CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1Introduction
In communication systems, aduplex communication system is a point-to-point
system composed of two connected parties or devices that can communicate
with one another in both directions, simultaneously. An example of a duplex
device is a telephone. The people at both ends of a telephone call can speak at
the same time; the earphone can reproduce the speech of the other person as
the microphone transmits the speech of the local person, because there is a
two-way communication channel between them.
Duplex systems are employed in many communications networks, either to
allow for a communication "two-way street" between two connected parties or
to provide a "reverse path" for the monitoring and remote adjustment of
equipment in the field.
Systems that do not need the duplex capability use instead simplex
communication in which one device transmits and the others just "listen."
Examples are broadcast radio and television, garage door openers, baby
monitors, wireless microphones, radio controlled models, surveillance cameras,
and missile telemetry. There are two types of duplex communications. They
are:

1. Half Duplex
2. Full Duplex
A half-duplex (HDX) system provides communication in both directions, but
only one direction at a time (not simultaneously). Typically, once a party begins
receiving a signal, it must wait for the transmitter to stop transmitting, before
replying (antennas are of trans-receiver type in these devices, so as to transmit
and receive the signal as well).
An example of a half-duplex system is a two-party system such as a walkietalkie, wherein one must use "Over" or another previously designated command
to indicate the end of transmission, and ensure that only one party transmits
at a time, because both parties transmit and receive on the same frequency.
A

full-duplex

(FDX),

or

sometimes

double-duplex

system,

allows

communication in both directions, and, unlike half-duplex, allows this to

happen simultaneously. Land-line telephone networks are full-duplex, since
they allow both callers to speak and be heard at the same time, the transition
from four to two wires being achieved by a Hybrid coil. A good analogy for a
full-duplex system would be a two-lane road with one lane for each direction.
Two-way radios can be designed as full-duplex systems, transmitting on one
frequency and receiving on another. This is also called frequency-division
duplex. Frequency-division duplex systems can be extended to farther

distances using pairs of simple repeater stations, because the communications

transmitted on any one frequency always travel in the same direction.
1.2 Relays in wireless communication
Relays that receive and retransmit the signals between base stations and
mobiles can be used to increase throughput extend coverage of cellular
networks. Infrastructure relays do not need wired connection to network
thereby offering savings in operators backhaul costs. Mobile relays can be
used to build local area networks between mobile users under the umbrella of
the wide area cellular networks.

Amplify-and-forward (AF) relays retransmit the signal without decoding while

decodeand-forward (DF) relays decode the received signal, encode the signal
again, and transmit. Furthermore, relays can operate inhalf-duplex mode, i.e.
they do not transmit and receive simultaneously in the same band, or in full-

duplex mode. The latter operation requires a spatial separation between

transmit and receive antennas to reduce loop-back interference from the
transmit antennas to the receive antennas.

From signal processing point of view AF relays offer interesting challenges,

especially when the AF relay operates infull-duplex mode: Adaptive algorithms
are required for loop-back interference cancellation. Furthermore, the effect of
interference must be incorporated into analytical performance studies. Spectral
shaping of the transmitted signal requires advanced techniques for digital filter
design. The research benchmarks AF relays with DF relays taking into account
the aforementioned issues. We cooperate with High-frequency and microwave
engineering

group

to

gain

understanding

of

the

actual

environment and loop-back interference with full-duplex relays

Full-duplex infrastructure relays

propagation

Since full-duplex relays require transmit and receive antennas that are
spatially separated, such relays are more suitable as infrastructure usage.

Sub channel assignment

When introducing relaying to a cellular system it is necessary to specify which
functionalities and protocols should be included in the RN, and whether RNs
should operate at the physical, link, or network layer. An AF relay
inherentlyoperates on the physical layer, while functionalities in a DF relay fall
into data link or higher layers. Thereby, the variety of functionalities to design
DF relaying protocols is wide. In case of OFDMA, sub-channel assignment
presented below is one possible functionality in relay that can be used to
improve system performance.
Current deployed wireless communication systems employ devices which use
eithera time-division or frequency-division approach for wireless transmission
and receptionof signals. This requires dividing the temporal and/or spectral

resources into orthogonalresources and results in an orthogonalization of the

transmissions and receptionsperformed by a wireless device. Consequently, all
currently deployed wireless devicesoperate in half-duplex fashion, where same
frequency simultaneous transmission andreception of signals is not possible.
The key challenge in achieving full-duplex wireless communications, where a
devicecan transmit and receive signals over-the-air at the same time and in the
samefrequency band, is the large power differential between the selfinterference createdby a devices own wireless transmissions and the received
signal of interest comingfrom a distant transmitting antenna. This large power
differential is due to the factthat the self-interference signal has to travel much
shorter distances than the signalof interest. The large self-interference spans
most of the dynamic range of the Analogto Digital Converter (ADC) in the
received signal processing path, which in turn dramaticallyincreases the
quantization noise for the signal-of-interest. Thus to achievefull-duplex it is
essential to mitigate the self-interference of thereceivedsignal is the same
channel. Hence,spectrum resources are utilized efficiently but as a downside
therelay is subject to loop interference(LI) due to signal leakagefrom the relays
transmission to its own reception. The earlierliterature often pessimistically
sees this self-interference as aninsurmountable problem, and resorts to the
half-duplex modeby allocating separate time slots or frequency bands for
relayreception and transmission. This is a simple way to avoid interferenceby
splurging spectrum.
1.3 Problem Outline

There are so many methods proposed to mitigate the loopback self interference
of Relays in full duplex communication. The previous approach used the
concept of time domain cancellation to mitigate the self interference; the main
drawback of this Time domain Cancellation is its blindness to the spatial
domain, e.g., low rank of channel matrix is not expected to result in better
isolation. Additionally, the scheme is sensitive to both channel estimation noise
and transmit signal noise. In fact, TDC adds a new signal in the relay input
whichmay

actually

lead

to

degraded

isolation

compared

to

pure

naturalisolation with high channel estimation noise. The one and only
advantageof time-domain cancellation is that it does not distort thedesired
signal or reduce the input and output dimensions of therelay.
1.4 Objective:
This work focuses on technical problemin full-duplex relaying: How to mitigate
the

loop

interferenceefficiently?For

investigating

and

comparing

several

solutions, our main motivation is to improve the spectral efficiency ofrelay

systems by avoiding the need of two channel uses for one end-to-end
transmission that is inherent for half-duplex relays. Throughout the work, the
mitigation schemes are categorized into three subtypes: A) natural isolation, B)
time-domain cancellation, and C) spatial suppression. Consequently, we aim at
showing that the loop interference can be mitigated sufficiently and, thus, the
full-duplex mode becomes a feasible and viable alternative for the half-duplex
mode.

1.5 Methodology:
In this work we set up a generic system model that explicitlyaccounts for the
loop interference, the relay processingdelay, and the imperfections of the side
informationexploited in the mitigation of loop interference. Thesespecifics are
important we summarize Natural isolation that is needed in order toavoid relay
receiver

saturation,

and

digital

MIMO

time-domaincancellation,

which

generalizes theschemes used in SISO repeaters. We propose and analyze

novelspatialsuppression

schemes

based

on

antenna

selection,

beam

selection,null-space projection, and minimummean square error (MMSE)

filters. For every scheme, we explicitly the minimize the self-interference as the
optimization target and providegeneral solutions for the optimal filters.
Examples 14show why [25][28] present only simplified or suboptimalspecial
cases for some of our general schemes and we introduce the combination of
timedomaincancellation and spatial suppression for reducingthe effect of
imperfect side information in mitigation. The mitigation schemes are compared
extensivelywith simulations on bit-error rate and isolationimprovement. The
results verify that the loop interferencecan be mitigated significantly or even
eliminatedcompletely in the ideal case, but, in practice, there willbe some weak
residual interference due to imperfect sideinformation used for mitigation.
Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth networks are arguably the four mostcommonly
used wireless networks. Out of these four networks, the first one to be
deployedwas the cellular network, which operates at distances in the order of
kilometersand uses mobile devices which transmit at powers close to 30 dBm.

For these values oftransmit powers and distances between communicating

devices, it seemed unfeasibleto cancel the self-interference enough to enable
full-duplex wireless communications.
1.6 Thesis outline
The complete thesis of the above work is outlined in six chapters:
Chapter1 gives the basic introduction about the communication system and
the uses of relays in Duplex communication. It also gives the basic problem in
the last approach and as solution for that problem.
Chapter2 gives the complete literature survey of the project
Chapter3 gives the basic system model used in full Duplex communications
using relays; it also gives the mathematical representation of the signals
(original and interference).
Chapter4

provides

the

information

about

the

previously

used

design

methodologies for the mitigation of self interference and also gives the Newly
proposed mitigation algorithms.
Chapter5 gives the performance evaluation of the proposed approach and also
gives the comparison results between the proposed approach and previously
proposed approaches.
Finally chapter6 gives the conclusions of the work

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE OUTLINE
The literature on MIMO relaying can be classified as follows based on how the
self-interference problem is treated: 1) earlier papers, e.g., [1][11], consider
half-duplex relaying in which the loop interference is inherently avoided. Some
papers, e.g., [1][6], develop half-duplex protocols for the case in which the
direct source-destination link is blocked. Our results are directly applicable for
the full-duplex counterparts of these systems and enable more spectrallyefficient implementation once the loop interference is appropriately mitigated.
The other papers, e.g., [7][11], exploit the direct link as an extra diversity
branch. The direct link is orthogonal by design in the half-duplex mode
whereas the destination receives superposition of the direct and relayed
transmissions in the full-duplex mode. Also for these systems, the full-duplex
counterparts are feasible with proper signal separation in the destination.
2) Some information theory-oriented papers, e.g., [10][19], study various fullduplex relaying schemes without considering the deleterious effect of the loop
interference albeit otherwise presenting many seminal contributions. In
particular, these papers tend to provide minimal (if any at all) explanations and
references for the mitigation of the loop interference. Our results will support
this body of literature by providing validation and a retroactive reference for
a central baseline assumption not verified in detail before. 3) The smallest
group of earlier papers accounts explicitly for the effect of the loop interference

in

full-duplex

relaying.

The

early

results

consider

exclusively

single-

inputsingle-output (SISO) repeaters, see, e.g., [20][23]. For full-duplex MIMO

relays with loop interference, our literature search elicited preliminary ideas
[24], [25] and recent studies [26][31] conducted in parallel with our work
reported first in [32]. These papers tackle the problem of loop interference
mitigation in a limited scope, e.g.,restricting the system to support only one
spatial

streamor

providing

suboptimal

solutions.

Moreover,

the

relay

processing delay is neglected in [28][30], which, asdiscussed in [32], renders

the relay practically impossibleto implement or makes the loop interference not
harmful.Reference [31] studies loop channel estimation in full-duplexMIMO
relays and, thus, supports our analysis whichstarts presuming that such side
information is alreadymade available.
Analog SISO repeaters have been employed for a long time incellular networks.
Instead, we consider modern, sophisticated,digital relays that are capable of
baseband

signal

processing,and,

in

particular,

employ

multiantenna

techniques. Some prototypesof full-duplex MIMO relays have already been

developed,see, e.g., [33] and [34]. After mitigating the loop interference
asshown herein, they become a viable solution to transparentlyboost the
coverage of future cellular systems.
2.2 Relay Communication
Relay communication refers to the technology that the communication
between the source and the destination is established or enhanced by one or
more than one relays. The relays can be dedicated relay stations that are built

to support the wireless link, or other mobile users that are selected to facilitate
the data transmission from the source to the destination. Relay communication
is also termed cooperative communication, which we use in this dissertation
without distinction.
From the network aspects, traditional wireless communication systems,
e.g., cellular mobile communication networks, are centralized. There, the
transmission

scenarios

are

point-to-point

(single

user),

one-to-many

(broadcast) or many-to-one (multi-access), which can all be categorized as

single-hop transmission. However, in relay communication, the transmission of
information from the source to the destination consists of at least two-hops.
Thismulti-hop transmissionmodel makes the relay communication scenarios
more versatile and the research on it more difficult. Although relay
communication is still a young research topic, many important results have
been achieved, which makes it a fertile field of research. We summarize the
important relaying strategies and the state-of-the-art research results in this
section
2.2.2 Advantages and Challenges of Relay Communication
Relay communication can provide the benefits that traditional single-hop
communication

cannot

achieve

in

many

practical

scenarios.

Relay

communication has drawn wide interests from both academia and industry
[35].

For

practical

systems,

we

summarize

the

advantages

communication over single-hop communication as follows.

of

relay

Combating signal attenuation The adverse effects of wireless channels

include pathloss, shadowing and fading effects. The signal strength decays
exponentially with the distance between the source and the destination. When
the distance between the source and destination is too large, the signal
attenuation becomes too high due to pathloss, which makes it impossible for
the source and destination to communicate. By placing relays between the
source and the destination, the distance between the source and the relay and
the distance between the relay and destination is shortened. As a result, the
signal strength can be boosted a lot. Moreover, due to the signal strength
improvement, the source can use higher modulation symbol alphabets to
transmit more data in each channel use. In this way, relaying technology not
only increases the coverage of the system, but also improves the data rate
transmitted to the users.
Combating shadowing effects In large cities and hilly areas, tall buildings and
mountains typically block signals transmitted from the source to the
destination. Such effect is called shadowing. Relays provide another path to
circumvent the obstruction. In those scenarios, relaying is maybe the only way
to provide services in shadowing environments.
Combating fading effects The fading effects arise due to the multipath
propagations that lead to the fluctuations in received signals. Diversity is an
effective way to combat the signal fluctuation due to the fading effects. The
cooperative diversity introduced by the cooperative communication brings

higher link reliability to the users [36,37], where multiple independently faded
signals from the source and the relay are combined at the destination.
Low costFuture cellular communication systems will move to higher frequency.
As a result, the coverage of each cell will shrink a lot compared to present
cellular communication systems. Building more base stations can be the
solution, but the cost of building those base stations will be very high. A lowcost alternative will be building relays to extend the coverage of each cell. Thus
relay communication provides low-cost solutions for future generation wireless
communication systems.
Infrastructure-less network: In traditional cellular networks, the whole
system operation depends on the centralized control, e.g., from the base
station. However, in military services or due to the disasters like earthquakes,
infrastructure-less networks such as ad hoc networks are preferable. Such
networks do not rely on a preexisting infrastructure such as dedicated routers
or base stations. Instead, each node participates in the routing by forwarding
data for other nodes. That is each node can act as a relay, and the choice of
relay nodes are determined dynamically based on the network connectivity.
Despite all those benefits that may be available by incorporating cooperative
communication into future wireless communication systems, there are also
challenges for implementing cooperative communications. Those challenges
include:

Fig. 2.1: A basic relaying system setup

Increased overheadCompared to point-to-point communication, the data in
relay communication must traverse multiple links. Each link may introduce
some overheads which must be considered in the implementation of relay
communications. Such overheads include synchronization and channel
estimation. Moreover, in some cooperative transmission schemes with multiple
relays, each relay is also required to have the channel knowledge of other
relays, i.e., global CSI of the system, which may require the relays to exchange
CSI between them. The resource consumed by CSI exchange is usually not
negligible.
Resource consumption Cooperative communication requires extra links
between mobile users to be established. This requires extra resource
consumption, which may include power (indicated by the battery life),
frequency and time resources.
Increased interference and traffic In cooperative communications, each
mobile user sends its data first to it neighboring user. This may cause

interference to other users. Furthermore, sending data to the destination via

relays leads to increased traffic for the whole system.
Spectral efficiency loss The major problem of current relays is that they
cannot transmit and receive data using the same time-frequency channel. This
half-duplex constraint leads to the spectral efficiency loss compare to direct
transmissions.
2.3 Relaying Strategies
There are three relaying strategies discussed by Peters et. al [38] which are
one-way relaying, two-way relaying and shared relaying as illustrated in the
following 2 [6]. As shown in the figure, the eNodeB is equipped with one
antenna per sector and one RN serving a single UE in its vicinity. On the other
hand, the relay station nodes are shared between eNodeBs of three adjacent
cells which use the same frequency.
The concept of one-way relaying is illustrated in the following Fig.2.3. The
datatransmission is divided into four frames as denoted by the number: In the
downlink, 1) the eNodeB transmits to RN, followed by 2) RN forwards the signal
to UE. Then, during uplink, 3) UE transmits to RN and finally 4) RN forwards
UEs signal to eNodeB.
As an enhancement to one-way relaying, two-way relaying is more efficient
where the data transmission is done in two phases as shown in Fig.2.4. During
the first phase, both eNodeB and UE transmit their signals to the RN and then
in second phase, after proper signal processing, the RN forwards the signals to

both eNodeB and UE. Therefore, the transmission duration would be half of the
time taken for one-way relaying.
Shared relaying is cost-saving as number of RNs to be deployed is reduced by
allowing the RN to be shared by three cells. Also, as mentioned in [38], shared
relay has advantage over one-way relaying compared to two-way relaying. This
is due to the interference that might occur during the simultaneous
transmissions of two-way relay, combining with the fact that the shared relay
itself has to handle the multiple signals from eNodeBs of the three adjacent
cells.

a) One-way and two-way relaying

b) Shared relaying
Fig.2.2. Relaying strategies with frequency reuse of factor 6 where each cell is
divided into 6sectors. a) Frequency reuse pattern for one-way and twowayrelays deployed in one cell. b)Frequency reuse pattern for shared relay
deployed in 3 adjacent cells.

Fig.2.3. One-way relaying

Fig.2.4. Two-way relaying

2.4 Relay Transmission Schemes

Over the past decade, numerous relay transmission schemes have been
developed tobe implemented in our cellular network technology. In [38], the
transmissiontechniques include:

i.

Analog

repeater

which

repeats

transmit

signal

using

combination

ofdirectional antennas and a power amplifier

ii. Amplify-and-forward which transforms the received signal directly?
iii. Decode-and-forward which decodes the received signal and then re-encode
itfor transmission?
iv. Compress-and-forward
v. Demodulate-and-forward
In this work, only two relay transmission schemes will be discussed which
areamplify-and-forward (AF), decode-and-forward (DCF) [39]-[40].
AF relay, namely wireless repeater or Layer 1 (L1) relay involves only the PHY
layer. The operation of RN can be divided into two phases. First, RN receives
signalsand next, amplifies and forwards it. Operation of L1 relay transceiver
can be either onthe same carrier frequency (inband) or on orthogonal carrier
frequency (outband).
For inband operation, directional antennas are used to diminish the
interferenceproduced by concurrent transmissions of eNodeB-to-relay and
relay-to-UE. Outbandoperation assures that the repeated signal would not
interfere with any direct signalreceived at the destination. To assign frequency
bands for transmissions of eNodeBrelayand relay-UE, this operation is assisted
by radio resource management (RRM)function at eNodeB.
Benefits of using this relay include simplicity, low cost and having low delay.
Themain trade-off is that repeaters do not have the capability to distinguish

real signalswith noise and interference. Thus, those undesired signals are also
amplified andretransmitted along with the original signals.
Another relaying strategy is decode-and-forward where the signals are decoded
bythe relay node, re-encoded and lastly forwarded to desired destination. In
this relayingstrategy, noise and interference are discarded from being
transmitted together with thereal signals but with the price of longer delay due
to decoding and re-encodingprocess. The relay structures can be categorized
into Layer 2 (L2) relay and Layer 3(L3) relay, depending on its function. The
transmissions involved can be both inbandand outband as well, as in L1 relay.
In the later chapters we will see the in brief about the relaying strategies.

CHAPTER 3
SYSTEM MODEL
Relaying, i.e., multihop communication, is a promisingtechnique to provide
lower transmit powers, higherthroughput and more extensive coverage in
future wirelesssystems. Likewise, single-hop multiple-input multiple-output
(MIMO) transmission has attracted wide research interest, andemerging
wireless systems utilize extensively MIMO techniquessuch as spatial division
multiplexing. Hence, if relaysare used, they need to be equipped with antenna
arrays aswell to avoid a key-hole effect, i.e., squashing multiple spatialstreams
through a rank-one device. This paper focuses on thecombination of MIMO and
relaying techniques and developsnew baseband signal processing techniques to
improve spectralefficiency.
An essential classification of relaying techniques is betweenfull-duplex and
half-duplex operation modes. In fact, the choiceof the operation mode is a
fundamental tradeoff between spectralefficiency and self-interference. A fullduplex relay receivesand transmits at the same time on the same channel.
Hence,spectrum resources are utilized efficiently but as a downside therelay is
subject to loop interference (LI) due to signal leakagefrom the relays
transmission to its own reception. The earlierliterature often pessimistically
sees this self-interference as aninsurmountable problem, and resorts to the
half-duplex modeby allocating separate time slots or frequency bands for
relayreception and transmission. This is a simple way to avoid interferenceby
splurging spectrum.

3.1 System model:

Let us consider the generic wireless multihop network illustratedin the upper
left corner of Fig. 1. The network comprisesnodes operating in both half-duplex
and full-duplex modes andit is not restricted to any specific multihop routing
protocol ormultiple access strategy for the simultaneous transmissions.Wethen
focus on two-hop communication through any full-duplexrelay (R) node from a
set of source (S) nodes to a set of destination(D) nodes as illustrated in the
lower right corner of Fig. 1.The full-duplex relay receives and transmits
simultaneously onthe same frequency which necessitates to model explicitly
theresulting loop interference (LI) signal.The sources and the destinations have
in total

transmitand

equippedwith

receive and

receive antennas, respectively, and the relay is

transmit antennas. Before applyingmitigation

techniques the relay is likely implemented with spatiallyseparated receive and

transmit antenna arrays which constitutes natural isolation. However, the
followingresults are also applicable in full-duplex relaying with asingle antenna
array which is optimistically considered in [26].We set

in this special

case.
3.1.1. Signal Model
The signal model is built upon frequency-flat block-fadingchannels as in the
majority of related papers, see, e.g., [1][19],[25], [26], [28][30]. This implies
that the system exploits

Fig.3.1. A wireless multihop network containing a full-duplex relay subject to

loop interference.
orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) for broadbandtransmission
over multipath channels, and the signalmodel represents a single narrowband
subcarrier.
For time instant

, let matrices ,

and

represent the respectiveMIMO channels from all sources to

the relay, from the relayoutput to the relay input, and from the relay to all
destinations.
The sources transmit the combined signal vector
transmits signal vector
vector

,and the relay

while it simultaneouslyreceives signal

. This createsa feedback loop from the relay output to the

relay input throughchannel

The relaying protocol is denoted by the generic function

which generates an output sample based on the sequence ofinput samples and
causes integer processing delay

. Wefocus on the mitigation of the loop

interference and, thereby,keep the proposed schemes transparent and

applicable with most of the readily available relaying protocols. Remark 1: The
processing

delay

is

strictly

positive

because

we

consider

wideband

transmission over multipath channels in contrast to [28][30]. In particular,

omitting the delay causes severe causality problems in the practical
implementation of relaying protocols: It is impossible to process a subcarrier
and retransmit the OFDM symbol before the respective OFDM symbol is first
completely received and demodulated. Furthermore, the loop signal may not be
harmful at all with zero processing delay because the relay transmission only
amplifies the same input signal. See [32] for more discussion on the
consequences of neglecting the processing delay. Finally, the respective
received signals in the relay and in thedestinations can be expressed as

where

and

are additive noisevectors in the relay

and in the destinations, respectively. Allsignal and noise vectors have zero
mean. Signal and noise covariancematrices are denoted by

, and

. For clarity, we willomit the time

indices in the rest of the work.

3.1.2. Side Information for Mitigation Techniques
We consider mitigation techniques that can be implementedtransparently, i.e.,
using only information that the relay is expectedto know by design or is able to
measure by itself. In otherwords, mitigation may exploit knowledge of only
,

and

. However, we assume that the available side informationis

degraded due to the following non-idealities which manifestthemselves in the

form of noise. In this paper, the noise is assumedto be completely unknown for
the mitigation schemeswhile some additional information such as the
covariance ornorm bounds of the errors could facilitate a robust approach.
1) Channel Estimation Noise:The relay may exploit anyoff-the-shelf technique
or one of the schemes developed specificallyfor full-duplex relays [23], [31] to
obtain the respectiveestimates

and

of

and

.We model the

practicallynon-ideal estimation process by defining estimation noises

and

such that the estimates differ from the truechannel values:

All elements of

and

are assumed to be independent(both mutually

and from the corresponding channels)circularly symmetric complex Gaussian

random variables. Thevariance of the estimation noise is defined by relative
estimation

error such that

for all i,j . Analogous relation holds between

and

2) Transmit Signal Noise:The relay knows perfectly the digitalbaseband signal

it generates, but the actual transmittedsignal cannot be exactly known. This
is because any practicalimplementation of conversion between baseband and
radiofrequency is prone to various distortion effects such as carrierfrequency
offset, oscillator phase noise, AD/DA conversion imperfections,I/Q imbalance,
and power amplifier nonlinearityamong others.We model the joint effect of all
imperfections byintroducing additive transmit distortion noise

Furthermore, we model all elements of

such that

with independentzero-mean random

variables, and define their variance with relativedistortion

. The covariance

matrix of the transmit noisebecomes

We assume that
in which

and

are uncorrelated which implies that

CHAPTER 4
MITIGATION OF LOOP INTERFERENCE
In migitation of loop interference in full duplex MIMO relays we first decouple
the mitigation of loop interferencefrom the design of the relaying protocol and

develop

solutionsthat

transform

equivalentinterference-free

the

relay.

relay
Here

to

an

and

represent the input and output dimensions (or the number of spatialstreams)
reserved for the relaying protocol.
The target is to make residual loop interference so infinitesimalthat it can be
regarded simply as additional relay inputnoise. Thus, we transform the signal
model from (2) to

where
vectors

and
of

the

are the respective receiveand transmit signal

equivalent

interference-freerelay

and

represent therespective equivalent MIMO channels from all

sources to theinterference-free relay and from the interference-free relay to
alldestinations, and

is the equivalent receiver noisevector including

all residual loop interference after mitigation.

The covariance matrix of

is

Remark 2: The equivalent interference-free relay appliesrelaying protocol

to obtain

from

according to (1). By decouplingthe mitigation from the

protocol, the relay may adopt,directly or after minor modifications, any of the
protocols designedfor cases without loop interference in [1][19]. However,the
system setup or the relaying protocol may still affect thechoice of
4.1 Reference Mitigation Schemes

and

4.1.1) Natural Isolation:The relay installation should guaranteesome natural

isolation (represented by

) to facilitate theusage of signal processing

techniques which provide additionalman-made isolation. This is because, in

practice, the dynamicrange of the relay receiver circuitry is limited, and, thus,
largedifference in power levels may saturate the receiver renderingany attempt
to recover the desired signal futile.With separated receive and transmit antenna
arrays, naturalisolation arises from the sheer physical distance between the
arrays,and rational installation guarantees obstacles in betweenthe arrays to
block

the

line-of-sight.

For

this

purpose,

the

installationmay

exploit

surrounding buildings or add a shieldingplate [22]. Furthermore, antenna

elements can be directionaland pointed at opposite directions [20], [22], and
their polarizationsmay be orthogonal. If the same antenna array is used forboth
receiving and transmitting as in [26], all natural isolationcomes solely from the
duplexer connecting the input and outputfeeds to the same physical antenna
element. However, isolationoffered even by the most high-end duplexers may
not be sufficientfor communication.
Exploiting the signal model from (2), the mean square error(MSE) matrix of the
relay input signal is given by

Fig.4.1. Time-domain loop interference cancellation in a full-duplex MIMO

relay by subtracting an estimate of the loop signal.
which yields the loop interference power as

In the following, we presume that all means of improving naturalisolation have

been first exploited and then concentrate onsignal processing techniques to
mitigate the residual interference,i.e., the effect of

. Measurements

show that naturalisolation is not often sufficient alone [20], [22], [34].
Hence,our study excludes the exceptional setups in which natural isolationis
large without any additional mitigation, e.g., a relaywith the receive array
placed outdoors and the transmit arrayproviding underground coverage in a
tunnel.

4.1.2) Time-Domain Cancellation (TDC): Cancellation is basedon the

reasonable presumption that the relay always knows itsown transmitted signal
at least approximately. If the relay canalso determine the loop channel, the
interference signal maybe replicated and removed from the received signal. In
practice,the relay may apply conventional analog precancellationto improve the
feasibility of the digital mitigation techniques forlower dynamic range. However,
the implementation of the electronicsbecomes expensive and difficult if the
respective circuitis more sophisticated than a phase shifter that removes one
(ideallythe strongest) multipath component.
The considered TDC scheme is a straightforward MIMO extensionfor earlier
SISO schemes [21][23], implemented as illustratedin Fig. 2 (similar structures
are used in [28][32]):
The relay contains a feedback loop with MIMO cancellationfilter
Thus, (2), (5), and (7) can be related as
and
The equivalent receiver noise vector of the interference-free relay becomes

in which the residual loop interference channel is

Fig.4.2. Spatial loop interference suppression in a full-duplex MIMO relay by

using linear receive and transmit filters.
The MSE matrix of the relay input signal becomes

The first term includes the channel estimation error and thesecond term arises
due to the transmit signal noise. Cancellationcan only minimize the known
part of the first term by choosing

which results in

Thereby, (12) yieldsthe residual interference power as

If cancellation is not used, i.e.,

, (12) reduces to (8).

The main drawback of TDC is its blindness to the spatial domain,e.g., low rank
of

is not expected to result in betterisolation. Additionally, the scheme is

sensitive to both channelestimation noise

and transmit signal noise

as shownby (13). In fact, TDC adds a new signal in the relay input whichmay
actually lead to degraded isolation compared to pure naturalisolation with high
channel estimation noise. The advantageof time-domain cancellation is that it
does not distort thedesired signal or reduce the input and output dimensions of
therelay, i.e.,

and

4.2. Novel Spatial Suppression Schemes

To exploit the extra degrees of freedom offered by the spatialdomain, we
propose that the relay applies MIMO receive filter
transmit filter

and MIMO

as illustrated in Fig. 3. Now (2), (5), and (7) can be

relatedas
and
Throughout

the

work,

we

normalizefilter

gains

to

with allschemes.
The equivalent receiver noise vector of the interference-free relay becomes

in which the residual loop interference channel is

Based on (14), the residual interference power is given by

and

Interference can be suppressed by designing

term and/or by designing only

and

tominimize the first

to minimizethe second term that is due to

transmit signal noise. Since(15) is a matrix equation, it needs to be first

translated into ascalar value before formulating an optimization problem: In
thispaper, the Frobenius norm is adopted for this purpose whileother metrics,
rendering different optimization targets, are alsoavailable. On the other hand,
(16) for spatial suppression is reducedto mere natural isolation given in (9)
when

and

Spatial suppression comes at the cost of a reduction in theinput or output

dimensions comparing to TDC. However, (14)reveals readily one significant
advantage over cancellation: thereceive filter

can be designed to suppress

the potential loopinterference that is due to the transmit signal noise

The implementation differs depending on the procedure:

Independent design: One filter is designed without knowledgeof the other
filter which can be replaced byI .
Separate design: One filter is designed given the other.
Joint design: The filters are designed together.
Next we consider these procedures with antenna selection, beamselection, nullspace projection, and MMSE filtering.

4.2.1) Antenna Selection (AS):The simplified receive antennaselection scheme

studied in [25] inspires us to formulate loopinterference suppression based on
generalized antenna subsetselection. To that end, the respective receive and
transmit filtersare implemented with row and column selection matrices
(seeSection I-C) that are scaled to normalize the gains:

To reduce the gain of the residual loop interference channelgiven in (15), we

define the objective for suppression as

decreasing the known part of . By substituting (17)

The optimal joint filter design is found by calculating theFrobenius norm for all
combinations and choosingthe lowest. Although one may easily
devise suboptimal methodsof lower complexity, only global search gives the
exact optimumin the general case. However, it is feasible because the numberof
antennas is in practice reasonably small.
Let us then consider the design of

to illustrate the separatefilter design (the

procedure is symmetric for designing

).Now

needs to be first fixed

based on any spatial suppressionscheme and the unique solution for

issimply one of the

combinations. If the transmit filter is

not known (as in independent filter design) or not yet selected,one can
substitute

, which reduces the objective to

Example 1: The scheme of [25] is limited to the special caseof

, i.e.

, :When

and
, is

minimized by selecting
Table 1
Algorithm for optimal joint beam selection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Design

and

to select

rows and

Step1: Select in total min { + }, max {

columns of

as follows

}} rows and columns such that

all combinations pick only off-diagonal elements of . For this sub solution
=0.
Step2: To satisfy objective

. Select the rest of the rows and columns such that

the final selection matrices pick only the + -max{

smallest singular

values.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------if and

otherwise. In thegeneral MIMO case of any

, and

, such singlecomparison is not sufficient for the optimal filter design that
issolved in the above paragraphs for different variations.
4.2.2) Beam Selection (BS):General (eigen)beam selection isbased on the
singular value decomposition (SVD) of

in which submatrices

and

contain the basis vectorsassociated with

zero singular values. The diagonal matrix

values,

comprises the singular

, sorted in descending order.

By choosing beam selection matrices as

the objective is transformed from (18) to

as

, by definition. Filter design becomesconceptually similar

to AS, but row and column selection isbased on the effective diagonal channel
instead of

Remark 3: Objective readily indicates that BS is superiorto AS. In (22) most row
and column combinations pickoff-diagonal elements
definition leadingto
elementsof

of that are zero by

for many subsolutions whereas in (19) all

are practically nonzero, i.e.

, for all subsolutions.In

other words, AS is optimal only when limiting thesearch space to binary

selection matrices while BS solves theoptimization target with general complex
matrices.Intuitively, the optimal joint BS could be solved by testingall
combinations as with AS. However, the diagonalizedstructure of the effective
loop channel facilitates directoffline selection based on

and such thatonly the SVD is calculated for each channel representation:
Theoptimal joint selection is obtained with the algorithm given inTable I.
If , Step 2 is omitted andBS reduces to null-space
projection discussed in the next section.On the other hand, separate and
independent filter designsapply only Step 2 for all
Let us assume that

rows and columns.

in thefollowing. One

straightforward illustrative solution can be obtainedwith the optimal joint BS

algorithm as

in which
and

, and

are identity matrices of

dimensions, respectively. In fact,the optimal joint BS algorithm

translates (22) to

For the general case, this shows that BS may cause residual loopinterference
even if the side information is perfect. In the nextsection, this motivates to
consider the special cases of beam selectionthat ideally eliminate all
interference.
Example 2: Compared to our general BS solution, the schemeof [28] is not only
suboptimal but also limited to the specialsymmetric case of
: The beams areselected by

and

in which is anzero

matrix andI is an

identity matrix. Thispicks the

smallest

singular values transforming (22) to

This is larger than (24) obtained with (23) because the schemedoes not exploit
the possibility to suppress interference by kicking the off-diagonal elements of
in Step 1. The suboptimalitycan be also interpreted to be the consequence
ofindependent filter design instead of joint design.
4.2.3) Null-Space Projection (NSP): Next we develop spatialsuppression
schemes that can eliminate all loop interference inthe ideal case with perfect
side information similarly to TDC.This is desirable when the loop interference is
dominating butAS or general BS does not offer sufficient attenuation.
In null-space projection,

and

are selected suchthat the relay receives

and transmits in different subspaces,i.e., transmit beams are projected to the

null-space of the loopchannel combined with the receive filter and vice versa.
Thecondition can be stated for joint or separate filter design as

to eliminate the known part of the first term in (16). Similarly,for suppressing
the transmit signal noise, the condition becomes

, partly eliminating

the second term in (16).

One solution for joint NSP can be obtained with the optimaljoint BS algorithm
given in Table I, if ,

and

are low enough w.r.t.

and

Firstly, atotal of

beams are selected in Step 1 correspondingto

different singular values. Secondly, the lastterms in (24) are zero if

.

Thus,

input

and

output

beams maycorrespond to the same singular values after Step 2 and still, i.e.
, satisfying also the condition in(26). This proves that
the BS algorithm results in null-spaceprojection whenever

This condition defines also the general existence of joint NSP,if

are additionally constrained to be of full rank.Even if

and

is rank deficient,

is of full rank in practicedue to the estimation noise which also causes residual
loop

interference.Thereby,

the

condition

evaluatedusing the anticipated value of

by defining

in

(27)

can

be

alternatively

based on prior informationor

with a threshold below whichthe singular values are

rounded to zero.
Remark 4:
For the case

, the total number for antennas

is minimized

with NSP selecting

orwhen

(full

rank),

or

by

selectingor
when

(minimum rank).

Choosing

may be preferable due to transmit noise.For separate filter

design, let us recall that the Moore-Penrosepseudo inverse

always exists, and satisfies

is unique,

by definition. For designing

separately given

, we can, thereby, apply projection matrix

If

. Separate design for

is given bya similar projection

matrix which is obtained by replacing

and

above with

and

, respectively.
Example 3:The scheme of [27] is limited to the simple specialcase of
and

guaranteed directly by
and

When

is

. In the general MIMO case of any

the

optimal

filter

design,

solved

in

the

above

paragraphs,becomes more involved.For designing one filter independently, the

above schemesmay be exploited by setting the other filter to identity.
However, simpler design is obtained by choosing
because the row space of
choosing
the null space of

should be in the left null space of

because the column space of

or by

should be in

Joint design solutions satisfying the NSP condition in (26)are not unique in
most cases. For example, Step 1 in the optimaljoint BS algorithm allows to
choose rows and columns in differentways. Furthermore, general BS inherits
the same propertyexcept that the subsolution picking the nonzero diagonal
valuesof

is unique in Step 2. Selection between the solutions withthe same

cost can be done based on any other performance criterionas illustrated by the
next example.
Example

4:

The

scheme

of

[26]

is

limited

to

the

case

of

and : When the SVD of theloop channel is

,is

guaranteed

, or by
recognized in [26],also

either

by

, . Although not
, can be used if

Compared to Example 3, the extra receive antenna facilitatesadditionalselection

diversity available for reducing the effectof transmit signal noise. In our general
MIMO case of any ,

and

, the optimal filter design becomes more

involvedand the applicability of NSP is governed by (27).

4.2.4) Minimum Mean Square Error (MMSE) Filtering:The previousspatial
suppression schemes aim at minimizing the effectof loop interference at the
cost of spatially shaping the usefulsignal which does not happen with TDC. In
order to reducethe effect of this drawback with spatial suppression, a
minimumMSE scheme is developed next to both minimize the distortionand
attenuate the loop interference.

Now and as with TDC. Thus, the

MSE matrix of the relay input signal is given by

(29)
Inwhich
given

For separate filter design

, the minimum MSE receivefilter is derived from the condition
yielding

Which needs to be scaled to satisfy

. Note thatMMSE filtering

requires knowledge of and signal covariancematrices as opposed to the other

mitigation schemes.
Condition

to minimize MSE at the transmitside reduces to the

condition for null-space projection givenin (26). Therefore, the evident order for
joint filter design isto firstly minimize interference at the transmit side using
anyscheme, and then secondly design the receive filter using (30).
4.2.5) Combining Cancellation and Spatial Suppression:
Time-domain cancellation suffers from residual interferencethat is due to the
transmit signal noise, while spatial suppressionmay need many extra antennas
for efficient mitigation. Hence,the combination could offer high isolation with
conservativenumber of antennas in the presence of transmit signal noise.

Combining

yields

the

residual

interference

channel

given

by

, cf. (11) with mere cancellation and(15) with mere

suppression. Thus, filter design can be performedfor one scheme first if the
other scheme is consequently designedgiven the residual channel. The
implementation admitsfour variations for independent and separate filter
design [32],but we will now focus on joint filter design, which is possible inmost
scenarios.
The performance evaluation of the above presented work is illustrated in next
chapter

Chapter5
Results
In this chapter, the performance evaluation of the proposed method is going to
be discussed. There is also discussion about the comparison results of the
proposed approach with the previously proposed approaches.. In the
simulations, all channels aremodeled with Rayleigh fading and the transmitted
signals areassumed to be spatially white with unit power per stream. The relay
receiver noise is white andGaussian with, and imperfect side information
usedin mitigation is generated as explained in above chapter.
selected path for Communication

30

7
11

25

4
6
3

20

1
12

15

8
2
13

10

10
14

15
9

10

15

20

25

30

0.5
natural isolation
TDC(.02,.02)
NSP(.02,.02)
TDC(0,.02)
NSP(0,0.02)
TDC(.02,0)
NSP(.02,0)
half duplex

0.45
0.4
0.35

BER

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

8
10
12
P?natural[db]

14

16

18

20

1
3x4:0.94
2x4:1.88
3x3:2.20
1x4:3.25
2x3:3.63
2x2:5.75
1x3:6.18
1x2:10.05
1x1:22.63

0.9
0.8
0.7

F1?P(x)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

6
8
10
antenna selection AS

12

14

16

1
3x4:3.06
2x4:7.37
3x3:7.86
1x4:21.81
2x3:23.57

0.9
0.8
0.7

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

8
x[db]

10

12

14

16

45
NSP,2x4
NSP,3x4
NSP,3x3
NSP,2x4
NSP,3x3
TDC,4x4
BS,3x3
BS,2x4
BS,3x3
BS,2x4
BS,3x4
BS,3x4
BS,3x4

40
35

??P1 [db]

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

5
?H

45
NSP,4x3
NSP,4x4
NSP,3x4
TDC,3x3
BS,4x4
BS,4x3
BS,4x4
BS,3x4
BS,4x3
BS,3x4

40
35
30

??P1 [db]

F1?P(x)

0.6

25
20
15
10
5
0

5
et

1
BS(3):5.04
BS(2):8.15
MMSE(3):8.77
MMSE(2):14.76
TDC(1):25.20
TDC(2):25.30
TDC(3):25.34
MMSE(1):40.20
NSP(1):40.52

0.9
0.8
0.7

F1?P(x)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

10
x[db]

12

14

16

18

20

1
BS(4):7.80
BS(3):11.56
TDC(1):25.25
TDC(2):25.32
TDC(3):25.35
TDC(4):25.36
NSP(2):29.67
both(4):34.49
both(3):34.49
both(2):34.49
both(1):36.81
NSP(1):40.51

0.9
0.8
0.7

F1?P(x)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

10
x[db]

12

14

16

18

20

1
AS,3x4(3):1.29
AS,3x4(2):1.62
AS,4x4(4):2.20
AS,4x4(3):2.57
BS,3x4(3):5.04
BS,3x4(2):8.12
BS,4x4(4):7.86
BS,4x4(3):11.87

0.9
0.8
0.7

F1?P(x)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

10
x[db]

12

14

16

18

Chapter6
CONCLUSION
Full-duplex MIMO relaying has large potential for spectrallyefficient wireless
transmission. In this work, we concentratedon solving the main associated
technical problem, i.e., the mitigationof relay self-interference. We extended the
earlier SISOcancellation schemes for the MIMO relay case and proposednew
solutions that suppress the interference in the spatial domain:antenna and
beam selection, null-space projection, andMMSE filtering. We also discussed
the issues that need to beconsidered when combining cancellation and spatial
suppression.Errors in the side information used for mitigation wereidentified as
the practical limitation to prevent complete interferenceelimination obtainable
in the ideal case. However, oursimulations illustrated that the proposed
schemes offer significantmitigation such that the residual interference may be
regardedas mere additional noise.

References:
[1] C.-B.Chae, T. Tang, R. W. Heath, Jr, and S. Cho, MIMO relaying withlinear
processing for multiuser transmission in fixed relay networks,IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 727738, Feb. 2008.
[2] R. Zhang, C. C. Chai, and Y.-C. Liang, Joint beamforming andpower
control for multiantenna relay broadcast channel with QoSconstraints, IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 726737,Feb. 2009.
[3] B. K. Chalise and L. Vandendorpe, MIMO relay design for multipoint-tomultipoint communications with imperfect channel state information,IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 27852796,Jul. 2009.
[4] Y. Rong, X. Tang, and Y. Hua, A unified framework for optimizinglinear
nonregenerative multicarrier MIMO relay communication systems,IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 48374851,Dec. 2009.
[5] C. Li, X. Wang, L. Yang, and W.-P. Zhu, A joint source and relaypower
allocation scheme for a class of MIMO relay systems, IEEETrans. Signal
Process., vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 48524860, Dec. 2009.
[6] Y. Huang, L. Yang, M. Bengtsson, and B. Ottersten, A limited feedback
joint precoding for amplify-and-forward relaying, IEEE Trans.Signal Process.,
vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 13471357, Mar. 2010.
[7] O. Muoz-Medina, J. Vidal, and A. Augustin, Linear transceiver designin
nonregenerative relays with channel state information, IEEETrans. Signal
Process., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 25932604, Jun. 2007.

[8] S. W. Peters and R. W. Heath, Jr, Nonregenerative MIMO relayingwith

optimal transmit antenna selection, IEEE Signal Process.Lett.,vol. 15, pp.
421424, 2008.
[9] S. Simoens, O. Muoz-Medina, J. Vidal, and A. del Coso, Compressandforward cooperative MIMO relaying with full channel state information,IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 781791, Feb.2010.
[10] M. Yuksel and E. Erkip, Multiple-antenna cooperative wireless systems:
A diversity-multiplexing tradeoff perspective, IEEE Trans. Inf.Theory, vol. 53,
no. 10, pp. 33713393, Oct. 2007.
[11] S. Simoens, O. Muoz-Medina, J. Vidal, and A. del Coso, On theGaussian
MIMO relay channel with full channel state information,IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 35883599, Sep. 2009.
[12] E. C. Van Der Meulen, Three-terminal communication channels,Adv.
Appl. Probab., vol. 3, pp. 120154, 1971.
[13] T. M. Cover and A. A. El Gamal, Capacity theorems for the relaychannel,
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 572584, Sep.1979.
[14] B. Wang, J. Zhang, and A. Hst-Madsen, On the capacity of MIMOrelay
channels, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 2943, Jan.2005.
[15] A. Hst-Madsen and J. Zhang, Capacity bounds and power allocationfor
wireless relay channels, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 6,pp. 20202040,
Jun. 2005.
[16] G. Kramer, M. Gastpar, and P. Gupta, Cooperative strategies and capacity

theorems for relay networks, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51,no. 9, pp. 3037
3063, Sep. 2005.
[17] Z. Zhang and T. M. Duman, Capacity-approaching turbo coding
anditerative decoding for relay channels, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 53,no.
11, pp. 18951905, Nov. 2005.
[18] Y. Liang, V. V. Veeravalli, and H. V. Poor, Resource allocation forwireless
fading relay channels: Max-min solution, IEEE Trans. Inf.Theory, vol. 53, no.
10, pp. 34323453, Oct. 2007.
[19] V. R. Cadambe and S. A. Jafar, Degrees of freedom of wireless networks
with relays, feedback, cooperation, and full duplex operation,IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 23342344, May 2009.
[20] W. T. Slingsby and J. P. McGeehan, Antenna isolation measurements
for on-frequency radio repeaters, in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. AntennasPropag., Apr.
1995, vol. 1, pp. 239243.
[21] H. Hamazumi, K. Imamura, N. Iai, K. Shibuya, and M. Sasaki, Astudy of a
loop interference canceller for the relay stations in an SFNfor digital terrestrial
broadcasting, in Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun.Conf., Nov. 2000, vol. 1.
[22] C. R. Anderson, S. Krishnamoorthy, C. G. Ranson, T. J. Lemon, W.
G.Newhall,

T.

Kummetz,

and

J.

H.

Reed,

Antenna

isolation,

widebandmultipath propagation measurements, and interference mitigation

foron-frequency repeaters, in Proc. IEEE SoutheastCon, Mar. 2004, pp.110
114.

[23] K. M. Nasr, J. P. Cosmas, M. Bard, and J. Gledhill, Performance ofan echo

canceller

and

channel

estimator

for

on-channel

repeaters

inDVB-T/H

networks, IEEE Trans. Broadcasting, vol. 53, no. 3, pp.609618, Sep. 2007.
[24] D. W. Bliss, P. A. Parker, and A. R. Margetts, Simultaneous transmission
and reception for improved wireless network performance, inProc. IEEE 14th
Workshop on Statist. Signal Process., Aug. 2007.
[25] A. Hazmi, J. Rinne, and M. Renfors, Diversity based DVB-T indoorrepeater in slowly mobile loop interference environment, in Proc. 10thInt.
OFDM-Workshop, Aug.Sep. 2005.
[26] H. Ju, E. Oh, and D. Hong, Improving efficiency of resource usagein twohop full duplex relay systems based on resource sharing andinterference
cancellation, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no.8, pp. 39333938,
Aug. 2009.
[27] B. Chun, E.-R. Jeong, J. Joung, Y. Oh, and Y. H. Lee, Pre-nulling forselfinterference suppression in full-duplex relays, in Proc. APSIPAAnn. Summit
and Conf., Oct. 2009.
[28] P. Larsson and M. Prytz, MIMO on-frequency repeater with selfinterferencecancellation

and

mitigation,

in

Proc.

IEEE

69th

Veh.

Technol.Conf., Apr. 2009.

[29] J. Sangiamwong, T. Asai, J. Hagiwara, Y. Okumura, and T. Ohya,Joint
multi-filter design for full-duplexMU-MIMO relaying, in Proc.IEEE 69th Veh.
Technol. Conf., Apr. 2009.

[30] Y. Y. Kang and J. H. Cho, Capacity of MIMO wireless channel withfullduplex amplify-and-forward relay, in Proc. IEEE 20th Int. Symp.Pers., Indoor
and Mobile Radio Commun., Sep. 2009.
[31] J. Ma, G. Y. Li, J. Zhang, T. Kuze, and H. Iura, A new couplingchannel
estimator for cross-talk cancellation at wireless relay stations,in Proc. IEEE
Global Commun. Conf., Dec. 2009.
[32]

T.

Riihonen,

S.

Werner,

and

R.

Wichman,

Spatial

loop

interferencesuppression in full-duplexMIMO relays, in Proc. 43rd Ann.

AsilomarConf. Signals, Syst. Comput., Nov. 2009.
[33] P. Persson, M. Coldrey, A.Wolfgang, and P. Bohlin, Design and evaluation
of a 22 MIMO repeater, in Proc. 3rd Eur. Conf. AntennasPropag., Mar. 2009.
[34] K. Haneda, E. Kahra, S. Wyne, C. Icheln, and P. Vainikainen,
Measurementof

loop-back

interference

channels

for

outdoor-to-indoor

fullduplexradio relays, in Proc. 4th Eur. Conf. Antennas Propag., Apr.

2010.
[35] M. Dohler and Y. Li, Cooperative Communications: Hardware, Channel
and PHY.
John Wiley & Sons, 2010
[36] User cooperation diversity-Part I: System description, IEEE Trans.
Commun.,vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 19271938, Nov. 2003.
[37]User

cooperation

diversity-Part

II:

Implementation

aspects

and

performanceanalysis, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 19391948,
Nov. 2003

[38]. Peters, S.W., Panah, A.Y., Truong, K.T., Heath Jr., R.W.: Relay
Architectures

for

3GPPLTE-Advanced.

EURASIP

Journal

on

Wireless

Communications and Networking (2009)

[39]. Yang, Y., Hu, H., Xu, J., Mao, G.: Relay Technologies for WiMAX and LTEAdvancedMobile Systems. IEEE Communications Magazine 47(10), 100105
(2009)
[40]. Lo, A., Niemegeers, I.: Multi-hop Relay Architectures for 3GPP LTEAdvanced. In:Proceedings of the 9th IEEE Malaysia International Conference
on Communications(MICC), Malaysia, pp. 123127 (2009)