d3 2 3 Fundamental Limits

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.
3)
SEVENTHFRAMEWORKPROGRAMME(FP7)
THEME3
InformationandCommunicationTechnologies
YearIII
D3.2.3:FundamentalLimits
Projectacronym:
Projectfulltitle:
HARP
HighcapacitynetworkArchitecturewithRemote
radioheads&Parasiticantennaarrays
318489
Grantagreementno.:
Versionnumber:1
Dateofpreparationofscientificreport(latestversion):04/11/2015
DateofapprovalofscientificreportbyCommission:......................................
Authors:
ConstantinosPapadias,GeorgeAlexandropoulos,VlasisBarousis,TharmalingamRatnarajah,Faheem
Khan, Jiang Xue, Lin Zhou, Bruno Clerckx, Borzoo Rassouli, Yueping Wu, David Gesbert, Laura
Cottatellucci,HaifanYin,RalfMller,MohammadA.Sedaghat
EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)
Author Contact Information
CONSTANTINOSPAPADIAS,AIT,CPAP@AIT.GR
GEORGEALEXANDROPOULOS,AIT,ALEXANDG@AIT.GR
VLASISBAROUSIS,AIT,VBAR@AIT.GR
THARMALINGAMRATNARAJAH,UEDIN,T.RATNARAJAH@ED.AC.UK
FAHEEMKHAN,UEDIN,FAHEEM.KHAN@ED.AC.UK
LINZHOU,UEDIN,L.ZHOU@ED.AC.U
BRUNOCLERCKX,IMPERIAL,B.CLERCKX@IMPERIAL.AC.UK
BORZOORASSOULI,IC,B.RASSOULI12@IMPERIAL.AC.UK
YUPINGWU,IC,YUEPING.WU@IMPERIAL.AC.UK
DAVIDGESBERT,EUR,DAVID.GESBERT@EUROCOM.FR
LAURACOTTATELLUCCI,EUR,COTTATEL@EUROCOM.FR
HAIFANYIN,EUR,HAIFAN.YIN@EUROCOM.FR
RALFMLLER,NTNU,RALF.MUELLER@LNT.DE
MOHAMMADALISEDAGHAT,NTNU,MOHAMMAD.SEDAGHAT@IET.NTNU.NO
Objectives
The main objective of deliverable D3.2.3 is to investigate the information theoretic limits of
Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) systems equipped with single-RF chain transmitters
and also the theoretical limits in multiuser networks with Radio Remote Heads (RRHs). The
report consists of four parts including: 1- Fundamental limits of MIMO systems with singleRF transmitters, 2- Degrees of Freedom of Interference Broadcast Channels with Topological
Interference Management, 3- Modeling and Analysis of Cloud Radio Access Networks Using
Matrn Hard-core Point Processes, and 4- Energy Efficient Cloud Radio Access Network with a
Single RF Antenna.
Part I
I. P HASE
MODULATION ON THE HYPERSPHERE AND ITS FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS
A. Modulation definition
In Load-Modulated Single-RF (LMSRF) MIMO transmitters, there is a Central Power Amplifier (CPA) which feeds all the antennas via some load modulators. The power efficiency of
the CPA is mostly determined by the Peak to Average Sum Power Ratio (PASPR), i.e., peak
to average ratio of the aggregated power on all the antennas. The lower PASPR, the higher the
power efficiency. In the case that the aggregated power on the antennas becomes constant, the
CPA can be very efficient. In this case, the CPA can be a nonlinear amplifier with no back-off,
e.g., class F amplifier with around 80% power efficiency [1].
Having highly efficient central CPA motivates us to introduce a novel modulation scheme
for MIMO communications called Phase Modulation on the Hypersphere (PMH). In PMH, the
aggregated power an all the antennas before pulse shaping is fixed. Generalizing the idea of
phase modulation from the complex unit circle to the hypersphere, we propose to fix the squared
Euclidean norm of all transmit vectors s[k] S to the constant sum power P , i.e.

s[k]2 = P
k,
(1)
where the mth component of s[k] denotes the signal of antenna element m at discrete time
k and S CM is the symbol alphabet. The data is carried by the phase components of the
signal in a 2M-dimensional real-valued spherical coordinate system. Note that this coordinate
system is parametrized by a single radial coordinate (fixed to P here) and 2M 1 different

phases coordinates. We call this signaling format PMH, in the sequel. Note that the case M = 1
corresponds to the well-known phase modulation on the complex unit circle. For asymptotically
high SNR, it only achieves a portion of the capacity of unconstrained Gaussian distributed
signaling. This hit in data rate is a severe drawback of all kinds of phase modulations on the
unit circle including CPM1 . However, in this chapter we show that only few antenna elements
are required, for the hit in data rate to become negligibly small. In fact, it can be shown that for
any fixed SNR in a MIMO system with bounded inputs, there exist a threshold for the number
1
Note that the capacity of continuous time CPM is not known and here we upper bound it in discrete-time domain.
of antennas, beyond which the amplitude component of the vector signal does not contribute to
mutual information [2].
Let

HM (P ) = s CM s s = P
denotes the hypersphere of radius
(2)
P in M complex dimensions.
B. PMH Channel Capacity in a Point to Point Unitary MIMO Channel

When referring to the unitary channel, we assume that there is only a single user L = 1, the
number of antennas at transmit and receive sides is equal (M = N) and that the channel matrix
is unitary, i.e. H H = I.
Lets assume that the signal at the transmitter fulfills
x HM (P ).
(3)
The following theorem states the result for the channel capacity.
T HEOREM 1 The capacity of the unitary PMH channel is achieved by the channel input uniformly distributed on HM (P ) and given by
2M 1
Z
u
C =
(u) log
du + log(2)
(u)
0
!
2M
2
X
k2 + 1
M log (2e)
log
k+1
2
k=1
(4)
where
(u) = e
2
u2
2
2
and
=
uM
IM 1 (u) ,
M 1
2P
.
(5)
(6)
Proof: The channel is a complex vector AWGN channel with unitary channel matrix. Thus,
the capacity is equal to the capacity of the 2M-dimensional real vector channel y = x + n,
where xT x = P and n N (0, 2 I). Transform the vectors x and y to a 2M-dimensional

spherical coordinate system as
x 7 [ P , 1 , . . . , 2M 1 ],
y 7 [, 1 , . . . , 2M 1],
where i and j are the angles in the spherical coordinate system and =
the mutual information, we start from the differential entropy of y as
Z
h(y) = h(, 1 , . . . , 2M 1 ) + f () log(2M 1 )d
(7)
p
y y. To calculate
2M
2 Z
X
+
i fi () log sin d.
i=1
(8)
Note that to obtain (8), one needs to apply the Jacobian of (7) to the integrals.
Next, in the following lemma, it is proven that the amplitude component of the receive signal
does not carry any information.
L EMMA 1 The pdf of does not depend on the input signal.
Proof: The density in (5) denotes the pdf of a non-central chi distributed variable u with 2M
degrees of freedom and parameter . Given x, variable 2/ has a non-central chi distribution
with 2M degrees of freedom and the parameter
v
u 2M
uX 2x2
2P
k
=t
=
.
2
k=1
From (5) and (9), it can be concluded that the pdf of
(9)
2/ only depends on the norm of the
input signal which is constant. The variable does not depend on the input signal, since
!
2
2
f () =
(10)
and is solely determined by the noise vector. This means that for all input vectors x HM (P ),
the pdf of is the same.
Based on Lemma 1, the second term in the right hand side of (8) is constant and need not
be maximized in order to find the channel capacity. In the next lemma it is proven that to
maximize H(y), the components of output signal in the polar coordinate system need to be
jointly independent.
L EMMA 2 h(y) is maximized if the components of (, 1 , . . . , 2M 1 ) are jointly independent.
Proof: From (8), we have
h(y) h() + (2M 1)
+
2M
2
X
h(i ) + i
i=1
f (r) log rdr + h(2M 1 )
fi () log sin d,
(11)
with equality for joint independence.

Finally, in the next lemma the optimum probability distribution of output signal is derived.
L EMMA 3 h(y) is maximized for
sink k {1, . . . , 2M 2}
k
fk () =
1
k = 2M 1,
2
(12)
where k s are some constants.
Proof: Taking derivative of h(y) with respect to fk () yields (12) and proofs the lemma.
The constants are easily found to be

k2 + 1
.
k =
k+1
2
Combining previous results, i.e. Lemma 3, (5) and (10), the capacity is calculated as
2M 1
Z
u
C = (u) log
du + log(2)
(u)
0
!
M
2
X
k2 + 1
M log(2e),
log
k+1
2
k=1
(13)
(14)
where (u) and are given in (5) and (6), respectively.
Note that Lemma 3 shows that the output vector y is a spherical random vector2 . Therefore,
since n is also a spherical random vector, x should be spherical. This proves that x should be
2
A random vector is spherical, if its distribution only depends on its norm.
Capacity per antenna (bit/sym)
4.5
4
log2 (1 + SNR)
PMH, M = 10
PMH, M = 4
PMH, M = 2
PMH, M = 1
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0
10
12
14
SNR(dB)
Fig. 1: Channel capacity per antenna for PMH in a complex-valued unitary AWGN channel.
uniformly distributed on the considered hypersphere since the uniform distribution is the only
spherical distribution over any hypersphere. Returning to the original channel model with unitary
random matrix, the capacity achieving distribution is uniform on the hypersphere, since a unitary
matrix does not change a spherical distribution.
Figure 1 shows the result of channel capacity per antenna versus the number of antennas. For
the sake of comparison, the mutual information of Gaussian iid signal is also plotted. The loss
is very small for M > 1.
C. Mutual Information of Uniform PMH in iid Gaussian Multiple-Access Channel
When referring to the iid channel, we allow for an arbitrary number of users and antenna
elements. However, we assume that the entries of the channel matrix H are jointly iid and
proper complex Gaussian random variables of variance 1/N. We consider the limit N, L
for fixed system load
=
ML
.
N
(15)
Furthermore, we assume that the channel matrix is perfectly known at the receiver, but unknown
at the transmitter.
In the last section, it is shown that uniform PMH signal achieves the capacity in a point to point
MIMO channel with unitary channel matrix. In this section, we derive the mutual information
for such inputs in the following theorem.
T HEOREM 2 Without loss of generality let P = M. For the channel input being uniformly
distributed on HM (M), the total mutual information per transmit antenna and user is given for
the iid channel by
1
I = log
2M
2 2
2 (q + 1)
1
+
2M
M
(u) log M (u)du
where q and are calculated using the following coupled equations

Z
u IM (u)
1 log M (u)du,
q = (u)
IM 1 (u)
0
s
2M
=
.
2
+ (1 q)
() is given in (5), and
(16)
M 1
2
M (x) = (M)
IM 1 (x).
x
(17)
(18)
(19)
Proof: The mutual information is calculated as

I(x; y, H) = E {I(x; y|H = H 0 )}
H0

= E {h(y|H = H 0 )} N log e 2 .
H0
By the definition of conditional differential entropy, we have

Z Z 12 (yHx) (yHx)
e
E {h(y|H = H 0 )} = E
H0
H
( 2 )N
!
Z 12 (yHx) (yHx)
e
dFx (x) dydFx (x).
log
( 2 )N
(20)
(21)
10
We apply the replica method to calculate (21). In contrast to the replica analysis in [3], [4], the
components of the input vector are not jointly independent. We start with the following well
known equality from statistical physics [5]
E [log(X)] = lim
n0
log E [X n ] .
n
(22)
Applying (22) to (21) results in
log E
n0 n
H
!n
Z 12 (yHx) (yHx)
e
dFx (x) dydFx (x).
( 2 )N
E {h(y|H = H 0 )} = lim
H0
ZZ
e 2 (yHx) (yHx)
( 2 )N
(23)
Lets assume n replicated version of x as {x1 , , xn }. Thus, the mutual information becomes
log
n0 n
I(x; y, H) = N lim
Z Z EH
n
Q
(yHx
e 2 (yHxa )
a=0
Z Y
N
c=1
EH
n
Q
1
|yc
2
n
Y
dFx (xa ) .
a=0
{z
Next, is simplified to
dy
( 2 )N
a)
M
PL
k=1
a=0
hck xak |2
dyc Y
n
(24)
dFx (xa ),
(25)
a=0
where yc , hck and xak are the components of y, H and xa , respectively. Let vac =
PM L
k=1
hck xak .
It has been shown in [3, Appendix II] that vac s are jointly complex Gaussian random variables
for ML, N . The covariances of vac are calculated as
Qab = E [vac vbc

]=
1
x xb .
ML a
(26)
Note that Qaa = 1a by assumption.

We define a set of the subshells as

S(Q) = (x0 , x1 , .xn )|xa xb = MLQab
The integral (25) is splitted to subshells as

Z
= eM LI(Q) eN G(Q) DQ,
(27)
(28)

where
DQ =
n
n
Y
Y
dQab dQab
11
(29)
a=0 b=a+1
is the appropriate integration measure,

Y
Z Y
n
xa xb
xa xb
M LI(Q)
e
=

Qab
Qab
dFx (xa ),
N
N
a=0
ab
(30)
and
G(Q)
1
=
Z
C
n
Y
a=0

y

c vac (Q)
2
dyc .
(31)
We use a Fourier transformation similar to [6, eq. 52-54] and denote the Fourier domain variable
ab . Then, using the same steps as in [6, eq. 49-58], we obtain
of Qab as Q
Z M L P Q Q

ab ab
M LI(Q)
a6=b
Q,
D
e
= e
M Q
(32)
where
n
Z P Q ab xa xb Y
a6=b
M Q = e
dFx (xa ).
(33)
a=0
Using replica symmetry, we reduce the number of correlations to Qab = q for b > a 0.
ab = F for b > a 0.
Furthermore, for the correlations in Fourier domain, we assume Q
ab are complex-valued in general, their values at the
Note that despite the fact that Qab and Q
saddle-point are in fact real-valued.
By using the same idea as in [4, eq. 190-191], we use unit variance complex Gaussian random
variables tc and zac in
vac = zac
By using these parameters, we derive
G(q)
1+
1 q tc q.
(1
2
q)
1+n
n
(34)
(35)
The integral (28) is dominated by the maximum argument of the exponential function; therefore, the derivative of
G(q)
X
a6=b
ab Qab ,
Q
(36)
12
with respect to q must vanish as N . Thus, we obtain

F =
1
.
+ (1 q)
(37)
Next, we have to integrate over the input distribution. Since the signals of all users are
independent and have the same pdf, it can be shown that (33) becomes
!L
Z P Q x x Y
n

ab a b
=
M Q
ea6=b
dFx (
xa ) .
(38)
a=0
Next, we use replica symmetry and calculate M L (F ) as

n
n
P
Z P
n
0 x
a +F x
a x
0+
a x
b +F x
b x
a Y
Fx
Fx
1
a=1
b=a+1
L
M (F ) = e
dFx (
xa )
a=0
0
2 F x
n
P
a=1
n
2

P

M nF
a +F
x
x
a

a=1
n
Y
dFx (
xa ).
(39)
a=0
Applying the vector complex Hubbard-Stratonovich transform

Z
2 dz
kxk2
e
=
e2[x z] ekzk M
C
| {z }
(40)
Dz
to (39), we find
1
L
M (F ) eM nF =
=
(F x 0 +
Z Z Z
P
a
F z)
x
a=1
n
Y
a=0
i
0 + F z) x
2 (2F x
dFx (
xa )Dz
dFx (
x)
n
dFx (
x0 )Dz.
(41)
Then, by using (22) in (41), we obtain

1
log M (F ) =
MLZ Z
Z
h
i
n
0 + F z) x
2 (F x
=
log e
dFx (
x)dFx (
x0 )Dz.
M
nF +
(42)
is uniformly distributed on HM (M), then its characteristic function is calculated as [7]

If x

M 1
Z

2
]
[ t x
x (ktk) = e
dFx (
x) = (M)
IM 1
M ktk .
(43)
M ktk
Therefore, (42) becomes
n
1
nF +
log M (F ) = =
ML
M
ZZ

0 + 2 F z dFx (
log x 2F x
x0 )Dz.
(44)
13

0 x
0 = M, u = 2F x
0 + 2z has a noncenteral chi distribution with 2M degrees
Since x
of freedom and parameter

0 = 2F M.
= 2F x
Therefore,
1
n
log M (F ) = nF +
ML
M
where () is given in (5). Define
M (u) = x
(u) log x
2F u
(45)
2F u du,
(46)
(47)
and substitute F in (37) in terms of using (45) to get (18).

The integration in (32) is dominated by the maximum argument of the exponential function.
Thus, the derivative of
n(n + 1)q
1
2
+
log M (F ) ,
2M
ML
with respect to must vanish as N and n 0. This results in

#
Z " M (u)
1
(u)
(u) + log (M (u))

du.
q = 1 +
M (u)
(48)
(49)
We use the following equality for the modified Bessel function
and find

d
x I (x) = x I+1 (x) ,
dx
M (u)
M (u)
uIM (u)
.
IM 1 (u)
(50)
(51)
By using (51), after some manipulation we simplify (49) to (17). Finally, from (28) and (24),
we obtain
1
1
1
I(x; y, H) = lim
log =
n0 ML n
ML

2
1
1
lim
G + n(n + 1)q
log M(F )
n0 n
2M
ML

Z
2
1
2M
(q + 1)
1
= log
+
(u) log M (u)du.

2
2

2M
M
R
(52)
Mutual information per antenna (bit/sym)
4
3.5
14
Gaussian input
PMH, M = 10
PMH, M = 4
PMH, M = 2
Classical PM
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
10
12
14
SNR(dB)
Fig. 2: Channel capacity per antenna for PMH in a complex-valued unitary AWGN channel.
The information rate of Theorem 2 is plotted in Figure 2 for
ML
N
= 1. The mutual information
of Gaussian input is plotted using the result in [8]. Figure 2 shows that for the iid channel, uniform
PMH can provide information rates very close to those unconstrained Gaussian distributed input
for even very few antenna elements. Note that the gap to capacity in the iid channel is smaller
than in the unitary case.
D. Fundamental limits in the case of 2 2 point to point MIMO with arbitrary channel matrix
We consider a 2 2 discrete-time memoryless vector Gaussian channel given by
y = Hx + n
(53)
15
H = diag{, 1} (|| 6= 1) is known at both transmitter and receiver and n N (0, I) is an iid
noise vector which is independent of x. The assumption of || 6= 1 is to exclude the identity
channel matrix for which the capacity-achieving distribution under a fixed transmission power
is already known in [9] (i.e., the optimal input has uniform phase on the circle defined by the
constant norm). Since the noise is symmetric, the result for the case of < 1 can be derived
from the result for the case of > 1 by normalizing the channel input and output. Therefore,
we only consider the case of > 1.
In the following analysis we assume that the input vector power is fixed and equal to P = R2 .
The capacity of this channel is formulated as
C(R) =
sup
I(x; y) =
a.s.
sup
a.s.
Fx (x):kxk = R
Fx (x):kxk = R
h(y) ln(2e)
(54)
nats
3
where the capacity is in channel
use . The abbreviation a.s. stands for almost surely and Fx (x)
denotes the CDF of the input over which the optimization is done. The pdf of the output
determined by the input is given by
ZZ
fy (y; Fx ) =
kxk=R
1 (y1 x1 )2 (y2 x2 )2 2
2
2
e
d Fx (x)
2
(55)
Due to the symmetry of noise, it suffices to consider the input distributions that satisfy the
following

1
d Fx (x) = (dFx1 (x1 )). (x2
2
2

q
q
1
2
2
2
2
R x1 ) + (x2 + R x1 ) dx2
2
(56)
where () is the Dirac-delta function. In other words, any other input distribution that cannot be
written as in (56), cannot be an optimal distribution and hence is excluded from our consideration.
Substituting (56) in (55), we get the output pdf as
Z R
fy (y; Fx1 ) =
K(y1 , y2 , x)dFx1 (x)
(57)
where the kernel is

1 (y1 x)2 1 (y2 R2 x2 )2 1 (y2 + R2 x2 )2

2
2
2
K(y1 , y2, x) =
.
e
e
+ e
2
2
2
3
(58)
a.s.
More precisely, Let be the sample space of the probability model over which the random vector x is defined. kxk = R
is equivalent to Pr{ | kx()k = R} = 1.
16
The marginal entropy density of the output variables induced by the input is defined as [10]
Z Z
hy (x; Fx ) =
K(y1 , y2 , x) ln fy (y; Fx1 )dy
(59)
1

which satisfies the following (which in turn justifies why it is named density)
Z R
y (x; Fx )dFx (x).
h(y; Fx1 ) =
h
1
1
(60)
Finally, the optimization problem in (54) becomes equivalent to

C(R) =
sup
Fx1 (x):x1 [R,R]
h(y; Fx1 ) ln(2e)
(61)
where x1 [R, R] is in a.s. sense.
At this point we introduce the main results. Let x denote the set of points of increase of the
optimal input distribution.4

T HEOREM 3 The optimization problem in (61) has a unique solution (denoted by Fx1 (x)) which
satisfies the following necessary and sufficient conditions
y (x; F ) = h(y; F )
h
x1
x1
x x
(62)
y (x; F ) < h(y; F )

h
x1
x1
x [R, R] x .
(63)
Further, x consists of a finite number of mass points in the interval [R, R] (i.e., |x | < ).
Proof: The complete proof is given in [11].
Remark 1. For 1, when the norm of the input vector is very small, we have
C(R)
2 R 2
, R0
2
and the asymptotically optimal input distribution is given by

1
1
asym
Fx
(x) = u(x1 R) + u(x1 + R) u(x2 )
2
2
(64)
(65)
where u() is the unit step function.

Proof: From (54), we can write
C(R)
=
4
sup
I(x; y)
Fx (x):E[kxk2 ]R2
1
1
ln(1 + 2 P1 ) + ln(1 + P2 )
2
2
A point P is said to be a point of increase of a distribution if for any open set containing P , we have Pr{} > 0.
(66)

where the solutions of the water filling algorithm are given by
(R2 , 0)
R2 1
(P1 , P2 ) =
1
1
2
2
( R +1 2 , R 1+ 2 )
o.w.
2
2
1
2
17
(67)
When R is vanishingly small, from (66) and (67), we have
2 R 2
1
ln(1 + 2 R2 ) =
.
R0 2
2
lim C(R) lim
R0
(68)
In what follows, we show that the distribution in (65) achieves the upper bound in (85) asymptotically. The pdf of the output induced by this input distribution is

1 y22 1 (y1 R)2 1 (y1 +R)2
asym
2
2
fy (y; Fx
)=
+ e
.
e 2
e
2
2
2
(69)
When R is small,
asym
h(Y ; Fx
= lim
R0
= lim
R0
) = lim
R0
1 y22
e 2
2
1 y22
e 2
2
asym
asym
fy (y; Fx
) ln fy (y; Fx
)dy

1 (y1 R)2 1 (y1 +R)2
y22 y12 2 R2
2
2
+ e
ln 2 +
e
+
+
ln cosh(Ry1 ) dy
2
2
2
2
2

1 (y1 R)2 1 (y1 +R)2
y22 y12 2 R2 2 R2 y12
2
2
e
+
+
+ e
ln 2 +
dy
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 R 2
= lim 1 + ln 2 +
R0
2
(70)
where in (70), we have used the approximations cosh x 1 +
x2
2
and ln(1 + x) x for x 1
and in (70), we have dropped the higher order terms of R. Therefore, when the norm of the
asym
input is very small, the mutual information resulted by the input distribution Fx
(x) is
2 R 2
asym
lim h(y; Fx
) ln 2e =
R0
2
(71)
which confirms that the upper bound in (85) is asymptotically tight.

The asymptotic optimality of the distribution in (65) can alternatively be proved by inspecting
Y (x; Fx ) when R is sufficiently small. From (??),
the behavior of the marginal entropy density h
1
we have
R0
fy (y; FX1 )
1 y12 +y22
e 2 .
2
(72)
18
Therefore,
y (x; Fx ) =
h
1
K(y1 , y2, x) ln fY (y; Fx1 )dy

(73)

y 2 + y22
1 (y1 x)2 1 (y2 R2 x2 )2 1 (y2 + R2 x2 )2
2
2
2
+ e
(ln 2 + 1
e
e
)dy
2
2
2
2
(74)
R 2 2 1 2
= 1 + ln 2 +
+
x
2
2
(75)
which is a strictly convex (and even) function. Hence, the necessary and sufficient conditions in
(62) and (63) are satisfied if and only if the input is distributed as (65)5 . Note that in contrast to the
optimal distribution, the asymptotically optimal distribution is not unique. As a special case, when
= 1, the distribution in (65) with two mass points is still asymptotically optimal. However,
the optimal input distribution has an infinite number of mass points uniformly distributed on the
circle with radius R (as shown in [9]).
Remark 2. For high SNR values, we have
C(R)
= 1.
R ln R
lim
(76)
In other words, the constant envelope signaling in a 2 by 2 channel has only one degree of
freedom.
Proof: By writing the input of the channel in polar coordinates as X = R[cos , sin ]T ,
the differential entropy of the input in polar coordinates is given by
Z
h(x) =
fx (x) ln fx (x)dx
kxk=R
=
=
fx (x(R, )) ln fx (x(R, ))|
f () ln
x
|d
(R, )
f ()
d
x
| (R,)
|
= h() + ln R
ln 2R
5
(77)
It can alternatively be verified that when R 1,

hY (x; FX2 ) becomes strictly concave and one mass point at zero on the
x2 axis is optimal which is equivalent to (65).

where
x
(R,)
19
= R is the Jacobian of the transform and the maximum in (77) is achieved iff the
U[0, 2). The capacity is bounded below as follows.

C(R) =
sup
Fx (x):kxk=R
Fx (x):kxk=R
sup
sup
Fx (x):kxk=R
h(y; Fx ) ln(2e)

ln eh(Hx) + eh(n) ln(2e)
(78)

ln eln |det(H)|+h(x) + 2e ln(2e)
= ln(2R + 2e) ln(2e)
(79)
where (78) is due to the vector entropy-power inequality (EPI) and in (79) the upper bound in
(77) is used.
The capacity is bounded above as follows.
C(R) =
sup
Fx (x):kxk=R
Fx (x):kxk=R
Fx (x):kxk=R
sup
sup
h(Hx + n; Fx ) ln(2e)
h(Hx, n; Fx ) ln(2e)
h(Hx; Fx ) + h(n) ln(2e)
= ln(2R) + ln .
(80)
Combining (79) and (80), we have

ln(2R + 2e) ln(2e) C(R) ln(2R) + ln .
(81)
Dividing by ln R and letting R results in (76).

The analysis can be readily generalized to the n-dimensional full rank channels by noting that
n n1
2 2 R
h(x) ln
(82)
( n2 )
which is tight iff the distribution of the phase vector of x in the spherical coordinates is as
follows
( ni )
n2
1 Y 1 ni1
f () =
sin
i
2 i=1 i
(83)
2
where i = ( ni+1
. Therefore, we have
)
2
n n1

n
2 2 R
n
2Rn1 2 |det(H)| 2
n
n
C(R)
ln
ln (
)
+
2e
ln(2e)
+ ln |det(H)|
2
( n2 )
2
( n2 )
(84)
20
which results in
C(R)
= n 1.
R ln R
lim
(85)
Intuitively, that loss of 1 degree of freedom is due to the fact that for a constant norm ndimensional vector, given its n 1 elements, the remaining element has the uncertainty of
at most 1 bit which does not scale with R as it goes to infinity. Finally, note that the phase
distribution in (83) is equivalent to uniform distribution on the surface of the hypersphere with
radius R which is optimal in the DoF sense6 .
At this point, we present the numerical results. The theorem in section ?? states that the
optimal input has a finite number of mass points on the circle defined by the constraint. The
algorithm for finding the number, the positions and the probabilities of these points is the same
as that explained in [12] where we start with two points for very small R and then increase R by
some step and check the necessary and sufficient conditions. At any stage that these conditions
are violated, we increase the number of points, do the optimization to find the position and
probabilities of the points, check the conditions and keep repeating this process.
The support of the capacity achieving input and the marginal entropy densities induced by
them are shown in figures 3 to 6 for = 2 and different values of R. Here, we have performed
the optimization in polar coordinates. The optimality of the points in the left figures (i.e., figures
3a to 6a) is guaranteed by the necessary and sufficient conditions in (62) and (63) which can
also be verified through figures 3b to 6b. As it can be observed, the points of increase of the
optimal input, which correspond to the peaks in the marginal entropy densities, have a finite
number.
6
It is important to note that the DoF-achieving distribution is not unique in contrast to the capacity-achieving distribution.
21
1.5
3.24
3.22
3.2
V,(; F )
h
0.5
(0,0.5)
(,0.5)
3.18
3.16
3.14
0.5
3.12
3.1
3.08
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
3.06
/2
3/2
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3: The support of the optimal input (a) and the marginal entropy density induced by it
(b) for R = 0.5477 and = 2. In (a), the pairs represent the phase and its probability as in
(, P ()).
3.59
1.5
3.589
1
(/2,0.009)
3.588
3.587
V,(; F )
h
0.5
(0,0.491)
(,0.491)
3.586
3.585
3.584
0.5
3.583
(3/2,0.009)
1
3.582
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
3.581
/2
3/2
(a)
(b)
(, P ()).
22
1.5
(1.3312,0.1035)
(1,8104,0.1035)
1
0.5
(0,0.293)
(,0.293)
0.5
1
(4.4728,0.1035)
1.5
1.5
0.5
(4.9520,0.1035)
0.5
1.5
(b)
(a)
(, P ()).
3.9215
1.5
(/2,0.088)
(2.044,0.1)
3.921
(1.097,0.1)
3.9205
(,0.212)
V,(; F )
h
0.5
(0,0.212)
3.92
3.9195
0.5
3.919
(4.238,0.1)
(5.186,0.1)
3.9185
(3/2,0.088)
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
3.918
/2
3/2
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6: The support of the optimal input (a) and the marginal entropy density induced by it (b)
for R = 2 and = 2. In (a), the pairs represent the phase and its probability as in (, P ()).
23
E. Gaussian iid MISO Channel

In this part, the capacity analysis of PMH in a MISO channel is presented. The receiver in
this channel is a single antenna receiver. Lets assume that both transmitter and receiver have
the channel state information. Lets also consider a real discrete time channel model
y = hT x + n,
(86)
where h = [h1 , , hM ]T , n N (0, 2 ). The channel vector is considered to be fixed. In the

case of non-identity channel, capacity in complex channels can not be derived based on real
channels straightly.
Lets assume that x HM (M). Thus, (86) can be written as
y=
M khk cos() + n,
(87)
where is the angle between x and h. We first investigate the optimum distribution of and
finally the capacity achieving distribution for x is derived accordingly. We start from the mutual
information as follows
I(y; x) = h(y) h(n) = h(y)
1
log(2e 2 ).
2
(88)
Thus, the problem is to maximize h(y) over the distribution of . Note that since h is fixed then
the first term in right hand side of (87) is a random variable with a support [ M khk, M khk].
Therefore, one can formulate the channel as
y = u + n,
(89)
where u [ M khk, M khk] and this is the problem which was solved by Smith in 1971
[13]. Smith proved that u has a discrete pdf with finite number of mass points. This means that
has a discrete pdf with finite number of mass points. Based on the results in [13], for very
low SNRs the optimum distribution for is equally probable two mass points in = 0 and
= . By increasing SNR, the number of mass points starts increasing. Note that for every ,
the input vector x is not unique. The optimum input distribution is some discrete points on the
hypersphere x x = M which can be calculated using the method suggested in [13].
24
II. PMH M ODULATION D ESIGN

A. Uniform Mapping
The straightforward strategy is to use spherical codes [14] to define a constellation on the 2Mdimensional hypersphere that performs best in terms of minimum distance. As perfect spherical
codes are not known for many dimensions [14], we use [15] and some sub-optimal algorithms,
e.g., [16], for codebook generation. Since maximizing minimum distance on a hypersphere is
also a good way to approximate a continuously uniform distribution by means of discrete mass
points, this strategy performs well in terms of mutual information. However, uniform mapping
has disadvantages with respect to the trade-off between spectral concentration and PASPR, as
detailed later.
We consider spherical codes C(K, 2M, min ) which are defined as K code vectors in R2M with
a least angular separation min [14]. The problem of spherical codes is to find the maximum
number of codes for some given dimension 2M and angular separation min . One can also
consider the problem as finding the codes with maximum angular separation for some given
dimension and the number of codes. A good advantage of the spherical codes for us is that they
have the best angular separation therefore, they have the best error exponent. However, the best
codes in terms of error rate is unknown.
The exact answer to the spherical codes problem exists only in some few dimensions [14],
[15]. However, there are some bounds on the angular separation of such codes [14]. In [17], it
has been shown that for large spherical codes and 0 < min < /2

1
1 + sin(min )
1 + sin(min )
log2 (K)
log2
2M
2 sin(min )
2 sin(min )

1 sin(min )
1 sin(min )
log2
+ o(1).
2 sin(min )
2 sin(min )
(90)
This gives an upper bound for min . There is also some lower bounds for large spherical codes
[14], e.g.,
1
log2 (K) log2
2M
1
sin(min )
o(1).
(91)
We use the bounds in (90) and (91) to investigate minimum distance of uniform PMH
constellation. Lets define k as the number of bits transmitted by each antenna in every PMH
symbol. We need K = 2kM constellation points. Minimum distance of symbols in PMH can be
10
25
Upper bound
Lower bound
dmin
(dB)
M
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
3
4
5
k (bits/antenna/sym)
Fig. 7: The minimum distance versus the number of bits per antenna in each symbol, i.e., k .
calculated as
dmin = 2 M sin
min
2
(92)
Using (90), (91) and (92) results in a lower bound and also an upper bound for the minimum
distance as plotted in Figure 7 versus the number of bits per antenna per symbol, i.e., k, for
large number of antennas. Note that in Figure 7, the normalized minimum distance is plotted.
In fact for a fix k, the minimum distance grows with the square root of number of antennas.
An interesting question is how much information we can send in each symbol for a fix
minimum distance when the number of antennas increases. In the classical modulations like
PSK for each antenna, the minimum distance is fixed by increasing the number of antennas.

However, in PMH based on the lower bound (90) and (92), one can obtain
1
M
o(1).
r
k log2
+ log2

2
dmin
1 2dM
26
(93)
From (93), it is easy to show that for a fixed minimum distance, k grows logarithmically with
the number of antennas. This is a surprising results which declares that at a same performance
of PMH, one can increase the rate per antenna by increasing the number of antenna. Indeed,
one can also let k to be fix and improve the performance of PMH by increasing the number of
antenna as observed in Figure 7.
To show the performance of uniform PMH with discrete constellation, we estimate the mutual
information in an AWGN channel using the toolbox proposed in [18]. Figures 8, 9 and 10 show
the results of mutual information of discrete constellation PMH versus SNR compared to the
capacity of PMH and Gaussian input for 1, 2 and 3 antennas, respectively. As observed, discrete
constellation PMH achieves the capacity of PMH. Furthermore, by increasing the number of
antennas, the mutual information of discrete constellation PMH becomes closer to the mutual
information of Gaussian input.
B. Minimum Shift Keying on the Hypersphere
We generalize the idea of MSK to the hypersphere. This compromises a bit on data rate, but
reduces spectral side-lobes, as will be explained later. In standard MSK, we start from a given
reference point, commonly the constellation point of the previous discrete-time instant. Then,
we shift phase by 2 depending on the data to be transmitted, as shown in Figure 11.
For MSKH, we also start at a reference point that is the constellation point of the previous time
instant. Then, we put a tangent hyperplane of dimension 2M 1 onto that point, cf. Figure 12.
Within this tangent hyperplane, we define a (2M 1)-dimensional hypersphere whose centroid
is the reference point. We use a spherical code from [14] to define 2k constellation points on
the (2M 1)-dimensional hypersphere. Each constellation point defines a direction within the
hyperplane and represents k bits of information. From the reference point (point A in Figure 12),
we head into that direction that represents our k bits of information while staying within the
2M-dimensional hypersphere until we have circumnavigated one quarter of the hypersphere. The
point we have reached (point B in Figure 12) is the reference point for the next time instant. Note
27
6
Gaussian input
Uniform PMH
Mutual information (bit/sym)
5
4
16 points PMH
3
8 points PMH
4 points PMH
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
SNR(dB)
Fig. 8: Mutual information of discrete constellation PMH for one antenna compared to the
capacity of PMH and Gaussian input.
that for k = M = 1, this procedure is textbook MSK. Note also that in MSKH, the constellation
is not uniform on a 2M-hypersphere, but on its equator. This is a (2M 1)-hypersphere. Thus,
there is a rate loss since one of the 2M signal dimensions stays unused. This rate loss is the
price for reduction of spectral side-lobes.
III. A
LOWERBOUND FOR THE CHANNEL CAPACITY OF POINT TO POINT

WITH
MIMO S YSTEMS
B OUNDED I NPUTS
In this section, we investigate the connection between the analysis in the last sections on this
chapter and MIMO systems with bounded inputs. The idea behind considering bounded inputs
in wireless communication systems is related to the power constraint in PAs. In every PA, there
is a maximum power which determines the saturation point. Signals with power more than this
maximum power are clipped by the PA.
28
Gaussian input
Uniform PMH
32 points PMH
16 points PMH
8 points PMH
4 points PMH
1
0
5
10
SNR(dB)
15
20
25
Fig. 9: Mutual information of discrete constellation PMH for two antennas compared to the
In the current state of the art of MIMO systems, every antenna is connected to a PA; therefore,
the constraint is a cubic constraint, i.e.,
|xm |2 < Pm .
(94)
In LMSRF, the maximum power is applied to to the sum radiated power

kxk2 < P,
(95)
which is a hyperball constraint. In this section, we try to use the analysis in this dissertation to
provide some results on LMSRF with bounded inputs.
The result of Theorem 1 can be considered as a lower bound for the capacity of vector channel
y = x + n, with bounded inputs x x M which have been investigated in [2], [19]. In [2], it
is proven that the capacity achieving input distribution for such a system is uniform distribution
29
6
Uniform PMH
Gaussian input
32 points PMH
16 points PMH
8 points PMH
4 points PMH
2
1
0
5
10
SNR(dB)
15
20
25
Fig. 10: Mutual information of discrete constellation PMH for three antennas compared to the
on some sphere shells. Thus, considering only one shell as resulted for PMH is a lower bound
for the capacity of vector channel with bounded inputs. The lower bound for the capacity of
Gaussian identity vector channel with bounded inputs is plotted in Figure 13 together with the
upper bound of Gaussian input capacity. It is observed that the lower bound is a good bound in
the considered range of SNRs.
IV. C ONTINUOUS T IME PMH
Spectral shaping filters in wireless communication systems are used to limit spectrum and
avoid interfering other wireless systems. Spectral shaping filters are implemented usually in
digital baseband domain. However, in LMSRF since the digital processing is done at the symbol
rate, we propose to use analog pulse shaping filter. Using high processing rates, one can change
the state of switches faster and thus enable spectral shaping in digital domain. We use PMH
30
+1
A
-1
Fig. 11: MSK modulation.
modulation described in the last sections, to design an appropriate spectral shaping filter in
LMSRF transmitters. Note that in this chapter we neglect the hardware limitations and consider
an ideal single-RF MIMO transmitter which has a central PA.
We define spherical pulse shaping as shaping the spectrum while the signal is kept on the
hypersphere. In the sequel, we use the term Continuous Phase Modulation on the Hypersphere
abbreviated by CPMH to refer to PMH with such continuous-time properties of the transmit
signal. The name is justified by the fact that classical CPM can be shown to be a special case
of CPMH for M = 1.
Let T be the symbol clock cycle and consider a PMH data stream {s[0], s[1], . . . }. We define
the transmit signal of CPMH as
x(t) =
+
X
k=0
s[k](t kT ) g(t),
(96)
where (t) is the Dirac function, g(t) is the pulse shaping filter and denotes spherical
convolution. Spherical convolution for M = 1 can be done by applying the filter to the phase
component of the signal, e.g., Gaussian MSK. However, for M > 1, spherical convolution is
31
Fig. 12: MSK on the sphere (2M = 3) with the north pole as reference point and k = 3 bits of
information.
not straightforward. The problem is that there are more than one phase components in this case
and applying the filter to the phase components does not give an appropriate spectrum.
A. Spherical Pulse Shaping
The spherical convolution referred to in (96) is based upon filtering on the hypersphere
introduced in [20]. In order to define spherical filtering uniquely, the impulse response
{. . . , g[1], g[0], g[1], . . . },
needs to have the properties of a probability mass function [20], i.e.
X
g[k] = 1
(97)
(98)
g[k] 0.
(99)
32
35
Gaussian, SNR=10dB
MCPM, SNR=10dB
Gaussian, SNR=8dB
MCPM, SNR=8dB
Gaussian, SNR=6dB
MCPM, SNR=6dB
Sum capacity (bits/symbol)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
4
6
Number of antennas
10
Fig. 13: The lower and upper bounds for the capacity of Gaussian identity vector channel with
bounded inputs.
Note that this limitation is due to the derivation of filtering based on finding a central point
with closest sum distance to the input points. In order to find such a point for each sample, the
optimization needs to be convex which appears as the conditions in (98) [20].
In [20], some iterative algorithms are proposed to calculate spherical filtering. The Algorithm
A1 in [20] calculates the spherical convolution
q[] = g[] s[]
(100)
and is summarized as follows for the unit hypersphere. For all time instances n, do the following:
1) Select an initial point. A good initial guess is
P
g[n k]s[k]
q[n] = Pk
.
k k g[n k]s[k]k
(101)
33
2) Project the sequence s[] onto the hyperplane being tangent to the hypersphere at the point
q[n] and call this projection s[].
3) Calculate the linear convolution
q[n]
=
X
k
g[n i]
s[k].
(102)
4) If q[n]
is close enough to q[n], exit the loop.
5) Project q[n]
back to the hypersphere and call the projection q[n]. Go back to step 2.
In order to avoid ISI, we need an impulse response g[] which fulfills the Nyquist criterion.
The main difference compared to classical pulse shaping filters is the need for non-negative
filter coefficients. This prohibits the use RRC pulses. In [21], ISI-free pulse shaping for optical
intensity modulation has been investigated. It is shown in [21] that sinc2 (t/T ) is the minimum
bandwidth ISI-free pulse for non-negative coefficients.
B. Spectral Shape vs. PASPR
The performance of spherical pulse shaping can only be investigated by means of simulations.
We use the modulations detailed in the last sections and set W = 2M. In the following
subsection, Cartesian filtering means filtering the signal at each antenna individually. We compare
the following three pulse shaping methods:
Cartesian sRRC Filter: In this method, we use an RRC filter at each branch of LMSRF. Note
that this filter should be implemented in analog domain. Using a linear filter in Cartesian
coordinates is consistent with the state of the art of current transmitters and receivers. An
RRC filter with roll-off factor 0.3 is used in the simulations. Its impulse response is denoted
by r[] in the sequel.
Spherical sRRC2 Filter + Cartesian sRRC Filter: In the spherical domain, we use a filter
with impulse response
2
Pr 2[] .
r [k]
This is motivated by the result in [21] about ISI-free pulse
shaping filters with non-negative coefficients. As Fig. 14 indicates, the spectrum shows
severe sidelobes after spherical filtering. As countermeasure linear RRC post-filtering is
used to mitigate the side-lobes. Since the relative energy of the side-lobes is minor, the
post-filtering has little impact on ISI and PASPR.
Spherical Gaussian Filter: This method is investigated for reference purposes. First the
constellation points are connected by their geodesic paths on the hypersphere. Then, a
10
Sphe.
Sphe.
Sphe.
Sphe.
Sphe.
34
RRC2 (uniform mapping)

RRC2 (MSKH)
Gaussian filter (MSKH)
RRC2 + Cart. RRC (MSKH)
RRC2 + Cart. RRC (uniform mapping)
0
PSD (dB)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5
0.5
Normalized frequency (f T )
1.5
2.5
Fig. 14: PSD versus normalized frequency for different filters for 4 antennas.
Gaussian filter with time-bandwidth product BT = 0.3 and length 3T is applied in the
spherical domain. For MSKH, this pulse shaping leads to a generalization of GMSK. As in
GMSK, some ISI needs to be equalized at the receiver.
C. Simulation Results
We measure the PSD by time-averaging the Nuttall-windowed FFT. The PSD for various
types of filtering are shown in Fig. 14 for M = 4 antennas. The combination of spherical RRC2
filter and Cartesian RRC filter yields the best spectral properties.
Linear post-filtering compromises the perfect PASPR. This effect is quantified in Fig. 15. We
find that Cartesian post-filtering is by
1
2
to 1 dB less harmful than direct Cartesian filtering.
4.5
Cart.
Sphe.
Cart.
Sphe.
35
RRC (uniform mapping)

RRC 2 + Cart. RRC (uniform mapping)
RRC (MSKH)
RRC 2 + Cart. RRC (MSKH)
3.5
PASPR (dB)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
10
Number of antennas
Fig. 15: PASPR versus the number of antennas for different filters.
We also observe that MSKH is 1 to 2 dB better than PMH with uniform mapping. Overall, the
PASPR of MSKH with appropriate pulse shaping is less than 1 dB in a multi-antenna transmitter.
Spherical filtering causes some nonlinear signal-distortion and ISI. To quantify this effect, we
measured the average EVM. We found the EVM to be approximately 18 dB, thus far below
typical SNRs. The EVM changes only slightly with the number of antennas.
Conclusion
In this deliverable, we presented the main results on MIMO systems with constant envelop
signals. New kind of modulation, called PMH, was explained. The channel capacity and the
36
performance in some cases were investigated. There are still many cases which their channel
capacities are unknown including the problem of finding the channel capacity of PMH signaling
in arbitrary MIMO channel for more than two antennas. Furthermore, the only result in multiuser MIMO channel is the one presented in subsection I-C and the problem of investigating
channel capacity of PMH in multi-user scenario is unknown in general.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. C. Cripps, RF Power Amplifiers for Wireless Communications, (Artech House Microwave Library (Hardcover)). Artech
House, Inc., 2006.
[2] B. Rassouli and B. Clerckx, On the capacity of vector gaussian channels with bounded inputs, arXiv preprint
arXiv:1410.7189, 2014.
[3] T. Tanaka, A statistical mechanics approach to large-system analysis of CDMA multiuser detectors, vol. 48, no. 11, pp.
28882910, Nov. 2002.
[4] R. R. Muller, Applications of large random matrices in communications engineering, in Proc. of International Conference
on Advances in the Internet, Processing, Systems, and Interdisciplinary Research (IPSI), Sveti Stefan, Montenegro, Oct.
2003.
[5] H. Nishimori, Statistical physics of spin glasses and information processing. Oxford University Press Oxford, 2001, vol.
187.
[6] R. R. Muller, D. Guo, and A. L. Moustakas, Vector precoding for wireless MIMO systems: A replica analysis, vol. 26,
no. 3, pp. 530540, Apr. 2008.
[7] N. G. Ushakov, Selected topics in characteristic functions.
Walter de Gruyter, 1999.
[8] S. Verdu and S. Shamai (Shitz), Spectral efficiency of CDMA with random spreading, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 622640, Mar.
1999.
[9] A. Wyner, Bounds on communication with polyphase coding, Bell Syst. Tech. J., pp. 523559, April 1966.
[10] J. Smith, The information capacity of amplitude and variance constrained scalar Gaussian channels, Inform. Contr.,
vol. 18, pp. 203219, 1971.
[11] B. Rassouli and B. Clerckx, Constant envelope signaling in mimo channels, submitted to IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.
[12] S. Shamai and I. Bar-David, The capacity of average and peak-power-limited quadrature Gaussian channels, IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 10601071, July 1995.
[13] J. G. Smith, The information capacity of amplitude-and variance-constrained sclar gaussian channels, Information and
Control, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 203219, 1971.
[14] J. H. Conway, N. J. A. Sloane, E. Bannai, J. Leech, S. Norton, A. Odlyzko, R. Parker, L. Queen, and B. Venkov, Sphere
packings, lattices and groups.
Springer-Verlag New York, 1993, vol. 3.
[15] N. J. A. Sloane. Spherical codes. [Online]. Available: http://neilsloane.com/packings/

[16] P. Leopardi, A partition of the unit sphere into regions of equal area and small diameter, Electronic Transactions on
Numerical Analysis, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 309327, 2006.
[17] G. A. Kabatiansky and V. I. Levenshtein, On bounds for packings on a sphere and in space, Problemy Peredachi
Informatsii, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 325, 1978.
37
[18] Z. Szabo, Information theoretical estimators toolbox, The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
283287, 2014.
[19] T. H. Chan, S. Hranilovic, and F. R. Kschischang, Capacity-achieving probability measure for conditionally gaussian
channels with bounded inputs, Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 20732088, 2005.
[20] S. R. Buss and J. P. Fillmore, Spherical averages and applications to spherical splines and interpolation, ACM Transactions
on Graphics (TOG), vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 95126, 2001.
[21] S. Hranilovic, Minimum bandwidth Nyquist and root-Nyquist pulses for optical intensity channels, in Global Telecommunications Conference, 2005. GLOBECOM05. IEEE, vol. 3. IEEE, pp. 5pp.
38
PartII
V.
DegreesofFreedomofInterferenceBroadcastChannelswith
TopologicalInterferenceManagement
Recent years have seen major advances when it comes to understanding the capacity of
interference limited networks. Results indicate that the maximum achievable capacity of
interference networks is much higher than what is currently obtained via conventional
techniques.Thishasbeenshownprimarilyundertheassumptionofabundantandaccurate
CSIT[1],whichisnotpracticalassumption.Thereforeresearchismovingintomorerelaxed
CSITscenarioswhereCSITisforexampledelayed[2],mixed[3]orpartial[4],withtheaimof
reachingacompromisewherehigherratescanbeachievedinrealisticCSITsettings.
A new but complementary perspective to interference management, called Topological
Interference Management (TIM), was introduced in [5]. TIM assumes no CSIT except for
knowledge of the network's topology, advantages include: a) minimal CSIT requirement
onebitisenoughtoprovidedinformationwhetherthelinkexistsornot,andb)itprovidesa
unified view of wired and wireless networks results obtained under the TIM framework
canbeappliedtobothwiredandwirelessnetworks.
We study the DoF of the twocell twouserpercell IBC, shown in Fig.16, with alternating
connectivity[6]andglobalTIM.TheanalysisiscarriedoutforSISO,MISOandMIMOsystem
configurations. A mixed CSIT setting is considered, where global topological CSIT is
combinedwithvaryinglevelsoflocalCSIT,dependingonsystemconfiguration.
Fig.16:ScenarioconsideredwithinHARPframework
39
Problemsetting
A simplified version of the scenario in Fig. 16 is shown in Fig. 17; cell A consists of
transmitterAandreceiversa1anda2,cellBconsistsoftransmittersBandreceiversb1and
b2.Thegeneralinputoutputrelationshipisgivenby:
Yr[n]=Hr,A[n]XA[n]+Hr,B[n]XB[n]+Zr[n]
where[n]isthechanneluseindex,Yr [n]isthesignalobservedatreceiverr,forr{a1,a2,
b1, b2}, Xt [n] is the signal sent from transmitter t, for t {A, B}, Hr,t [n] is the channel
between transmitter t and receiver r and Zr [n] represents unit variance additive white
Gaussiannoise(AWGN)atreceiverr.
Fig.17:TwocelltwouserpercellIBC(simplifiedversionofFig.16)
Foreachcelldefine,MasthenumberofantennasateachtransmitterandNasthenumber
of antennas at each receiver. Spatial multiplexing allows each transmitter to deliver one
symbol to its corresponding users, achieving 2 DoF per cell if there is no intercell
interference.Thiscanbeensuredusingeither:a)aMISOsystemwithlocalCSIThavingM
2andN=1,achievingd=min{M, N}=2,orb)aMIMOsystemwithoutlocalCSIT
havingeitherM2andN=2orM=2andN2,achievingd=min{M,N}=2.ForaSISO
systemspatialmultiplexingisnotpossible,thusonly1DoFpercellcanbeachievedwithout
intercellinterference.
We also consider an alternating connectivity scenario, where intercell connectivity is not
fixedthroughout.Connectivitycaneasilyvaryinwirelessnetworks,wheresomelinksmay
gointodeepfademakingthemeffectivelynonexistent.Additionally,infrequencyselective
environments,frequencyhoppingormulticarriertransmissionmayalsocreateavarietyof
intercell connectivity states. For our scenario there are 16 different possible connectivity
states as shown in Fig.18, each has a probability of occurrence equal to , such that
=1.
40
Fig. 18: Possible alternating connectivity states. Cell A transmitters and receivers are in green, while cell B
elementsinblue.Dashedredlinesareinterferencelinks
If no topological information is available, transmitters have to assume the worst case

scenarioi.e.State1inFig.18foralltimeslots.Howeverifthenetworkstopologyisknown,
transmitterscanexploitthepartiallyconnectedstatestoachievehigherDoF.Toobtainthis
topological information, power received over intercell links is compared to a threshold
equaltothenoisefloor.Ifreceivedpowerisbelowthethresholdthenthelinkisweakand
effectivelynonexistent;ifreceivedpowerisabovethethreshold,thenthelinkisstrongand
intercellinterferenceisreceivedoverit.Notethatdesiredlinksareconsideredtobealways
presentandabletosupportadesiredrateintheabsenceofinterference,toensurethatthe
problemisnondegenerate.
MainResults
We derive two DoF outer bounds for the twocell twouserpercell IBC with alternating
connectivity.Bothareobtainedbycombiningasumboundwithtwogenieaidedbounds.
Thefirstbound,inTheorem1,isapplicabletotheSISOscenario.Thesecondouterbound,
inTheorem2,isapplicabletoboththeMISOIBCwithlocalCSITandM2,andtheMIMO
IBCwithnolocalCSITandhavingeitherM2andN=2orM=2andN2,sinceboth
handleintracellinferenceusingspatialmultiplexingandarethereforeequivalentfroman
achievableDoFperspective.
Theorem1:ForthetwocelltwouserpercellSISOIBCwithalternatingconnectivity,thesum
DoF,dS,isupperboundedas:
dS2
where
41
Theorem2:ForthetwocelltwouserpercellMISO/MIMOIBCwithalternatingconnectivity,
whereintracellinterferenceishandledviaspatialmultiplexing,thesumDoF,dM,isupper
boundedas:
2
dS2
2
where
2
2
Achievabilityofderivedbounds
Withoutknowledgeofthenetworkstopologicalstructure,afullyconnectedscenariohasto
beassumedatalltimes,i.e.achievesumDoFof1acrossallstatesfortheSISOsystemand
achieve sum DoF of 2 for the MISO/MIMO setting. However, if global topological CSIT is
provided, the transmitters can adapt their strategies to exploit the partially connected
statesandobtainaDoFgain.TheboundsinTheorems1and2dependons,whichcantake
awiderangeofvaluesfor =1,thereforeweonlyfocusontwospecificcases.
A)Singlestatehasprobabilityofoccurrenceequalto1.
Both theorems are shown to be tight, and for the best case scenario there is a twofold
increaseinachievableDoFoverthenoglobaltopologicalCSITcase.
B.1)AllstatesareequiprobableSISO
Corollary 1: For the twocell twouserpercell SISO IBC with alternating connectivity and
equiprobablestates,dS1.
Without global topological CSIT, only 1 DoF can be achieved regardless of the current
connectivity state; however if this information is available, transmitters can adapt their
transmissionstrategyaccordinglyandachievesumDofof1+9/16.Weproposetheuseof
jointcodingacrossstatestoincreaseachievableDoF.BytransmittingaccordingtotheTable
1,sumDoFof1+11/16,i.e.96.4%oftheouterboundinCorollary1,canbeachieved.
Table1Schemesforjointcodingacrossstates{3,13,14}and{6,15,16}
42
B.2)AllstatesareequiprobableMISO/MIMO
Corollary 2: For the twocell twouserpercell MISO/ MIMO IBC with alternating
connectivity,whereintracellinterferenceishandledviaspatialmultiplexing,dM2.
Without global topological CSIT, only 2 DoF can be achieved regardless of the current
connectivity state; however if this information is available, the transmitters can use it to
adapttheirtransmissionstrategyaccordinglyandachievesumDofof2+3/8.Byapplying
jointcodingacrossstateshigherDoFcanbeachieved.LookingatthestatesinFig.18,itcan
benoticedthattheinterferencelinkspresentinstates3and6arecontainedwithinstate1;
thereforestate1canbeusedtoresolvethem.Newsymbolsaretransmittedtoeachofthe
four receivers during states 3 and 6. For state 1, BS A retransmits the same symbols it
transmitted in state 3, while BS B retransmits the state 6 symbols. The combination of
receivedsignalsateachuserallowsforinterferencecancellationdecoding,resultinginsum
DoFof2,equaltotheouterbounditself.
References
[1] V. R. Cadambe and S. A. Jafar, Interference Alignment and Degrees of Freedom of the KUser
InterferenceChannel,IEEETrans.Inf.Theory,vol.54,no.8,pp.34253441,Aug.2008.
[2] M.A. MaddahAli and D. Tse, Completely Stale Transmitter Channel State Information is Still
VeryUseful,IEEETrans.Inf.Theory,vol.58,no.7,pp.44184431,Jul.2012.
[3] S. Yang, M. Kobayashi, D. Gesbert, and X. Yi, Degrees of Freedom of Time Correlated MISO
BroadcastChannelWithDelayedCSIT,IEEETrans.Inf.Theory,vol.59,no.1,pp.315328,Jan.2013.
[4]P.deKerretandD.Gesbert,InterferenceAlignmentwithIncompleteCSITSharing,IEEETrans.
onWirelessCommun.,vol.13,no.5,pp.25632573,May2014.
[5] S. A. Jafar, Topological Interference Management Through Index Coding, IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory,vol.60,no.1,pp.529568,Jan.2014.
[6] H. Sun, C. Geng, and S.A Jafar, Topological Interference Management with Alternating
Connectivity,inProc.IEEEISIT,Jul.2013,pp.399403.
Publications
[A] P.Aquilina and T. Ratnarajah, Topological interference management for two cell interference
broadcastchannelswithalternatingconnectivity,inProc.IEEEICASSP,pp.30433047,April2015.
43
[B]P.AquilinaandT.Ratnarajah,Topologicalinterferencemanagementforinterferencebroadcast
channelswithalternatingconnectivity,inProc.IEEEISIT,pp.24262430,June2015.
44
PartIII

VI.
Modeling and Analysis of Cloud Radio Access Networks

Using Matrn Hardcore Point Processes
Cloudradioaccessnetworks(CRANs)haverecentlytriggeredenormousresearchinterestas
potentialnetworkarchitecturesfor5GwirelessnetworksbyunifyingthemassiveMIMOand
distributedMIMOapproaches,leadingtodistributedmassiveMIMO,toprovideincreased
network capacity, energy efficiency, reduced network capital expenditure (CAPEX) and
operating expenses (OPEX) [1][5]. In CRAN system, a central location/data centre works
withmultipleremoteradioheads(RRHs)byconnectingthroughopticalfibreandtheusers
areservedbytheRRHs.Replacingthebasebandunitsinthecurrentsystembythecentral
datacentreimprovesthepowerefficiencysignificantly.Meanwhile,thecostofthesystemis
loweredduetotheuseofsimplerRRHs[4].However,theassumptioninthepreviousworks
thattheRRHsareequippedwithsingleantennaandaredistributedasPoissonpointprocess
(PPP)isinconsistentwiththeactualscenario.Therefore,wehaveconsideredamoregeneral
and realistic scenario in this paper where the macro base station (MBS) and all RRHs are
equipped with multiple antennas. Moreover, instead of considering PPP, all RRHs are
randomly distributed according to a Matrn Hardcore point process (MHCPP) [6]. In the
MHCPP, the points are selected from a standard PPP, but there is a minimum distance
requirementforallpoints.Sincethespatialcorrelationsareconsidered,MHCPPcanbetter
capture the distribution of RRHs in practical scenario. Besides, the MHCPP model can
convergetoPPPeasily.ConsideringvariousbenefitsofHCPPcomparedtoPPP,weanalyze
the performance of CRANs in this paper by assuming that the RRHs follow a MHCPP. The
outageprobability,ergodiccapacityandthroughputofthreedifferenttransmissionschemes
arestudiedandcompared.
SystemModel
We consider a downlink CRAN system as shown in Fig. 19 where a user, U, with single
antenna is served by a central intelligence unit (also referred to as MBS) and a group of
RRHs. The locations of RRHs are assumed to obey a MHCPP, with intensity M and a
minimum distance between different RRHs, which is generated from a corresponding
homogeneous PPP with intensity P =
ln 1
[7]. In this paper, we see all
points in as candidate points and all candidate points are randomly ordered. A RRH is
denotedastheithRRHiftheRRHislocatedattheithcandidatepoint.TheMBSisequipped
withmTantennas,whereaseachRRHhasnTantennas.Withoutlossofgenerality,theMBSis
assumedtobelocatedontheedgeofthecircularregion.ThechannelsbetweentheithRRH
45
and the user U can be written as

, where , is the channel gain
, ,, ,
betweenthetthantennaofithRRHandtheuser.ConsideringRayleighfadinginthissystem,
, can be modelled as a complex Gaussian random variable with zero mean and unit
variance,i.e. , CN(0,1).ThereceivedsignalattheuserfromtheithRRHispresentedas
where isthedistancebetweentheuserandtheithRRH,andisthepathlossexponent.
AsallcandidatepointsareindependentlyanduniformlydistributedinD,thep.d.f.of can
bewrittenas
,0
TransmissionSchemes
Forthesystemunderconsideration,threetransmissionschemesarestudied,namely;1)the
bestRRHselection(BRS),2)allRRHsparticipation(ARP)and3)nearestRRHselection(NRS).
InBRS,onlytheMBSortheRRHwiththebestchannelisselectedfortransmissionwhileall
RRHstransmittotheuserinARPscheme.InNRSscheme,theuserisassumedtoassociate
with the nearest RRH. In addition, in all these schemes, it is assumed that the multiple
antennasMBSandRRHsemploymaximumratiotransmission(MRT)forsignaltransmission.
Fig.19:SystemmodelofCRANs
StatisticsofthePointProcesses
Considering a special event of the PPP when there are N candidate points in the circular
region D, the probability to classify the ith candidate point as a point in (i.e. a RRH is
locatedattheithcandidatepoint)isgivenby
sin
where
and
arccos
, is the hardcore distance,

.
arccos

PerforemanceAnalysis
1)BRSScheme
Outage probability: AssumingR
writtenas
46
, the outage probability of the BRS scheme can be

,
1 !
,
where
2)ARPScheme
Outage probability: WhenR and in high SNR regime, the approximation of outage
probabilityfortheARPschemeisgivenby
|
|
where
1
,
the shorthand notation for

1 !
System capacity: When R
where and
canbewrittenas
|
|
,T
and n
.
, the system capacity can be written as C
canbewrittenas
3)NRSScheme
Outageprobability:TheoutageprobabilityfortheNRSschemeiswrittenas
Channel capacity: In high SNR regime, the approximated channel capacity for the NRS
schemeiswrittenas
47
Fig.20:OutageprobabilityforBRSschemewithdifferenthardcoredistance
Fig. 20 shows that for a fixed intensity of candidate points, the outage probability of BRS
schemeincreaseswiththeincreasingofhardcoredistance .Thisisbecauseincreasingrd
willreducethenumberofRRHsinthecircularregion.Since
(e.g. =50m),
becomesdominantandincreasingtheintensity
,foralarge
onlyprovidesasmall
improvement on outage performance. Also, the difference of the outage probabilities for
PPPmodelandHCPPmodelincreaseswhentherearemorecandidatepointsinthecircular
region( islarger).
48
Fig.21:ErgodiccapacityforARPschemewhenP/N0=40dBand 2
TheergodiccapacityofARPisplottedagainstthecorrespondingPPPintensity inFig.21
whereP/ isfixedto40dBanddifferentminimumdistances =0,10,20areconsidered.
When =0,Pc=1andtheergodiccapacityispositivelyandlinearlyrelatedtotheintensity
of candidate points. In low intensity regime, systems with different minimum distances
provide similar ergodic capacity. This is caused by the fact that the minimum distance
requirement can be easily satisfied in low intensity regime. However, in high intensity
regime, increasing the hardcore distance can cause a capacity loss and systems with a
higherintensity suffermoresignificantlossonergodiccapacity.
References
[1] P. Marsch, B. Raaf, A. Szufarska, P. Mogensen, H. Guan, M. Farber, S. Redana, K. Pedersen,
and T. Kolding, Future mobile communication networks: Challenges in the design and operation,
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology,vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1623, Mar. 2012.
[2] J. Andrews, H. Claussen, M. Dohler, S. Rangan, and M. Reed, Femtocells: Past, present, and
future, IEEE Journal onSelected Areas in Communications, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 497508, Apr. 2012.
[3] A. Ghosh, N. Mangalvedhe, R. Ratasuk, B. Mondal, M. Cudak, E. Visotsky, T. Thomas, J.
Andrews, P. Xia, H. Jo, H. Dhillon, and T. Novlan, Heterogeneous cellular networks: From theory to
practice, IEEE Communications Magazine,vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 5464, Jun. 2012.
[4] C-RAN: The road towards green RAN, China Mobile Res. Inst, Beijing, China, Oct. 2011, White
Paper, ver. 2.5.
[5] Y. Shi, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, Group sparse beamforming for green Cloud-RAN, IEEE
Transactions on WirelessCommunications, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 28092823, May 2014.
[6] M. Haenggi, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[7] A. M. Ibrahim, T. ElBatt, and A. El-Keyi, Coverage probability analysis for wireless networks using
repulsive pointprocesses, CoRR, vol. abs/1309.3597, 2013.
EU FP7 Project HARP (318489): Fundamental limits (D3.2.3)
49
PartIV
Fig.22:CRANmodel:ABBUandNRRHswithEAs
VII.
EnergyEfficientCloudRadioAccessNetworkwithaSingleRF
Antenna
WeconsiderdownlinktransmissionfromNRRHswith M t elementEAatthe t thRRHto K users

withasingleantennaelementforeachasshowninFig.22.RRHsareconnectedwithaBBUvia
opticalfibre.Thesignalreceivedbythe k thuserisgivenby
yk
Nt 1 hHk,t wk,t sk
Nt 1 Kj
H
1,j k h k,t
wj,t sj
nk ,
50
Fig.23: SER performancecomparison ofthe EA transmitterandSMAtransmitterinthecaseofprecoder

schem
where nk is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with zero mean and unit variance. We
definetheglobalchannelandprecoderforthe k thuseras h k and w k respectively.Itisassumed
that the RRHs power allocation is directly controlled by the central base station. The energy
efficiencycanbewrittenas
Inordertorealizesignalstransmission,theproblemtoobtaintheconfigurationfortheEAateach
RRH, i.e. obtaining the values of the voltage and the loadings, can be formulated as an
optimizationproblemtomaximizetheenergyefficiency,anditcanbewrittenas
51
Results
Simulations show the EE performance of CRAN system with EA. The modulation schemes
considered in the simulations are 16state quadrature amplitude modulation (16QAM) and
quadraturephaseshiftkeying(QPSK).Maximumlikelihood(ML)detectorisusedatthereceiver.In
ordertogainmoreinsightsoftheperformanceofourscheme,theEEandSERperformanceofa
SMAtransmitterssystemwithoutanymutualcouplingisalsoshownasthebenchmark.
A.SingleUserCase
1) Configuration Optimization:Inordertoshowtheperformanceofconfigurationoptimization,
theSERforEAandSMAsystemsbasedonequalallocatedpowerispresentedinFig.23.TheMCM
Zt iscalculatedbyIEFMconsideringsidebysideEAspacing d
.Forconvenience,allRRHsare
16
assumedtohavethesamenumberofantennaelements.Thesetof N and M t are N {1, 3} and
M t {2,5} ,respectively.Itcanbenotedthatwithconfigurationoptimization,theEAsystemwith
small antenna spacing d
performs nearly the same as SMA system with spacing d
,
16
2
where isthewavelength.Moreover,theSERperformanceincreaseswiththeincreaseinthe
numberofRRHsandthenumberofantennaelements.
2)EEPerformanceforEAandSMAbasedsystem:Fig.24andFig.25illustratetheachievableEE
performanceunderdifferentdistancesdfromRRHstotheuser.Itisassumedthatthe t thRRHis
2 (t 1)
2 (t 1)
, d sin
locatedat d cos
.AsshowninFig.24,werefertothedistancewhichcan
N
N
achievepeakEEastheoptimaldistance. d opEA and d opSMA aredenotedastheoptimaldistanceforEA
andSMAbasedsystem,respectively.Itiscanbenotedthat d opEA isasymptoticallyequalto d opSMA .

When d issmall,theachievableEEperformanceofEAisslightlybetterthanthatofSMAsystem.
Withtheincreaseofd,thegapof EEforEAandSMAincreases,especiallywhenthedistanceis
near to d opSMA . After the peak value, the performance of EA becomes better than that of SMA
system,butthegapdecreaseswithincreaseindistance.Moreover,whenthenumberofantenna
elements M t increases,theEEdecreasesforSMAsystem.However,increasing M t isbeneficialin
term of EE for EA systems when d doptimal . Thus, unlike the SMA systems, both SER and EE
performancecouldbeimprovedwhen M t increasesforEAsystems.Thisisanotheradvantageof
CRANsystemwithEA.InFig.25,itshowsthecombinedimpactofthenumberofRRHsandthe
distanceonEE.Assuming N {1, 3} and M t 3 ,itcanbeobservedthat d opEA and d opSMA pincrease
withtheincreasingnumberofservingRRHs.Whentheuserismovingfarawayfromoneserving
RRH,inordertoobtainbetterEEandSERperformance,moreRRHswithEAcouldbecooperated
toservetheuser.Thus,fromFig.23,Fig.24andFig.25,forthoseusersneartheedgeofthecell,
boththeSERandEEperformancescouldbeimprovedbyincreasingthenumberofservingRRHs
andthenumberofantennaelementsinthecaseofEAbasedsystem.
52
Fig. 26 and Fig. 27 illustrate the CDF of the achievable maximal EE under different numbers of
servingRRHs.InFig.26,threeRRHsarearoundtheuser,andthedistancefromtheRRHstothe
user are 300m, 300m and 350m, respectively. It can be noted that the EE increases when the
number of serving RRHs increases. However, from Fig. 27, when the distances are 100m, 350m
and350m,respectively,themaximumofEEcanbeobtainedwhenonlythenearestRRHserves
theuser.Accordingtothecomparisonofthesetwofigures,whentheuserisneartheedgeofthe
cell,boththeSERandEEperformancescouldbeimprovedbyincreasingthenumberofsevered
RRHsandthenumberofantennaelementsinthecaseofEAbasedsystem.whentheuserisnear
to one RRH, it can achieve the best EE performance and high SER performance when only this
nearestRRHservestheuser.ThishighlightsthesignificanceofCRANsystemwithEA.Compared
with SMA based system, EA not only avoids the conflict of SER and EE performance when
increasingthenumberofantennaelements,butalsoprovidesbetterEEperformanceandsimilar
SERperformance.
B.MultipleUsersCase
1) Antenna Configuration Optimization:InFig.28,thetotalSERperformancesareshownwhen
multiple RRHs serve multiple users. Similar to the single user scenario, all RRHs are assumed to
have the same number of antenna elements and serve two users. the power allocated to each
user is assumed to be same. The set of N and M t are N {2,3} and M t {1,3} , respectively.
SimilartrendscanbeobservedaswereshowninFig.29.Withconfigurationoptimization,theEA
systemwithsmallantennaspacing d
16
performsnearlythesameasSMAsystemwithspacing
underQPSKmodulation.
2
2) EE Performance for EA and SMA based system: The achievable EEs with EA and SMA with
respecttothenumberofantennaelementsateachRRHarecomparedunderdifferentnumberof
usersinFig.29.ThenumberofRRHsissetto N 3 .WeevaluateEEswiththreedifferentnumber
of users with K 2, 3, 4 . As shown in Fig. 29, the EE increases as the number of the users
increases. Moreover, for EA based system, the EE performance increases with the number of
transmittedantenna.However,inthecaseofSMAsystem,theachievableEEbecomestablewith
theincreaseinthenumberoftransmittedantennaelements.ItisnotedthenegativeimpactonEE
of M t isnotasnotableasthatinsingleuserscenario.Thisisbecausethetotalrateofallusers
increases more dramatically compared with the increasing power consumption from the
increasing M t .
53
Fig.25:EnergyEfficiencywithSMAandEAunderdifferentnumberofservingRRHs
Fig.24:EnergyEfficiencywithSMAandEAunderdifferentnumberofantennaelements
54
Fig.26:CDFofEnergyEfficiencywithSMAandEAconsideringthedifferentnumberofservingRRH
whentherearethreeRRHsaroundtheuserandthedistancesare300m,300m,350m,respectively.
Fig.27:CDFofEnergyEfficiencywithSMAandEAconsideringthedifferentnumberofservingRRH,
whentherearethreeRRHsaroundtheuserandthedistancesare100m,350m,350m,respectively.
55
Fig.28:TotalSERperformancewithSMAandEAunderandEAunderdifferentantennaelements
ateachRRHanddifferentRRHanddifferent.
Fig.29:EnergyefficiencywithSMAdifferentantennaelementsateachnumbersofuserswhenN=
3.

d3 2 3 Fundamental Limits

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

d3 2 3 Fundamental Limits

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

Author Contact Information

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

MODULATION ON THE HYPERSPHERE AND ITS FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS

system is parametrized by a single radial coordinate (fixed to P here) and 2M 1 different

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

denotes the hypersphere of radius

B. PMH Channel Capacity in a Point to Point Unitary MIMO Channel

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

where xT x = P and n N (0, 2 I). Transform the vectors x and y to a 2M-dimensional

2/ only depends on the norm of the

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

f (r) log rdr + h(2M 1 )

with equality for joint independence.

where k s are some constants.

where (u) and are given in (5) and (6), respectively.

A random vector is spherical, if its distribution only depends on its norm.

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

Capacity per antenna (bit/sym)

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

(u) log M (u)du

where q and are calculated using the following coupled equations

Proof: The mutual information is calculated as

By the definition of conditional differential entropy, we have

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

Applying (22) to (21) results in

Qab = E [vac vbc

Note that Qaa = 1a by assumption.

The integral (25) is splitted to subshells as

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

is the appropriate integration measure,

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

with respect to q must vanish as N . Thus, we obtain

Next, we use replica symmetry and calculate M L (F ) as

Applying the vector complex Hubbard-Stratonovich transform

Then, by using (22) in (41), we obtain

is uniformly distributed on HM (M), then its characteristic function is calculated as [7]

Therefore, (42) becomes

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

of freedom and parameter

and substitute F in (37) in terms of using (45) to get (18).

with respect to must vanish as N and n 0. This results in

(u) + log (M (u))

We use the following equality for the modified Bessel function

(u) log M (u)du.

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

Mutual information per antenna (bit/sym)

The information rate of Theorem 2 is plotted in Figure 2 for

= 1. The mutual information

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

where the kernel is

1 (y1 x)2 1 (y2 R2 x2 )2 1 (y2 + R2 x2 )2

is equivalent to Pr{ | kx()k = R} = 1.

EU FP7 PROJECT HARP (318489): FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS (D3.2.3)

Finally, the optimization problem in (54) becomes equivalent to

h(y; Fx1 ) ln(2e)

where x1 [R, R] is in a.s. sense.

optimal input distribution.4

y (x; F ) < h(y; F )

and the asymptotically optimal input distribution is given by

where u() is the unit step function.