Towards Optimal Semantic Communications: Reconsidering the Role of Semantic Feature Channels

We consider a typical SC model where a transmitter is connected to a receiver over a wireless network to perform an image reconstruction task. This model can be readily extended to other machine learning tasks and SC architectures. Let ${\bm{x}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ denote the image data of length $N$. The transmitter encodes ${\bm{x}}$ using an encoder as follows:

$\displaystyle{\bm{z}}=f_{{\bm{\theta}}_{\rm enc}}({\bm{x}})\in\mathbb{R}^{M},$

(1)

where $f_{{\bm{\theta}}_{\rm enc}}(\cdot)$ is the encoding function parameterized by ${\bm{\theta}}_{\rm enc}$, and ${\bm{z}}$ is the SF vector of length $M$.

After encoding, the SF vector ${\bm{z}}$ is mapped into either an analog or a digital symbol depending on whether analog or digital communication is employed.

• •

  Analog symbol mapping: Each SF is mean-centered and scaled as

  $\displaystyle\tilde{z}_{m}^{\rm(A)}=\sqrt{p_{m}^{\rm(A)}}({z}_{m}-\mu_{m}),\quad m\in\{1,\cdots,M\},$

  (2)

  where $\mu_{m}$ is the mean of the $m$-th SF, and $p_{m}^{\rm(A)}$ is a power allocation coefficient satisfying $\sum_{m}\mathbb{E}[|\tilde{z}_{m}^{\rm(A)}|^{2}]\leq P_{\rm tot}$, with $P_{\rm tot}$ denoting the total power budget. Then, pairs of real-valued SFs are grouped into complex symbols as

  $\displaystyle{s}_{u}^{\rm(A)}=\tilde{z}_{2u-1}^{\rm(A)}+j\,\tilde{z}_{2u}^{\rm(A)},\quad u\in\left\{1,\cdots,\frac{M}{2}\right\}.$

  (3)

• •

  Digital symbol mapping: The SF vector is first quantized into a bit sequence ${\bm{b}}\in\{0,1\}^{B}$ of length $B$ using standard quantization methods [25, 13, 24]. The bit sequence is then mapped to a symbol sequence $\tilde{\bm{z}}^{\rm(D)}\in\mathcal{C}^{T}$ of length $T$ through a digital modulation process, where $\mathcal{C}$ denotes the constellation set. Each modulated symbol is scaled as

  $\displaystyle{s}_{t}^{\rm(D)}=\sqrt{p_{t}^{\rm(D)}}\tilde{z}_{t}^{\rm(D)},\quad t\in\left\{1,\cdots,T\right\},$

  (4)

  where $p_{t}^{\rm(D)}$ is the transmit power allocated to the $t$-th symbol $\tilde{z}_{t}^{\rm(D)}$ and satisfies $\sum_{t}p_{t}^{\rm(D)}\leq P_{\rm tot}$ under the assumption that $\mathbb{E}[|\tilde{z}_{t}^{\rm(D)}|^{2}]=1$.

For consistency, we denote the symbol sequence length by $T$. In analog mapping, $T=M/2$ is fixed, while in digital mapping, $T$ varies depending on the modulation order. The superscripts $(\rm A)$ and $(\rm D)$ are omitted hereafter for notational simplicity.

Under a flat-fading channel, the received signal at the $t$-th channel use is expressed as

$\displaystyle y_{t}=h_{t}{s}_{t}+n_{t},$

(5)

where $h_{t}\in\mathbb{C}$ is the channel coefficient, and $n_{t}\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma^{2})$ is AWGN with variance $\sigma^{2}$. The channel coefficient $h_{t}$ may remain constant or vary depending on the coherence time and the number of subcarriers [11]. Upon receiving the signal in (5), the receiver performs channel equalization to obtain the equalized signal at the $t$-th channel use, expressed as

$\displaystyle\tilde{y}_{t}\triangleq\frac{h_{t}^{*}}{|h_{t}|^{2}}y_{t}={s}_{t}+\tilde{n}_{t},$

(6)

where $\tilde{n}_{t}\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,\frac{\sigma^{2}}{|h_{t}|^{2}})$. From the equalized signal in (6), an estimate of $z_{m}$ is obtained using either an analog or digital demapping process.

• •

  Analog symbol demapping: The equalized signal $\tilde{y}_{t}$ is decomposed into its in-phase and quadrature components, followed by power de-scaling and mean restoration. This standard receiver-side processing leads to the equivalent additive-noise model, given by

  $\displaystyle\hat{z}_{m}=z_{m}+w_{m},\quad w_{m}\sim\mathcal{N}\!\left(0,\tfrac{\sigma^{2}}{2|h_{t}|^{2}p_{m}}\right),$

  (7)

  where $t=\lceil m/2\rceil$.

• •

  Digital symbol demapping: Symbol detection is performed on $\tilde{y}_{t}$ to recover the estimated bit sequence $\hat{\bm{b}}\in\{0,1\}^{B}$. The estimated bit sequence is then dequantized to obtain the estimated SF vector $\hat{\bm{z}}$.

Finally, the receiver reconstructs an image using a decoder as follows:

$\displaystyle\hat{\bm{x}}=f_{{\bm{\theta}}_{\rm dec}}(\hat{\bm{z}})\in\mathbb{R}^{N},$

(8)

where $\hat{\bm{x}}$ denotes the reconstructed image, and $f_{{\bm{\theta}}_{\rm dec}}(\cdot)$ represents the decoding function parameterized by ${\bm{\theta}}_{\rm dec}$.

Definition (SF channel): The SF channel is the equivalent channel between the encoder output and the decoder input, denoted by $p(\hat{\bm{z}}|{\bm{z}})$ for analog communication and by $p(\hat{\bm{b}}|{\bm{b}})$ for digital communication¹¹1In this work, we focus on digital SC systems, where the encoder output is quantized and converted into a bit sequence. Nevertheless, the system can be extended to the discrete symbol domain, as in [33], where the SF channel can be modeled as $p(\hat{\bm{s}}|{\bm{s}})$ with $\bm{s}$ denoting discrete modulation symbols..

For the system described in Sec. II-A, the SF channel includes the entire transmit-receive process, including power control and equalization. Following the definition of the SF channel, the overall SC pipeline can be represented as

$\displaystyle{\bm{x}}\xrightarrow{\text{Enc}}{\bm{z}}~(\text{or}~{\bm{b}})\xrightarrow{\text{SF channel}}\hat{\bm{z}}~(\text{or}~\hat{\bm{b}})\xrightarrow{\text{Dec}}\hat{\bm{x}},$

(9)

where its visualization is shown in Fig. 1.

Our key observation is that the SF channel is configurable through various communication strategies. For instance, (7) shows that the distortion of each SF $z_{m}$ can be controlled by adjusting the corresponding power coefficient $p_{m}$. Despite this inherent configurability, most existing works focus solely on optimizing the enc-dec while keeping the SF channel fixed. This motivates us to consider the joint optimization of the enc-dec and the SF channel.

A trivial SF channel that maximizes task performance corresponds to the ideal error-free channel, i.e., $\hat{\bm{z}}={\bm{z}}$. While this solution preserves all SFs without distortion, it fails to account for the task-dependent importance of individual SF components and results in an inefficient allocation of communication resources. In particular, over-allocating resources to all SFs disregards their heterogeneous contributions to task performance, leading to potentially excessive resource usage. Therefore, it is essential to impose appropriate constraints on the SF channel, ensuring operation under limited communication resources and within a non-trivial regime where $\hat{\bm{z}}\neq{\bm{z}}$.

To facilitate optimal SF channel design under resource constraints, we raise the following fundamental question:

Motivating Question: What is the optimal SF channel that maximizes task performance under a limited mutual information, i.e., $I({\bm{z}};\hat{\bm{z}})\leq I_{\rm max}$ or $I({\bm{b}};\hat{\bm{b}})\leq I_{\rm max}$?

From an information-theoretic perspective, this constraint implies that the transmitted and received SFs are not identical. Therefore, it indirectly imposes communication constraints and allows us to accommodate various communication scenarios. One representative example is the Gaussian channel, where the mutual information is determined by bandwidth, transmit power, and noise variance. By constraining the mutual information, these factors are restricted in an integrated manner. As a result, the framework captures the effects of multiple communication constraints, while avoiding excessive training overhead for the enc-dec. The mutual information limit $I_{\rm max}$ does not represent the Shannon channel capacity; rather, it quantifies how much information about ${\bm{z}}$ can be conveyed through the channel to $\hat{\bm{z}}$. A smaller $I_{\rm max}$ indicates more severe degradation under poor channel conditions or low transmit power, whereas a larger $I_{\rm max}$ corresponds to more reliable transmission. Since channel-induced distortions are inherently allowed, our formulation differs from the classical source-channel separation theory.

Motivated by the above question, we present a simple analytical case study to gain insight into the joint optimization of the enc-dec and the SF channel. To this end, we consider a simplified and tractable scenario with a linear enc-dec structure and a Gaussian source, for which the joint optimization can be analytically characterized. The proposed SC framework that generalizes this insight to practical settings is presented in the subsequent sections.

Let ${\bm{x}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ be a Gaussian source with distribution ${\bm{x}}\sim\mathcal{N}({\bm{0}},{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm xx})$, where ${\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm xx}={\rm diag}(\sigma_{{\rm x},1}^{2},\cdots,\sigma_{{\rm x},N}^{2})$ and $\sigma_{{\rm x},1}^{2}\geq\cdots\geq\sigma_{{\rm x},N}^{2}$. A linear encoder compresses ${\bm{x}}$ as ${\bm{z}}={\bm{A}}{\bm{x}}\in\mathbb{R}^{M}$, with $M\leq N$ and ${\bm{A}}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ satisfying ${\bm{A}}{\bm{A}}^{\sf T}={\bm{I}}_{M}$ to constrain the encoder output power. The SF channel is assumed to add an independent Gaussian noise ${\bm{w}}\sim\mathcal{N}({\bm{0}},{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm ww})$, where ${\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm ww}={\rm diag}(\sigma_{{\rm w},1}^{2},\cdots,\sigma_{{\rm w},M}^{2})$, resulting in the received signal $\hat{\bm{z}}={\bm{z}}+{\bm{w}}$. The decoder reconstructs $\hat{\bm{x}}={\bm{B}}\hat{\bm{z}}$, where ${\bm{B}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times M}$. The optimization problem is formulated as

	$\displaystyle({\bf P1})~~\min_{{\bm{A}},{\bm{B}},{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm ww}}$	$\displaystyle\mathbb{E}[\|{\bm{x}}-\hat{\bm{x}}\|^{2}],$		(10)
	s.t.	$\displaystyle I({\bf z};\hat{\bf z})\leq I_{\rm max},~{\bm{A}}{\bm{A}}^{\sf T}={\bm{I}}_{M}.$		(11)

In problem ${\bf P1}$, the mutual information is given by

	$\displaystyle I({\bm{z}};\hat{\bm{z}})$	$\displaystyle=h(\hat{\bm{z}})-h(\hat{\bm{z}}|{\bm{z}})$
		$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\log\left(\det({\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm ww}^{-1}({\bm{A}}{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm xx}{\bm{A}}^{\sf T}+{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm ww}))\right).$		(12)

The objective function can be expressed as

	$\displaystyle\mathbb{E}[\|{\bm{x}}-\hat{\bm{x}}\|^{2}]$	$\displaystyle=\mathbb{E}[\|{\bm{x}}-{\bm{B}}\hat{\bm{z}}\|^{2}]$
		$\displaystyle={\rm Tr}({\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm xx}-2{\bm{B}}{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\hat{\rm z}{\rm x}}+{\bm{B}}{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\hat{\rm z}\hat{\rm z}}{\bm{B}}^{\sf T}),$		(13)

where ${\bm{\Sigma}}_{\hat{\rm z}{\rm x}}\triangleq\mathbb{E}[\hat{\bm{z}}{\bm{x}}^{\sf T}]={\bm{A}}{\bm{\Sigma}}_{{\rm x}{\rm x}}^{\sf T}$, and ${\bm{\Sigma}}_{\hat{\rm z}\hat{\rm z}}\triangleq\mathbb{E}[\hat{\bm{z}}\hat{\bm{z}}^{\sf T}]={\bm{A}}{\bm{\Sigma}}_{{\rm x}{\rm x}}{\bm{A}}^{\sf T}+{\bm{\Sigma}}_{{\rm w}{\rm w}}$. Differentiating (III-B) with respect to ${\bm{B}}$ and setting the result to zero, we have the optimal form of ${\bm{B}}$ as

$\displaystyle{\bm{B}}$

$\displaystyle={\bm{\Sigma}}_{{\rm x}\hat{\rm z}}{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\hat{\rm z}\hat{\rm z}}^{-1}={\bm{\Sigma}}_{{\rm x}{\rm x}}{\bm{A}}^{\sf T}({\bm{A}}{\bm{\Sigma}}_{{\rm x}{\rm x}}{\bm{A}}^{\sf T}+{\bm{\Sigma}}_{{\rm w}{\rm w}})^{-1}.$

(14)

Substituting (14) into (III-B) and applying the Woodbury matrix identity, the objective function can be rewritten as

$\displaystyle\mathbb{E}[\|{\bm{x}}-\hat{\bm{x}}\|^{2}]={\rm Tr}(({\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm xx}^{-1}+{\bm{A}}^{\sf T}{\bm{\Sigma}}_{{\rm w}{\rm w}}^{-1}{\bm{A}})^{-1}),$

(15)

which demonstrates the dependence of the objective on ${\bm{A}}$ and ${\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm ww}$. However, directly differentiating it with respect to these variables does not yield a closed-form solution due to the complex trace-inverse form. To address this, we derive the solution through three steps: (i) we characterize the optimal form of ${\bm{A}}$, (ii) determine the optimal ${\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm ww}$, and (iii) obtain the closed-form expression for the optimal ${\bm{A}}$.

To characterize the optimal form of ${\bm{A}}$, let us refer to a binary matrix $\tilde{\bm{P}}$ in which every standard basis vector appears once as a column, with the remaining columns (if any) being zero vectors, as a partial permutation matrix. Then the following lemma holds.

Based on Lemma 1, the optimal ${\bm{A}}$ has the form of a partial permutation matrix $\tilde{\bm{P}}$. Then, problem ${\bf P1}$ is reformulated as

	$\displaystyle({\bf P2})~~$	$\displaystyle\min_{\{\tilde{p}_{m,n}\}_{\forall m,n},\{\sigma_{{\rm w},m}\}_{\forall m}}\quad\sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sigma_{{\rm x},n}^{2}}+\sum_{m=1}^{M}\frac{\tilde{p}_{m,n}}{\sigma_{{\rm w},m}^{2}}},$		(17)
	s.t.	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\log\left(1+\frac{[\tilde{\bm{P}}{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm xx}\tilde{\bm{P}}^{\sf T}]_{m,m}}{\sigma_{{\rm w},m}^{2}}\right)\leq I_{\rm max},$		(18)
	$\displaystyle\tilde{p}_{m,n}$	$\displaystyle\in\{0,1\},~\sum_{n=1}^{N}\tilde{p}_{m,n}=1,~\sum_{m=1}^{M}\tilde{p}_{m,n}\in\{0,1\},$		(19)

where the constraints in (19) come from the definition of $\tilde{\bm{P}}$.

Setting ${\bm{A}}$ as a partial permutation matrix implies that only a subset of sources is selected for transmission. Let $\mathcal{T}\subset\{1,\cdots,N\}$ denote the selected source index set with $|\mathcal{T}|=M$, and let $\phi:\mathcal{T}\rightarrow\{1,\cdots,M\}$ denote the source-channel index mapping function such that $p_{\phi(k),k}=1$ for $k\in\mathcal{T}$. Then, the objective function and mutual information constraint in ${\bf P2}$ can be rewritten as

$\displaystyle\sum_{k\in\mathcal{T}}\frac{\sigma_{{\rm x},k}^{2}\sigma_{{\rm w},\phi(k)}^{2}}{\sigma_{{\rm x},k}^{2}+\sigma_{{\rm w},\phi(k)}^{2}}+\sum_{t\in\mathcal{(N\setminus T)}}\sigma_{{\rm x},t}^{2},$

(20)

and

$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{T}}\log\left(1+\frac{\sigma_{{\rm x},k}^{2}}{\sigma_{{\rm w},\phi(k)}^{2}}\right)\leq I_{\rm max},$

(21)

respectively.

Applying the Lagrangian method to (20) and (21), the optimal noise variance is obtained as

$\displaystyle\big(\sigma_{{\rm w},\phi(k)}^{2}\big)^{\star}=\begin{cases}\displaystyle\frac{\lambda^{\star}\sigma_{{\rm x},k}^{2}}{2\sigma_{{\rm x},k}^{2}-\lambda^{\star}}&\text{if }\lambda^{\star}<2\sigma_{{\rm x},k}^{2},\\ \infty&\text{if }\lambda^{\star}\geq 2\sigma_{{\rm x},k}^{2},\end{cases}$

(22)

where $\lambda^{\star}$ is the optimal Lagrangian multiplier satisfying $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{T}}\log\bigg(1+\frac{\sigma_{{\rm x},k}^{2}}{\big(\sigma_{{\rm w},\phi(k)}^{2}\big)^{\star}}\bigg)$.

Substituting (22) into (20), the objective function is represented as

$\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{N}\sigma_{{\rm x},t}^{2}-\sum_{k\in\mathcal{A}}\sigma_{{\rm x},k}^{2}+\frac{\lambda}{2}|\mathcal{A}|,$

(23)

where $\mathcal{A}=\{k|k\in\mathcal{T},\sigma_{{\rm w},\phi(k)}^{2}<\infty\}$ is the active source index set. It should be noted that the problem of determining $\mathcal{T}$ and $\phi$ reduces to finding the optimal active set, which is characterized as follows:

From Lemma 2, the following corollary holds:

Regarding the mapping function, since $\phi$ does not affect the objective function in (23) and $\mathcal{A}$, the identity mapping $\phi(k)=k$ can be adopted as a sufficient choice.

The sequence of results established in (14), (22), Lemmas 1 and 2, and Corollary 1 leads to the following theorem.

Theorem 1 shows that sources with larger variances are selected for transmission, and their noise variances are inversely proportional to the source variances.

To verify the effectiveness of the SF channel in Theorem 1, we conduct simulations with $N=1000$, where $\sigma_{{\rm x},n}^{2}\sim{\rm Lognormal}(0,4)$ and are sorted in descending order. We compare three schemes: (i) Proposed SFC (Theorem 1), (ii) ENVC (an equal-noise-variance channel across all SFs with the optimal enc-dec), and (iii) R-D theory (Gaussian R-D bound with ${\bm{A}}={\bm{B}}={\bm{I}}_{N}$ [9]). Fig. 2(a) shows that the proposed SFC closely follows the R-D bound, with a negligible gap for moderate $M$. Fig. 2(b) illustrates the MSE versus $M$ when $I_{\rm max}=100$, showing that the proposed SFC rapidly converges to the R-D bound, while EC degrades for large $M$. The major reason for this degradation is that, as $M$ increases, stronger noise is assigned to all SFs, thereby causing greater distortion to high-variance sources.

Remark 1 (Connection to R-D Theory): The R-D bound can be characterized via a test channel [9]. For a Gaussian source, the optimal test channel is an additive Gaussian channel with an appropriately chosen noise variance. However, this channel is derived under the assumption that the source dimension $N$ and the channel input dimension $M$ are identical, i.e., $M=N$. Moreover, the case $M<N$ cannot be directly inferred from the test-channel result. In contrast, our formulation starts from the more general setting with $M\leq N$. As a result, the classical test-channel result is recovered when $M=N$, while the case $M<N$ extends beyond it. Therefore, our framework can be interpreted as a generalization of the test channel, and the closeness to the R-D bound observed in Fig. 2 naturally occurs as $M$ approaches $N$.

The SF channel during training is modeled as an AWGN channel, where $\hat{\bm{z}}={\bm{z}}+{\bm{w}}$ and ${\bm{w}}\sim\mathcal{N}({\bm{0}},{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm ww})$. The noise covariance ${\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm ww}$ is treated as a trainable parameter so that different SFs can experience different noise levels during optimization. This implies that SFs that are more critical to the task are assigned lower noise variances for higher reliability, while less important SFs are assigned higher variances to improve communication efficiency. Further, it is important to note that the AWGN modeling is employed solely during training and does not restrict the actual communication scenarios. The practical communication strategy, including power allocation, fading channels, and detection, is described in Sec. V.

Following the above strategy, the optimization problem for end-to-end training is formulated as

	$\displaystyle({\bf P3})~~$	$\displaystyle\min_{{\bm{\theta}}_{\rm enc},{\bm{\theta}}_{\rm dec},{\bm{\Sigma}}_{\rm ww}}\mathbb{E}[\|{\bm{x}}-\hat{\bm{x}}\|^{2}],$		(27)
		$\displaystyle~~~~~~~\text{s.t.}~~~~~~I({\bm{z}};\hat{\bm{z}})\leq I_{\rm max}.$		(28)

One key challenge in solving ${\bf P3}$ is that the mutual information is difficult to compute due to the nonlinear nature of DNN-based enc-dec and unknown input distributions. Moreover, directly computing the mutual information would incur high computational complexity, making the optimization intractable. To address this, we adopt the mean-field assumption in [35], under which $I({\bm{z}};\hat{\bm{z}})$ is decomposed as follows:

$\displaystyle I({\bm{z}};\hat{\bm{z}})=\sum_{m=1}^{M}I(z_{m};\hat{z}_{m}).$

(29)

Based on this decomposition, an upper bound on the mutual information is given by

$\displaystyle I({\bm{z}};\hat{\bm{z}})\leq\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\log\left(1+\frac{\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}}{\sigma_{{\rm w},m}^{2}}\right),$

(30)

where $\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}$ is the variance of $z_{m}$, which can be empirically estimated from training samples. From the above expression, we define the communication rate of the $m$-th SF as

$\displaystyle C_{m}=\frac{1}{2}\log\left(1+\frac{\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}}{\sigma_{{\rm w},m}^{2}}\right),\quad\text{s.t.}~\sum_{m=1}^{M}C_{m}=I_{\rm max}.$

(31)

To find the optimal $C_{m}$ via training, we parameterize it as

$\displaystyle C_{m}=\rho_{m}I_{\rm max},\quad\text{s.t.}~\sum_{m=1}^{M}\rho_{m}=1,$

(32)

where $\rho_{m}\geq 0$ is a trainable parameter that determines the portion of the total rate assigned to the $m$-th SF. The constraint in (32) is directly derived from (31). With this parameterization, problem ${\bf P3}$ is reformulated as a rate allocation problem with optimization parameters $\{\rho_{m}\}_{\forall}$.

The parameter $\rho_{m}$ can be readily implemented as

$\displaystyle\rho_{m}=\frac{|v_{m}|^{2}}{\sum_{i=1}^{M}|v_{i}|^{2}},$

(33)

where $v_{m}\in\mathbb{R}$ denotes a trainable raw parameter. By the definition of $C_{m}$ in (31), the noise variance is given by

$\displaystyle\sigma_{{\rm w},m}^{2}=\frac{\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}}{2^{2\rho_{m}I_{\rm max}}-1}.$

(34)

Then, the training for the SF channel is realized as

$\displaystyle\hat{z}_{m}=z_{m}+\sigma_{{\rm w},m}\nu_{m},~\nu_{m}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,1),~\forall m.$

(35)

Here, the noise variance of the AWGN channel acts as a bias term in conventional DNNs. As a result, it can be readily optimized using standard neural network optimizers. Meanwhile, in our training, while the AWGN model is adopted as a convenient abstraction for training, it can be extended to more structured channel models, such as correlated Gaussian noise.

In our training, only $M$ additional parameters $\{\rho_{m}\}_{\forall m}$ are introduced. In practice, $M$ is sufficiently small compared to the number of enc-dec parameters. Moreover, as shown in (33)–(35), the additional computations required for the SF channel optimization are purely element-wise operations and do not involve large-scale matrix multiplications. Therefore, the proposed method incurs only a marginal increase in computational complexity compared to conventional DeepJSCC.

In digital SCs, the SF channel is modeled as parallel BSCs. The optimization problem is formulated as

	$\displaystyle({\bf P4})~~$	$\displaystyle\min_{{\bm{\theta}}_{\rm enc},{\bm{\theta}}_{\rm dec},{\bm{\mu}}}\mathbb{E}[\|{\bm{x}}-\hat{\bm{x}}\|^{2}],$		(36)
		$\displaystyle~~~~~\text{s.t.}~~~~I({\bm{b}};\hat{\bm{b}})\leq I_{\rm max}.$		(37)

The remaining procedures are similar to those in Sec. IV-A. The mutual information is decomposed under the mean-field assumption, and an upper bound is obtained as

$\displaystyle I({\bm{b}};\hat{\bm{b}})\leq\sum_{n=1}^{B}\left(1-H_{2}(\mu_{n})\right),$

(38)

where $H_{2}(u)=-u\log_{2}u-(1-u)\log_{2}(1-u)$ for $0\leq u\leq 0.5$. The communication rate of the $n$-th bit is defined as

$\displaystyle C_{n}=1-H_{2}(\mu_{n}),$

(39)

subject to the following constraints:

$\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{B}C_{n}=I_{\rm max},\quad 0\leq C_{n}\leq 1,$

(40)

where the first constraint is derived from (37), and the second constraint comes from $0\leq\mu_{n}\leq 0.5$. The rate allocation problem for digital SC is formulated by parameterizing

$\displaystyle C_{n}=\rho_{n}I_{\rm max},~~\text{s.t. }\sum_{n=1}^{B}\rho_{n}=1,~0\leq\rho_{n}\leq\frac{1}{I_{\rm max}}.$

(41)

The parameter $\rho_{n}$ can be implemented as

$\displaystyle\rho_{n}=\frac{|v_{n}|^{2}+\alpha}{\sum_{i=1}^{B}(|v_{i}|^{2}+\alpha)},$

(42)

where $\alpha=\max\left(\frac{I_{\rm max}\max_{i}|v_{i}|^{2}-\sum_{i}|v_{i}|^{2}}{B-I_{\rm max}},0\right)$ [26]. From the definition of $C_{n}$ in (39), the bit-flip probability of the $n$-th BSC is given by

	$\displaystyle\mu_{n}$	$\displaystyle=H_{2}^{-1}(1-\rho_{n}I_{\rm max})$
		$\displaystyle\approx\frac{1}{2}-\sqrt{a\rho_{n}I_{\rm max}-b(\rho_{n}I_{\rm max})^{2}-c(\rho_{n}I_{\rm max})^{3}},$		(43)

where $a=\frac{\log 2}{2}$, $b=\frac{(\log 2)^{2}}{6}$, and $c=a-b-\frac{1}{4}$. The approximation is used since $H_{2}^{-1}(\cdot)$ has no closed-form expression; it is obtained by performing a Taylor expansion of $H_{2}(u)$ around $u=0.5$, followed by series reversion.

Training is realized under the relaxed BSC model, given by

$\displaystyle\hat{b}_{n}=\frac{(2b_{n}-1)\tilde{e}_{n}+1}{2}\in[0,1],$

(44)

where

$\displaystyle\tilde{e}_{n}=-\tanh\!\left(\frac{1}{\tau}\Big(\log\frac{\mu_{n}}{1-\mu_{n}}+\log\frac{u_{n}}{1-u_{n}}\Big)\right),$

(45)

$u_{n}\sim\mathcal{U}(0,1)$ is a random variable, and $\tau$ is a temperature parameter [27]. The relaxation is used to compute a gradient of $\mu_{n}$ with respect to a given loss function. Consequently, $\mu_{n}$ (or $\rho_{n}$) is jointly optimized with the enc-dec. Meanwhile, similar to the analog case, digital SCs also introduce only $B$ additional parameters, and the associated computations are purely element-wise. Therefore, the resulting increase in computational complexity is marginal.

Remark 2 (Adaptation to Various Communication Environments): Recall that, in Sec. III, we have discussed the trade-off between the mutual information limit $I_{\rm max}$ and the MSE. This naturally extends to SCs as a trade-off between $I_{\rm max}$ and the task performance, as demonstrated in Sec. VI. To handle various communication environments, multiple enc-dec and SF channel pairs can be trained under different mutual information limits. In Sec. V, we introduce a communication strategy that adaptively selects an appropriate SF channel for a given communication environment.

Remark 3 (Comparison to Prior Work in [27]): A similar approach was also studied in our prior work [27], where a BSC-based SF channel was optimized via end-to-end training. However, the optimization relied on a heuristically designed loss function, rather than capturing or constraining the mutual information of the SF channel. Consequently, [27] did not establish a theoretical connection between the SF channel and practical communication systems. Moreover, its validation was restricted to digital SC, raising concerns about its scalability to other forms of SC scenarios, e.g., analog SC. The advantage of our mutual-information-constrained approach over the heuristic approach in [27] will be further discussed in Sec. VI.

Consider the SF channels trained for different mutual information limits $\{I_{\rm max}^{(u)}\}_{u=1}^{U}$, satisfying $I_{\rm max}^{(1)}>\cdots>I_{\rm max}^{(U)}$, as discussed in Remark 1. The corresponding losses $\{L^{(u)}\}_{u=1}^{U}$ follow $L^{(1)}<\cdots<L^{(U)}$. Our objective for PHY calibration is to jointly select a proper SF channel and the transmit power. The optimization problem is formulated as

	$\displaystyle({\bf P5})~$	$\displaystyle\min_{\{{p}_{m}\}_{\forall m},\,u}~~(1-w_{0})L^{(u)}+w_{0}\sum_{m=1}^{M}{p}_{m}\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2},$		(46)
	s.t.	$\displaystyle\frac{2|h_{t}|^{2}{p}_{m}\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}\geq\overline{\rm SNR}_{m}^{(u)},~\forall m,t,~\sum_{m=1}^{M}{p}_{m}\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}\leq P_{\rm tot},$		(47)

where $p_{m}\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}$ represents the average transmit power used for sending the $m$-th SF, and $w_{0}\in[0,1]$ controls the trade-off between the task loss and the total transmit power. The target SNR of the $m$-th SF in the $u$-th SF channel, denoted by $\overline{\rm SNR}_{m}^{(u)}$, is defined as

$\displaystyle\overline{\rm SNR}_{m}^{(u)}\triangleq\frac{\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}}{(\sigma_{{\rm w},m}^{(u)})^{2}},$

(48)

where $(\sigma_{{\rm w},m}^{(u)})^{2}$ is the trained noise variance of the $m$-th SF in the $u$-th SF channel. In the first constraint, $\frac{2|h_{t}|^{2}p_{m}\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}$ represents the actual SNR of $z_{m}$ during transmission. This constraint ensures alignment between the target and actual SNRs, thereby improving the reliability of task performance.

To solve problem ${\bf P5}$, an auxiliary variable is precomputed as

$\displaystyle\tau_{m}^{(u)}=\frac{\overline{\rm SNR}_{m}^{(u)}}{2\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}},~\forall m,u.$

(49)

For each $u$, $\tau_{m}^{(u)}$ is sorted in descending order with respect to $m$ in advance. When communication begins, the channel-gain-to-noise-power ratio $\tfrac{|h_{t}|^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}$ is also sorted in descending order. Here, the indices $m$ and $t$ are retained after sorting for notational simplicity. The required power coefficient is then computed as

$\displaystyle\bar{p}_{m}^{(u)}=\frac{\tau_{m}^{(u)}\sigma^{2}}{|h_{t}|^{2}},\quad t=\frac{\lceil m\rceil}{2}.$

(50)

The sorting above assigns SFs with higher $\tau_{m}^{(u)}$ to stronger channels, thereby reducing the total transmit power. After obtaining $\bar{p}_{m}^{(u)}$, the optimal SF channel index is determined as

$\displaystyle u^{\star}=\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_{u}\left(1-w_{0})L^{(u)}+w_{0}P_{\rm req}^{(u)}:P_{\rm req}^{(u)}\leq P_{\rm tot}\right),$

(51)

where $P_{\rm req}^{(u)}=\sum_{m=1}^{M}\bar{p}_{m}^{(u)}\sigma_{{\rm z},m}^{2}$. The optimal power coefficient is given by $\bar{p}_{m}^{(u^{\star})}$.

The proposed PHY calibration for analog SC has several notable features. First, since $\tau_{m}^{(u)}$ is pre-shared between the transmitter and the receiver, the optimal power coefficient and SF channel can be computed locally once $\tfrac{|h_{t}|^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}$ is obtained. Therefore, no additional communication overhead is required other than sharing $\tfrac{|h_{t}|^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}$²²2The channel-gain-to-noise-power ratio $\tfrac{|h_{t}|^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}$ can be estimated using standard pilot-based techniques or feedback mechanisms[11]. When the channel coherence time is sufficiently large, only a small number of ratios need to be estimated or fed back, resulting in marginal communication overhead. for reconstructing $\hat{\bm{z}}$ and $\hat{\bm{x}}$. Second, the proposed method incurs very low computational complexity, as the optimal transmit power coefficients are obtained in closed form and require only simple arithmetic operations for each SF. Finally, the method can be readily extended to an interference-free multi-user scenario, in which each user independently adjusts its transmit power based on its own trained target SNRs. Meanwhile, in our PHY calibration strategy, only a total power constraint is imposed. Nevertheless, the framework can be extended to various practical constraints. For example, per-time-slot power constraints can be handled via power clipping.

We consider a multi-user digital SC where $K$ users transmit different images to a single base station (BS). The channels of all users are assumed to be independent and remain constant during the transmission of all symbols. For the $k$-th user, the SF channels trained for different mutual information limits $\{I_{{\rm max},k}^{(u_{k})}\}_{u_{k}=1}^{U_{k}}$, satisfying $I_{{\rm max},k}^{(1)}>\cdots>I_{{\rm max},k}^{(U_{k})}$, are given. The corresponding losses $\{L_{k}^{(u_{k})}\}_{u_{k}=1}^{U_{k}}$ follow $L_{k}^{(1)}<\cdots<L_{k}^{(U_{k})}$. Our objective for PHY calibration is to jointly determine a proper SF channel, the transmit power, and the modulation levels. The optimization problem is formulated as

	$\displaystyle({\bf P6})~~\min_{\big\{\{p_{t,k}\}_{\forall t},u_{k},m_{k}\big\}_{\forall k}}~\sum_{k=1}^{K}w_{k}L_{k}^{(u_{k})}+w_{0}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\sum_{t=1}^{T_{k}}p_{t,k}$		(52)
	$\displaystyle\text{s.t.}~\bar{\mu}_{n,k}^{(u_{k})}\geq{\rm BER}\left(p_{t,k},m_{k},\frac{|h_{k}|^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}\right),~\forall k,n\in\{1,\cdots,B_{k}\},$		(53)
	$\displaystyle~\sum_{t=1}^{T_{k}}p_{t,k}\leq P_{{\rm tot}}^{(k)},~\forall k,~\sum_{k=1}^{K}T_{k}\leq T,~m_{k}\in\{2,4,6,\cdots\},~\forall k,$		(54)

where $p_{t,k}$ is the transmit power for the $t$-th symbol, $m_{k}$ is the modulation level, $B_{k}$ is the number of transmitted bits, and $T_{k}=B_{k}/m_{k}$ is the corresponding symbol sequence length for the $k$-th user. The weighting factors $w_{0}$ and $w_{k}$ control the trade-off between the total power consumption and the task performance of each user. In the first constraint, $\bar{\mu}_{n,k}^{(u_{k})}$ denotes the trained (target) bit-flip probability of the $n$-th bit in the $u_{k}$-th SF channel. Each $n$-th bit is transmitted within the $t$-th symbol, where $t=\lceil{n}/{m_{k}}\rceil$. The BER for this bit is defined as

	$\displaystyle{\rm BER}$	$\displaystyle\left(p_{t,k},m_{k},\frac{|h_{k}|^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}\right)\triangleq a(m_{k}){\rm erfc}\Bigg(\sqrt{\frac{c(m_{k}){p_{t,k}|h_{k}|^{2}}}{\sigma^{2}}}\Bigg)$
		$\displaystyle~~\qquad\qquad+b(m_{k}){\rm erfc}\Bigg(3\sqrt{\frac{c(m_{k}){p_{t,k}|h_{k}|^{2}}}{\sigma^{2}}}\Bigg),$		(55)

where $h_{k}\in\mathbb{C}$ is the channel coefficient of the $k$-th user, $a(m_{k})=\frac{\sqrt{2^{m_{k}}}-1}{\sqrt{2^{m_{k}}}\log_{2}\sqrt{2^{m_{k}}}}$, $b(m_{k})=\frac{\sqrt{2^{m_{k}}}-2}{\sqrt{2^{m_{k}}}\log_{2}\sqrt{2^{m_{k}}}}$, and $c(m_{k})=\frac{3}{2(2^{m_{k}}-1)}$ [6]. The second constraint limits the total power budget of each user. The third constraint guarantees that the total number of channel uses across all users does not exceed $T$, and the fourth constraint is the candidate modulation levels.

To solve problem ${\bf P6}$, we first sort $\bar{\mu}_{n,k}^{(u_{k})}$ in descending order with respect to $n$ in advance, where the index $n$ is retained for notational simplicity. The sorted bit-flip probabilities are grouped by every $m_{k}$ bits, and the minimum value within each group is defined as

$\displaystyle\bar{\mu}_{t,k}^{(u_{k},m_{k})}=\min_{n\in\{(t-1)m_{k}+1,\cdots,tm_{k}\}}\big\{\bar{\mu}_{n,k}^{(u_{k})}\big\},$

(56)

for $t\in\{1,\cdots,t_{k}(m_{k})\}$, where $t_{k}(m_{k})\triangleq B_{k}/m_{k}$. The sorting above groups bits with similar bit-flip probabilities. This helps reduce the total transmit power because the transmit power of each symbol is determined by the minimum bit-flip probability within its group, as described in below. Given $m_{k}$ and $\bar{\mu}_{t,k}^{(u_{k},m_{k})}$, an auxiliary variable is precomputed as

$\displaystyle\gamma_{t,k}^{(u_{k},m_{k})}=\min\{p:\bar{\mu}_{t,k}^{(u_{k},m_{k})}\geq{\rm BER}(p,m_{k},1)\},$

(57)

for all $(t,k,u_{k},m_{k})$, assuming $|h_{k}|^{2}/\sigma^{2}=1$. When communication begins, the actual channel-gain-to-noise-power ratio $\frac{|h_{k}|^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}$ is used to determine the required transmit power as

$\displaystyle\bar{p}_{t,k}^{(u_{k},m_{k})}=\frac{\gamma_{t,k}^{(u_{k},m_{k})}\sigma^{2}}{|h_{k}|^{2}}.$

(58)

Under the total power constraint, the feasible set for the $k$-th user is defined as

$\displaystyle\Omega_{k}=\{(u_{k},m_{k}):P_{{\rm req},k}^{(u_{k},m_{k})}\leq P_{\rm tot}^{(k)}\},$

(59)

where $P_{{\rm req},k}^{(u_{k},m_{k})}=\sum_{t=1}^{T_{k}}\bar{p}_{t,k}^{(u_{k},m_{k})}$. For each feasible pair $(u_{k},m_{k})\in\Omega_{k}$, the corresponding objective value is given by

$\displaystyle J_{k}(u_{k},m_{k})=w_{k}L_{k}^{(u_{k})}+w_{0}P_{{\rm req},k}^{(u_{k},m_{k})}.$

(60)

For notational convenience, we redefine

$\displaystyle t_{k,j}=t_{k}(m_{k}),\quad J_{k,j}=J_{k}(u_{k},m_{k}),$

(61)

where $j\in\{1,\dots,|\Omega_{k}|\}$ indexes each feasible pair $(u_{k},m_{k})\in\Omega_{k}$. Then, problem ${\bf P6}$ can be reformulated as

	$\displaystyle({\bf P6}^{\prime})~~\min_{\{x_{k,j}\}_{\forall k,j}}~\sum_{k=1}^{K}\sum_{j=1}^{|\Omega_{k}|}J_{k,j}x_{k,j}$		(62)
	$\displaystyle\text{s.t. }\sum_{j=1}^{|\Omega_{k}|}x_{k,j}=1,~x_{k,j}\in\{0,1\},\sum_{k=1}^{K}\sum_{j=1}^{|\Omega_{k}|}t_{k,j}x_{k,j}\leq T,$		(63)

where the first two constraints ensure that exactly one candidate is selected from the feasible set $\Omega_{k}$ for the $k$-th user. The third constraint corresponds to the total channel-use constraint in (54). We note that problem ${\bf P6}^{\prime}$ is a conventional multiple-choice knapsack problem. This is a well-studied combinatorial optimization problem, and many efficient solvers have been developed [17]. From a computational complexity perspective, the worst-case approach is exhaustive search, which evaluates all combinations across the candidate sets for each user. In practice, however, the number of candidate SF channels and modulation levels per user is small, resulting in moderate computational cost.

In the proposed PHY calibration for multi-user digital SC, the optimal SF channel index and modulation level $(u_{k}^{\star},m_{k}^{\star})$ are first determined at the BS by solving ${\bf P6}^{\prime}$. The BS then transmits $(u_{k}^{\star},m_{k}^{\star})$ and $\frac{|h_{k}|^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}$ to each user. Upon receiving them, each user computes the optimal transmit power as $\bar{p}_{t,k}^{\star}=\frac{\gamma_{t,k}^{(u_{k}^{\star},m_{k}^{\star})}\sigma^{2}}{|h_{k}|^{2}}$, which can also be computed at the BS. Therefore, only a small amount of information needs to be exchanged.