Multi-user CDMA

Enhancing capacity of wireless

cellular CDMA
 Topics Today

Dealing without multi-user reception:
asynchronous CDMA
 SNR
 power balance - near-far effect

Multi-user detection (MUD) classification and properties
 The conventional detector (non-MUD, denotations)
 Maximum likelihood sequence detection
 Linear detectors
 Decorrelating detector

 Minimum mean-square error detector

 Polynomial expansion detector

 Subtractive interference cancellation

 Serial and parallel cancellation techniques

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 2

 s1 (t ) 2 P1

s2 (t ) 2 P2 Asynchronous CDMA
voltage at the I&D*
at the decision instant

U
sU (t ) 2 PU mˆ j (tm )  m jj   mij  n j
i 1
mˆ j (tm ) i j

signal
voltage ISI & noise voltage
v j (t )
signal power for the j:th user

The j:th user experiences the SNR:
m 2jj m 2jj
SNR j  
  
2
    
2
   
2

E    mij  n j   E    mij    2E    mij n j    E n 2j 

 i i, jj     ii, j j     i , j  
      
0

MAI channel noise

*Integrate and dump receiver

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 3
 Practical CDMA receiver
Effective BW
from channel tm is defined by:
LPF 0
u (t ) decision
2
  V ( f )df 
local code phasing of
Beff   0 
sampling 

Lc Pj  WPj / R
 0
V 2 ( f )df

for rectangular
2
m jj spectra:
SNR j 
   
2
   
2
V( f )
E    mij    2E    mij n j    E n 2j  S0
  i , j    i, j  
        f
0 N 0 Beff  PN
U
BN
P
i 1
i
B S 
2

i j Beff  N 0 2
 BN
BN S 0

Lc Pj

Hence, SNR upper bound for the j:th user is SNR j  U

P  N B
i 1
i 0 eff

i j
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 4
 Perfect power control
Pi   i 1 Pi  (U  1) Pj
U

Equal received powers for U users means that
i j

Lc Pj

Therefore the j:th user’s SNR equals ( SNR)0 
N 0 Beff  (U  1) Pj
and the number of users is
 1 1    1 1  L
U  1  Lc    U max  lim 1  Lc     1 c
 SNRo SNR1 SNR1 
  SNRo SNR1  SNR0

where* (for BPSK) U max
Pj PW 2 Eb
SNR1  Lc  j

Beff N 0 PN R No

Number of users is
limited by
 channel AWGN level N0
 processing gain Lc Eb/No
 received power Pr SNR0 / 2 (=SNR1/2)
AWGN level decreases

*SNR1: received SNR without multiple access interference

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 5
 Unequal received powers - the near-far -effect

Assume all users apply the same power but their distance to the
receiving node is different. Hence the power from the i:th node is
Pi  P0 / d i

where d is the distance, and  is the propagation attenuation

coefficient (= 2 for free space, in urban area = 3…5 )

Express the power ratio of the i:th and j:th user at the common
reception point 
   j
d
Po  Pd
i i  P d
j j  Pi  Pj 
 di 

Therefore, the SNR of the j:th user is
Lc Pj Lc Pj
SNR j  U
 SNR j  
N 0 Beff   Pi
U
 dj 
N 0 Beff  Pj   
i 1  d i 
i 1
i j
i j

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 6

 The near-far effect in asynchronous CDMA

Grouping the previous yields condition

U
 dj   1 1 
  
i 1  d i 
 Lc     U 1
 SNR0 SNR1 
i j


Multiple-access interference (MAI) power should not be larger
than what the receiver sensitivity can accommodate

Note the manifestation of near-far -effect because just one larger
sum term on the left side of the equation voids it

Example: Assume that all but one transmitter have the same
distance to the receiving node. The one transmitter has the
distance d1=dj /2.5 and =3.68, SNR0=14, SNR1=25,
Rb = 30 kb/s, Beff = 20 MHz, then
   1 1 
U
dj   (2.5) 3.68
 U  2  L c   
    (2.5)  U  2 
i 1  d i 
3.68
  SNR0 SNR1 

i j U  2  2.53.68  L  1  1   14
 c  
Lc , BPSK  (2 / Tc ) /(1/ Tb )  2Tb / Tc  2Tb Beff   SNR0 SNR1 
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 7
 
By using the perfect power balance the number of users is
 1 1 
U  1  Lc     42
 ( SNR)0 ( SNR )1 

Hence the presence of a single user so near has dropped the
number of users into almost 1/3 part of the maximum number

If this user comes closer than
d1  d j / 2.78

all the other users will be rejected, e.g. they can not communicate
in the system in the required SNR level. This illustrates the near-
far effect

To minimize the near-far effect efficient power control is should
be adaptively realized in asynchronous CDMA-systems

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 8

 Fighting against Multiple Access
Interference

CDMA system can be realized by spreading codes having
low cross -correlation as Gold codes (asynchronous
usage) or Walsh codes (synchronous usage)

Multipath channel with large delay spread can destroy
code cross-correlation properties
 a remedy: asynchronous systems with large code gain
assume other users to behave as Gaussian noise (as
just analyzed!)

Additional compensation of MAI yields further capacity
(increases receiver sensitivity). This can be achieved by
 Code waveform design (BW-rate/trade-off)
 Power control (minimizes near-far effect)
 FEC- and ARQ-systems
 Diversity-systems: - Spatial - Frequency - Time
 multi-user detection

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 9

 MAI versus ISI (Inter-Symbolic
Interference)
 Note that there exists a strong parallelism between the
problem of MAI and that of ISI:
Asynchronous channel of K-users behaves the same
way as a single user channel having ISI with *memory
depth of K-1
 Hence, a number of multi-user detectors have their
equalizer counter parts as:
 maximum likelihood

 zero-forcing

 minimum mean square

 decision feedback

 General classification of multi-user detectors:

 linear

 subtractive
*This could be generated for instance by a multipath
channel having K-1 taps
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 10
 Maximum-likelihood sequence detection

Optimum multi-user detection applies maximum-likelihood
principle:

Considering the whole received sequence, find the

estimate for the received sequence that has the
minimum distance to the allowed sequences

The ML principle
 has the optimum performance provided transmitted
symbols equal alike
 has large computational complexity - In exhaustive search
2NK vectors to be considered! (K users, N bits)
 requires estimation of received amplitudes and phases that
takes still more computational power
 can be implemented by using Viterbi-decoder that is
‘practically optimum’ ML-detection scheme to reduce
computational complexity by surviving path selections

We discuss first the conventional detector (by following the
approach we already had to familiarize to denotations)

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 11

 Formulation: Received signal

Assume
 single path AWGN channel
 perfect carrier synchronization
 BPSK modulation

Received signal is therefore
K
r (t )   Ak (t ) g k (t ) d k (t )  n(t )
k 1

where for K users

Ak (t ) is the amplitude
g k (t ) is the spreading code waveform
d k (t ) is the data modulation of the k:th user
n(t ) is the AWGN with N0/2 PSD


Note that there are Lc chips/bit (Lc : processing gain)

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 12

 Conventional detection (without MUD)
for multiple access

The conventional DS receiver for K users consists of K
matched filters or correlators:
r (t ) Tb d̂1
0 x(t ) dx decision

g1 (t )
Tb d̂2
0 x(t ) dx decision

g2 (t )  
 
Tb dˆK
0 x(t ) dx decision

gK (t )


Each user is detected without considering background
noise (generated by the spreading codes of the other
users) to be deterministic (Assumed to be genuine
AWGN)
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 13
 Output for the K:th user without MUD

Detection quality depends on code cross- and
autocorrelation 1
i ,k   gi (t ) g k (t )dt
Tb Tb

Hence we require a large autocorrelation and small
crosscorrelation (small ISI)
 i ,k  1, i  k

0   i ,k  1, i  k

The output for the K:th user consist of the signal, MAI and
filtered Gaussian noise terms (as discussed earlier)
1
yk  T r (t ) g k (t )dt
Tb b
1
yk  Ak d k   i 1  i ,k Ai di  
K
n(t ) g k (t )dt
ik Tb Tb

yk  Ak d k  MAI k  zk

Received SNR of this was considered earlier in this lecture

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 14

 Matrix notations to consider
detection for multiple access

Assume a three user synchronous system with
a matched filter receiver
 y1  A1d1   2,1 A2 d 2  3,1 A3 d3  z1

 y2  1,2 A1d1  A2 d 2  3,2 A3 d3  z2
y   Ad   A d  A d  z
 3 1,3 1 1 2,3 2 2 3 3 3

 y1   1  2,1 3,1   A1 0 0   d1   z1 
 y    1 3,2   0 A2 0   d 2    z2 
 2   1,2     
 y3   1,3  2,3 1   0 0 A3   d3   z3 

that is expressed by the matrix-vector notation as

y  RAd  z
matched filter outputs noise
data
correlations between received amplitudes
each pair of codes

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 15

 The data-term and the MAI-term

Matrix R can be partitioned into two parts by setting

y  RAd  z with R  I  Q
Note that hence Q contains off-diagonal elements or R (or the
crosscorrelations)

and therefore MF outputs can be expressed as
y  RAd  z

Therefore the  (I Ad
y term Ad  z the
Q)contains  QAd  zdata and QAd
Addecoupled
represents the MAI

Objective of all MUD schemes is to cancel out the MAI-term as
effectively as possible (constraints to hardware/software
complexity and computational efficiency)

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 16

 Asynchronous and synchronous channel

In synchronous detection decisions can be made bit-by-bit

In asynchronous detection bits overlap and multi-user
detection is based on taking all the bits into account
K
r (t )   Ak (t ) g k (t )d k (t   k )  n(t )
k 1

asynchronous ch. synchronous ch.

User 1 1 3 5 User 1 1 3 5
User 2 2 4 6 User 2 2 4 6

 1  2 Tb   1 3Tb   2 1 Tb   1 3Tb   1

The matrix R contains now partial correlations that exist
between every pair of the NK code words (K users, N bits)

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 17

 Asynchronous channel correlation matrix

In this example the correlation matrix extends to 6x6
dimension:
y  RAd  z

 1  2,1 0 0 0 0 
 1 3,2 0 0 0 
 1,2 
 0  2,3 1  4,3 0 0 
R
 0 0 3,4 1 5,4 0 
 0 0 0  4,5 1  6,5 
 
 0 0 0 0  5,6 1 


Note that the resulting matrix is sparse because most of
the bits do not overlap

Sparse matrix - algorithms can be utilized to reduce
computational difficulties (memory size & computational
time)
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 18
 Decorrelating detector

The decorrelating detector applies the inverse of the
correlation matrix to suppress MAI
L dec  R 1
and the data estimate is therefore
dˆ dec  R 1y
 R 1 ( A
 d  QA d  z )
RAd

 Ad  R 1z  Ad  z dec

We note that the decorrelating detector eliminates
the MAI completely!

However, channel noise is filtered by the inverse of
correlation matrix - This results in noise enhancement!

Decorrelating detector is mathematically similar to zero
forcing equalizer as applied to compensate ISI

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 19

 Decorrelating detector properties
summarized


PROS:

Provides substantial performance improvement over
conventional detector under most conditions

Does not need received amplitude estimation

Has computational complexity substantially lower that the
ML detector (linear with respect of number of users)

Corresponds ML detection when the energies of the users
are not know at the receiver

Has probability of error independent of the signal energies


CONS:

Noise enhancement

High computational complexity in inverting matrix R

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 20

 Polynomial expansion (PE) detector

Many MUD techniques require inversion of R. This can be
obtained efficiently by PE
N S

L   w R i  R 1 dˆ PE  L PE y
PE i
i 0
NS
dˆ PE   wi R i y  w0 R 0 y w1R1 y...  wN S R N S y
i 0

For finite length message a finite length PE series can
synthesize R-1 exactly. However, in practice a truncated
series must be used for continuous signaling

dˆ PE  L PE y
y Weight Weight
multiplication
Ry R2 y Weight
multiplication multiplication

matched
r (t ) filter R R R
bank
w0 w1 w2
y Ry R2 y

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 21

 Mathcad-example
NS
R   wi R i
1

i 0

R 1 

= series expansion
of R-1 (to 2. degree)

 wi
 R2

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 22

 Minimum mean-square error (MMSE)
detector

Based on solving MMSE optimization problem with
2
E[ d  Ly ]
that should be minimized

This leads into the solution
ˆd  L MMSE y   R  ( N 0 / 2) A 2  1 y
 

One notes that under high SNR this solution is the same as
decorrelating receiver

This multi-user technique is equal to MMSE linear equalizer
used to combat ISI

PROS: Provides improved noise behavior with respect of
decorrelating detector

CONS:
 Requires estimation of received amplitudes and
noise level
 Performance depends also on powers of
interfering users
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 23
 Successive interference cancellation
(SIC) d̂

To the next stage

1

Aˆ1 (t  Tb ) g1 (t   1  Tb )
MF d̂1
r (t ) decision
user 1
r (t  Tb ) - sˆ1 (t  Tb )
Tb
+ r1 (t )

Each stage detects, regenerates and cancels out a user

First the strongest user is cancelled because
 it is easiest to synchronize and demodulate
 this gives the highest benefit for canceling out the
other users

Note that the strongest user has therefore no use for this
MAI canceling scheme!

PROS: Small HW requirements and large performance
improvement when compared to conventional detector

CONS: Processing delay, signal reordered if their powers
changes, in low SNR:s performance suddenly drops
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 24
 Parallel interference cancellation (PIC)
r (t  Tb )

dˆ1 (0) sˆ1 (t  Tb ) dˆ1 (1)

 sˆi (t ) -
Aˆ1 (t  Tb ) sˆ2 (t  Tb )
i 1
+
dˆ2 (0) ˆ
decisions d 2 (1)
 sˆi (t ) -
i2
matched
and
Aˆ 2 (t  Tb ) spreader filter
stage
bank
dˆK (0) sˆK (t  Tb ) weights dˆK (1)
 sˆ (t ) -
iK
i

Aˆ K (t  Tb ) y  (I  Q) Ad  z
amplitude parallel  Ad  QAd  z
estimation summer
initial With equal weights for all stages the data estimates for


data each stages are

estimates dˆ (m  1)  y  QAdˆ ( m) y  Ad  QAd  z
minimization tends to cancel MAI  Ad  QA (d  dˆ (m))  z

Number of stages determined by required accuracy
(Stage-by-stage decision-variance can be monitored)
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 25
 PIC properties


SIC performs better in non-power controlled channels

PIC performs better in power balanced channels

Using decorrelating detector as the first stage
 improving first estimates improves total performance
 simplifies system analysis

Doing a partial MAI cancellation at each stage with the

PIC variations

amount of cancellation increasing for each successive

stage
 tentative decisions of the earlier stages are less
reliable - hence they should have a lower weight
 very large performance improvements have achieved
by this method
 probably the most promising suboptimal MUD

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 26

 Benefits and limitations of multi-user
detection
PROS:

Significant capacity improvement - usually signals of the
own cell are included

More efficient uplink spectrum utilization - hence for
downlink a wider spectrum may be allocated

Reduced MAI and near-far effect - reduced precision
requirements for power control

More efficient power utilization because near-far effect
is reduced
CONS:

If the neighboring cells are not included interference
cancellation efficiency is greatly reduced

Interference cancellation is very difficult to implement in
downlink reception where, however, larger capacity
requirements exist (DL traffic tends to be larger)

Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 27