A power allocation game in a four node relay network: An upper bound on the worst-case equilibrium efficiency

We introduce a power allocation game in a four node relay network which consists of two source and two destination nodes. The sources employ a time sharing protocol such that in each discrete time instance one of the sources communicates with its destination while the other source aids this communication by acting as a relay. Each source uses some portion of its limited power for its own transmission and uses the remaining portion to aid the other source. The noncooperative solution, which is the Nash equilibrium of the game where each source tries to maximize its own rate, dictates each source to use all of its power for its own use, i.e., no relaying. This results in an inferior sum rate with respect to the optimum sum rate jointly maximized over all possible power allocations. The main contribution of this paper is to establish an upper bound on the worst-case equilibrium efficiency (a.k.a. the price of anarchy), defined as the ratio of the equilibrium sum rate to the optimal sum rate for the worst channel conditions. More specifically, we show that if the path loss coefficient is beta > 0 and the received signals are corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise, then the worst case equilibrium efficiency is upper bounded by (1/2)beta. We also note that this upper bound can be extended to relay networks with more than two sources.

[1]  Michael Gastpar,et al.  Cooperative strategies and capacity theorems for relay networks , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[2]  E. Meulen,et al.  Three-terminal communication channels , 1971, Advances in Applied Probability.

[3]  Anders Høst-Madsen,et al.  Capacity bounds and power allocation for wireless relay channels , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[4]  Theodore S. Rappaport,et al.  Wireless communications - principles and practice , 1996 .

[5]  H. Peyton Young,et al.  Strategic Learning and Its Limits , 2004 .

[6]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[7]  Gregory W. Wornell,et al.  Cooperative diversity in wireless networks: Efficient protocols and outage behavior , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[8]  Frans M. J. Willems,et al.  The discrete memoryless multiple-access channel with cribbing encoders , 1985, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[9]  T. Başar,et al.  Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory , 1982 .

[10]  Gregory W. Wornell,et al.  Distributed space-time-coded protocols for exploiting cooperative diversity in wireless networks , 2003, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[11]  Abbas El Gamal,et al.  Capacity theorems for the relay channel , 1979, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[12]  Abbas Jamalipour,et al.  Wireless communications , 2005, GLOBECOM '05. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2005..

[13]  Anders Høst-Madsen,et al.  Capacity bounds for Cooperative diversity , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[14]  Kagan Tumer,et al.  Optimal Payoff Functions for Members of Collectives , 2001, Adv. Complex Syst..

[15]  Panganamala Ramana Kumar,et al.  RHEINISCH-WESTFÄLISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE AACHEN , 2001 .

[16]  Andrea Goldsmith,et al.  Wireless Communications , 2005, 2021 15th International Conference on Advanced Technologies, Systems and Services in Telecommunications (TELSIKS).

[17]  Anders Host-Madsen,et al.  On the capacity of wireless relaying , 2002, Proceedings IEEE 56th Vehicular Technology Conference.

[18]  Frans M. J. Willems,et al.  The discrete memoryless multiple access channel with partially cooperating encoders , 1983, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[19]  Gregory W. Wornell,et al.  Comparing application- and physical-layer approaches to diversity on wireless channels , 2003, IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2003. ICC '03..