu_j}, \end{aligned}

then

\begin{aligned} a_j^{\star}& =\frac{\lambda_2^2}{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)^2}\left(s_{1,j}-\phi_j\right)^{+}, \\ b_j^{\star}&=\left( \min\left[s_{2,j},\,\phi_j \right]\right)^{+} \\ \text{and}\qquad p_{2,j}^{\star}&=\frac{\lambda_1^2}{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)^2}\left(s_{1,j}-\phi_j\right)^{+}; \end{aligned}

alternatively, if

\begin{aligned} \frac{2\lambda_1^2\ln2}{\lambda_1+\lambda_2} \ge \frac{\gamma_1(\mu_j-\nu_j)-\mu_j}{\mu_j\nu_j}, \end{aligned}

then

\begin{aligned} a_j^{\star}&=\frac{\lambda_2^2}{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)^2}\left(s_{1,j}\right)^{+}, \\ b_j^{\star}&=0 \\ \text{and} \qquad p_{2,j}^{\star}&=\frac{\lambda_1^2}{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)^2}\left(s_{1,j}\right)^{+}; \end{aligned}

for j\in \bar{{\mathcal A}},

\begin{aligned} a_j^{\star}=\frac{\lambda_2^2}{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)^2}\left(s_{1,j}\right)^{+} \quad \text{and} \quad p_{2,j}^{\star}&=\frac{\lambda_1^2}{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)^2}\left(s_{1,j}\right)^{+}; \end{aligned}

where \gamma_1 \ge 0,

\begin{aligned} s_{1,j}&=\frac{\lambda_1+\lambda_2}{2\lambda_1\lambda_2\ln 2}-\nu_j , \\ s_{2,j}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[\sqrt{(\mu_j-\nu_j)\left(\mu_j-\nu_j+\frac{2\gamma_1}{\lambda_1\ln 2}\right)}-(\mu_j+\nu_j)\right], \\ \phi_j&=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\mu_j+\nu_j+\frac{1}{\omega}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\left(\mu_j+\nu_j+ \frac{1}{\omega}\right)^2- 4\left[\mu_j\nu_j-\frac{\gamma_1(\mu_j-\nu_j)-\mu_j}{\omega}\right]},\\ \omega&=(2\ln2)\frac{\lambda_1^2}{\lambda_1+\lambda_2} \end{aligned}

and the pair (\lambda_1,\lambda_2) is chosen to satisfy the power constraint

\begin{aligned} \sum_{j=1}^{L} (a_j+b_j) \le P_1~\text{and}~\sum_{j=1}^{L} p_{2,j} \le P_2. \end{aligned}
Corollary

Corollary 1

XPGQ

The secrecy capacity region of the fading CMAC-CM is given by (?)

\begin{aligned} {\mathcal C}_s^{\rm [F]}= &\bigcup_{p(\underline{h},\underline{g}) \in {\mathcal P}} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} (R_0,\,R_1):\\ ~~R_0\ge 0,\; R_1\ge 0;\\ ~~R_1\le {\sf E}_{(\underline{h},\underline{g}) \in {\mathcal A}} \left[\log\left(1+ \frac{b(\underline{h},\underline{g})|h_1|^2}{\nu}\right) -\log\left(1+\frac{b(\underline{h},\underline{g})|g_1|^2} {\mu}\right)\right] \\ ~~R_0\le {\sf E}_{(\underline{h},\underline{g}) \in {\mathcal A}} \log\left(1+\frac{\chi(\underline{h},\underline{g})} {b(\underline{h},\underline{g})|h_1|^2+\nu}\right) + {\sf E}_{(\underline{h},\underline{g})\in \bar{{\mathcal A}}} \log\left(1+\frac{\chi(\underline{h},\underline{g})}{\nu}\right) \end{array} \right\} \end{aligned}

where

\begin{aligned} \chi(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=\left[\sqrt{a(\underline{h},\underline{g})}|h_1| +\sqrt{p_2(\underline{h},\underline{g})}|h_2|\right]^2 \end{aligned}

and the random vector pair (\underline{h},\underline{g}) has the same distribution as the marginal distribution of the process \{(\underline{h}_i,\underline{g}_i)\} at a single time instant.

Corollary

Corollary 2

753V

Let p(\underline{h},\underline{g})^{\star} be an optimal power allocation that achieves the boundary of the secrecy capacity region of the fading CMAC-CM. Then, p(\underline{h},\underline{g})^{\star} is given as follows:

  • for (\underline{h},\underline{g})\in {\mathcal A}, if

    \begin{aligned} \frac{\lambda_1^2|h_2|^2\ln2}{\lambda_1|h_2|^2+\lambda_2|h_1|^2} < \frac{\gamma_1\left(\mu|h_1|^2-\nu|g_1|^2\right)-\mu|h_1|^2}{\mu\nu}, \end{aligned}

    then

    \begin{aligned} a^{\star}(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=\frac{\lambda_2^2|h_1|^2}{\left(\lambda_1|h_2|^2+\lambda_2|h_1|^2\right)^2}\left[s_1(\underline{h},\underline{g})-\phi(\underline{h},\underline{g})\right]^{+},\\ b^{\star}(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=\left(\min\left[s_2(\underline{h},\underline{g}),\,\phi(\underline{h},\underline{g})\right]\right)^{+}\\ \text{and} \qquad p_2^{\star}(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=\frac{\lambda_1^2|h_2|^2}{\left(\lambda_1|h_2|^2+\lambda_2|h_1|^2\right)^2}\left[s_1(\underline{h},\underline{g})-\phi(\underline{h},\underline{g})\right]^{+}; \end{aligned}

    alternatively, if

    \begin{aligned} \frac{\lambda_1^2|h_2|^2\ln2}{\lambda_1|h_2|^2+\lambda_2|h_1|^2} \ge \frac{\gamma_1\left(\mu|h_1|^2-\nu|g_1|^2\right)-\mu|h_1|^2}{\mu\nu}, \end{aligned}

    then

    \begin{aligned} a^{\star}(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=\frac{\lambda_2^2|h_1|^2}{\left(\lambda_1|h_2|^2+\lambda_2|h_1|^2\right)^2}\left[s_1(\underline{h},\underline{g})\right]^{+},\\ b^{\star}(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=0\\ \text{and} \qquad p_2^{\star}(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=\frac{\lambda_1^2|h_2|^2}{\left(\lambda_1|h_2|^2+\lambda_2|h_1|^2\right)^2}\left[s_1(\underline{h},\underline{g})\right]^{+}; \end{aligned}
  • for (\underline{h},\underline{g})\in \bar{{\mathcal A}},

    \begin{aligned} a^{\star}(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=\frac{\lambda_2^2|h_1|^2}{\left(\lambda_1|h_2|^2+\lambda_2|h_1|^2\right)^2}\left[s_1(\underline{h},\underline{g})\right]^{+}\\ \text{and} \qquad p_2^{\star}(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=\frac{\lambda_1^2|h_2|^2}{\left(\lambda_1|h_2|^2+\lambda_2|h_1|^2\right)^2}\left[s_1(\underline{h},\underline{g})\right]^{+}; \end{aligned}

where \gamma_1 \ge 0,

\begin{aligned} s_1(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=\frac{\lambda_1|h_2|^2+\lambda_2|h_1|^2}{\lambda_1\lambda_2\ln 2}-\nu , \\ s_2(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=\frac{1}{2}\left[\sqrt{\left(\frac{\mu}{|g_1|^2}-\frac{\nu}{|h_1|^2}\right) \left(\frac{\mu}{|g_1|^2}-\frac{\nu}{|h_1|^2}+\frac{2\gamma_1}{\lambda_1\ln 2}\right)} -\left(\frac{\mu}{|g_1|^2}+\frac{\nu}{|h_1|^2}\right)\right], \\ \phi(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mu}{|g_1|^2}+\frac{\nu}{|h_1|^2}+\frac{1}{\omega(\underline{h},\underline{g})}\right)\\ &\quad+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\left(\frac{\mu}{|g_1|^2}+\frac{\nu}{|h_1|^2}+ \frac{1}{\omega(\underline{h},\underline{g})}\right)^2- 4\left[\frac{\mu}{|g_1|^2}\frac{\nu}{|h_1|^2}-\frac{\gamma_1\left(\frac{\mu}{|g_1|^2}-\frac{\nu}{|h_1|^2}\right)-\frac{\mu}{|g_1|^2}}{\omega(\underline{h},\underline{g})}\right]} \\ \omega(\underline{h},\underline{g})&=(\ln2)\frac{\lambda_1^2|h_2|^2}{\lambda_1|h_2|^2+\lambda_2|h_1|^2} \end{aligned}

and the pair (\lambda_1,\lambda_2) is chosen to satisfy the power constraint

\begin{aligned} {\sf E}[a(\underline{h},\underline{g})+b(\underline{h},\underline{g})] \le P_1 \quad \text{and} \quad {\sf E}[p_2(\underline{h},\underline{g})] \le P_2. \end{aligned}

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:0910.4613v2 by Ruoheng Liu, Yingbin Liang and H. Vincent Poor, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/0910/0910.4613.jsonl.