The 17th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC’06)

ADAPTIVE VS. HYBRID ITERATIVE MIMO RECEIVERS BASED ON MMSE

LINEAR AND SOFT-SIC DETECTION
Ernesto Zimmermann and Gerhard Fettweis
Vodafone Chair Mobile Communications Systems, TU Dresden, D-01062 Dresden, Germany

A BSTRACT II. S YSTEM M ODEL

In this paper, we propose the use of a combination of linear A. MIMO Model

MMSE and soft successive interference cancellation based de-
tectors for the application in (Turbo-)MIMO receivers. In an
adaptive setup we switch between the two detector types based
on the quality of the received signal, while in a hybrid setup, we
use a linear MMSE in the first and a SoftSIC in all subsequent
iterations. We show that for a number of scenarios, both tech-
niques show performance close to that of more sophisticated
detection techniques, at a fraction of the complexity.
I. I NTRODUCTION
As engineers strive to satisfy the demand for ever higher data
rates in future wireless systems, they are faced with a serious
We consider a MIMO system with M transmit and N receive
antennas, as depicted in Figure 1. Let u be a vector of i.i.d.
information bits which are encoded using the outer channel
code, and interleaved. The resulting code bit stream is parti-
tioned into blocks c of M · L bits, where L denotes the number
of bits per symbol (allowing to distinguish between Q = 2L
different constellation points). Each block c = (c1 , · · · , cM )T
consists of M binary vectors cm , m = 1, · · · , M of L bits and
is mapped onto a vector symbol x = (x1 , · · · , xM )T whose
components are taken from some complex constellation C (e.g.
16-QAM) using the mapping function xm = map(cm ) (e.g.,
Gray mapping).
Binary Outer Constellation
Source
u
Encoder
e c
Mapper

challenge: radio frequency spectrum is often limited by regula- Rate R Interleaver

x
...
H
tion and other factors. Multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) ...
systems are a promising approach to using this scarce resource Hard Decision
AWGN n
y
as efficiently as possible by multiplexing several data streams Binary SISO
LA,Dec
-1
LE,Det
MIMO
Sink Decoder Detector
into the same time-frequency bin [1]. A big challenge in this
context is the correct separation of the transmitted signals at
LE,Dec LA,Det
the receiver. Recently, the field of iterative “Turbo” MIMO de-
tection based on the serial concatenation of an inner MIMO
detector and an outer channel decoder has received a lot of at- Figure 1: Transmission model with outer channel encoder,
tention. Sphere detection [2] for example enables approach- MIMO channel and iterative receiver (soft-input soft-output de-
ing the MIMO channel capacity while avoiding the prohibitive tector and decoder).
complexity of a full APP detector.
However, it is often forgotten that simple linear MMSE We consider transmission over a frequency flat fading
equalization performs remarkably close to maximum likeli- MIMO channel. In the equivalent base-band model, the re-
hood (ML) detection in non-iterative MIMO receiver setups. ceived signal yt at time index t is thus given by
On the other hand, soft successive interference cancellation [3]
yt = Ht xt + nt (1)
(SoftSIC) based detectors show very good performance in iter-
ative setups – but tend to be limited by error propagation when where Ht ∈ CN ×M is the channel transfer matrix assumed
used with higher order modulation schemes. In this contribu- to be perfectly known at the receiver. The entries of Ht
tion we show how a combination of the two techniques can are realizations of zero mean i.i.d. complex Gaussian ran-
be used to achieve excellent detection performance at very low dom processes of variance 1 (i.e., each subchannel is pas-
complexity. We compare two different approaches: a hybrid sive). We normalize the average transmit energy such that
detector, where the linear MMSE is used in the first and the E{xt xH N ×1
t } = Es /M I. The vector nt ∈ C represents the
SoftSIC in all subsequent iterations, and an adaptive detector receiver noise and its components are zero mean i.i.d. com-
that flexibly switches between the two detector types, steered plex Gaussian random variables with variance N0 /2 per real
by available soft information. dimension: E{nt nH t } = N0 I. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
The remainder of this document is structured as follows: at each receive antenna is hence given by SNR = Es /N0 . We
Section II. introduces the system model and principles of it- also define σ 2 = M N0 /Es .
erative MIMO detection. In Section III. we describe the inves-
tigated receiver algorithms. Performance results for a number B. Iterative Detection and Decoding
of relevant channel models are given in Section IV. before we We consider the serial concatenation of an inner MIMO de-
summarize our findings in Section V.. tector and an outer channel decoder. Both entities are able to

1-4244-0330-8/06/$20.00
2006
c IEEE
The 17th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC’06)
accept and generate soft information, which are exchanged be-
tween them during the iterative reception process. The detector
uses the received signal, the channel state information and the
a-priori information provided by the decoder to generate extrin-
sic information on the received bits. The channel decoder uses
the correlation between different code bits introduced by the
encoder (i.e., the code’s structure) to generate extrinsic infor-
mation about the information bits as well as the code bits. The
latter information is interleaved and fed back to the detector.
Information is exchanged between detector and decoder using
the so called log-likelihood ratios (LLRs) for the code bits ci
(dropping time index t for ease of notation):
P [ci = +1|y]
L(ci |y) := ln
P [ci = −1|y]


x(c)∈Xci =+1 p (y|x(c)) · P [c]
= ln

x(c)∈Xci =−1 p (y|x(c)) · P [c]
where the second line follows from Bayes’ theorem and the
assumption of statistically independent bits. Xci =±1 denotes
the set of 2M ·L−1 symbols x for which ci = ±1. The second
term in (2) represents the a-priori knowledge from the outer
channel decoder. The conditioned probability densities in (2)
are given by the complex Gaussian distribution:
 
1 1 2 S = diag(1/ψ1,1 , . . . , ψm,m ). The post-equalization SINR γm
p(y|x) = exp − y − Hx . (3)
(πN0 )N N0
For the LLR computation, the constant scaling factor cancels
out and can thus be omitted. To evaluate the numerator and
denominator of (2) at low complexity, it is useful to apply the
so called “maxLog” approximation [4]:
 
− y − Hx
2 
L(ci |y) ≈ max + ln P [ci ] (4)
x∈Xci =+1 N0 i 2
 
− y − Hx
2 
− max + ln P [ci ] .
x∈Xci =−1 N0 i − max
Evaluating the two max-operations in equation (4) by a brute-
force approach (APP detection) is well known to require an ef-
fort growing exponentially in the number of transmitted bits per
vector symbol, that is, the achieved (raw) spectral efficiency.
However, there exist a number of low complexity algorithms
that show very good performance at only a small fraction of
the full APP complexity. We will discuss some example tech-
niques and their properties in the following section. For chan-
nel coding, we consider the parallel concatenation of two recur-
sive systematic convolutional codes – a classical “Turbo code”.
The decoder employs two instances of the BCJR [5] algorithm
that exchange extrinsic information in a number of (internal)
decoder iterations and afterwards feed back extrinsic informa-
tion to the MIMO detector.
III. L OW C OMPLEXITY MIMO D ETECTION
A. MMSE Linear Detection (MMSE-LD)
Linear equalization is the straightforward (and lowest complex-
ity) detection scheme for MIMO. By inverting the channel and
thus suppressing the interference among the layers, it turns the
MIMO detection problem into a set of M parallel SISO detec-
tion problems:
ỹ = Gy = GHx + Gn = Ψx + ñ (5)
where G is the linear filtering matrix. The order of complexity
of demapping (neglecting any preprocessing) is substantially
reduced from O(2M ·L ) to O(2L ), at the expense of (potentially
severe) noise enhancement and a reduction of the spatial diver-
sity order to 1. Ψ models the residual interference among the
layers, while ñ models the noise at the equalizer output, which
is in general no longer white. For the zero forcing (ZF) case,
GZF := (HH H)−1 HH and thus Ψ = I – the interference
among layers is completely removed.
For the important case of MMSE detection, which aims at
. (2) limiting noise enhancement, the filtering matrix is defined as:
GMMSE := (HH H + σ 2 I)−1 HH (6)
and Ψ = I – some interference among the layers remains.
Also, in general, dg (Ψ) = I1 – the concatenation of the
channel and the linear filter has no longer unit gain. In or-
der to remove this bias, the filtering matrix may be modified as
G̃MMSE := GMMSE S, where we define the scaling matrix
on each of the layers m is given by (e.g. [6]):
1 1
γm,LD =   − 1,
σ 2 (HH H + σ 2 I)−1
m,m
and the LLRs for each layer readily follow as:
 

L(ci |ỹm ) ≈ max −γm ỹm − x + ln P [ci ]
x∈Cci =+1
i
... . (7)
x∈Cci =−1
The full decoupling of the layers has another drawback: there
is little or no gain from using iterative techniques together with
linear detectors and Gray mapping, as the EXIT characteristic
of the linear detector is almost horizontal (cf. Figure 2).
What nevertheless renders simple linear detection attractive
is that the noise enhancement due to the linear filtering can be
characterized very precisely. Thus, the quality of the soft out-
put (magnitudes of the LLRs) is relatively high. The difference
in the quality of the hard output relative to optimal ML/MAP
detection on the other hand depends strongly on the operating
regime. For low rate channel coding (code rate 1/2 and below)
and high diversity regimes, the target operating regime is at an
uncoded BER above 10% (remember that the Shannon bound
for rate 1/2 coding on the BSC is at a crossover rate of roughly
15%). In such a setup, linear detection is a promising alterna-
tive to more advanced detection techniques.
1 We define dg(·) = diag−1 (diag(·)), i.e., the result is a diagonal matrix
containing only the diagonal entries of the argument.
The 17th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC’06)

B. MMSE-SoftSIC Detection The SoftSIC post-equalization SINR now follows as:

The basic idea of soft successive interference cancellation is
Es /M |r̃m,m |2 1 |r̃m,m |2 N0
to subtract soft estimates of previously detected signal from γm,SIC = = 2 (13)
the received signal, and use the variance of these soft esti- Ñm + NIC,m σ Ñm + NIC,m
mates to assess the expected residual noise after the cancella-
Here, NIC,m denotes the residual interference from the can-
tion step [3]. In order to perform the interference cancellation,
cellation step on layer m and can be calculated as [3]:
the channel matrix H is decomposed to obtain a matrix of up-
per triangular form. It is obviously advantageous to detect the M

strongest antenna first in order to minimize the effects of error NIC,m = |r̃m,j |2 · Var[xj ]. (14)
propagation. We use the MMSE based sorted QR decomposi- j=m+1
tion [7] for this purpose. Employing the system model from [8]
    with the
variance of the soft symbols given by
H y Var[xj ] = (xq − x̄j ) · P [xq ], where the symbol proba-
H = y= , (8)
σI 0 bilities required for soft symbol computation can be reused.
There are two major drawbacks of SoftSIC detection, and
the MMSE extended channel matrix H is decomposed into a both have the highest impact when no or little extrinsic infor-
matrix R ∈ CM ×M of upper-triangular structure and a matrix mation from the decoder is available (i.e., in the first iteration).
Q ∈ C(N +M )×M of orthogonal columns: Firstly, error propagation substantially degrades the SoftSIC
    detector’s performance. Secondly, the calculation of the soft
Q1 Q1 R
H = QR= R= . (9) symbols and the cancellation noise is computationally expen-
Q2 Q2 R
sive, as almost all possible constellation points have to be con-
Obviously, Q is non-square and therefore no longer uni- sidered, unless a priori knowledge is available. In this case,
tary/orthonormal (in contrast to the ZF-SQRD case). Multi- substantial reductions in complexity can be achieved [9].
H
plying the received signal with Q , we obtain [6]: C. An Adaptive MMSE-SoftSIC/Linear Detector
H H H H H Our aim is to design a detection algorithm that alleviates the
ỹ = Q y = Q1 Hx + Q1 n = Rx − Q2 σx + Q1 n
  H   H  H  H
error propagation problems of the MMSE-SoftSIC detector,
= R − σdg Q2 x − Q2 − dg Q2 nx + Q1 n when no or only little a priori knowledge is available. Evi-
dently, the new detector should perform at least as good as lin-
= R̃x + ñ (10) ear MMSE detection. There exists in fact a close connection
between successive interference cancellation and linear detec-
where R̃ can be employed for unbiased MMSE based SIC
tion, that we will exploit in the design of the adaptive detector:
detection. The second term in the second line of (10)
remember the interference reduced signal used as a basis for
models the residual interference among layers (note that
the LLR calculation in the SoftSIC detector in (11):
E{nx nH x } = N 0 I). We further define Ñ m := E{ññH
} m,m


as the total variance of the “channel noise” on layer m, includ- ỹm − rm,j x̂j
x̃m = . (15)
ing the interference among layers as well as the receiver noise. rm,m
Note that using the unbiased MMSE solution for both, linear
detection and SoftSIC is essential for the design of the adaptive If we use the unquantized signal x̃j from the previous layers,
detector (cf. Section C.). Exploiting the upper triangular struc- instead of the soft symbol xj for the signal estimate x̂j , the
ture of R̃, the L-value from the detector is now given by: detector output will be equivalent to that of the linear MMSE
detector. We can use this equivalence very conveniently to con-
  r̃m,j
M 2 struct a detector that flexibly switches between SoftSIC and lin-
 ỹm 
L(ci |ỹm ) ≈ max − γm,SIC  − x̄j − xm  ear detection. We first calculate γm,SIC using the soft symbols
x∈Cci =+1 r̃m,m j=m+1 r̃m,m
xj from previously detected layers. If this SINR is superior to


the SINR γm,LD at the output of the linear detector, we directly

+ ln P [ci ] − max ··· ,
x∈Cci =−1 use (11) to calculate the LLRs in this layer. In the contrary case
(11) we replace xj replaced by x̃j in (11) to obtain the linear MMSE
filter output. In order to avoid having to evaluate equation (16)
where the soft symbols x̄j are defined as: to determine γm,LD , the following derivations can be used:
Q
 Q
 L
 −1  H
−1  H −1 1 H
x̄j := xq · P [xq ] = xq · P [cj,l ]. (12) HH H + σ 2 I = H H = R R = 2 Q2 Q2
q=1 q=1 l=1
σ
(16)
with xq ∈ C. Note that we use the L-value including the chan-
−1
nel state information and the a priori knowledge for computing where used the fact that R = 1/σ Q2 [7]. The effort re-
the bit/symbol probabilities and to generate a high quality esti- quired for this new adaptive detector (we will use the term Soft-
mate of the transmitted symbol. SIC/LD in the following) is hence largely the same as for the
The 17th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC’06)

SoftSIC detector. The only required overhead is the storage of 100MHz system bandwidth, 596 data subcarriers, 6.4 µs
the unquantized signals x̃j , the calculation of the diagonal el- OFDM symbol length, 0.8 µs cyclic prefix), using 4×4 MIMO
ements of the matrix from (16), which is not data dependent and 16-QAM, 64-QAM and 256-QAM transmission. For chan-
and can therefore be done as a part of the preprocessing; and nel coding we used a rate 1/2 parallel concatenated (7R , 5)
an additional comparison before the evaluation of (11). Turbo code. The decoder performed 8 internal decoding iter-
ations and the interleaver size is 14304 bits for 16-/64-QAM
D. EXIT Chart Analysis and 9536 bits for 256-QAM (3,2 and 1 OFDM symbol, respec-
Figure 2 shows the EXIT characteristics of MMSE-LD, tively). We used IEEE 802.11n channel models B and E as
MMSE-SoftSIC and MMSE-SoftSIC/LD for a 4x4 system examples for a low and high (spatial and frequency) diversity
using 16-QAM (solid lines, SNR= 10.5dB) and 256-QAM regime, respectively.
(dashed lines, SNR= 20.5dB) transmission over the i.i.d. fast
fading channel from [2] – the 802.11n channel model E shows 0
10
similar characteristics. For 16-QAM transmission, the linear
detector performs only slightly better than the SoftSIC when 16−QAM 64−QAM 256−QAM

no a priori knowledge is available (LA,Det =0). However, for

256-QAM, the error propagation in the SoftSIC becomes a real
issue and there is a significant performance degradation w.r.t. −1
10
the linear MMSE detector (this is confirmed by the simulation

FER
results in the following section).

1
−2
x ... MMSE−LD
10 + ... MMSE−SoftSIC
0.9
o ... MMSE−SoftSIC/LD
v ... Sphere
0.8
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
SNR [dB]
0.7

0.6 MMSE−SoftSIC
MMSE−SoftSIC/LD
IE,Det; IA,Dec

0.5 MMSE−LD
Figure 3: Performance results for single-shot equalization,
0.4
IEEE 802.11n B channel model
Rate 0.5 PCCC,
0.3 (based on mem. 2 CC,
8 logMAP its.) Figure 3 shows the performance of the three investigated de-
0.2
tection techniques in a non-iterative setup, for the low diversity
0.1 regime (results for the high diversity case are similar; therefore
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
not shown). The proposed adaptive SoftSIC/LD detector con-
I ;I
A,Det E,Dec sistently outperforms both the linear and the SoftSIC detector.
However, the achieved gains are relatively low (in the order of
Figure 2: Extrinsic information transfer chart for a linear 0.5dB at a target FER of 1%). The SoftSIC detector’s perfor-
MMSE (near horizontal curves), a SoftSIC (upper curves) and mance continually degrades as the modulation order increases.
the SoftSIC/LD detector (circle markers), for 16-QAM (dashes It only achieves linear MMSE performance for 16-QAM trans-
curves) and 256-QAM (solid curves). mission (for 4-QAM transmission it slightly outperforms the
linear detector; results not shown). In light of the effort in-
For high a priori knowledge, the SoftSIC significantly out- vested in the calculation of soft symbols and interference can-
performs the linear detector, as the latter profits only very little cellation noise for both the SoftSIC and the SoftSIC/LD detec-
from available a priori knowledge (the slight gains are due to tor, using a simple linear MMSE detector might be the wisest
demapping of a multilevel modulation). Note that a SIC with- choice in such a setup. Figure 4 presents results for an iter-
out error propagation (GenieSIC) is capacity-achieving, which ative setup (4 detector-decoder iterations). Again, the Soft-
explains the good performance in the high LA,Det regime. SIC/LD detector performs as good as or better than the other
The proposed adaptive SoftSIC/LD detector (circle markers) detection techniques (within the limits of precision). The same
always performs at least as good as the SoftSIC detector and performance can, however, be achieved by the hybrid detector
shows performance close to that of the linear detector in the setup (linear detection in the first, SoftSIC in the 3 subsequent
low LA regime, showing that it realizes the potential gains of iterations). Since the highest effort for detection is invested
switching between the two techniques. for the SoftSIC/LD in the first iteration, and substantial sav-
ings are possible for the last 3 iterations [9], this setup appears
to be the more attractive option. Both investigated combined
IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
linear/SoftSIC receiver techniques achieve performance within
The proposed algorithms were tested by simulating the 1-2dB of the Sphere detector (1024 candidates, 4 detector-
home/office setup of the WIGWAM broadband MIMO-OFDM decoder iterations) bound, and achieve a gain of 1.5-2dB over
system [10] (160 MHz FFT bandwidth, 1024 point FFT, ML detection (Sphere, 1024 candidates, single shot detection-
The 17th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC’06)

0
which switches between the two detector types, based on the
10
quality of the received signal and available soft information.
256−QAM We compared the performance of this technique with that of
16−QAM simple linear MMSE and SoftSIC detection in a non-iterative
setup and showed that the proposed detection algorithm outper-
forms both schemes. For the case of iterative MIMO equaliza-
−1
10
tion, we compared the performance of the proposed scheme
FER

with that of a hybrid detector (a linear MMSE us used in

the first and a SoftSIC in all subsequent iterations). While
64−QAM the adaptive and the hybrid MIMO detector show essentially
x ... 1 x LD, 3 x SoftSIC the same performance, the latter yields the best performance-
−2 + ... 4 x SoftSIC
10
o ... 4 x SoftSIC/LD complexity trade-off, as it avoids the complexity of SoftSIC de-
v ... 1 x Sphere
^ ... 4 x Sphere tection in the first receiver iteration. Results for a low diversity
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
SNR [dB] environment suggest that high performance is achievable by the
investigated low complexity detection techniques mainly when
enough frequency (or time) diversity is available to make up for
Figure 4: Performance results for iterative equalization, IEEE
the loss in spatial diversity caused by such simple schemes.
802.11n E channel model
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
decoding). Note that by appropriate scaling of the number of
internal decoder iterations as a function of the available a pri- This work was supported by the German ministry of re-
ori knowledge [11], the decoding complexity for the iterative search and education within the project Wireless Giga-
setup can be substantially reduced, rendering the combination bit with advanced multimedia support (WIGWAM) under
of linear and SoftSIC detectors are very promising alternative grant 01 BU 370.
to Sphere detection. The results presented in Figure 5 (channel
R EFERENCES
0
[1] G. Foschini and M. Gans, “On limits of wireless communication in a fad-
10
ing environment when using multiple antennas,” IEEE Journal on Wire-
less Personal Communications, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 311–335, Oct. 1998.
16−QAM 256−QAM
[2] B. M. Hochwald and S. ten Brink, “Achieving Near-Capacity on a
Multiple-Antenna Channel,” IEEE Transactions on Communications,
vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 389–399, Mar. 2003.
−1
10
[3] W. J. Choi, K. W. Cheong, and J. M. Cioffi, “Iterative Soft Interference
Cancellation for Multiple Antenna Systems,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless
FER

Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC’00), no. 1, 2000,

64−QAM pp. 304–309.
[4] P. Robertson, E. Villebrun, and P. Hoeher, “A comparison of optimal and
suboptimal MAP decoding algorithms operating in the log domain,” in
x ... 1 x LD, 3 x SoftSIC
−2
10
+ ... 4 x SoftSIC Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’95).
o ... 4 x SoftSIC/LD
v ... 1 x Sphere [5] L. R. Bahl, J. Cocke, F. Jelinek, and J. Raviv, “Optimal Decoding of
^ ... 4 x Sphere
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Linear Codes for Minimizing Symbol Error Rate,” IEEE Transactions on
SNR [dB] Information Theory, vol. 20, pp. 248–287, 1974.
[6] D. Wübben, “Effiziente Detektionsverfahren für Multilayer-Systeme,”
PhD Thesis, Dec. 2005.
Figure 5: Performance results for iterative equalization, IEEE [7] D. Wübben, R. Böhnke, V. Kuehn, and K. Kammeyer, “MMSE Exten-
802.11n B channel model sion of V-BLAST based on Sorted QR Decomposition,” in IEEE Semian-
nual Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2003-Fall), Orlando, USA,
model B, again 4 detector-decoder iterations) show that the be- Oct. 2003.
havior is similar in the low diversity environment. The offset [8] B. Hassibi, “An Efficient Square Root Algorithm for BLAST,” in Pro-
to the Sphere Detector bound is only slightly increasing to 2-3 ceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and
Signal Processing (ICASSP’00), vol. 2, Istanbul, Turkey, June 2000, pp.
dB. The availability of a reasonable amount of frequency diver- 737 – 740.
sity is hence key to achieving very good performance with low [9] S. Bittner, E. Zimmermann, and G. Fettweis, “Low Complexity Soft
complexity detection techniques in combination with low-rate Interference Cancellation for MIMO Systems,” in Proc. IEEE Vehicu-
channel coding. lar Technology Conference (VTC Spring’06), Melbourne, Australia, May
2006.
V. C ONCLUSIONS [10] G. Fettweis, “WIGWAM: System Concept for 1GBit/s and Beyond,” in
IEEE 802 Plenary Meeting (Tutorial Presentation), Vancouver, Canada,
In this paper, we studied the performance of linear MMSE Nov. 2005.
and SoftSIC detectors, and combination of the two detector [11] E. Zimmermann, S. Bittner, and G. Fettweis, “Complexity Reduction
types, for the application in iterative and non-iterative MIMO in Iterative MIMO Receivers Based on EXIT Chart Analysis,” in Proc.
ISTC/SCC’06, Munich, Germany, Apr. 2006.
receivers. We proposed a new adaptive SoftSIC/LD detector