MIMO Channels and Space-Time Coding: Outline

MIMO Channels
and Space-Time Coding

Presenters: Christian Schlegel and Zachary Bagley
schlegel@ee.ualberta.ca; zbagley@csw.L-3com.com
WOC 2002, Tutorial Presenation
Ban, AB, CANADA, July, 2002
Outline:
Capacity of MIMO Channels: We discuss the information theo-
retic bases for the capacity arguments of MIMO channels and present
fundamental results and methods.
Channel Modeling and Realizable Capacity: We discuss sim-
ple ray-tracing channel models and study the capacity of these ar-
ticially generated channels. Basic conclusions on the behavior of
real-world MIMO channels are drawn.
Space-Time Coding: We introduce the basics of space-time coding
and modulation methods, such as orthogonal designs, unitary space-
time codes, group space-time codes. We discuss error performance
measures, and optimal and sub-optimal decoding algorithms.
Space-Time Communications Systems: We discuss basic layer-
ing methods and the addition of error control coding to space-time
systems. We show how complex decoders work and how they per-
form.
MIMO CHANNELS AND CAPACITY
c _Christian Schlegel, Zachary Bagley MIMO Channel Tutorial, WOC02, Ban 2
Foundation: Channel Capacity
Shannon derived the following capacity formula (1948) for an additive
white Gaussian noise channel (AWGN):
C = W log
2
(1 +S/N) [bits/second]
W is the bandwidth of the channel in Hz
S is the signal power in watts
N is the total noise power of the channel watts
Channel Coding Theorem (CCT):
1. Its direct part says that for rate R < C there exists a coding system
with arbitrarily low error rates as we let the codelength N .
2. The converse part states that for R C the bit and block error
rates are strictly bounded away from zero for any coding system
Bandwidth Eciency characterizes how eciently a system uses its
allotted bandwidth and is dened as
=
Transmission Rate
Channel Bandwidth W
[bits/s/Hz].
From it we calculate the Shannon limit as
max
= log
2
_
1 +
S
N
_
[bits/s/Hz].
Note: In order to calculate , we must suitably dene the channel bandwidth W. One com-
monly used denition is the 99% bandwidth denition, i.e., W is dened such that 99%
of the transmitted signal power falls within the band of width W.
The Shannon Bound
Average Signal Power S can be expressed as
S =
kE
b
T
= RE
b
,
E
b
is the energy per bit
k is the number of bits transmitted per symbol
T is the duration of a symbol
R = k/T is the transmission rate of the system in bits/s.
S/N is called the signal-to-noise ratio
N = N
0
W is the total noise power
N
0
is the one-sided noise power spectral density
max
= log
2
_
1 +
RE
b
N
0
W
_
.
This can be solved to obtain the minimum bit energy required for reliable
transmission, called the Shannon bound:
E
b
N
0
max
1
max
,
Fundamental limit: For innite amounts of bandwidth
max
0
E
b
N
0
lim
max
0
2
max
1
max
= ln(2) = 1.59dB
This is the absolute minimum signal energy to noise power spectral den-
sity ratio required to reliably transmit one bit of information.
Normalized Capacity
Normalize our formulas per signal dimension as given by [WoJ65]. This is
useful when the question of waveforms and pulse shaping is not a central
issue, since it allows one to eliminate these considerations by treating
signal dimensions [Schl97].
C
d
=
1
2
log
2
_
1 + 2
R
d
E
b
N
0
_
[bits/dimension]
C
c
= log
2
_
1 +
RE
b
N
0
_
[bits/complex dimension]
Shannon bound normalized per dimension
E
b
N
0
2
2C
d
1
2C
d
;
E
b
N
0
2
C
c
1
C
c
.
System Performance Measure In order to compare dierent commu-
nications systems we need a parameter expressing the performance level.
It is the information bit error probability P
b
and typically falls into the
range 10
3
P
b
10
6
.
References:
[WoJ65] J.M. Wozencraft and I.M. Jacobs, Principles of Communication Engineering, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1965, reprinted by Waveland Press, 1993.
[Schl97] C. Schlegel, Trellis Coding, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 1997.
Spectral Eciencies of Popular Systems
Spectral Eciencies versus power eciencies of various coded and un-
coded digital transmission systems, plotted against the theoretical limits
imposed by the discrete constellations.
U
n
a
c
h
i
e
v
a
b
l
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
QPSK
BPSK
8PSK
16QAM
BTCM
32QAM
Turbo
65536
TCM
16QAM
ConvCodes
TCM
8PSK
2
14
Seqn.
2
14
Seqn.
(256)
(256)
(64)
(64)
(16)
(16)
(4)
(4)
32QAM
16PSK
BTCM
64QAM
BTCM
16QAM
TTCM
BTC
BPSK
(2,1,14) CC
(4,1,14) CC Turbo
65536
C
c
[bits/complex dimension]
-1.59 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 15
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1
2
5
10
E
b
N
0
[dB]
BPSK
QPSK
8PSK
16QAM
16PSK
Shannon
Bound
Discrete Capacities
For discrete constellations, Shannons formula needs to be altered.
C = max
q
[H(Y ) H(Y [X)] (classic denition)
= max
q
_
_
_
y
a
k
q(a
k
)p(y[a
k
)log
_
_
q(a
/
k
)
k
p(y[a
/
k
)
_
_
_
y
a
k
q(a
k
)p(y[a
k
) log (p(y[a
k
))
_
= max
q
_
a
k
q(a
k
)
_
y
log
_
p(y[a
k
)
k
q(a
/
k
)p(y[a
/
k
)
__
where a
k
are the K discrete signal points, q(a
k
) is the probability with
which a
k
is selected, and
p(y[a
k
) =
1
2
2
exp
_
(y a
k
)
2
2
2
_
in the one-dimensional case, and
p(y[a
k
) =
1
2
2
exp
_
(y a
k
)
2
2
2
_
in the complex case.
Symmetrical Capacity: When q(a
k
) = 1/K, then
C = log(K)
1
K
a
k
_
n
log
_
_
k
exp
_
(n a
/
k
+ a
k
)
2
n
2
2
2
_
_
_
Code Eciency
Shannon et. al. [SGB67] proved the following lower bound on the codeword
error probability P
B
:
P
B
> 2
N(E
sp
(R)+o(N))
; E
sp
(R) = max
q
max
>1
(E
0
(q, ) R))
E
0
(, q) log
2
_
y
_
x
q(x)p(y[x)
1/(1+)
_
1+
dy
The bound is plotted for rate R = 1/2 for BPSK modulation [ScP99],
together with selected Turbo and classic concatenated coding methods:
N=448
16-state
N=360
16-state
N=1334
4-state
N=1334
16-state
N=448
4-state
N=2048
16-state
N=2040 concatenated (2,1,8) CC
RS (255,223) code
N=2040 concatenated
(2,1,6) CC +
RS (255,223) code
N=10200
16-state
N=16384
16-state
N=65536
16-state
N=4599 concatenated (2,1,8) CC
RS (511,479) code
N=1024 block Turbo code
using (32,26,4) BCH codes
Unachievable
Region
Shannon
Capacity
10 100 1000 10
4
10
5
10
6
1
0
1
2
3
4
E
b
N
0
[dB]
N
References:
[SGB67] C.E. Shannon, R.G. Gallager, and E.R. Berlekamp, Lower bounds to error proba-
bilities for coding on discrete memoryless channels, Inform. Contr., vol. 10, pt. I, pp.
65103, 1967, Also, Inform. Contr., vol. 10, pt. II, pp. 522-552, 1967.
[ScP99] C. Schlegel and L.C. Perez, On error bounds and turbo codes,, IEEE Communi-
cations Letters, Vol. 3, No. 7, July 1999.
Parallel Additive Gaussian Channels
Let us assume that we have N parallel one-dimensional channels disturbed
by noise sources with variances
2
1
, ,
2
N
.
+
+
x
1
x
N
y
1
y
N
^(0,
2
1
)
^(0,
2
N
)
Energy Constraint: The total input energy is constrained on average
to E, the total average energy per channel use:
N
n=1
x
2
n
=
N
n=1
E
n
= E
The capacity of these parallel channels is achieved by
2
n
+ E
n
= ;
2
n
<
E
n
= 0;
2
n

where is the Lagrange multiplier chosen such that
n
E
n
= E.
Theorem: The capacity of this set of parallel channels is given by
C =
N
n=1
1
2
log
_
1 +
E
n
2
n
_
=
N
n=1
1
2
log
_
2
n
_
References:
[Gal68] R.G. Gallager, Information Theory and Reliable Communication, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New-York, 1968, Section 7.5, pp. 343 .
Waterlling Theorem
Proof: Let x = [x
1
, , x
N
] and y = [y
1
, , y
N
] and consider
I(x; y)
(1)
n=1
I(x
n
; y
n
) (1) independent x
n
(2)
n=1
1
2
log
_
1 +
E
n
2
n
_
. .
f(E)
(2) Gaussian distributed x
n
Since equality can be achieved the next step is to nd the maxi-
mizing energy distribution E = [E
1
, , E
N
].
f(E)
E
n

1
2(
2
n
+ E
n
)

2
n
+ E
n

1
2
=
This theorem is called the Waterlling Theorem. Its operation can be
visualized in the following gure, where the power levels are in black:
Power level:Dierence
2
n
Channels 1 through N
level:
2
N
Correlated Parallel Channels (MIMO)
Correlated channels arise from e.g., multiple antenna channels:
+
+
+
x
N
t
x
1
x
2
h
11
h
N
t
N
r
h
ij
y
N
r
y
2
y
1
n
N
r
n
2
n
1
Transmit
Antenna
Array
Receive Array
This channel is a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channel
described by the matrix equation:
y = Hx +n
The transmitted signals x
n
are complex signals, as are the channel
gains h
ij
and the received signals y
n
.
The noise is complex additive Gaussian noise with variance N
0
(that
is N
0
/2 in each dimension).
The path gains h
ij
are complex gain coecients modeling a random
phase shift and a channel gain. Often these are modeled as Rayleigh
random variables modeling a scattering-rich or mobile radio trans-
mission environment.
MIMO Rayleigh Channel: The h
ij
are modeled as i.i.d. (or correlated)
complex Gaussian random variables with variance 1/2 in each dimension.
Channel Decomposition
The correlated MIMO channel can be decomposed via the singular value
decomposition SVD:
H = UDV
+
(if r < t)
where U and V are unitary matrices, i.e., UU
+
= I, and V V
+
= I.
The matrix D contains the singular values of H, which are the (positive)
square roots of the eigenvalues of HH
+
and H
+
H.
The channel equation can now be written in an equivalent form:
y = Hx +n
= UDV
+
x +n
U
+
y = y = D x + n
If N
t
> N
r
only the rst N
r
signals of
x will be received.
If N
r
> N
t
the N
r
N
t
bottom
channels will carry no signal.
This leads to parallel Gaussian channels y
n
= d
n
x
n
+ n
n
+
+
+
+
x
1
x
N
y
1
y
N
^(0, 2
2
)
^(0, 2
2
)
d
1
d
N
N = min(N
t
, N
r
)
MIMO Capacity
The multiplicative factors d
n
can be eliminated by multiplying the re-
ceived signal y with D
1
. This leads back exactly to the parallel chan-
nels:
C =
N
n=1
log
_
1 +
d
2
n
E
n
2
2
_
=
N
n=1
log
_
d
2
n
2
2
_
Note: The channels are complex, and hence there is no factor 1/2 and the
variance is 2
2
.
This capacity is achieved with the waterlling power allocation:
2
2
d
2
n
+ E
n
= ;

2
d
2
n
<
E
n
= 0;

2
d
2
n

Optimal System: This leads to the optimal signalling strategy:
1. Perform the SVD of the channel H U, V , D.
2. Multiply the input signal vector x with V . This is matrix processing.
3. Multiply the output signal y with the matrix processor U
+
.
4. Use each channel with signal-to-noise ratio d
2
n
E
n
/(2
2
) independently.
x x y y V U
+
Matrix Processor Matrix Processor
MIMO Channel
Symmetric MIMO Capacity
Drawback: the channel H needs to be known at both the transmitter
and the receiver so the SVD can be computed.
Fact: Channel knowledge is not typically available at the transmitter,
and the only choice we have is to distribute the energy uniformly over all
component channels. This leads to the Symmetric Capacity:
C =
N
n=1
log
_
1 +
d
2
n
E
2N
t
2
_
= log
N
n=1
_
1 +
d
2
n
E
2N
t
2
_
Noting that the d
2
n
are the eigenvalues of HH
+
, the above formula can be
written in terms of matrix eigenvalues, using the fact det(M) =
(M),
and det(I +M) =
(1 +(M)):
C = log
N
n=1
_
1 +
d
2
n
E
2N
t
2
_
= log det
_
I
N
r
+
E
2N
t
2
HH
+
_
= log det
_
I
N
r
+
E
2N
t
2
H
+
H
_
Discussion:
The capacity of a MIMO channel is goverend by the singular values
of H, or in the symmetrical case by its eigenvalues. These determine
the channel gains of the independent parallel channels.
Channel H needs to be known at the receiver Channel Estimation
This implies a study of the behavior of channel eigenvalues.
MIMO Fading Channels
Assumed that the channel H is known at the receiver
I(x; (y, H)) = I(x; H) + I(x; y[H)
= I(x; y[H)
= E
H
[I(x; y[H = H
0
)]
We need to average the mutual information over all channel realizations.
I(x; y[H) is maximized if x is
circularly symmetric complex Gaussian with covariance Q, and
I(x; (y, H)) = E
H
_
log det
_
I
r
+
E
2N
t
2
HQH
+
__
I(x; (y, H)) = E
H
_
log det
_
I
r
+
E
2N
t
2
(HU)D(U
+
H
+
)
__
The spectral decomposition of Q = UDU
+
produces an equivalent
channel

H = HU, hence the maximizing Q is diagonal.
Furthermore, concavity of the function log det() shows that Q = I,
hence the maximizing Q is a multiple of the identity
Capacity of the MIMO Rayleigh Channel:
C = E
H
_
log det
_
I
N
r
+
E
2N
t
2
HH
+
__
By the law of large numbers:
HH
+
N
t
N
t
I
r
and C = N
r
log
_
1 +
E
2
2
_
H
+
H
N
r
N
r
I
t
and C = N
t
log
_
1 +
N
r
N
t
E
2
2
_
Evaluation of the Capacity Formula
Following Telatar [Tel99] dene the random matrix
W =
_
HH
+
if N
r
< N
t
H
+
H if N
r
N
t
W is an mm; m = min(r, t) non-negative denite matrix with real,
non-negative eigenvalues
n
= d
2
n
The capacity can be written in terms of these eigenvalues:
C = E
_
N
n=1
log
_
1 +
E
2N
t
n
_
_
for r = t symmetric chan-
nels, let
n
be the eigen-
values of H, then
n
=
2
n
The (ordered) eigenvalues of W follow a Wishart distribution:
p(
1
, ,
N
) =
N
i=1
e
MN
i
i<j
(
i
j
)
2
. .
det
_
_
1 1
1

N
.
.
.
.
.
.
N1
1

N1
N
_
_
; M = max(N
r
, N
t
)
C depends only on the distribution of a single unordered eigenvalue:
C = NE
_
log
_
1 +
E
2N
t
2
__
=
_

0
Np() log
_
1 +
E
2N
t
2
_
d
This integration evaluates to
C =
_

0
log
_
1 +
E
2N
t
2
_
N1
k=1
k!
(k + M N)!
[L
MN
k
()]
2
MN
e
d
L
MN
k
(x) =
1
k!
e
x d
k
dx
k
(e
x
x
MN+k
) is the Laguerre polynomial of order k
Large Systems
As the number of antennas N
t
, N
r
, the number of eigenvalues
N() , and the capacity formula
C = E
_
N
i=1
log
_
1 +
E
2N
t
2
_
_
_

0
N log
_
1 +
NE
2N
t
2
_
dF
()
F
() is the cumulative distribution (CDF) of the eigenvalues of W

For random matrices like W, a general result states
dF
()
d

_
_
1
2
_
_
1
__
1
_
; for [
,
+
]
0 otherwise
2 4 6 8
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
M
N
1, and
= (
1)
2
.
= 1
= 2
= 4
In the limit, the capacity of the Rayleigh MIMO is given by
C
N
=
1
2
_
d
+
d
log
_
1 +
NE
2N
t
2
_
1
__
1
_
d
Reference:
[Tel99] I.E. Telatar, Capacity of mulit-antenna Gaussian channels, Eur. Trans. Telecom.,
Vol. 10, pp. 585595, Nov. 1999.
Physical Channel Modeling
Objective: Model realistic correlation among the statistical parameters
of the channel parameters based upon ray-tracing models.
Method: Emulate the correlated complex path gains represented by the
elements of the channel matrix H using basic ray tracing techniques with:
Symbol time T
s
set large enough such that at fading occurs.
Randomly placed scattering objects inside a ring of radius R meters.
Elements spaced d carrier wavelengths apart.
Transmitter and receiver arrays separated by L meters.
L
R
The sampled path gain between the i
th
receiver element and the j
th
trans-
mitter element at time nT
s
is the complex superposition:
h
ij
(n) = A
K
k=1
g
k
e
j(
k
+2f
dk
nTs)
The random variables g
k
,
k
, and f
dk
determine h
ij
(n) as the superposition
of K electromagnetic waves as follows:
g
k
is the amplitude of the k
th
wave at time nT
s

k
is the k
th
phase term
f
dk
is the Doppler error frequency determined by angle of arrival
h
ij
(n) is normalized to unit power
2 2 and 8 8 Examples
Channel gains for 2 or 8 transmit and 2 or 8 receive antennas with 15
scattering objects located near the mobile array.
v
mobile
= 50 kph mobile receiver speed
T
s
= 1s sampling time
R = 50m radius of circle containing the scatterers
L = 2km separation of arrays
d = 5 separation of antenna elements
f
c
= 2.4GHz carrier frequency
E
s
/N
0
= 10dB symbol signal to noise ratio
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x 10
4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
Symbols
|
h

|

(
d
B
)
Capacities for the 2 2 and 8 8 Channels
Capacities of correlated and uncorrelated channels:
8 8 and 2 2 antenna arrays ideally uncorrleated (red lines)
8 8 and 2 2 antenna arrays corrleated by the scattering process
(blue lines)
Note: The relative variance decreases with the number of antennas.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x10
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Symbols
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
b
i
t
s
/
c
h
a
n
n
e
l

u
s
e
)
Reference:
[Scb02] C. Schlegel and Z. Bagley, Ecient processing for high-capacity MIMO channels,
submitted to IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., Special Issue: MIMO Systems, May 2002.
[BaS01] Z. Bagley and C. Schlegel, Classication of correlated at fading MIMO channels
(multiple antenna channels), CIT 2001, June 3-6, Vancouver, BC.
Characteristics of the MIMO Channel
Rank Classication
MIMO channels can be classied as high-rank or low-rank channels.
This classication is made based upon correlation properties of the re-
ceiver array response vector, or the singular values of the channel response
matrix H.
Orthogonal channel path gains present the upper limiting case for the
MIMO channel capacity. In this case, the non-zero squared singular val-
ues of the channel response matrix H are given by
d
2
n
= N
r
Eh
+
nn
h
nn
, i = 1, 2, , N
t
Statistically indepedent channel path gains h
ij
are usually modelled
as uncorrelated complex Gaussian random variables. In this case, the
eigenvalues of HH
+
for N
t
N
r
and H
+
H for N
t
N
r
are given by
the previously described Wishart distribution.
Correlated channel path gains occur in real-world cases. The completely
correlated case such as in long-distance scatter-free wireless links identies
the lower capacity limit for MIMO channels. In this case, the single non-
zero squared singular value of the channel response matrix H is
d
2
= N
r
N
t
n=1
Eh
+
nn
h
nn
= N
r
N
t
,
References: (for linear algebraic concepts)
[HrJc99] R.A. Horn and C.R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press 1999.
High-Rank MIMO Channels
High-rank MIMO channels occur when there is a rich scattering envi-
ronment and when the Tx and Rx arrays are relatively near one another.
High rank MIMO channels occur when there is little correlation
among the channel path gains.
MIMO channels have a diversity gain dened by the rank of HH
+
.
The maximum achievable diversity gain is
rank(HH
+
) = min(N
t
, N
r
)
The orthogonal channel gain case represents the upper limit for the
capacity of MIMO channels, and the maximum diversity gain.
If the N
t
columns of H are orthogonal and the entries of H are normalized
to unit power, the squared non-zero singular values of H are:
d
2
n
= N
r
; n = 1, 2, , N
t
Capacity:
The capacity of the high-rank MIMO channel can now be written as
C
high
=
min(N
r
,N
t
)
i=1
log
_
1 +
d
2
n
N
t
_
; =
E
2
2
min(N
t
, N
r
)
. .
array capacity
advantage
log
_
1 +
N
r
N
t
_
. .
receiver antenna
SNR advantage
Low-Rank MIMO Channels
Low rank MIMO channels occur under scatter-free or long-distance
links. The low rank MIMO channel is equivalent to a single antenna
channel with the same total power.
Low rank MIMO channels occur when there is strong correlation
between the channel path gains.
The correlation characteristics determine the rank of HH
+
, which
in turn determines the diversity advantage.
A completely correlated H matrix is a scaled version of the all ones
matrix with with dimensions N
r
N
t
and provides no diversity gain
over the single antenna case.
If the paths are highly correlated, all gains h
ij
are roughly equal, and H,
a multiple of the all-one matrix, has a single non-zero singular value
d
2
= N
r
N
t
n=1
Eh
+
nn
h
nn
N
r
N
t
,
Capacity:
The capacity of the low-rank MIMO channel can now be written as
C
low
=
min(N
r
,N
t
)
n=1
log
_
1 +

N
t
d
2
n
_
log
_
1 +

N
t
d
2
_
log (1 +N
r
) .
Note: The channel behaves like a point-to-point channel with N
r
times
the received signal power due to the antenna array, achieved by
simple maximum-ratio combining at the receiver
Low-SNR MIMO Channels
If the available is low, a Taylor Series approximation of
log(1 +x) x
for small values of x lets us develop both C
high
and C
low
as
C
high
min(N
r
, N
t
)
N
r
N
t
; C
low
N
r
.
Furthermore, these formulas present overbounds to the actual capacities
Conclusions:
Correlation in the channel has little eect on capacity for low SNR.
Correlation in the channel has a pronounced eect where the linear
approximation to log(1 +x) does not apply.
The MIMO resources must be allocated dierently based upon the
classication of the MIMO channel.
Easily estimated correlation statistics can be used to help classify
the operating conditions as high-rank or low-rank.
High and Low-Rank MIMO Channel Capacities
The following gures the general capacity behavior for high and low rank
MIMO channels values of 0 dB and 20 dB.
Bits/channel use
Bits
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
High correlation (case H)
Low correlation (case L)
Capacity as a function of
the number of antennas in
the arrays
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
High correlation (case H)
Uncorrelated Fading
Low correlation (case L)
Standard deviation of the
capacity as a function of
the number of antennas
References:
[Tel99] I.E. Telatar, Capacity of mulit-antenna Gaussian channels, Eur. Trans. Telecom.,
Vol. 10, pp. 585595, Nov. 1999.
(multiple antenna channels), Canadian Information Theory Workshop, CITW2001,
Vancouver, BC, June 36, 2001.
Eects of the Array Geometry
The condition for orthogonality between the columns of H in a scatterfree
environment is given by [GBGP01]
d
t
d
r
L
=

N
r
.
d
t
and d
r
are the Tx and Rx antenna array element seperations
L is the distance between arrays
N
r
is the number of receiver elements
is the carrier wavelength
The following gure illustrates the transition from a high rank channel
to a low rank channel for high and low SNR values and for two values
of the element separation.
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
L / r
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
b
i
t
s

/

u
s
e
)
Capacity versus Link Seperation to Scattering Radius Ratio for N
t
= N
r
= 4
SNR = 20 dB
SNR = 0 dB
d = 5 wavelengths (BLUE)
d = 1 wavelength (RED)
Capacity Advantage Factor
From the previous gure, it is easy to conclude that scatter-free links
degrade to equivalent single-antenna channels very quickly, leading to
the pin-hole channel described by the correlated channel capacity
C
low
log (N
r
) (1)
Under high SNR conditions, the capacity formula can be approximated
as
C =
N
n=1
log
_
1 +

N
t
d
2
n
_
n=1
log
_

N
t
d
2
n
_
= log
_
N
i=1
N
t
d
2
n
_
. (2)
N = rank(HH
+
)
The total instantaneous capacity is a function of the rank of HH
+
,
or equivalently the condition number of HH
+
.
Link geometry determines correlation and fading parameters.
The H matrix entries become highly correlated rather quickly rela-
tive to the antenna element separation parameters [GBGP01].
Comparing (1) and (2), we can dene a capacity benet factor repre-
senting the capacity gain (at high SNR values) over the pin-hole channel
since
log
_
N
n=1
N
t
d
2
n
_
log (N
r
)
which after collecting terms becomes
log
_
_

N
t
_
N1
N
n=1
d
2
n
N
t
N
r
_
0
Capacity Advantage Factor
Noting that
C C
low
log
_
_

N
t
_
N1
N
n=1
d
2
n
N
t
N
r
_
= log() 0,
we can write the capacity under high SNR conditions in terms of the
capacity advantage over the pin-hole channel:
C log + C
low
= log( N
r
), =
_

N
t
_
N1
N
n=1
d
2
n
N
t
N
r
10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
/ N
0
(dB)
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
b
i
t
s
/
u
s
e
)
C
sym
, C
waterlling
(orthogonal)
C
sym
, C
waterlling
(i.i.d)
C
low
+ log()
C
high
C
low
References:
[GBGP01] D. Gesbert, H. B olcskei, D. A. Gore, A. J. Paulraj, Outdoor MIMO Wireless Chan-
nels: Models and Performance Prediction, submitted to IEEE Trans. Communications,
July 2000.
[ScB02] C. Schlegel and Z. Bagley, Ecient Processing for High-Capacity MIMO Channels,
submitted to IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., Special Issue: MIMO Systems, May 2002.
[Bag02] Z. Bagley, Serially Concantenated and Layered Space-Time Coding, Ph.D. thesis,
work in progress.
SPACE-TIME MODULATION
Space-Time Coding
Space-time coding (STC) systems make use of the MIMO channel gener-
ated by a multiple-antenna transmit/receive setup:
+
+
+
x
N
t
r
x
1r
x
2r
h
11
h
N
t
N
r
h
ij
y
N
r
r
y
2r
y
1r
n
N
r
r
n
2r
n
1r
Transmit
Antenna
Array
Receive Array
Each antenna transmits a DSB-SC signal:
y
j
(t) =
N
t
i=1
E
s
N
t
h
ij
x
i
(t) + n
i
(t)
and y(t) =
E
s
N
t
Hx(t) +n(t),
where y = (y
1
, , y
N
r
) and x = (x
1
, , x
N
t
).
Channel Gains: modeled as independent complex coecients, i.e.,
p(h) =
1
2
exp
_
[h[
2
2
_
; E[h
i
h
j
] = 0
which leads to a Rayleigh distributed amplitude
p(a = [h[) = a exp
_
a
2
2
_
p(a = [h[
2
) =
1
2a
exp(a/2)
MIMO Channels Transmit Diversity
The Alamouti scheme [Ala98] uses two transmit antennas:
+
[x
1
, x
0
]
[x
0
, x
1
]
h
1
h
0
[x
0
, x
1
]
[ x
0
, x
1
]
[
h
0
,
h
1
]
Transmit
Antenna
Array
Combiner
Estimate
The transmitted 2 2 STC codeword is X, and the
symbols x
i
can be any quadrature modulated symbols.
X =
_
x
0
x
1
x
1
x
0
_
The received signal for a single receive antenna is
r = [r
0
, r
1
] = [h
0
x
0
+ h
1
x
1
, h
0
x
1
+ h
1
x
0
] + [n
0
, n
1
]
= [h
0
, h
1
]X +n
The demodulator calculates
[ x
0
, x
1
] =
_
h
0
h
1
h
1
h
0
_ _
r
0
r
1
_
=
_
_
([h
0
[
2
+[h
1
[
2
)x
0
+ h
0
n
0
+ h
1
n
1
. .
n
0
, ([h
0
[
2
+[h
1
[
2
)x
1
+ h
0
n
1
+ h
1
n
0
. .
n
1
_
_
If the channel path h
0
and h
1
are uncorrelated, the noise sources n
/
i
have twice the variance of the original noise sources.
The system provides dual diversity due to the factor ([h
0
[
2
+ [h
1
[
2
)
which exhibits a -square distribution of fourth order.
Reference:
[Ala98] S.M. Alamouti, A simple transmit diversity technique for wireless communications,
IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., Vol. 16, No. 8, October 1998.
Multiple Receive Antennas
The Alamouti scheme can be extended to multiple receive antennas:
R =
_
r
0
r
1
r
2
r
3
_
=
_
h
0
h
1
h
2
h
3
_ _
x
0
x
1
x
1
x
0
_
+N
Multiplying the received signals Rwith the channel estimate H we obtain
[ x
0
, x
1
] =
_
h
0
h
1
h
1
h
0
_ _
r
0
r
1
_
+
_
h
2
h
3
h
3
h
2
_ _
r
2
r
3
_
= ([h
0
[
2
+[h
1
[
2
+[h
2
[
2
+[h
3
[
2
)x
0
+ h
0
n
0
+ h
1
n
1
+ h
2
n
2
+ h
3
n
3
. .
n
0
,
+ ([h
0
[
2
+[h
1
[
2
+[h
2
[
2
+[h
3
[
2
)x
1
+ h
0
n
1
+ h
1
n
0
+ h
2
n
2
+ h
3
n
3
. .
n
1
]
This system provides 4-fold diversity as expressed by the amplitude
A = ([h
0
[
2
+[h
1
[
2
+[h
2
[
2
+[h
3
[
2
)
This is possible due to the fact that the rows of X are orthogonal. The
Alamouti scheme is the most basic representative of what are known as
Orthogonal Designs
Real: The following is an example of a 4 4 (real) orthogonal design
X =
_
_
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
x
2
x
1
x
4
x
3
x
3
x
4
x
1
x
2
x
4
x
3
x
2
x
1
_
_
Complex: A rate R = 0.5 complex design is
X =
_
_
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
x
2
x
1
x
4
x
3
x
2
x
1
x
4
x
3
x
3
x
4
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
x
1
x
2
_
_
Space-Time Orthogonal Block Codes (STOB)
STOBs are based on the theory of orthogonal designs [TJC99].
As 3 4 real orthogonal design is
X = D
4,3
(x) =
_
_
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
2
x
1
x
4
x
3
x
4
x
1
x
4
x
3
x
2
_
_
X
T
X = K
s
I; K
x
=
L
i=1
x
2
i
This STOB is used to drive 3 transmit antennas:
[x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, x
4
]
[x
2
, x
1
, x
4
, x
3
]
[x
3
, x
4
, x
1
, x
2
]
h
3
h
2
h
1
h = [h
1
, h
2
, h
3
]
T
G
T
r
x
3
x
2
x
1
x
4
The received signal at (each) receive antenna is
r = Xh +n =
_
_
h
1
h
2
h
3
0
h
2
h
1
0 h
3
h
3
0 h
1
h
2
0 h
3
h
2
h
1
_
_
_
_
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
_
_
+n = Gx +n
G = D
4,4
([h
1
, h
2
, h
3
, h
4
= 0]) is also an orthogonal design: G
T
G = K
h
I.
Optimal reception is ackomplished with a matched lter receiver
x =
1
K
h
= G
T
r = x +n; K
h
=
N
t
i=1
[h
i
[
2
Reference:
[TJC99] V. Tarokh, H. Jafarkhani, and A.R. Calderbank, Space-time block codes from or-
thogonal designs, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 45, no. 5, July 1999.
STOB: Diversity and SNR Gains
Processing at each receive antenna is identical, and the N
r
channels for
each symbol x
j
are added together (Maximum-ratio combining):
+
+
+
Baseband
Signals
r
1
r
N
r
g
T
N
r
,1
g
T
11
g
T
12
g
T
1,N
c
x
1
x
2
x
N
c
Despreading
MR Combining
Diversity and SNR
It is straightforward to see that x
j
=
_
a
2
j
x
j
+ n
j
, where a
2
j
is
2
-
distributed with degree N
t
N
r
, and 2N
t
N
r
for complex designs.
The noise n
j
has power N
r
N
0
/2, and N
r
N
0
for complex designs.
Diversity Gain :
d
=
N
t
N
r
2
SNR Gain :
d
=
N
t
N
r
i=1
[h
i
[
2
N
t
N
0
/2
Complex orthogonal designs exist only for rates R 1/2, i.e., there
are at most L/2 orthogonal vectors.
On the other hand, real orthogonal designs do exist for R 1, i.e.,
there exist up to L real orthogonal vectors.
Orthogonal designs can be used with single-sideband modulation
STOB: Capacity and Spectral Eciency
Space-time orthogonal codes completely separate the L N
t
(L
N
t
/2 in the case of complex signals) channels and have a very simple
optimal receiver structure.
Each of the separated channels has a
2
distributed power level with
degree N
t
N
r
, which is close to constant.
Nevertheless the restriction to STOBs causes a loss in capacity
Capacity of STOB
Transmit Power:
P
t
= N
c
E
s
/N
t
; (N
c
symbols transmitted).
Received Power/Antenna: P
r
= (N
t
N
r
)
2
E
s
/N
t
, each path contributes.
Noise Power/Antenna: P
n
= N
t
N
r
N
0
/2, each receive antenna
contributes a noise source.
STOB Capacity is then given by the applying Shannons formula:
C
STOB
=
N
c
L
log
_
1 +
2N
r
E
s
N
0
_
; (bits/channel use)
Notes:
C
STOB
is directly proportional to the rate R =
N
c
L
of the orthogonal
design
The SNR gain is proportional to the number of receive antennas
nothing else
The large diversity ensures that the amplitude uctuations are min-
imal Capacity identical to that of an AWGN.
STOB Capacity: Example
Capacities of 8 8 Systems: Comparison between the MIMO sym-
metric capacity and the STOB capacity for an 88 multiantenna system.
MIMO Limit
STOB Capacity
AWGN Capacity
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
0.1
1
10
10
2
Bits/Channel Use
40 bits
9dB
one side
band
both side
bands
E
s
/N
0
Observation: STOB codes provide a
diversity advantage but do not provide
any capacity advantage over a point-to-
point channel with the same resources.
Space-Time Codes: Error Computation
In general a space-time codeword is an N
t
N
r
matrix (array) of complex
signals:
X = [x
1
, , x
N
c
] =
_
_
x
11
x
12
x
1N
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
x
N
t
1
x
N
t
2
x
N
t
N
c
_
_
Each row of X is a space-time symbol, and the received STC word is
Y =
_
E
s
N
t
HX +N
This means the conditional probability density function of Y given H
and the transmitted STC codeword is multi-variant Gaussian:
p(Y [H, X) =
1
N
r
N
c
exp
_
_
_
_
tr
_
_
Y
_
E
s
N
t
HX
__
Y
_
E
s
N
t
HX
_
+
_
2N
0
_
_
_
_
Note: The exponent term tr
_
MM
+
_
is merely the squared sum of all
the entries in M.
N is a matrix of complex noise samples with variance N
0
, that is
variance
2
= N
0
/2 in each of the two dimensions.
The signal energy per space-time symbol is
E
s
and
_
E
s
N
t
per con-
stellation point
Each constellation point x
ij
is energy normalized to unity.
Space-Time Codes II: Optimal Decoding
ML reception: The ML-receiver requires channel knowledge and and
maximises the squared metric
X = arg min
X
_
tr
__
Y
_
E
s
N
t
HX
__
Y
_
E
s
N
t
HX
_
+
__
= arg min
X
_
tr
_
E
s
N
t
HXX
+
H
+
_
2tr
_
_
E
s
N
t
HXY
+
__
Fixed Channels
At any given time-instant, the channel is xed and the impairment is
Gaussian noise.
Pairwise Error Probability
P(X X
/
) = Q
_
_
E
s
N
t
d
2
(X, X
/
)
2N
0
_
_
Squared Euclidean Distance
d
2
(X, X
/
) =
E
s
N
t
N
c
n=1
N
r
j=1
N
t
i=1
h
ij
(x
in
x
/
in
)
2
Squared Euclidean Distance (SED)
d
2
(X, X
/
) can be expressed in terms of H, X and X
/
as
d
2
(X, X
/
) =
E
s
N
t
N
r
j=1
N
t
i=1
N
t
=1
h
ij
h
j
N
c
n=1
(x
in
x
/
in
)(x
i
n
x
/
i
n
)
. .
K
ii
The matrix K is a kernel matrix with entries K

ii
.
SED as a Quadratic Form
Dene h
j
= [h
1j
, , h
N
t
j
]
T
as the signature vector of receive antenna j.
d
2
(X, X
/
) =
E
s
N
t
N
r
j=1
h
j
Kh
j
Since K is hermitian (K = K
+
), we can spectrally decompose d
2
(X, X
/
)
d
2
(X, X
/
) =
E
s
N
t
N
r
j=1
h
j
V DV
+
h
j
=
E
s
N
t
N
r
j=1
v
j
Dv
j
The components of these equations are:
V is a unitary matrix
D is a diagonal matrix with the eigenvalues of K. It can be shown
that all these eigenvalues are nonnegative real
h is a vector of complex Gaussian gains
v = V
+
h is a vector of rotated complex channel gains
STC Error Probability
The SED can be expressed in terms of the eigenvalues of K
d
2
(X, X
/
) =
E
s
N
t
N
r
j=1
N
t
i=1
d
i
[v
ij
[
2
; v
j
= V
+
h
j
and, given a xed channel H
P(X X
/
) = Q
_
_
E
s
N
r
j=1
N
t
i=1
d
i
[v
ij
[
2
2N
0
N
t
_
_
Error Probability depends on the eigenvalues of the matrix
K = (X X
/
) (X X
/
)
+
in particular on the rank and the product of the eigenvalues.
Cherno Bound is easier to manipulate:
P(X X
/
) exp
_
E
s
4N
0
N
t
N
r
j=1
N
t
i=1
d
i
[v
ij
[
2
_
=
N
r
j=1
exp
_
_
_
_
_
_
E
s
4N
0
N
t
N
t
i=1
d
i
[v
ij
[
2
. .
D
j
_
_
_
_
_
_
Fading Error Analysis
Fading channels: If independent fading is assumed then
h is a vector of independent complex Gaussian random variables
v = V
+
h is also a vector of independent complex Gaussian random
variables, because
E
_
vv
+
= V
+
E
_
hh
+
V = I
The components v
ij
are unit-variance complex Gaussian random vari-
ables, [v
ij
[
2
is -square distributed with two degrees of freedom:
p(a = [v[
2
) = exp(a); p(da = d[v[
2
) =
1
d
exp(a/d)
d
2
(X, X
/
) is the weighted sum of -square random variables.
PDF of SED The PDF is found via a partial fraction expansion of the
characteristic function:
p(x = d
2
) =
N
t
i=1
p
i
N
r
j=1
x
m1
d
m
i
(m1)
exp
_
x
d
i
_
This PDF can be integrated in closed form to
P
e
=
1
2
N
t
i=1
p
i
N
r
j=1
_
_
1
1
_
1 +
4N
0
N
t
E
s
d
i
m1
n=0
2n
2
2n
n
2
1
_
1+E
s
d
i
4N
0
N
t
_
n
_
_
References:
[TNSC98] V. Tarokh, A.F. Naguib, N. Seshadri, and A.R. Calderbank, Space-time codes for
high data rate wireless communications: Performance criterion and code construction,
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, pp. 744765, March 1998.
[BaS02] Z. Bagley and C. Schlegel, Pair-wise error probability for space-time codes under
coherent and dierentially coherent decoding, submitted to IEEE Trans. Commun.,
January 2002.
[Sch96] C. Schlegel, Error probability calculation for multibeam Rayleigh channels, IEEE
Trans. Commun., Vol. 44, No. 3, March 1996.
Cherno Error Bounds
The Cherno error bounding technique avoids many algebraic technical-
ities. The bound is calculated from the characteristic function as:
P(X X
/
) E
_
exp
_
E
s
4N
0
N
t
N
r
j=1
N
t
i=1
d
i
[v
ij
[
2
__
=
N
r
j=1
N
t
i=1
1
1 +
E
s
d
i
4N
0
N
t
The nal form of the bound is:
P(X X
/
)
_
1
N
t
i=1
(1 +
E
s
d
i
4N
0
N
t
)
_
N
r
_
N
t
i=1
d
i
_
N
r_
E
s
4N
0
N
t
_
N
r
N
t
Design Criteria:
The Rank Criterion: To achieve maximum diversity gain the ker-
nel matrix K = (X X
/
)(X X
/
)
+
has to have full rank.
The Determinant Criterion: The product
N
t
i=1
d
i
= det(K)
needs to be maximized to give maximum coding gain.
Orthogonal Designs revisited: Orthogonal designs provide full diver-
sity. This condition is equivalent to requiring that XX
/
is non -singular
for any X ,= X
/
.
Proof: The determinant of X is
det(X) =
_
det(XX
T
) =
_
det diag
_
i
x
2
i
, ,
i
x
2
i
_
=
_
i
x
2
i
_
Nt/2
and therefore
det(X X
) =
_
i
[x
i
x
i
[
2
_
Nt/2
,= 0
Therefore the maximum diversity N
t
N
r
is achieved.
Code Construction
Following these criteria Tarokh et. al. [TNSC98] have constructed trellis
codes which provide maximal diversity. For example:
00 01 02 03
10 11 12 13
20 21 22 23
30 31 32 33
22 23 20 21
32 33 30 31
02 03 00 01
12 13 10 11
m(1), m(2) m(3), m(4) m(5), m(6) m(7), m(8)
These codes achieve full diversity on two-antenna systems. The transmis-
sion rate is 2 bits per symbol using two QPSK signals over two antennas,
because there are four choices at each state.
Decoding:
Decoding follows the trellis using a sequence metric calculator Viterbi.
Branch Metrics:
The Viterbi algorithm works by using metrics m(r) along their branches
and accumulates them to nd the global minimum, where
m(r) =
N
r
j=1
y
jr
N
t
i=1
h
ij
x
ir
2
=need channel estimates
m(r) = |y
r
Hx
r
|
2
The metric is simply the squared Euclidean distance between hypothesis
and received signal.
Error Performance of STCs
4 st at es
8 st at es
16 st at es
32 st at es
64 st at es
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
Frame Error Probability (BER)
SNR
No Channel Information and Noncoherent Detection
If the channel H is not known at the receiver the worst case then Y
conditioned only on X is Gaussian distributed since both N and H(t)
are Gaussian distributed.
If we decompose the channel equation
Y =
_
E
s
N
t
HX +N =
_
_
y
T
1
.
.
.
y
T
N
r
_
_
=
_
E
s
N
t
_
_
h
T
1
X +n
T
1
.
.
.
h
T
N
r
X +n
T
N
r
_
_
into signal sequences of dierent antennas, and consider the cross-correlation
of the j-th sequence:
E
_
y
j
y
+
j
= E
_
(X
+
h
j
+n
j
)(h
+
j
X +n
j
)
= X
+
E
_
h
j
h
+
j
X + N
0
I
If each receive antenna statistically sees the same channel, then this cross-
correlation is independent of j and thus, for independent subchannels:
E
_
y
j
y
+
j
=
E
s
N
t
X
+
X + N
0
I =
X
In this case the conditional PDF of the received space-time codeword can
be written as:
p(Y [X) =
exp
_
tr
_
Y
X
1
Y
+
__
N
r
det
X
Noncoherent Detection and Unitary Space-Time Codes
Since the trace operator is invariant to a rotation of its arguments:
tr
_
Y
_
E
s
N
t
X
+
X + N
0
I
_
1
Y
+
_
= tr
_
_
E
s
N
t
X
+
X + N
0
I
_
1
Y
+
Y
_
the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The N
c
N
c
matrix Y
+
Y is a sucient statistic
for optimal detection.
(2) p(Y [X) depends on X only through X
+
X.
(3) Unitarily rotated signals UX have the same
PDF p(Y [X) = p(Y [UX).
Unitary Space-Time Codes: The transmitted signals over each an-
tenna (rows of X) are orthogonal:
XX
+
= N
t
I; det
X
= det
_
E
s
N
t
XX
+
+ N
0
I
_
= E
s
+ N
0
Note: Unitary STC codewords X are not necessarily unitary matrices.
For a matrix to be unitary it must be square and UU
+
=U
+
U=I.
Using (A + BCD)
1
= A
1
A
1
B(C
1
+ DA
1
B)
1
DA
1
1
X
= I
E
s
N
t
E
s
+ 1
X
+
X
Optimal Detection:

X = arg max
X
_
tr
_
Y X
+
XY
+
_
Unitary Space-Time Codes: Basic Properties
The non-coherent receiver and unitary STCs have the following properties
the receiver is quadratic and requires no channel estimates.
Unitary STCs send orthogonal signals over the N
t
transmit antennas.
Orthogonal designs are unitary, but not necessarily visa versa.
Orthogonal designs can be decoded non-coherently (without channel
state information)
Using orthogonal spreading sequences for each antenna is one way
of achieving unitary STCs.
Capacity Result: It is shown in [MaH99] that for the block-wise con-
stant channel unitary signals can achieve the capacity for non-coherent
detection.
Block-wise constant channels are a model for, e.g., frequency hopping
systems, or interleaved fast fading channels.
Further results are:
There is no point in using more transmit antennas than the coherence
duration of the channel, i.e., N
t
N
c
. The capacity is unchanged
for N
t
N
c
.
Reference:
[MaH99] T.L. Marzetta and B.M. Hochwald, Capacity of a mobile multiple-antenna com-
munication link in Rayleigh at fading, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory., Vol. 45, No. 1,
January 1999.
Unitary Group Codes
Hughes [Hug00] proposed the use of unitary group codes (, whose mem-
bers G are unitary matrices. The transmitted codewords are:
X = TG
where T is a N
t
N
c
transmission matrix adapting G to the transmission
system with N
t
antennas.
Quaternion Code
A basic such unitary STC with N
c
= 2, with elements in the quaternary
phase shift keyed (QPSK) constellation is
Q =
_
_
1 0
0 1
_
,
_
j 0
0 j
_
,
_
0 1
1 0
_
,
_
0 j
j 0
__
This code can be used on a N
t
= 2 antenna system with T =
_
1 1
1 1
_
The group code Q is isomorphic to Hamiltons quaternion group.
Dierential Encoding of STCs
These codes are transmitted dierentially as shown below:
+
G(t) X(t)
X(t1)
X(t) = X(t 1)G(t); X(0) = T
Reference:
[Hugh00] B.L. Hughes, Dierential space-time modulation, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory,
Vol. 46, No. 7, pp. 25672578, Nov. 2000.
Dierential Reception
Unitary space-time codes can be dierentially detected. This also requires
no channel state information, which is gleaned from a previously received
STC symbol.
Considering a composite STC word consisting of two unitary STC words:
X
2
(t) = [X(t 1) : X(t 1)G]
we see that is fulllls the unitary condition for non-coherent detection:
X
2
(t)X
2
(t)
+
= [X(t 1) : X(t 1)G] [X(t 1) : X(t 1)G]
+
= X(t 1)X(t 1)
+
+X(t 1)GG
+
X(t 1)
+
= 2N
t
I
The optimal detector for this 2-block code selects
X = arg max
X
_
tr
_
Y
2
X
+
2
X
2
Y
+
2
_
= arg max
X
_
tr
_
_
Y (t 1)
Y (t 1)
_
T
_
N
t
I N
t
G(t)
N
t
G(t)
+
N
t
I
_ _
Y (t 1)
+
Y (t)
+
_
__
X = arg max
X
_
1tr
_
Y (t 1)GY (t)
+
_
+
z
1
()
+
Y (t)
+
Y (t 1)
1trG
1
1trG
2
1trG
M

Algebra of Unitary STCs
Cyclic Codes: A cyclic group code for N
t
= 2 antennas is dened by
( =
__
M
0
0
k
M
__

M
= exp (2j/M)
For example for
4
= j we obtain the code
( =
__
j 0
0 j
_
,
_
1 0
0 1
_
,
_
j 0
0 j
_
,
_
1 0
0 1
_
,
_
These codes are all of the form I, G, G
2
, , G
M1
.
8-PSK cyclic code:
_
1 0
0 1
_
_
e
j/4
0
0 e
j/4
_
_
j 0
0 j
_
_
e
j3/4
0
0 e
j3/4
_
_
1 0
0 1
_
_
e
j5/4
0
0 e
j5/4
_
_
j 0
0 j
_
_
e
j7/4
0
0 e
j7/4
_
Di-Cyclic Codes: For M 8 there exist also the dicyclic group codes:
( =
__
M/2
0
0
M/2
_
,
_
0 1
1 0
__
Quaternion code:
_
1 0
0 1
_
_
0 1
1 0
_
_
0 j
j 0
_
_
j 0
0 j
_ _
1 0
0 1
_
_
0 1
1 0
_
_
0 j
j 0
_
_
j 0
0 j
_
Equivalent Codes
Unitary space-time group codes have a number of desirable properties:
Uniform Error Probability
Each codeword of a unitary space-time code has the same error perfor-
mance. Consider the STC X
/
= TGG
1
Y = HX +N = HTGG
1
+N
Since G
/
is unitary, the rotated received signal
Y
/
= Y G
+
1
= HTG+NG
+
1
= H TG
..
X
+N
/
where N
/
and N have the same noise statistics. Therefore G and G
/
=
GG
1
have the same error performance.
Equivalent Codes
Equivalent codes are codes whose codewords are related by
X = UC
/
V ; U, V unitary
Proof: Again consider
Y = HX +N = HUX
/
V +N
= H
/
X
/
+N
Y
/
= Y V
+
= H
/
X
/
+N
/
Since H
/
and H have the same statistics, and the noises N
/
and
N have the same statistics the rst and last line express equivalent
equations and X and X
/
have the same error performance.
Optimal STCs
Space-time codes are dened to be optimal if rank ((X X
/
)(X X
/
)
+
) =
N
t
and if det ((X X
/
)(X X
/
)
+
) is maximal.
Theorem:Optimal space-time group codes are unitary
Proof: We decompose the transmission matrix T using the SVD into
T = UDV
+
= UD[I : 0]V
+
and calculate the product the determinant using the two STCs
X = TI, X
/
= TG:
det
_
(X X
/
)(X X
/
)
+
_
= min
G
T(I G)(I G
+
)T
+
= min
G
UD[I : 0]V
+
(I G)(I G
+
)V [I : 0]
+
D
+
U
+
= [DD
+
[ min
G
[I : 0]V
+
(I G)(I G
+
)[I : 0]
+
Making [DD
+
[ non-singular and as large as possible is a necessary
condition, and
[DD
+
[
_
1
N
t
tr(DD
+
)
_
N
t
N
N
t
c
with equality if and only if D =
N
c
I. Therefore
T =
_
N
c
U[I : 0]V
+
TT
+
= N
c
I
And hence optimal STC group codes are unitary, i.e., they have orthogo-
nal rows. The codewords which drive each of the antennas are orthogonal.
Optimal STC Group Codes
Again appealing to the SVD we see that maximizing
p
=
[I : 0]V
+
(I G)(I G
+
)V [I : 0]
+
is quite independent and can be done using T

0
=
N
c
[I : 0].
Note: The initial matrix T
0
is quite uninteresting since it simply amounts
to antenna switching.
Theorem:Hughes [Hug02] shows that the only STC group codes that are
optimal are equivalent to two families, (i)
Cyclic Group Codes:
( =
_
_
_
_
exp (2jk
1
/M) 0 0
0 exp (2jk
2
/M) 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 exp (2jk
t
/M)
_
_
_
_
where 0 < k
1
k
t
< M are odd integers, and (ii)
Di-Cyclic Group Codes:
( =
_
_
_
_
exp (4jk
1
/M) 0 0
0 exp (4jk
2
/M) 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 exp (4jk
t
/M)
_
_
,
_
0 I
t/2
I
t/2
0
_
_
_
where 0 < k
1
k
t
< M/2 are odd integers.
Practical Codes
If the transmission matrix T is chosen to be Hadammard, e.g,
_
_
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
_
_
then the actual transmitted symbol on each of the antennas are PSK
symbols.
Lower Cardinality Codes: Often codes exist which have a lower car-
dinality of the signal constellation, which is emminently important for
implementation. For example, the following code is equivalent to the
N
t
= 4 16-PSK cyclic code, but takes symbol only from a QPSK constel-
lation!
_
I, G
0
, G
2
0
, , G
15
0
_
; G
0
=
_
_
0 0 0 j
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
_
_
Reference:
[Hug02] B.L. Hughes, Optimal space-time constellations from groups, IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, submitted, March 2000.
Space-Time Communications Systems - Channel Layering
MIMO Channel Processing
From previous results, we note that
MIMO channels are classied into low and high-rank channels.
If E
s
/N
0
= is large, the capacity advantage of a high-rank MIMO
channel over a single antenna (low-rank) channel is
log
_
_

N
t
_
N1
N
n=1
d
2
n
N
t
N
r
_
bits/use.
If E
s
/N
0
is small, the system is power limited and the high-rank
MIMO channel capacity advantage cannot be exploited.
Complexity of the optimal maximum-likelihood decoding of high-
rank MIMO channels grows exponentially with additional antennas.
from which we can conclude
1. Optimal processing for low SNR or low-rank MIMO
channels consists of using a single transmit antenna
waveform and performing maximal ratio combining of
the multiple receive antennas.
2. High-rank MIMO channels with a large number of an-
tennas require methods to reduce the complexity, such
as space-time layering.
References:
(multiple antenna channels), Canadian Information Theory Workshop, CITW2001,
Vancouver, BC, June 36, 2001.
[BaS02a] Z. Bagley and C. Schlegel, Pair-Wise Error Probability for Space-Time Codes and
Dierential Detection, submitted to IEEE Trans. Commun., January 2002.
[BaS02b] Z. Bagley and C. Schlegel, Ecient Processing for High-Capacity MIMO Channels,
submitted to JSAC, MIMO Systems Special Issue, April, 2002.
Processing High-Rank MIMO Channels
A number of methods known as space-time layering exist for reducing the
complexity by processing only a small portion of the total data stream at
once.
One such method, discussed in [Fos96], is a combination of the two lay-
ering methods discussed here:
1. Successive information processing:
Optimal method decomposes the channel via successive cancellation.
Derived from the chain rule of mutual information.
Compared to the parallel channels obtained by SVD.
2. Parallel information processing:
A subspace signal projection and successive cancellation structure
is shown to be an asymptotically optimal (at high SNR) processing
method.
A simplied method employing only sub-space projection ltering is
examined.
References:
[Fos96] G.J. Foschini, Layered space-time architecture for wireless communication in a fad-
ing environment when using multi-element antennas, Bell Labs Technical Journal, vol.
1 (2), August 1996, pp. 4159.
Channel Layering and Successive Information Processing
MIMO Capacity is results based on successive interference cancellation
and compare the achievable rates at the dierent cancellation stages with
those of the parallel channels obtained by SVD.
The chain rule of mutual information states
I(c; y[H) =
N
t
k=1
I (c
k
; y[H, c
0
, , c
k1
) .
which implies a successive interference cancellation structure since
I(c
k
; y[H, c
0
, , c
k1
) is the maximum information rate of
layer c
k
given that signals c
0
, , c
k1
are known exactly.
Notes:
For an additive channel knowledge of some users signals c
0
, , c
k1
implies cancelling these signals
The successive interfernce cancellation receiver and an optimal re-
ceiver will NOT necessarily arrive at the same decoded signals.
Good, that is capacity-achieving receivers will be need at each level.
Interfernce Cancellation
The received signal at level k after cancellation is
y
k
= y
k1
r=1
h
r
c
r
= h
k
c
k
+
N
t
k+1
h
r
c
r
+n,
Since the capacity achieving distributions at each level are Gaussian, the
residual interference plus noise
n
/
=
N
t
k+1
h
r
c
r
+n
is also Gaussian, and so the mean and co-variance statistics of n
/
com-
pletely characterize the noise and interference.
E
_
n
/
n
/
+
_
=
E
s
N
t
[h
k+1
, , h
N
t
][h
k+1
, , h
N
t
]
+
+ N
0
I
= N
0
_
E
s
N
0
N
t
A
k
A
+
k
+I
_
= N
0
Q
k
,
Hence, the sub-layer capacity of a vector channel embedded in correlated
Gaussian noise is given by [CoT91]:
I (C
k
; y[H, c
0
, , c
k1
) = log det
_
I +
E
s
N
0
N
t
Q
1
k
h
k
h
+
k
_
References:
[CoT91] T. Cover and J. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, Wiley, 1991.
Channel Layering and Successive Information Processing
Shown is an example of this channel layering for a typical 8 8 channel
matrix that was randomly drawn from a Gaussian independent model.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
b
i
t
s
/
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
u
s
e
/N
t
dB
Symmetric
Capacity
Cancellation ca-
pacities adding
up to the sym-
metric capacity
of the channel
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
22.6931
14.4322
10.9189
6.1585
0.1644
3.2883
1.0876
1.8979
Total
Waterfilling
Capacity
Symmetric Capacities
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
b
i
t
s
/
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
u
s
e
/N
t
dB
Eigenvalues of HH
+
Single Channel
capacities from
the channel
SVD
Channel Layering via Subspace Projection
Objective: Show that subspace signal projection provides an asymptot-
ically optimal preprocessing methodology for high signal-to-noise ratio
values which eliminates all residual interference at each stage k.
The second matrix term from the subchannel capacity formula
N
t
Q
1
k
h
k
h
+
k
, with
E
s
N
0
can be thought of as an eective signal-to-noise ratio at the k-th layer.
The matrix inversion lemma
1
allows us to manipulate the term into
N
t
Q
1
k
h
k
h
+
k
=
1
N
0
_
A
k
A
+
k
+
N
t
I
_
1
E
s
N
t
h
k
h
+
k
=

N
t
_
I A
k
_
A
+
k
A
k
+
N
t
I
_
1
A
+
k
_
h
k
h
+
k
.
For large signal-to-noise ratios, N
t
/ 0, and
N
t
Q
1
k
h
k
h
+
k

N
t
_
I A
k
_
A
+
k
A
k
_
1
A
+
k
_
h
k
h
+
k
=

N
t
M
k
h
k
h
+
k
However the matrix M
k
=
_
I A
k
_
A
+
k
A
k
_
1
A
+
k
_
is the projection
matrix [HoJ90] onto the subspace which is orthogonal to A
k
.
References:
[HoJ90] R.A. Horn and C.J. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press, New
York, 1990.
1
(A + BCD)
1
= A
1
A
1
B(DA
1
B + C
1
)
1
DA
1
Channel Layering and Parallel Information Processing
With the following linear algebraic results
M
k
= M
k
M
+
k
, i.e. the projection matrix M
k
is idempotent.
det(I +AB) = det(I +BA)
the term in question is equivalent to
N
t
Q
1
k
h
k
h
+
k

N
t
h
+
k
M
+
k
M
k
h
k
=

N
t
|M
k
h
k
|
2
which then suggests the asymptotically optimal information processing
via successive cancellation and interference projection:
+
+
+ +
+
+
y
1
y
2
y
k
n
1
n
2
n
k
FEC Dec.
FEC Dec.
FEC Dec.
M
1
M
2
M
k
Cancellation Front-End
This is the methodology of the original BLAST system.
Properties of sub-space projection ltering:
The projection matrix M
k
completely eliminates the interference
from the as yet un-cancelled component channels c
k+1
, , c
N
t
.
The price is a loss in signal-to-noise ratio, i.e., |M
k
h
2
k
| |h
k
|
2
.
For the case of uncorrelated random equal-energy array responses, the
average loss has been calculated by a number of authors [1, 2, 3] in the
context of random CDMA communications. Using these results the loss
factor,
k
, at cancellation stage k can easily be calculated as
k
=
k + (N
r
N
t
)
N
r
; N
r
N
t
Remarks:
According to
k
, the rst state in an 8 antenna system loses
1
8
9dB.
This loss is with respect to the optimal symmetric capacity.
This is nicely evident in the 8x8 example channel gure, even though
that is only a single sample channel.
The technique proposed in [Fos96] essentially uses this projection/cancellation
approach. An additional cyclic rotation over the antennas has no eect on
the capacity, but it does even out the data rates on the dierent channels.
References:
[ARS97] P.D. Alexander, L. Rasmussen, and C. Schlegel, A class of linear receivers for coded
CDMA, IEEE Trans. Commun., Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 605610, May 1997.
[TsH99] D.N.C. Tse and S.V. Hanly, Linear multiuser receivers: eective interference, eective
bandwidth and user capacity, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, Vol. 45, No. 2, March 1999.
[VeS99] S. Verdu and S. Shamai, Spectral eciency of CDMA with random spreading,
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, Vol. 45, No. 2, March 1999.
Parallel Cancellation: A Simplied Decoding Strategy
Clearly the long decoding delays involved with the serial cancellation
method may not be desirable. A lower complexity, sub-optimal
method omits the cancellation stage:
The preprocessing lters are set to suppress all interfering signal
dimensions, i.e.,
rank(M
1
) = rank(M
2
) = = rank(M
K
).
This method suers a signicant performance loss w.r.t. optimal
processing. The SNR loss is given by
k
with k = 1.
For a N
t
= N
r
= 8 antenna system, for example, single channel
projection will incur an SNR loss of 1/8, which is 9dB, w.r.t. or-
thogonal channels. Note, however, that adding just a single extra
receive antenna reduces this loss to 2/9, which is about 6.5dB.
A loss of 3dB corresponds to a capacity loss of about 1 bit per com-
plex dimenstion for large SNR values.
Comparison of Layering Methods
The next gure shows the waterlling capacity, the successive cancella-
tion/projection capacity and the capacity of 8 single projected subchan-
nels for a channel with i.i.d. path gains.
Notes on the gure:
1. Single channel projection processing loses 9dB as predicted.
2. Optimal successive cancellation processing loses 8.6 bits w.r.t. or-
thogonal channels.
3. This is also close to the inherent loss of the random MIMO channel
w.r.t. orthogonal channels.
4. The addition of a few extra receive antennas or processing channels
in pairs can signicantly relieve this loss.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
b
i
t
s
/
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
u
s
e
/N
t
dB
Waterlling
Capacity
Orthogonal
Channels
Symmetric
Capacity
Successive
Projection
Capacity Parallel
Projection
Capacity
Capacity
Capacities
of dierent
Projection
Layers
9dB loss
8.6 bits
Conclusions:
1. For high-rank channels, optimal reception strategies consist of succes-
sive cancellation and projection operations to generate interference-
free component channels used by a smaller number of antennas. For
nearly i.i.d. channels, single antenna layers are sucient.
2. Optimal transmission on low-rank channels is the same as optimal
transmission on channels with low signal-to-noise ratios and consists
of pooling all transmission energy into a single transmit antenna,
possibly using the transmit array to beamform.
Iterative Information Processing
In conjunction with forward error control (FEC) coding, the MIMO
channel can be viewed as a serially concatenated communications system:
u
r
v
r
v
/
r
Interleaver
Binary
Encoder
Trellis
Encoder/
Mapper
Precoder
x
r
Iterative Information Processing operates according to the well-known
Turbo Principle with component decoders exchanging soft information:
Deinterleave
Marginalize
Interleave
Combine
MIMO
Soft-
Output
Decoder
APP
Binary
Soft-
Output
Decoder
y
a
(u
r
)
e
(u
r
)
Pr
a
(x
r
)
Pr
e
(x
r
)
DIV
+
-
Notes:
Simple binary encoders can be used and LLR processing
The MIMO soft decoder can be a
1. Canceller
2. APP approximation
Example: Dierential Space-Time Coding
Simple dierential space-time codes such as the Quaternion Code can
be used inner codes. They have simple trellis representations which can
be used by an APP decoder.
EXIT chart The gure below shows the extrinsic information transfer
chart of this serially concatenated systems for several binary convolutional
codes of rate R = 2/3 bits/symbol. This chart can be used to determine
the onset of the Turbo Cli of the system.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-1dB
-1.6dB
Parity
4-state
16-state
64-state
I
p
I
e
Dashed:Quaternion code
References:
[GrS01] A. Grant and C. Schlegel, Dierential turbo space-time coding, Proc. IEEE Infor-
mation Theory Workshop, 2001, pp. 120122, 2001.
[ScG01] C. Schlegel and A. Grant, Concatenated space-time coding, IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, to appear.
Dierential Space-Time Coding: Error Performance
The error performance of this system is shown for several binary codes.
It is counter-intuitive that the simple [3,2,2] parity check code should
outperform all stronger codes.
These results agree with the predictions from the EXIT chart
P
i
n
c
h
-
o
f
f

S
N
R
P
i
n
c
h
-
o
f
f

S
N
R
P
i
n
c
h
-
o
f
f

S
N
R
-1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
Bit Error Probability (BER)
E
b
N
0
Parity
4-state
16-state
64-state
Iterative Detectors: Large Systems
This principle can be applied to larger systems, but their performance
is not that near-capacity anylonger. The results below are taken from
[HtB01]:
2 4 6 8 10 12 0
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

Q
P
S
K

1
.
6
d
B
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

1
6
Q
A
M

3
.
8
d
B
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

6
4
Q
A
M

6
.
4
d
B
QPSK
16QAM
64QAM
E
b
/N
0
[dB]
BER
8 8 antenna system
References:
[HtB01] B.M. Hochwald and S. tenBrink, Achieving near-capacity on a multiple-antenna
channel, private communication, 2001, submitted IEEE Trans. Commun..

MIMO Channels and Space-Time Coding: Outline

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MIMO Channels and Space-Time Coding: Outline

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MIMO Channels

and Space-Time Coding

() is the cumulative distribution (CDF) of the eigenvalues of W

The matrix K is a kernel matrix with entries K

c _Christian Schlegel, Zachary Bagley MIMO Channel Tutorial, WOC02, Ban 49

is quite independent and can be done using T

Potrebbero piacerti anche