How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Cover-Leung inner bound for the two-user DM-MAC with feedback
Statement
For each finite law , let be the set of nonnegative rate pairs satisfying For the two-user finite DM-MAC with perfect causal output feedback in Two-user DM-MAC code with perfect causal output feedback, every rate pair in the closure of the union of these sets over all such finite laws is achievable. This is an inner bound; no general feedback-capacity equality is asserted.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite DM-MAC, independent private messages, separate causal encoders observing common noiseless , a joint decoder and average joint error.
Two-user DM-MAC code with perfect causal output feedback: encoder uses only and the common decoder estimates the independent private-message pair.
Two-user discrete memoryless multiple-access channel: conditional on the input symbols, the output law is the memoryless kernel .
Finite conditional mutual information: is a finite average of conditional mutual informations in nats.
Finite mutual information: is the finite mutual information of the joint law.
Proof
Fix a finite law . Use blocks of length and independent message chunks , , with sizes ; set . In each block independently generate clouds for , and, conditionally on every cloud, independent satellite words and with coordinate laws and .
In block , sender 2 sends . Sender 1 sends , where it sets and after block estimates from its own , its already known previous state, and the feedback output of that block. If , the chunks are singletons and sender 1 sets without a test. If , then ; choose and test each candidate using with a summand defined as whenever its numerator is zero. Set to the unique candidate with , or to the fixed default if zero or multiple candidates pass.
The receiver decodes backward. In the last block it knows the dummy current message and searches for the preceding state ; in each earlier block , it knows from the already decoded next block and searches for the unique pair . It uses a single test for each positive-rate error class: the user-1 test is and the pair/state test is A test for a zero-rate user is omitted because its message set is a singleton; if both rates are zero, there is only one message pair. A summand with zero numerator is , and the decoder returns the sole candidate passing all retained tests, or the fixed default or if zero or multiple candidates pass. Choose when and when . The latter is the mean of the second test because is conditionally independent of given .
For fixed and , the true in each data block converges in probability to by the weak law for IID finite-valued information-density terms. A wrong satellite is independent of the output conditional on the known , and its likelihood ratio in step 2.1 has expectation one. Markov's inequality and the union bound over candidates show sender 1 decodes each correctly with probability tending to one. If , there is no sender-decoding error because every chunk is fixed.
For the true tuple, each retained receiver information density converges in probability to its mean. When , a wrong satellite with the true cloud has likelihood-ratio expectation one under the conditional product law and is bounded by ; there are at most such candidates. When , a candidate with a wrong preceding state changes the cloud and both satellite codebook groups; each candidate is independent of the output and has product law , so the second likelihood ratio has expectation one and threshold probability at most . There are at most such candidates. The strict gaps make all extant error classes vanish; absent zero-rate candidate classes require no test. In the terminal dummy block, the preceding state has candidates when , and is fixed when .
With fixed, the finitely many sender-decoding and receiver backward-decoding errors vanish as by steps 3.1 and 3.2; blockwise dependence causes no issue because a union bound is used and a correct prior decode makes the next encoder state correct. The random codebook ensemble is finite, so one deterministic codebook has no greater average error than its ensemble mean. The achieved rates are .
Letting after the blocklength limit makes . A diagonal sequence of blocklengths gives vanishing error and rates tending to each strict pair; a zero-rate coordinate uses a singleton message and omits its tests. For each fixed law, scaling the positive coordinates of a point in by gives strict gaps for every nonempty error class, and the origin is achieved with one message pair. Letting and taking the union over laws proves the stated closed inner bound. Only sender 1's causal estimate from the shared output is used, which is permitted by [F1].
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
10 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- T. M. Cover and C. S. K. Leung, An Achievable Rate Region for the Multiple Access Channel with Feedback, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 27 (1981), 292–298 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Abbas El Gamal and Young-Han Kim, Network Information Theory, Lecture Notes 18, Cover–Leung Inner Bound (standard reference, not scraped)