IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2009
Transactions Papers
701
SpaceTimeFrequency Code Implementation in MBOFDM UWB Communications:
Design Criteria and Performance
Le Chung Tran and Alfred Mertins
Abstract —This paper proposes a general framework of Space TimeFrequency Codes (STFCs) for MultiBand Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (MBOFDM) UltraWide Band (UWB) communications systems. A great similarity between the STFC MBOFDM UWB systems and conventional wire less Complex Orthogonal SpaceTime Block Code (CO STBC) MultipleInput MultipleOutpu t (MIMO) systems is discovered. This allows us to quantify the pairwise error probability (PEP) of the proposed system and derive the general decoding method for the implemented STFCs. Based on the theoretical analysis results of PEP, we can further quantify the diversity order and coding gain of MBOFDM UWB systems, and derive the design criteria for STFCs, namely diversity gain criterion and coding gain criterion. The maximum achievable diversity order is found to be the product of the number of transmit antennas, the number of receive antennas, and the FFT size. We also show that all STFCs constructed based on the conventional CO STBCs can satisfy the diversity gain criterion. Various baseband simulation results are shown for the Alamouti code and a code of order 8. Simulation results indicate the signi ﬁ cant improvement achieved in the proposed STFC MBOFDM UWB systems, compared to the conventional MBOFDM UWB ones.
Index Terms—UWB, MBOFDM, STFC, MIMO, STC, CO STBC, design criteria, diversity order, coding gain.
I. I NTRODUCTION
R ECENTLY, UltraWide Band (UWB) communications attracts intensive attention from both industries and
researchers, because it is a potential candidate for shortrange communications (up to 10 meters) with very high data rate, very low power consumption and emission. UWB can be a baseband system using carrierfree communications, which is referred to as impulse UWB, or a carrierbased system. The
Manuscript received April 16, 2007; revised August 1, 2007 and October 1, 2007; accepted November 20, 2007. The associate editor coordinating the review of this paper and approving it for publication was F. Daneshgaran. This work has been done under the postdoctoral research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt (AvH) Foundation, Germany. L. C. Tran is with the Faculty of Electrical and Electronics, University of Communication and Transport, Hanoi City, Vietnam (email: tran@isip.uni luebeck.de). A. Mertins is with the Institute for Signal Processing, University of Luebeck, Germany (email: mertins@isip.uniluebeck.de). Digital Object Identiﬁ er 10.1109/TWC.2009.070405
latter possesses a number of advantages, compared to the former, in terms of low complexity of receivers to capture sufﬁcient multipath energy, and in easier radio frequency (RF) design. One of the main candidates for carrierbased UWB communications is MultiBand Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (MBOFDM), supported by the Wi Media Alliance [1]. MBOFDM UWB is designed for very high bit rate up to 480 Mbps with low cost and low power consumption.
On the other hand, one of the emerging techniques to resolve the bottleneck of trafﬁc capacity in wireless networks is the use of MultipleInput MultipleOutput (MIMO) sys tems. Communication theory [2], [3], [4] shows that MIMO systems can provide potentially a very high capacity that, in many cases, grows approximately linearly with the number of antennas, without paying any additional power. The main feature of MIMO systems is spacetime processing. Space Time Codes (STCs) are the codes designed for the use in MIMO systems. In STCs, signals are coded in both temporal and spatial domains. Among a variety of STCs, of particular interest are Complex Orthogonal SpaceTime Block Codes (CO STBCs), which possess a simpler decoding method than other STCs, such as SpaceTime Trellis Codes (STTCs) [5].
Intuitively, the combination of the emerging technologies MBOFDM UWB, MIMO, and STCs will provide a signif icant improvement in the max imum achievable communica tions range, bit error performance, system capacity, and data rate. While the combination of OFDM, MIMO and STCs in the form of SpaceTimeFrequency Codes (STFCs) in MIMO OFDM systems (usually referred to as STFCMIMOOFDM systems) has been well examined in the literature, such as [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], the combination of MBOFDM UWB, MIMO, and STCs has been almost unexplored with few papers examining this issue [11], [12], [13], [14]. There are two main differences between channels’ characteristics in conventional OFDM systems and in MBOFDM UWB ones. First, channels in the conventional OFDM system are less dispersive than those in the MBOFDM UWB system, due to the fact that the latter has much larger bandwidth. Second, channel coefﬁcients
15361276/09$25.00 c 2009 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 28, 2009 at 06:49 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
702
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMM UNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2009
Fig. 1. MBOFDM UWB system according to WiMedia’s speciﬁ cation.
in the conventional OFDM system are usually considered to be Rayleigh distributed, while those in the MBOFDM UWB system are lognormally distributed [15]. Therefore, the systems incorporating MBOFDM UWB, MIMO, and STCs must be more speciﬁcally analyzed, though there exist some similarities between them and the conventional STFCMIMO OFDM systems. The combination of MBOFDM UWB systems with STBCs has been somewhat mentioned in [11] for only two transmit (Tx) antennas, i.e. the Alamouti code [16]. In [12], the authors proposed a general framework to analyze the performance of MBOFDM MIMO UWB systems regardless of speciﬁc coding schemes. They quantify the performance of the MB OFDM MIMO UWB systems in case of Nakagami frequency selective fading channels. The authors also showed that the maximum achievable diversity of a MBOFDM MIMO UWB system is the product of the number of Tx and receive (Rx) antennas, the number of multipath components, and the number of jointly encoded OFDM symbols. However, the multipath channel amplitudes in MBOFDM UWB systems are independent lognormally distributed ran dom variables, rather than Nakagamidistributed [15]. While [12] is a very interesting paper and has signi ﬁcant contribution, it still has some drawbacks, including: a) not quantifying the Pairwise Error Probability (PEP) in the case of lognormal distribution, b) assuming that the time delay and average power are the same for all transmitreceive links in order to calculate the matrix of channel frequency responses, which is not usually true in MBOFDM systems where the time delay and average power of transmitreceive links might be very different, and c) misjudging that the product between the channel’s multipath length and the number of Tx antennas is usually smaller than the FFT size, resulting in an erroneous conclusion that the maximum achievable diversity of MB OFDM UWB systems is the product of the number of Tx and Rx antennas, the number of multipath components, and the number of jointly encoded OFDM symbols. In fact, the product between the channel’s multipath length and the num ber of Tx antennas is usually much greater than the FFT size, due to the fact that UWB channels are very richly dispersive. In this paper, we expand the discussion in [11] to propose the STFC MBOFDM UWB system for any number of Tx/Rx antennas. We follow an approach, independently of the exist ing works, to examine the performance of STFC MBOFDM UWB systems. In particular, we modify the Tarokh’s proof,
which was mentioned in [5] for the conventional wireless STC MIMO communications, to ﬁnd the diversity and coding gains of the proposed STFC MBOFDM UWB system in the lognormal distribution case [17], without any restriction or additional assumption on the time delay and average power of transmitreceive links. Our analysis is based closely on WiMedia’s MBOFDM UWB PHY speciﬁcations and the IEEE 802.15.3a UWB channel model. We discover that the maximum achievable diversity gain of the proposed STFC MBOFDM UWB system is the product of the numbers of Tx and Rx antennas and the FFT size. The paper also derives the decoding algorithm for general STFCs, and then considers the Alamouti code and our order8 code proposed in [18] for illustration. Several simulation results for the Alamouti code and the order8 code with QPSK and Dual Carrier Modulation (DCM) schemes are shown in order to verify the performance improvement of the proposed STFC MB OFDM UWB systems, compared to the conventional MB OFDM ones. The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we review WiMedia’s MBOFDM UWB PHY speciﬁcations and the IEEE 802.15.3a UWB channel model. In Section III, we propose the STFC MBOFDM UWB system for any number of Tx/Rx antennas as well as the mathematical model for the proposed system. Section IV analyzes the diversity gain and coding gain of the proposed STFC MBOFDM system under the WiMedia’s UWB MBOFDM PHY speciﬁcations and the IEEE 802.15.3a UWB channel model. Section V provides two main criteria to design STFCs in MBOFDM UWB systems, namely diversity gain criterion and coding gain criterion. In Section VI, we derive the general Maximum Likelihood (ML) decoding expression for STFCs and the
detailed decoding metrics for the Alamouti code and our order 8 code. Simulation results are mentioned in Section VII and conclusions are drawn in Section VIII. Notations: The following notations will be used throughout the paper. The superscripts (.) ^{∗} , (.) ^{T} and (.) ^{H} denote the complex conjugation, transposition operation, and Hermitian
¯ ¯
transpose operation, respectively. We denote ¯a ⊗ b , ¯a ∗ b, and
¯
¯a _{•} b to be the linear convolution , the cyclic (or circular )
convolution , and the elementwise (or Hadamard) product
¯
and b, respectively. Further, ¯a. ˆ 2
denotes the elementwise power2 operation of ¯a . We de ﬁne the multiplication operation C ◦ D between the two matrices
of the two vectors ¯a
¯
C = {¯c _{t}_{,}_{m} } _{T}_{×}_{M} and D = { d _{m}_{,}_{n} } _{M}_{×}_{N} , whose elements
¯c t,m and
d _{m}_{,}_{n} are N _{f}_{f}_{t} length column vectors, such that
the (t, n)th element of the resulting matrix is a N _{f}_{f}_{t} length
¯
d _{m}_{,}_{n} . The complex space C of a
symbol s denotes all potential possibilities that the symbol s
can take, while the N _{D} dimensional complex space
N _{D} length vector ¯s denotes all potential possibilities that the
¯
vector ¯s can take. We de ﬁne 1 as a column vector of length
N _{D} , whose elements are all 1. Finally, . _{F} denotes the Frobenius norm, and j = ^{√} −1.
II. MBOFDM UWB O VERVIEW A. WiMedia’s MBOFDM UWB PHY Speciﬁ cation The structural diagram of the physical layer (PHY) of the WiMedia MBOFDM UWB systems is shown in Fig. 1.
C ^{N} ^{D} of a
column vector ^{}
M m=1 ^{¯}^{c} t,m ^{•}
¯
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 28, 2009 at 06:49 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TRAN and MERTINS: SPACETIMEFREQUENCY CODE IMPLEMENTATION IN MBOFDM UWB COMMUNICATIONS
703
Fig. 2. MBOFDM UWB band groups.
WiMedia MBOFDM UWB PHY speci ﬁcations proposed by A. Batra et al. [1], [19] specify an UWB physical layer for a WPAN, utilizing the unlicensed 3.1  10.6 GHz frequency
band, and supporting data rates of 53.3, 80, 106.7, 160, 200, 320, 400, and 480 Mb/s. The UWB spectrum is divided into
14 bands (see Fig. 2), each of which has a bandwidth of 528
MHz. The ﬁrst 12 bands are then grouped into four band groups consisting of three bands, while the last two bands are grouped into the ﬁfth band group. Support for the ﬁrst band group is mandatory. A total of 100 data subcarriers is used per band to transmit the information. Frequencydomain spreading, timedomain spreading, and Forward Error Correction (FEC) coding are used to vary the data rates. The FEC used is a convolutional code with coding rates of 1/3, 1/2, 5/8 and 3/4. The coded binary data sequence then goes through a threestage bit interleaver, consisting of symbol interleaver, tone interleaver, and cyclic shifter. The interleaved binary data sequence is then mapped into complex constellations. For data rates of 200 Mbps and lower, a QPSK constellation is used, while for the higher data rates, a multidimensional constellation using a DCM technique. This technique maps a group of four bits into two different 16point constellations separated by 50 tones (subcarriers) to better employ the frequency and time diversity [19].
The resulting data is inserted with 12 pilots and 10 guard subcarriers, and is then transformed via the IFFT to form an OFDM symbol. The OFDM symbols are then padded with
37 zeros, which are considered as ZeroPadded Sufﬁx (ZPS).
ZPS is used to mitigate the effects of multipath, and to provide a time window to allow the transmitter and receiver sufﬁcient time to switch between the different frequencies. Most conventional wireless OFDMbased systems use a Cyclic Pre ﬁx (CP) to provide robustness against multipath. When a CP is used, redundancy or structure is introduced into the transmitted signal. This correlation in the transmitted signal causes ripples in the average Power Spectral Density (PSD), which, in MBOFDM systems, could be as large as 1.5 dB [20]. Because the UWB emission is limited, the transmitted power must be reduced, resulting in a lower range for the system. When a ZPS is used, the ripples in the PSD can be reduced to zero, thus the powerbackoff problem at the transmitter can be avoided, and the system can achieve the maximum possible range.
The coded data is then spread using a TimeFrequency Code (TFC) to achieve further time and frequency diversities. There are two types of TFCs: one where the coded information is interleaved over three bands, referred to as TimeFrequency Interleaving (TFI); and, one where the coded information is transmitted on a single band, referred to as Fixed Frequency Interleaving (FFI). Support for both TFI and FFI is mandatory.
TABLE I
N UMBERS OF M ULTIPATHS Np _{1}_{0}_{d}_{B} , Np _{8}_{5}_{%} , AND
¯
N _{p} [15].
B. IEEE 802.15.3a MBOFDM UWB Channel Models
MBOFDM UWB channel models proposed by Jeff Foerster et al. [15] are based on the SalehValenzuela model with slight modiﬁcation. The multipath gain magnitudes are modeled as independent lognormally distributed random variables (RVs) rather than Rayleigh variable s, because the lognormally dis tributed variables ﬁt better the measurement data. Independent fading is assumed for each cluster as well as each ray within the cluster. The discretetime impulse response of the multipath channel is
h _{i} (t)
=
X _{i}
L K
l=0
k=0
α _{k}_{,}_{l} ^{i} δ(t − T
i
l
−
i
τ _{k}_{,}_{l} )
(1)
where α ^{i} _{k}_{,}_{l} are the multipath gain coefﬁcients, T is the delay of the l th cluster, τ _{k}_{,}_{l} is the delay of the k th ray relative to the l th cluster arrival time ( T ), X _{i} is the lognormal shadowing, and i is the index for the i th realization. The multipath gain coefﬁcients are de ﬁned as
(2)
where p _{k}_{,}_{l} is equiprobable ±1 to account for signal inversion
due to re ﬂection, ξ _{l} accounts for the fading relating to the l  th cluster, and β _{k}_{,}_{l} re ﬂects the fading relating to the k th ray within the l th cluster. ξ _{l} β _{k}_{,}_{l}  is modeled to be independent
lognormally distributed RVs
where μ _{k}_{,}_{l} is the mean of the Gaussian RV 20log _{1}_{0} (ξ _{l} β _{k}_{,}_{l} )
associated with the lognormal RV ξ _{l} β _{k}_{,}_{l} , n _{1} and n _{2} are independent Gaussian RVs with the distributions N (0, σ ) and N (0, σ ), relating to the fading on each cluster and ray, respectively. The value of μ _{k}_{,}_{l} can be found in [15]. There are four main IEEE MBOFDM UWB channel models proposed by the IEEE 802.15.3a Task Group [15], accounting for the four typical multipath scenarios of UWB systems, namely CM 1 with a LightOfSign (LOS) scenario and the distance between the transmitter and receiver is up to 4 m; CM 2 (Non LightOfSign (NLOS), 04 m), CM 3 (NLOS, 410 m), and CM 4 proposed to ﬁt the channel with the rms delay spread of 25 ns representing an extreme NLOS
i
l
i
i
l
=
α k,l
p k,l ξ l β k,l
ξ _{l} β _{k}_{,}_{l} 
10 ^{(}^{μ} ^{k}^{,}^{l} ^{+}^{n} ^{1} ^{+}^{n} ^{2} ^{)}^{/}^{2}^{0} ,
2
1
=
2
2
¯
multipath channel. Denote N p _{1}_{0}_{d}_{B} , Np _{8}_{5}_{%} , and N _{p} to be the number of multipaths arriving within 10 dB of the peak, the number of multipaths capturing 85% channel energy, and the average number of multipaths calculated over 100 channel realizations generated by the IEEE 802.15.3a UWB channel models [15]. The typical values of these parameters are shown in Table I. Clearly, UWB channels are very richly dispersive with the maximum number of resolvable multipaths reaching some thousands.
III. STFC MBOFDM UWB S YSTEM
The diagram of the proposed STFC MBOFDM UWB system with the notations of signals at the considered reference
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 28, 2009 at 06:49 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
704
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMM UNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2009
OFDM Modulation
OFDM Demodulation
Tx 1
Tx M
Rx 1
Rx N
Fig. 3. Structural diagram of the proposed STFC MBOFDM UWB systems.
Fig. 4. An example of the transmitted RF pattern using the ﬁ rst band group.
points is depicted in Fig. 3. The system consists of M Tx antennas and N Rx antennas. We describe the transmitted STFC with the following matrix
(3)
where T denotes the number of MBOFDM symbol time slots required to transmit the whole STFC block. Structures of S are the same as the structures of CO STBCs in conventional wireless STC MIMO systems [16], [18], [21], except that
each element ¯s _{t}_{,}_{m} is not a complex number, but deﬁned as
a column vector ¯s t,m = [s t,m,1 , s t,m,2 ,
vectors ¯s _{t}_{,}_{m} are the original transmitted data before IFFT. The
symbols s _{t}_{,}_{m}_{,}_{k} are drawn from a QPSK or DCM constellation. Elements ¯s _{t}_{,}_{m} in each row of S are transmitted simultane ously through M Tx antennas in the same frequency band, while different rows of S might be transmitted in different frequency bands, following a certain TFC. An example of such TFCs is shown in Fig. 4. Denote X = { x¯ _{O}_{F}_{D}_{M}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{m} } _{T}_{×}_{M} to be the matrix whose elements are the N _{f}_{f}_{t} point IFFTs of the respective elements in S, then
s _{t}_{,}_{m}_{,}_{N} _{f}_{f}_{t} ] ^{T} . The
S = {¯s t,m } T×M ,
,
X = {IFFT{¯s t,m }} T×M = { x¯ OFDM,t,m } T×M . (4)
The symbols x¯ _{O}_{F}_{D}_{M}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{m} are referred to as MBOFDM sym bols. Further, denote with X _{Z}_{P} = { x¯ _{Z}_{P}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{m} } _{T}_{×}_{M} the matrix whose entries are the respective elements in X appended by a ZPS of 37 zeros. Clearly, x¯ _{O}_{F}_{D}_{M}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{m} is the transmitted MB OFDM symbol before Zero Padding (ZP), while x¯ _{Z}_{P}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{m} is the actual transmitted symbol after ZP. Denote
(5)
to be the channel vector between the m th Tx and n th Rx
antennas, for m = 1,
, where the channel
¯
h m,n
[h m,n,1 , h m,n,2 ,
,M,n
= 1,
,
h m,n,L _{m}_{,}_{n} ] ^{T}
,N
=
,L _{m}_{,}_{n} , in this
channel are modeled as independent lognormally distributed
=
1,
coefﬁcients h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} of the l th path, l = 1,
RVs. Let L _{m}_{a}_{x} = max{L _{m}_{,}_{n} } , for m = 1,
,N
,M,n
. Denote the MBOFDM UWB channel coefﬁcient
matrix as
(6)
where the vector h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{Z}_{P} is created from the corresponding
H =
¯
{
¯
h m,n,ZP } M×N
¯
channel vector h _{m}_{,}_{n} by adding zeros to have the length L _{m}_{a}_{x} .
At the transmission of the t th MBOFDM symbol, the received signal at the n th Rx antenna is calculated as
¯r ZP,t,n
=
M
m=1
x¯ ZP,t,m ⊗
h ¯ m,n ^{} + n¯ t,n .
(7)
The elements of noise vector n¯ _{t}_{,}_{n} are considered to be independent complex Gaussian RVs.
A. Theoretical Analysis
In this section, we ﬁrst analyze the proposed system with the theoretical assumption that the maximum number of
multipaths L _{m}_{,}_{n} , for m = 1,
, is
(N _{Z}_{P}_{S} + 1), where N _{Z}_{P}_{S} denotes the length of the ZPS. As mentioned in Section II, instead of inserting a CP at
the transmitter and discarding the CP at the receiver as in a conventional OFDM system, in an MBOFDM system, a ZPS of a length N _{Z}_{P}_{S} is appended to each symbol x¯ _{O}_{F}_{D}_{M}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{m}
at the transmitter to create a transmitted symbol
the receiver, an OverlapAndAdd Operation (OAAO) must be performed before FFT. OAAO means that the N _{Z}_{P}_{S} samples of a received symbol ¯r _{Z}_{P}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{n} , ranging from (N _{f}_{f}_{t} + 1) to (N _{f}_{f}_{t} + N _{Z}_{P}_{S} ), are added to the beginning of that received
x¯ _{Z}_{P}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{m} . At
,M
, n
=
1,
,N
symbol. Then the ﬁrst N _{f}_{f}_{t} samples of the resulting symbol will be used to decode the transmitted symbol. These N _{f}_{f}_{t}
samples are exactly equivalent to the circular convolution of the transmitted OFDM symbol (before ZP) x¯ _{O}_{F}_{D}_{M}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{m} with
¯
the channel h _{m}_{,}_{n} . This exact equivalence is due to the fact
that, if a ZPS of a length N _{Z}_{P}_{S} is used, the greatest multipath tolerance of the system is (N _{Z}_{P}_{S} +1). Consequently, from the theoretical viewpoint, the number of multipaths (the length of
vectors
As a result, after performing OAAO for the received signal ¯r _{Z}_{P}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{n} in (7), and then taking the ﬁrst N _{f}_{f}_{t} resulting samples, denoted as ¯r _{O}_{F}_{D}_{M}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{n} , the following equation is deduced
¯
h _{m}_{,}_{n} ) must not exceed (N _{Z}_{P}_{S} + 1).
¯r OFDM,t,n
=
M
m=1
x¯ OFDM,t,m ∗
¯
h _{m}_{,}_{n} + n¯ _{t}_{,}_{n} .
(8)
For the circular convolution, we have the following property
¯
x¯ OFDM,t,m ∗ h _{m}_{,}_{n} =
IFFT{FFT{ x¯ _{O}_{F}_{D}_{M}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{m} } •
FFT{
¯
h
m,n }}
¯
= IFFT{¯s _{t}_{,}_{m} • h
^{¯} _{m}_{,}_{n} }
where h _{m}_{,}_{n} is the N _{f}_{f}_{t} point FFT of the channel vector
i.e.
(9)
¯
h m,n ,
We denote
¯
h _{m}_{,}_{n}
¯
= FFT{ h _{m}_{,}_{n} }.
¯
h m,n = [ m,n,1 , m,n,2 ,
,
m,n,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ] ^{T} .
(10)
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 28, 2009 at 06:49 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TRAN and MERTINS: SPACETIMEFREQUENCY CODE IMPLEMENTATION IN MBOFDM UWB COMMUNICATIONS
705
After going through the FFT block at the receiver, the received signal becomes
FFT{¯r OFDM,t,n } =
Denote
^{¯}^{r} t,n = [r t,n,1 , r t,n,2 ,
and
,
n¯ t,n = [n t,n,1 , n t,n,2 ,
M
m=1
¯s t,m •
¯
h _{m}_{,}_{n} + FFT{ n¯ _{t}_{,}_{n} }
(11)
r t,n,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ] ^{T} = FFT{¯r OFDM,t,n }
,
n t,n,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ] ^{T} = FFT{ n¯ t,n }.
Then (11) can be rewritten as follows
¯r t,n
=
M
m=1
¯s t,m •
¯
h _{m}_{,}_{n} + n¯ _{t}_{,}_{n} .
(12)
Recall that ¯s _{t}_{,}_{n} is the original QPSK or DCM transmitted signal (before IFFT).
¯
Denote H = { h _{m}_{,}_{n} } _{M}_{×}_{N} to be the matrix whose ele ments are the N _{f}_{f}_{t} point FFTs of the respective elements in the channelcoefﬁcient matrix H . Further, denote R = {¯r _{O}_{F}_{D}_{M}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{n} } _{T}_{×}_{N} to be the received signal matrix, R = {¯r _{t}_{,}_{n} } _{T}_{×}_{N} to be the received signal matrix after FFT, and N = { n¯ _{t}_{,}_{n} } _{T}_{×}_{N} to be a noise matrix. We can rewrite (12) in matrix form as follows
(13)
From (13), we can realize that there exists a similarity between the mathematical model of the STFC MBOFDM UWB system and that of the conventional wireless STC MIMO system [16], [18], [22]. The only difference between the two mathematical models is that the matrix elements are scalar numbers in the conventional STC MIMO system, while they are N _{f}_{f}_{t} length vectors in the STFC MBOFDM UWB system. Because the vector elements in S will be transformed with the IFFT to generate MBOFDM symbols with N _{f}_{f}_{t} subcarriers, we refer to S as a SpaceTimeFrequency Code.
R
=
S ◦ H + N .
B. Realistic Channel Condition
The error performance of the proposed system with realistic UWB channel conditions is inferior, compared to the theoret ical performance, due to the following two main reasons. In theory, the length of CP or ZPS must be longer than the longest multipath in an OFDMbased system to turn the linear
convolution between the transmitted signal and the channel vector into the circular convolution. However, in practice, the multipath length is very likely to exceed the length of CP or ZPS. This is especially true in MBOFDM UWB systems
¯
where the average number of multipaths N _{p} is usually much
bigger than N _{Z}_{P}_{S} = 37 (see Table I). The transition from
(7) to (12) is an approximation, due to the fact that the circular convolution in (9) is approximate, but not exactly equal to the ﬁrst N _{f}_{f}_{t} samples achieved by the OAAO of
¯
the linear convolution x¯ _{Z}_{P}_{,}_{t}_{,}_{m} ⊗ h _{m}_{,}_{n} in (7). The energy of multipath components within the ZPS window will be captured, while the m ultipath components outside this window
may be considered as interferences for the received signals.
Eq. (7) represents the real received signals at the Rx antennas,
while (12) shows the realistic concept used at the STFC
decoder to decode the original transmitted signals. Therefore, in order to simulate the realistic performance of the proposed system, the signals received at the Rx antennas should be calculated from (7) with the linear convolution between the transmitted MBOFDM symbols and the fully long multipath channels, while decoding algorithm should be carried out based on (12), i.e. based on the circular convolution.
=
h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{L} _{m}_{,}_{n} ] ^{T} , we always have the fol
, lowing property for the N _{f}_{f}_{t} point FFT operation
FFT{
if the length L _{m}_{,}_{n} of the vector is not smaller than N _{f}_{f}_{t} . This means that, by FFTing the received signals with a limited
FFT size N _{f}_{f}_{t} , and decoding signals based on (12), the N _{f}_{f}_{t}  point FFT operation truncates the impact of a long vector
On the other hand, for a channel vector ^{¯}
[h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{1} ,
¯
h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{2} ,
h m,n } =
FFT{[h m,n,1 , h m,n,2 ,
,
h m,n
h m,n,L _{m}_{,}_{n} ] ^{T} }
¯
h _{m}_{,}_{n} to the length of N _{f}_{f}_{t} . Therefore, the higher N _{f}_{f}_{t} is, the closer the approximation between the linear convolution and the circular convolution is, and thus the better the system
performance is. However, FFT and IFFT blocks signiﬁcantly decide the complexity and the cost of transmitter and receiver. As a result, there must be a suitable compromise between the cost/complexity and the system performance.
_{I}_{V}_{.} _{P}_{A}_{I}_{R}_{W}_{I}_{S}_{E} E RROR P ROBABILITY
Due to the similarity between the mathematical model of the STFC MBOFDM system and that of the conventional wire less STC MIMO system as shown in (13), we can calculate the PEP of the proposed STFC MBOFDM system, based on Tarokh’s method mentioned in [5] for conventional wireless STC MIMO communications, with proper modiﬁcations to account for the MBOFDM UWB channels. We consider a STFC MBOFDM MIMO system with M Tx, N Rx antennas, and with the STFC S de ﬁned in (3). We denote E _{s} to be the average energy of the signal constellation. The following analysis is derived without considering a speciﬁc modulation scheme, thus can be applied to different modulation schemes. We consider the probability that a ML receiver decides erroneously in favor of a signal
e =
[e 1,1,1
e
assuming that
T,M,1
e
1,1,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ,
e
T,M,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ]
e 1,2,1
e
1,2,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ,
,
(14)
c =
[c 1,1,1
c
1,1,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ,
c 1,2,1
c
1,2,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ,
,
(15)
was transmitted. Note that each group of N _{f}_{f}_{t} consecutive data inside c in fact form a certain vector ¯s as de ﬁned in (3). If the transmission coefﬁcients are known at the receiver, the probability of transmitting c and deciding e at the decoder
is well approximated by the Chernoff bound
c
T,M,1
c
T,M,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ]
P(c → e  _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} , m = 1,
k = 1,
,M;
n = 1,
,N;
,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ) ≤ exp(−d ^{2} (c, e )E _{s} /4N _{0} )
(16)
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 28, 2009 at 06:49 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
706
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMM UNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2009
where N _{0} /2 is the noise variance per dimension and
d ^{2} (c, e )
=
N
T
n=1 t=1
N
fft
M
k=1
m=1
^{} ^{2} .
m,n,k (c t,m,k − e t,m,k )
(17)
Setting Ω _{n}_{,}_{k} = ( _{1}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} ,
1,
_{M}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} ) for n = 1,
, ,N _{f}_{f}_{t} , we rewrite (17) as
,N, k =
for instance, using the FentonWilkinson
approximation [23] with the following distribution parameters
Log − N (μ _{Z} , σ _{Z} ),
2
σ
2
_{Z}
μ _{Z}
=
=
ln ^{} 1 + J i=1 _{e} 2μ _{i} +σ 
2 i 
(e ^{σ} 
2 i 
− 1) 

( ^{} J i=1 ^{e} ^{μ} ^{i} ^{+}^{σ} i 2 /2 _{)} _{2}


J 
2 

ln ^{} 

_{e} μ _{i} +σ 
2 i 
/2 ^{} _{−} ^{σ} Z 2 

i=1
d ^{2} (c, e )
=
N
N fft
M M
m,n,k
n=1
T
t=1
k=1 m=1 m´ =1
(c t,m,k − e t,m,k )(c t,m,k´
∗
m,n,k´
− e t,m,k´ ) ^{∗} .(18)
With the
square, order M matrix
A _{k} (c, e ) = {A _{p}_{,}_{q}_{,}_{k} } , where
A p,q,k
for p, q = 1,
=
,M
d ^{2} (c, e )
T
t=1
(c t,p,k − e t,p,k )(c t,q,k − e t,q,k ) ^{∗}
, Eq. (18) becomes
=
N
N
fft
n=1 k=1
H
Ω _{n}_{,}_{k} A _{k} (c, e )Ω _{n}_{,}_{k} .
(19)
(20)
=
A _{k} (c, e ) ^{H} . Hence, there exits a unitary matrix V _{k} and a real
diagonal matrix elements of D _{k} and k = 1,
D _{k} . The diagonal
, ,N _{f}_{f}_{t} , of A _{k} (c, e ). By construction, the matrix
It is clear that A _{k} (c, e ) is Hermitian, i.e. A _{k} (c,
D _{k}
such that V _{k} A _{k} V
H
k
=
are the eigenvalues λ _{m}_{,}_{k} , for m = 1,
e )
,M
Note that, because J is a ﬁnite number, the centrallimit
theorem cannot be applied in this case. Also, the distribution parameters of a lognormally distributed RV x should be understood to be the mean and variance of the normally (Gaussian) distributed RV associated with x. Expanding this property for the case
Y
=
J
i=1
p _{i} e ^{a} ^{i} X _{i}
(24)
where a _{i} are real or complex numbers, and p _{i} = ±1 , based on Eqs. (15)–(17) in [23] and with simple manipulations, we
can deduce the distribution parameters of the approximate log
normally distributed RV Z as follows
σ
2
_{Z}
μ _{Z}
^{=}
=
J 
i 2 − 1) 

ln ^{} 1 + 
i=1 ^{p} i 2 _{e} 2η _{i} +σ i 2 (e ^{σ} 

( 
^{} J i=1 ^{p} i ^{e} ^{η} ^{i} ^{+}^{σ} i 2 /2 _{)} _{2}


J 
2 
ln ^{}
_{p} i _{e} η _{i} +σ
2
i
/2 ^{} _{−} ^{σ}
Z
2
i=1
(25)
B _{k} (c, e )
=
⎡
⎢
⎢
⎣
c 1,1,k − e 1,1,k
c 2,1,k − e 2,1,k
c T,1,k − e T,1,k
⎤ where η _{i} = μ _{i} + a _{i} .
¯
c 1,M,k − e 1,M,k
c 2,M,k − e 2,M,k
c T,M,k − e T,M,k
Since the average number of multipaths of UWB channels
⎥ ⎥ N _{p} is much higher than N _{f}_{f}_{t} (see Table I), the elements
⎦ FFT of the channel vector h _{m}_{,}_{n} , can be represented as
(21)
¯
_{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} of the channel vector h ^{¯} _{m}_{,}_{n} , which is the N _{f}_{f}_{t} point
is clearly a square root of A _{k} (c, e ), i.e. B _{k} (c, e ) ^{H} B _{k} (c, e ) = A _{k} (c, e ). Therefore, the eigenvalues λ _{m}_{,}_{k} of A _{k} (c, e ) are nonnegative real numbers. It is noted that B _{k} (c, e ) can be created from the STFC matrix S in (3) by replacing each vec tor element of S with the nonvector term (c _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} − e _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} ). Let
(β 1,n,k , β 2,n,k ,
,β
M,n,k )=Ω n,k V
H
k
(22)
we have
Ω _{n}_{,}_{k} A _{k} (c, e )Ω
H
n,k
^{=}
M
m=1
λ _{m}_{,}_{k} β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k}  ^{2} .
(23)
As mentioned in Section II, the magnitudes of the channel
coefﬁcients h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} , for m = 1,
_{m}_{,}_{n} , are independent, lognormally distributed (rather
than Rayleigh distributed) RVs ( not necessary identical). It is known that if Y = ^{} _{i}_{=}_{1} X _{i} , where J is a ﬁnite number and X _{i} are the independent lognormally distributed RVs with the distribution Log −N (μ _{i} , σ ), then the distribution of Y has no available closedform expression, but can be reasonably well approximated by another lognormally distributed RV Z ∼
, and l =
1, ,L
,M
, n = 1,
,N
J
2
i
m,n,k
=
N fft
l=1
h m,n,l e
_{−}
j 2π (l − 1)(k − 1) ^{N} fft
.
(26)
The multipath components h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} de ﬁned in (1) are real numbers with equiprobable negative and positive values rep resenting the signal inversion due to reﬂections. Thus we
write h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} = ±h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} . Further, the magnitudes h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l}  of multipath components are independent lognormally dis tributed RVs. Denote Eh _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} and θ _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} to be the mean and
variances of the normally distributed RV associated with the lognormally distributed RV h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} . Thus, h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l}  follow the lognormal distribution Log−N (Eh _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} , θ _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} ). To quantify the distribution parameters of _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} , we rewrite (26) as
2
2
m,n,k
=
N fft
l=1
p m,n,l h m,n,l e _{−} j 2π (l − 1)(k − 1) ^{N} fft
(27)
where p _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} = ±1 depending on whether h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} is positive
or negative. Clearly, (27) is in the similar form as (24). Therefore, _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} can be approximated by a complex log normally distributed RV Z _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} . From (25), the distribution
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 28, 2009 at 06:49 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TRAN and MERTINS: SPACETIMEFREQUENCY CODE IMPLEMENTATION IN MBOFDM UWB COMMUNICATIONS
707
parameters of Z _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} are derived as follows
σ
2
Z m,n,k
^{μ} Z m,n,k
^{=}
^{=}
^{l}^{n} ^{1} ^{+} ^{}
l=1
(
N
fft
_{e} 2η m,n,k,l +θ
2
m,n,l _{(}_{e} ^{θ} m,n,l _{−} _{1}_{)}
2
N
l=1
fft
_{p} _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} _{e} η m,n,k,l +θ
2
m,n,l ^{/}^{2} _{)} 2
^{l}^{n}
N
fft
l=1
_{p} _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} _{e} η m,n,k,l +θ
2
m,n,l ^{/}^{2} _{−}
σ
2
Z
m,n,k
2
(28)
Denote K _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} to be the mean of β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k}  ^{2} . Thus K _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} is
the second moment of β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} , and therefore [17]
_{(}_{3}_{2}_{)}
If β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k}  is a lognormally distributed RV, so is β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k}  ^{2} .
From (16), (20), and (23), to compute the upper bound on the average probability of error, we simply average
_{K} m,n,k
_{e} (2μ _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} +2σ
2
m,n,k ^{)}
_{=}
N
N
fft
M
_{w}_{h}_{e}_{r}_{e} _{η} m,n,k,l _{=} _{E}_{h} m,n,l _{−} j2π(l−1)(k−1)
N fft
^{.}
From the mutual relation between the mean and variance of a lognormally distributed RV and the normally distributed RV associated with it [17], we can quantify the mean and variance of _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} , denoted as E _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} and _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} respectively, as follows
2
E m,n,k
2
m,n,k
=
^{=}
e ^{μ} ^{Z} ^{m}^{,}^{n}^{,}^{k} ^{+}^{σ}
2
^{Z} m,n,k ^{/}^{2}
^{(}^{e} σ
2
^{Z} m,n,k _{−} _{1}_{)}_{e} ^{2}^{μ} ^{Z} m,n,k ^{+}^{σ} ^{Z} m,n,k
2
_{(}_{2}_{9}_{)}
exp ^{} − (E _{s} /4N _{0} )
n=1
k=1
m=1
λ m,k β m,n,k  ^{2} ^{}
(33)
with respect to independent lognormal distribution of β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k}  ^{2} . We denote Ξ _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} = β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k}  ^{2} .
It is noted that, if Ξ _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} is a lognormally distributed RV (i.e. Ξ _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} = e ^{y} where y ∼ N (μ, σ ^{2} ), and μ, σ ^{2} are ﬁnite
numbers) and α is a positive coefﬁcient, it is possible to prove
that E{e ^{−}^{α}^{Ξ} ^{m}^{,}^{n}^{,}^{k} } ≤ _{α} e ^{−}^{E}^{{}^{Ξ} ^{m}^{,}^{n}^{,}^{k} ^{}} for a sufﬁcient large α, i.e. α ≥ α _{0} (see Appendix A). Therefore, if a sufﬁciently large
1
¯ signaltonoise ratio E _{s} /N _{0} is considered, we have
h m,n
P(c → e )
≤
^{} E _{s} /4N _{0} ^{} ^{−}^{r}^{N}^{N} ^{f}^{f}^{t} ^{}
N
fft
k=1
r
m=1
N
n=1
N fft
k=1
r
m=1 exp(−K _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} )
¯
N p ,
where r = min{r _{k} } , and r _{k} , for k = 1,
of matrix B _{k} (c, e ).
As a result, the N _{f}_{f}_{t} point FFT of a channel vector
¯
,N
consisting of L _{m}_{,}_{n} ( L _{m}_{,}_{n} > N _{f}_{f}_{t} ) real multipath compo
,L _{m}_{,}_{n} ), whose magnitudes are
independent lognormally distributed RVs, produces a channel
nents h _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{l} (for l = 1,
λ m,k ^{−}^{N}
(34)
vector h _{m}_{,}_{n} consisting of N _{f}_{f}_{t} complex multipath compo
nents _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} (for k = 1,
lognormally distributed RVs. It should be emphasized that,
from the mathematical viewpoint, if the FFT size N _{f}_{f}_{t} is not
smaller than the average number of multipath components
_{f}_{f}_{t} ), which are independent
,N _{f}_{f}_{t} , is the rank
which is usually not the case of MBOFDM UWB systems,
then the N _{f}_{f}_{t} point FFT of h _{m}_{,}_{n} produces a vector ^{¯}
h
¯
¯
m,n
We realize that a diversity order of rNN _{f}_{f}_{t} and a coding
gain (over MBOFDM systems without STFCs) of
consisting of N _{p} (rather than N _{f}_{f}_{t} ) independent lognormally
distributed RVs. Since V _{k} is unitary, the rows {v _{1}_{,}_{k} , v _{2}_{,}_{k} , ,v
M,k } of
V _{k} are a complete orthonormal basis of the complex M 
dimensional space C ^{M} , and thus, from (22) and the general property (24) of a sum of independent lognormally dis
and
tributed RVs, β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} (for m = 1,
k = 1, ,N _{f}_{f}_{t} ) can also be reasonably well approximated
N
fft
k=1
N
n=1
r
m=1
N
fft
k=1
λ m,k ^{} 1/rN _{f}_{f}_{t} ×
m=1 exp(−K _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} ) −1/rNN fft
r
(35)
,M
, n = 1,
,N
are achieved. Therefore, the m aximum achievable diversity order in STFC MBOFDM UWB systems is the product between number of Tx antennas, the number of Rx antennas, and the FFT size. We note that the maximum diversity order is deﬁned here as the maximum diversity order of the outgoing signals from the OFDM demodulation block in Fig. 1, which are evaluated by (12). The maximum diversity order of the incoming signals received at Rx antennas (before the OFDM demodulation block, calculated by (7)) may be very large due to the very dispersive multipath channel, while the maximum diversity order of the outgoing signals from the OFDM demodulation block is limited because the FFT size is normally very limited, compared to the full length of multipaths. Thus the maximum diversity order of the outgoing signals from the
OFDM demodulation block should be considered, rather than the incoming signals. The former represents the effect of an important technical speciﬁcation of the system, i.e. the FFT
2 size of the OFDM demodulation block, while the latter does
to be complex, independent lognormally distributed RVs. Note that if β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} is a complex lognormally distributed RV, then β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k}  is a real lognormally distributed RV. That is because we can always represent β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} in the form β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} = e ^{ω} = e ^{ω} ^{R} ^{+}^{j}^{ω} ^{I} , where ω _{R} and ω _{I} are the real and imaginary parts of the complex, normally distributed RV ω . Therefore, β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k}  = e ^{ω} ^{R} is a real, lognormally distributed RV with the associated normally distributed RV ω _{R} .
Denote the mean and variance of β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k}  as E _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} and γ _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} respectively, then β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k}  are independent log normally distributed RVs with the following pdf
2
p(β m,n,k ) =
^{1} m,n,k √ 2π exp ^{} − (ln(β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} )
β m,n,k σ
−μ m,n,k ) ^{2} /(2σ m,n,k ) ^{}
2
(30)
where
μ m,n,k
σ
2
m,n,k
= ln(E m,n,k ) −
1
_{2} ln ^{} 1 +
=
ln ^{} 1 +
γ
2
m,n,k
2
m,n,k ^{.}
E
γ
m,n,k
m,n,k
E ^{2}
^{(}^{3}^{1}^{)}
not.
It is interesting that the diversity order achieved by our
approach agrees with that mentioned in Eq. (23) of the
independent work [12], provided we consider the case where
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 28, 2009 at 06:49 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
708
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMM UNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2009
TABLE II
D ECODING M ETRICS FOR S _{2}
WITH PSK OR QAM M ODULATIONS .
the average number of multipaths is in fact higher than the FFT size. However, the authors in [12] misjudged this fact, thus came to the conclusion that the m aximum achievable diversity order is the product between the number of Tx antennas, the number of Rx antennas, the num ber of multipath components, and the number of jointly encoded OFDM symbols. Further more, our PEP formulation is carried out directly for the case of lognormal distribution of UWB channel magnitudes, which has not been examined in [12]. Our PEP is formulated without assumptions on the same time delays and the same average power of all transmitreceive links as in [12]. Additionally, the approach in [12] does not re ﬂect clearly the essence of the effect of the FFT operation to the diversity order. In contrast, our approach shows clearly that the FFT size actually decides the number of independent lognormally distributed
RVs β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} , that in turn decides the diversity order. If the
FFT size N _{f}_{f}_{t} is not smaller than the average number
of multipath components, then N _{f}_{f}_{t} in (34) must be replaced
¯
N p
¯
¯
with N _{p} , because there are only N _{p} independent RVs among
N _{f}_{f}_{t} variables β _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} , for certain numbers m and n , thus the
¯
maximum diversity order is MN N _{p} . However, this is usually not the case for MBOFDM UWB channels due to the fact that UWB channels are richly dispersive, while the FFT size is
limited. Finally, our approach also clearly shows that, within
¯
a range up to N _{p} , the higher the FFT size is, the lower the error bound in (34) is. This agrees with the analysis mentioned
previously in Section IIIB.
V. D ESIGN C RITERIA FOR STFC S IN MBOFDM UWB
Assuming that all the multip ath components are known at the receiver. From (34), we derive the following design criteria of STFCs in MBOFDM UWB systems for a large SNR to minimize the upper bound of error probability
• Diversity Gain Criterion: In order to achieve the maxi mum diversity order of MNN _{f}_{f}_{t} , the minimum rank of
_{f}_{f}_{t} , over any two
distinct code words c and e must be equal to M . If the minimum rank is r , then a diversity of rNN _{f}_{f}_{t} is achieved.
• Coding Gain Criterion: Suppose that a diversity of order
rNN _{f}_{f}_{t} is of our interest. The minimum of the product
matrices B _{k} (c, e ), for
k
= 1,
,N
N
fft
k=1
N
n=1
r
m=1
N fft
k=1
λ m,k ^{} 1/rN _{f}_{f}_{t} ×
m=1 exp(−K _{m}_{,}_{n}_{,}_{k} ) −1/rNN fft
r
TABLE III
D ECODING M ETRICS FOR S _{8} WITH PSK OR QAM M ODULATIONS .
taken over distinct codewords
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.