Design of Coded SpaceTime Modulation
Zhiyuan Wu and Xiaofeng Wang
Abstract
In this paper, we study the coded spacetime modulation for multipleinput multipleoutput wireless
channels. For simpler design and ﬂexible rateversusperformance tradeoff, conventional encoders are
used before a linear spacetime modulator. A joint iterative receiver based on the turbo principle is
assumed that precludes the use of Tarokh’s design criteria for spacetime codes. Using the extrinsic
information transfer charts, design criteria that concern both the data rate and error performance are
developed. These criteria are much easier to apply than the wellknown Tarokh’s criteria. It is shown
that the use of outer encoders signiﬁcantly simpliﬁes the design of linear spacetime coding/modulation.
Based on the new design criteria, an optimal spacetime linear dispersion modulation scheme is pre
sented. In addition, the tradeoff between constellation size and symbol rate for a given overall data rate
is discussed. Simulation results are provided to verify the new design criteria and to demonstrate the
merits of the proposed coded spacetime modulation.
Index Terms
MIMO, spacetime coding, EXIT chart, linear dispersion codes.
I. INTRODUCTION
Recently, there has been a major research thrust of developing multipleinput multipleoutput
(MIMO) transmission schemes to exploit the increased capacity of multipleantenna wireless
channels [1][2]. As a result, numerous MIMO transmission schemes (e.g., [3][13]) have been
developed. Among them, most existing designs mainly fall into two categories: performance
oriented schemes by exploiting the spatial diversity, such as spacetime trellis codes (STTCs)
[3], spacetime block codes (STBCs) [4][5] and spacetime turbo trellis codes (ST Turbo TCs)
[6][8], and rateoriented schemes by capitalizing the MIMO fading channel capacity, such as
Belllabs layered spacetime (BLAST) architectures [9][11] and linear dispersion codes (LDCs)
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
2
[12][13]. However, many of these existing spacetime (ST) codes suffer from the design difﬁculty,
performance loss and/or high decoding complexity.
With recent progress in MIMO transmission, it has been recognized that the idea of the
powerful “Turbo codes”, ﬁrst proposed in [14], can also be applied in MIMO systems to achieve
nearcapacity performance. Both parallel and serial concatenated schemes have been proposed.
In parallel concatenated systems [6][8], the information bit stream is passed though two or
more encoders with different permutation and then punctured and multiplexed at the transmit
antennas. In serial concatenated systems such as [15], some form of outer encoding is applied
before spacetime coding/modulation. Such a serial concatenation is often preferable due to its
simpler design and greater ﬂexibility in rateversusperformance tradeoff. In fact, any spacetime
transmission scheme can be considered as an outer encoder serially concatenated before an inner
spacetime mapper or modulator that maps a number of input symbols onto a spacetime matrix
before transmission. For example, a ST Turbo TC can be viewed as an outer turbo channel
encoder serially concatenated before an inner VBlast ST modulator [10].
To emphasize the “modulation” ﬂavor of the inner spacetime process when applied after outer
encoding, we will call such a serial concatenated system as the coded spacetime modulation
(CSTM). Often, conventional encoders such as convolutional codes, trelliscoded modulation
(TCM), and turbo codes designed for singleinput singleoutput (SISO) channels can be used to
provide extra redundancy and to simplify the design of the inner spacetime modulator. In order
to decouple the correlation between outer encoding and inner spacetime modulation, interleaving
is often applied to the encoded bits or symbols. Such a concatenated coding system possesses
many advantages of both the conventional codes and the inner spacetime modulation. On the
one hand, conventional outer codes can provide large coding gain and time diversity; on the
other hand, spacetime coding/modulation provides guaranteed spatial diversity gain to combat
fading. Together, they enable a variety of design targets in performance, bandwidth efﬁciency,
complexity, and tradeoffs among them.
In a CSTM system, the use of interleaver makes it impractical to evaluate the coding gain and
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
3
diversity gain of the overall system based on Tarokh’s criteria. Furthermore, Tarokh’s criteria are
developed based on maximumlikelihood (ML) decoding which is too complex to be practical
for a concatenated system. At best, a joint iterative receiver based on the turbo principle can be
used [15]. In such a case, Tarokh’s criteria no longer apply either to the overall concatenated
system or to the inner spacetime modulation alone. Hence, it is important to study the design
of the inner spacetime modulator when used in a concatenated system.
Although any existing spacetime code can be a potential candidate for the inner spacetime
modulation, a particular desirable choice is linear dispersion (LD) codes. This is because it
subsumes many existing block codes as its special cases, allows suboptimal linear receivers with
greatly reduced complexity, and provides ﬂexible rateversusperformance tradeoff [12]. Hence,
in this paper, using the idea of the extrinsic information transfer (EXIT) chart pioneered by S. ten
Brink [16][17], we consider the design of the inner LD spacetime modulator when concatenated
with an outer code under the assumption of a joint iterative (turbo) receiver. Although the EXIT
chart technique developed for SISO systems has been used in the study of some speciﬁc MIMO
systems such as [18], it cannot be directly used for more general cases. Unlike in SISO systems,
the outputs of the inner ST modulator often have different statistics. By extending the existing
EXIT chart technique to MIMO transmission systems, it is shown that the inner spacetime
modulator shall a) maximize the average mutual information between a bit and the received
signal and b) minimize the pairwise error performance of the codeword pairs that differ at only
one symbol within a modulation block. Criterion a) is similar to those used in the existing high
rate schemes while b) is unique for CSTM. These two criteria concern the channel capacity
and performance, respectively, and together reﬂect a joint optimization of both data rate and
error rate. It is worthy of noting that criterion b) is much simpler to apply than Tarokh’s criteria
set since the later requires an optimization over all the possible codeword pairs. Based on the
proposed criteria, an optimal LD spacetime modulator can be obtained. Several design examples
are provided to demonstrate the merits of the proposed CSTM scheme and to verify the design
criteria as well.
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
4
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section II, preliminaries of this research
including the system model and the joint iterative receiver are introduced. In section III, we
extend the existing EXIT chart to MIMO transmission systems. In section IV, we propose design
criteria for the inner ST modulation in a CSTM system, provide design examples, and discuss
the design of constellation versus symbol rate for a given data rate. In section V, simulation
results are presented. Finally, conclusions are drawn in section VI.
II. PRELIMINARIES
A. System Model
In this study, a block fading channel model is assumed where the channel keeps constant in
one modulation block but may change from block to block. That is, the channel is not necessarily
constant within a coding frame which often consists of a large number of modulation blocks.
Furthermore, the channel is assumed to be a Rayleigh ﬂat fading channel with N
t
transmit and
N
r
receive antennas. Let’s denote the complex gain from transmit antenna n to receiver antenna
m by h
mn
and collect them to form an N
r
×N
t
channel matrix H = [h
mn
], known perfectly to
the receiver but unknown to the transmitter. The entries in H are assumed to be independently
identically distributed (i.i.d.) symmetrical complex Gaussian random variables with zero mean
and unit variance.
The CSTM under investigation is a serial concatenation of an outer encoder and an inner
ST modulator as shown in Fig. 1(a), which subsumes many MIMO transmission schemes as its
special cases. In a CSTM system, the information bits are ﬁrst encoded, shufﬂed by an interleaver
and then mapped into symbols. After that, the symbol stream is parsed into blocks of length L.
A symbol vector associated with one modulation block is denoted by x = [x
1
, x
2
, . . . , x
L
]
T
with
x
i
∈ Ω ≡ {Ω
m
m = 0, 1, . . . , 2
Q
− 1, Q ≥ 1} (i.e., a complex constellation of size 2
Q
, such as
2
Q
QAM). The average symbol energy is assumed to be 1, i.e.,
1
2
Q
2
Q
−1
m=0
Ω
m

2
= 1. Each block
of symbols will be mapped by the inner ST modulator to a dispersion matrix of size N
t
×T and
then transmitted over the N
t
transmit antennas over T channel uses. The system model in Fig.
1(a) is often called bitinterleaved coded modulation (BICM) [19][20]. Another CSTM scheme
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
5
under consideration is to apply a constellation mapper right after the outer encoder and before
a symbollevel interleaver, which will be called symbolinterleaved coded modulation (SICM).
As mentioned before, we consider LD ST modulation for various reasons. An LD ST modulator
is deﬁned by its L N
t
×T dispersion matrices M
i
= [m
i1
, m
i2
, . . . , m
iT
] and the corresponding
output matrix of one modulation block is given by
X =
L
i=1
M
i
x
i
(1)
With a constellation of size 2
Q
, the data rate of the inner spacetime modulator is R
m
= Q· L/T
bits per channel use and the data rate of the overall concatenated system is R = R
c
R
m
bits per
channel use, where R
c
≤ 1 is the coding rate of the outer encoder.
Hence, one can adjust symbol rate L/T, constellation size Q, and coding rate R
c
to meet
different requirements on data rate and performance. Since the inner ST modulation is linear,
suboptimal linear receivers can be used for demodulation [12]. It can also be observed that the
spacetime mapping schemes used in the existing layered spacetime architectures, e.g., [9][11],
are LD modulation. Hence the proposed CSTM with LD ST modulation subsumes existing
layered spacetime schemes as special cases.
At the receiver, the received signals associated with one modulation block can be written as
Y =
_
P/N
t
HX+Z =
_
P/N
t
H
L
i=1
M
i
x
i
+Z (2)
where Y is a complex matrix of size Nr × T whose (m, n)th entry is the received signal at
receive antenna m and time instant n, Z is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) matrix
with i.i.d. symmetrical complex Gaussian elements of zero mean and variance σ
2
z
, and P is the
average energy per channel use at each receive antenna. Let vec() be the operator that forms a
column vector by stacking the columns of a matrix and deﬁne y = vec(Y), z = vec(Z), and
m
i
= vec(M
i
), then (2) can be rewritten as
y =
_
P/N
t
HGx +z =
_
P/N
t
Hx +z (3)
where H = I
T
⊗H with ⊗ as the Kronecker product operator and G = [m
1
, m
2
, . . . , m
L
] will
be referred to as the modulation matrix. Since the average energy of the signal per channel use
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
6
at a receive antenna is assume to be P, we have tr(GG
H
) = N
t
T. Denoting
˜
h
i
= Hm
i
as the
ith column vector of
H, the above equation can also be written as
y =
_
P/N
t
L
i=1
˜
h
i
x
i
+z (4)
B. Joint Iterative Demodulation/Decoding Receiver
The computational complexity of an optimal MLbased receiver can be impractical for a
CSTM system due to the use of the interleaver between the inner ST modulator and the outer
encoder. At best, an iterative joint decoding and demodulation receiver, as illustrated in Fig.
1(b), can be employed. In the ﬁgure and the following discussion, variables with subscript “1”
are associated with the inner ST demodulator and variables with subscript “2” are associated
with the outer decoder, and subscripts “a (or A)”, “e (or E)” and “d” stand for a priori, extrinsic,
and a posteriori, respectively.
The joint demodulation and decoding is an iterative process. In each iteration, the extrinsic
information, which is the a posteriori information less the a priori information, is exchanged
between the two constituent components, the inner demodulator and the outer decoder. The
extrinsic information from one component is used as the a priori of the other component. After
a sufﬁcient number of iterations, neither the inner ST demodulator nor the outer decoder can
beneﬁt from the exchange of the extrinsic information any longer and this phenomenon is often
called “convergence”. Once convergence is reached, the outer decoder will perform hard decision
to generate the decoded information bits.
Normally, loglikelihoodratios (LLRs) are used in information exchange. For BICM, the bit
LLRs can be calculated as L
b
= ln [P
r
(b = 1)/P
r
(b = 0)]. For SICM, since the symbols are
taken from a constellation of size 2
Q
, each symbol has a (2
Q
− 1)tuple whose mth element
is the logarithm of the ratio of the probability of the symbol taking value Ω
m
over that of the
symbol taking value Ω
0
, i.e. L
s
(x = Ω
m
) = ln[P
r
(x = Ω
m
)/P
r
(x = Ω
0
)] .
Below, we consider the extrinsic LLRs for the inner ST demodulator and the outer decoder.
1) The extrinsic LLR of the inner ST demodulator
Given the a priori bit LLRs L
b
a1
= [L
b
a1,1
, L
b
a1,2
, . . . , L
b
a1,LQ
] from the outer decoder at the last
iteration and the corresponding channel observation y, using MAP criterion, the extrinsic LLR
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
7
of the jth bit in symbol x
i
can be calculated as
L
b
e1,(i−1)Q+j
= ln
P
r
(b
(i−1)Q+j
= 1y, L
b
a1
)
P
r
(b
(i−1)Q+j
= 0y, L
b
a1
)
. ¸¸ .
L
b
d1,(i−1)Q+j
−L
b
a1,(i−1)Q+j
(5)
Similarly, given the a priori symbol LLRs L
s
a1
= [L
s
a1,1
, L
s
a1,2
, . . . , L
s
a1,L
] and the observation
y, one can compute the extrinsic LLR of symbol x
i
in the block using the MAP criterion as
L
s
e1,i
(Ω
m
)
= ln
P
r
(x
i
= Ω
m
y, L
s
a1
)
P
r
(x
i
= Ω
0
y, L
s
a1
)
. ¸¸ .
L
s
d1,i
(Ωm)
−L
s
a1,i
(Ω
m
)
= ln
x
I
∈Γ
exp
_
_
_
_
−
y−
_
P
N
t
¯
H
I
x
I
−
_
P
N
t
˜
h
i
Ωm
2
σ
2
z
_
_
+
_
k∈Ξ
L
s
a1,k
(x
k
)
_
_
_
x
I
∈Γ
exp
_
_
_
_
−
y−
_
P
N
t
¯
H
I
x
I
−
_
P
N
t
˜
h
i
Ω
0
2
σ
2
z
_
_
+
_
k∈Ξ
L
s
a1,k
(x
k
)
_
_
_
(6)
where
H
I
is the matrix by removing the ith column from
Hin (3), x
I
= [x
1
, . . . , x
i−1
, x
i+1
, . . . , x
L
]
T
,
Γ is the set of 2
Q(L−1)
column symbol vectors and Ξ is the set of indices of x
I
, i.e. Ξ = {k1 ≤
k ≤ L and k = i}.
Let L
s
a1,i
(Ω
m
) =
j∈Υm
L
b
a1,j
, where Υ
m
is the set of indices of the bits in Ω
m
equal to 1. Then
from (5) and (6), one can write
L
b
e1,(i−1)Q+j
= ln
Ω
+
m
∈Ω
b
j
=1
exp
_
L
s
e1,i
(Ω
+
m
) + L
s
a1,i
(Ω
+
m
)
_
Ω
−
m
∈Ω
b
j
=0
exp
_
L
s
e1,i
(Ω
−
m
) + L
s
a1,i
(Ω
−
m
)
_
−L
b
a1,(i−1)Q+j
(7)
where Ω
b
j
=1
is the set of constellation points whose jth bit in Ω
m
equal to 1 while Ω
b
j
=0
is
the set of constellation points whose jth bit equal to 0. From (7), the MAP inner ST detector
for a BICM scheme can be implemented by adding a process following the symbollevel MAP
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
8
detector as deﬁned in (6). This process calculates the extrinsic bit LLR using the output extrinsic
LLR of the corresponding symbol from the symbollevel detector and the a priori LLRs of the
bits in that symbol. This observation will be useful in the later development of this study. In
addition to the optimal MAP algorithm, other linear suboptimal methods are also available for
reduced complexity such as [21][22].
2) The extrinsic LLR of the outer decoder
Unlike the inner ST modulator, the computation of extrinsic LLRs is only based on the input
a priori LLRs from the inner ST demodulator in a CSTM system. The associated optimal MAP
algorithm has been developed by Bahl et al in [23] and will not be described in this paper.
Moreover, other suboptimal algorithms are also available such as [24][25].
III. EXIT CHART FOR MIMO TRANSMISSION
In this section, by means of the EXIT chart, we examine the convergence behavior of the
iterative demodulation/decoding procedure for a CSTM system as described in the last section.
In Fig. 2, a typical EXIT chart of the type of iterative receivers for a CSTM with two input
symbols per LD modulation block is given. The EXIT chart illustrates the trajectory of the
exchange of extrinsic information measured as the mutual information between the LLRs and
the bits in the corresponding symbols. For instance, the extrinsic information of the outer decoder
is I
E2
= I(x; L
e2
). It is important to notice that the extrinsic LLR outputs of the symbols in
a modulation block may have different statistics, depending on the channel H, the dispersion
matrices {M
i
}. For BICM, the statistics of extrinsic bit LLR outputs will also depend on the
constellation pattern. Hence, different symbols may have different extrinsic information transfer
functions and I
E2
is a function of the two a priori inputs, i.e., I
E2
= T(I
′
E1
, I
′′
E1
).
The following observations are useful for the analysis of the MIMO transmission system.
Observation 1: If the interleaver is random and the constraint length is sufﬁciently large, the
outer decoder yields the same amount of extrinsic information for all the symbols (or bits for
bitlevel decoder) and the exact amount depends on the average a priori information of the
inputs.
Remarks: The above observation tells that I
E2
in the example shown in Fig. 2 is the same for
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
9
all the outputs and is a function of I
E1
= (I
′
E1
+I
′′
E1
)/2. This is because the following reasons.
If the constraint length is large, the output extrinsic LLRs will depend, of about equal degree,
on the a priori information of a large number of its neighbors. Furthermore, if the interleaver is
random, these neighbors are evenly distributed among the input groups. Hence, different symbols
tend to have the same amount of extrinsic information. In addition, a speciﬁc neighbor (e.g., the
symbol immediately next to the symbol of concern at the decoder output) may be associated
with any of the input groups with equal probability. Consequently, the a priori information of
any neighbor is the average a priori information of all the input groups and, hence, in Fig. 2,
I
E2
= T
_
(I
′
E1
+ I
′′
E1
)/2
_
.
To verify the above hypothesis, two BCJR/MAP decoders as depicted in Fig. 3 were set
up. For the decoder (a) in Fig. 3(a), two streams of independent a priori symbol LLRs with
mutual information I(x; L
a1
) and I(x; L
a2
), respectively, were sent to a BCJR/MAP decoder and
then two corresponding streams of extrinsic LLRs were calculated by the decoder. BCJR/MAP
decoder (b) in Fig. 3(b), only had one stream of a priori symbol LLRs with mutual information
I(x; L
a
) = [I(x; L
a1
) + I(x; L
a2
)] /2 (8)
Since there is a onetoone correspondence between the LLRs and the corresponding soft output
¯ x of the transmitted symbols measured as
¯ x =
_
_
1 +
2
Q
−1
m=1
exp(L(Ω
m
))
_
_
−1
2
Q
−1
m=0
Ω
m
exp(L(Ω
m
)) (9)
mutual information between the symbols and the corresponding LLRs is equal to that between
the symbols and the corresponding soft outputs ¯ x, i.e., I(x; L
e
) = I(x; ¯ x(L
e
)). Hence, instead
of using extrinsic LLRs directly, histograms of ¯ x were generated to reﬂect the statistics nature
of corresponding extrinsic LLRs for convenience. In the simulation, BPSK constellation and
a convolutional code with coding rate 1/2 and constraint length 5 were used. Following the
Gaussian consistency [17], the a priori LLRs were generated as symbols corrupted by zero
mean AWGN with different variances. The simulation results are shown in Fig. 4. From the
ﬁgure, the histograms of the output extrinsic averages ¯ x of the two streams of input LLRs for
decoder (a) coincide with each other and they also coincide with the histogram for decoder (b).
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
10
In summary, the simulation results suggest that the extrinsic information output of the outer
BCJR/MAP decoder only depends on the average a priori information input.
Observation 2: (a) The convergence point is where the average EXIT curve of the inner ST
demodulator and the EXIT curve of the outer decoder meet. (b) The a posteriori LLRs associated
with different symbols in a modulation block sent to the ﬁnal decision device may have different
statistics determined by their own EXIT curves.
Remarks: This observation is just a direct result from Observation 1. For instance, at conver
gence point in Fig. 2, let us denote I
c
E2
as the value of the extrinsic information of the outer
decoder, I
c
′
E1
and I
c
′′
E1
as the values of extrinsic information corresponding to the two symbols
of the inner demodulator, we have the following relationship
I
c
E2
= T
E2
((I
c
′
E1
+ I
c
′′
E1
)/2)
I
c
′
E1
= T
′
E1
(I
c
E2
)
I
c
′′
E1
= T
′′
E1
(I
c
E2
) (10)
where I = T(x) indicates that I is a function of x. Hence, the a posteriori LLRs of the symbols
associated with the dashed curve and dashdot curve at convergence are
L
′
d2
= L
c
′
e2
+ L
c
′
e1
L
′′
d2
= L
c
′′
e2
+ L
c
′′
e1
(11)
where L
c
′
e1
and L
c
′′
e1
correspond to I
c
′
E1
and I
c
′′
E1
respectively, and both L
c
′
e2
and L
c
′′
e2
correspond to
I
c
E2
. In (11), L
c
′
e2
and L
c
′′
e2
have the same statistics as predicted by Observation 1, but L
c
′
e1
and
L
c
′′
e1
may have different statistics.
Although the above observations were described for a symbollevel decoder such as a decoder
for TCM, they also apply to bitlevel decoders if all the quantities associated with symbols in
the above observations are replaced by the corresponding quantities associated with bits. To this
end, we are ready to consider the design of inner ST modulation. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the
curve of a powerful conventional outer code often presents two ﬂat plateaus at the two ends and
a sharp cliff in the middle [17]. On the contrary, the EXIT curves of the inner ST demodulator
are close to a straight line due to its shorter encoding block length which is L.
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
11
By Observation 1, to let the trajectory of the iterative receiver snake through the bottleneck in
the middle and thus reach the second plateau region of the I
E2
curve, one can seek to maximize
1
LQ
E(
L
i=1
I(x
i
; L
s
e1,i
)) for SICM and
1
LQ
E(
L
i=1
Q
j=1
I(b
(i−1)Q+j
; L
b
e1,(i−1)Q+j
)) for BICM, where the
expectation E() is taken over the channel H. As described in section IIB, the extrinsic LLR of a
bit can be calculated using the extrinsic LLR of its associated symbol and the a priori LLRs of the
other bits in the symbol. For a given constellation and a priori information, maximizing the sum
extrinsic information of the bits in symbol x, i.e.
Q
j=1
I(b
j
; L
b
e1,j
), can be wellapproximated by
maximizing the extrinsic information of the symbol I(x; L
s
e1
). In summary, we seek to maximize
1
LQ
E(
L
i=1
I(x
i
; L
s
e1,i
)) for both BICM and SICM.
By Observation 2, one should minimize the outage probability of the a posteriori information
(i.e. I(x; L
d2
)) for each symbol (or bits for BICM). Let I
E1
(a) denote the extrinsic information
in the inner ST modulation block when the input I
A1
= a in the following discussion. From (11),
when I
c
E2
is large, i.e. the convergence point is located at the second plateau of the outer decoder,
I
c
E2
will change little regardless of the a priori information I
E1
. Hence, minimizing the outage
probability of the a posteriori information I(x; L
d2
) can be approximated by minimizing the
outage probability of the extrinsic information I
E1
at convergence, or equivalently, maximizing
P
r
(I
E1
(I
c
E2
) ≥ ρ) for a certain value ρ. Noting that when the trajectory of the iterative receiver
reaches the second plateau, I
c
E2
≈ Q, we seek to maximize P
r
(I
E1
(Q) ≥ ρ) for any symbol.
Again, for a given constellation, minimizing the outage probability of extrinsic information on
bits for BICM can be approximated by minimizing the extrinsic information on symbols.
In summary, we have two optimization problems concerning the design of the inner ST
modulator:
• maximizing the average extrinsic information per bit for any given a priori information,
i.e. maximizing I
E1
(I
A1
) =
1
LQ
E
_
L
i=1
I(x
i
; L
s
e1,i
)
_
;
• minimizing the outage probability of the extrinsic information of a symbol in the modulation
block at perfect a priori information, i.e. maximizing P
r
(I
E1
(Q) ≥ ρ).
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
12
IV. DESIGN OF INNER ST MODULATION
In this section, we consider the design of the inner ST modulator by solving the two opti
mization problems as described in the last section.
A. Maximizing the Average Extrinsic Information Per Bit
To make the optimization problems tractable and independent of constellation, we assume
i.i.d. Gaussian inputs. The results can be used as design guidelines for practical input symbols
drawn from ﬁnite alphabets. In general, maximizing the average extrinsic information for any
given a priori information is difﬁcult due to the unknown statistics of the a priori symbol LLRs.
However, noting that the EXIT curves of the inner ST demodulator are monotonic and close
to a straight line, we seek to maximize the average extrinsic information at the starting point,
i.e. I
E1
(0). This will ensure that the trajectory of the iterative receiver pass through the narrow
tunnel in the middle to reach the second plateau region of the EXIT chart.
Under the assumption of i.i.d. Gaussian inputs, the extrinsic information of the input symbol
x
i
when there is no a priori information is
I(x
i
; yH) = log(1 +P/N
t
·
˜
h
H
i
R
−1
i
˜
h
i
) (12)
where
R
i
is the autocorrelation matrix of the interference and AWGN given by
R
i
= P/N
t
·
H
I
H
H
I
+ σ
2
z
I (13)
where
H
I
is deﬁned in (6). Apparently, the mutual information given in (12) is a function of
the channel H. Hence, we seek to ﬁnd the modulation matrix G to maximize
I
E1
(0) =
1
LQ
E
_
L
i=1
I(x
i
; y)
_
(14)
where the expectation is taken with respect to channel H. When the number of bits in a
modulation block (i.e. LQ) is ﬁxed, it is equivalent to maximizing E
_
L
i=1
I(x
i
; y)
_
, which is
the ergodic sum capacity of channel
H when the L data streams are independently demodulated.
This capacity will be called uncooperated sum capacity which is always smaller than or equal
to the conventional cooperated sum capacity. Concerning the uncooperated sum capacity, we
have the following theorem.
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
13
Theorem 1: The ergodic uncooperated sum capacity of channel
H is achieved if and only if
the modulation matrix G satisﬁes
GG
H
= I
NtT
(15)
Proof: See Appendix I.
Noting that matrix G is of size N
t
T ×L, equation (15) holds only if L ≥ N
t
T. For simpler
complexity of demodulation, we will only consider L = N
t
T in the sequel. In this case, (15)
implies that
tr(M
H
m
M
n
) =
_
¸
_
¸
_
1, ∀ m = n
0, ∀ m = n
(16)
Note, it can be shown that the above matrix G satisfying (15) also maximize the average
mutual information for any given a priori information in SICM or BICM. It is also interesting
to note that the modulation matrix G satisfying (15) also achieves the cooperated sum capacity
given by [1][2]
C = E
_
log(det(I
Nr
+
P
N
t
σ
2
z
H
H
H))
_
(17)
B. Minimizing the Outage Probability of the Extrinsic Information
Theorem 2: The probability P
r
(I
E1
(Q) ≥ ρ) is maximized only when M
i
M
H
i
is full rank
with identical nonzero eigenvalues for all i.
Proof: See Appendix II.
Interestingly, the set of dispersion matrices satisfying the conditions in Theorem 2 also
optimize the pairwise error performance. With perfect feedback (I
A1
→ Q) for the symbols
other than the symbol of concern, say x
i
, the detection is based on the following observation
obtained by perfectly cancelling interference from other symbols within the same block, i.e.,
y
i
= y −
_
P/N
t
l=i
˜
h
l
x
l
=
_
P/N
t
˜
h
i
x
i
+ ˜ z (18)
Since
˜
h
i
= vec(HM
i
), then the modiﬁed Euclidean distance between a pair of transmitted
symbols differing at position i in a modulation block is
d
2
(x
i
, ˆ x
i
H) = x
i
− ˆ x
i

2
Nr
m=1
h
H
m
M
i
M
H
i
h
m
(19)
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
14
where h
H
m
is the mth row vector of H. Following the similar procedure by Tarokh et al in [3],
it can be readily found that, to minimize the error probability of x
i
, one needs to maximize
the rank of M
i
and the product of the nonzero eigenvalues of M
i
M
H
i
just like the Rank and
Determinant criteria in [3]. When tr(M
i
M
H
i
) is ﬁxed, the maximum coding gain is achieved
when all the eigenvalues of M
i
M
H
i
are equal.
In summary, we have the following two criteria for the design of the LD ST modulator.
Capacity Criterion: The symbol rate of the LD ST modulator must be N
t
symbols per channel
use. Furthermore, the dispersion matrices shall be chosen such that their Fnorms to be 1 and
the trace of the Hermitian product of any pair of distinct dispersion matrices to be 0.
ErrorPerformance Criterion: For the best error performance, the dispersion matrices M
i
M
H
i
for any i must be full rank with identical eigenvalues.
If the modulation block length T is N
t
or greater, full rank can be easily guaranteed; while
if T is less than N
t
, full rank is impossible. ErrorPerformance Criterion also suggests that the
minimum modulation block length shall be N
t
.
C. Design Examples
To demonstrate our design criteria, three inner ST modulation design examples are provided be
low. In all the three schemes, T = N
t
and L = N
2
t
. Let’s denote P =
_
_
_
0
1×(Nt−1)
1
I
Nt−1
0
(Nt−1)×1
_
_
_,
F = [f
mn
] as the DFT matrix of size N
t
× N
t
with (m, n)th entry f
mn
=
1
√
Nt
exp(2πj(m −
1)(n − 1)/N
t
) and S =
_
_
_
1 0
1×(Nt−1)
0
(Nt−1)×1
0
(Nt−1)×(Nt−1)
_
_
_. The dispersion matrices of the three
schemes are listed below.
Scheme 1: This is an optimal design. The associated dispersion matrices are
M
(k−1)Nt+i
= diag[f
k
]P
−(i−1)
(20)
for k = 1, 2, . . . , N
t
and i = 1, 2, . . . , N
t
, where f
k
denotes the kth column vector of F.
Scheme 2: The dispersion matrices of the fulldiversity and fullrate scheme [13] are
M
(k−1)Nt+i
= β
k−1
diag[f
k
]α
i−1
P
−(i−1)
(21)
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
15
for k = 1, 2, . . . , N
t
and i = 1, 2, . . . , N
t
, where α and β are constellation dependent and are
chosen to guarantee full diversity [13].
Scheme 3: The dispersion matrices of the threaded BLAST scheme [11] are
M
(k−1)Nt+i
= P
(k−1)+(i−1)
S · P
−(i−1)
(22)
for k = 1, 2, . . . , N
t
and i = 1, 2, . . . , N
t
.
It can be readily checked that although all the three schemes satisfy Capacity Criterion
and preserve the original MIMO channel capacity, only the ﬁrst two schemes satisfy Error
Performance Criterion. Without an outer encoder, Scheme 2 achieves full diversity gain with
appropriate α and β and hence outperforms Scheme 1. However, the presence of an outer coder,
the two schemes shall perform closely.
D. TradeOff Between Constellation Size and Modulation Symbol Rate
For a given inner ST modulation rate in bit R
m
= LQ/T, there exists a tradeoff between
constellation size Q and symbol rate L/T. From Theorem 1, I
E1
(0) is maximized only when
L/T ≥ N
t
. In fact, it can also be shown that I
E1
(0) is monotonic with respect to L/T. Hence,
for a given R
m
, the minimal integer satisfying Q ≥ R
m
/N
t
shall be selected. If R
m
< N
t
Q
with the chosen Q, a subset of dispersion matrices shall be selected from the optimal design.
To verify this design method, simulation was set up over a system with N
t
= N
r
= T = 2
under the Rayleigh ergodic ﬂat fading channel. In this simulation, we compared the uncooperated
sum capacity of Scheme 1 which is an optimal design, Alamouti scheme [5] and an orthogonal
scheme by selecting a pair of orthogonal dispersion matrices from Scheme 1. The corresponding
numerical results are presented in Fig. 5 when the target modulation rate R
m
is 3 and 4 bits
per channel use, respectively. When R
m
= 3, the optimal design uses QPSK modulation and
chooses 3 out of the 4 possible dispersion matrices in (20). As can be seen from these ﬁgures, the
performance difference between the optimal and the other two schemes grows more signiﬁcantly
as R
m
increases.
In summary, for a given inner ST modulation rate, one seeks to choose a constellation size
as small as possible till the modulation rate in symbol reaches N
t
.
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
16
V. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The EXIT characteristics of the three design examples as well as their error performance
will be compared in this section to demonstrate our design criteria. Instead of prohibitive MAP
detection as (6) and (5), the softinterferencecancellation minimum mean square error (SIC
MMSE) detection algorithm [22] was used as the inner demodulator in the simulation.
In Fig. 6, the EXIT characteristics of the three schemes were compared under several ﬁxed
channel conditions. In the ﬁgure, E
b
/N
0
= 0dB (E
b
is the transmitted power per bit here),
N
t
= N
r
= 2, and QPSK constellation were applied and the channel coefﬁcient matrix was
assumed to have the form H =
_
_
_
1 γ cos θ
0 γ sin θ
_
_
_. Results were obtained for various values of
magnitude γ and angle θ. In the EXIT charts, the magnitude γ determines the ending point of the
transfer function of the inner ST demodulator, while the angle θ affects the starting point when
the magnitude γ is ﬁxed. As can be observed, all the schemes have similar starting points under
the same channel condition. The small variation in the starting points among different schemes
is due to the use of suboptimal demodulation algorithm (i.e. SICMMSE). This is expected
since they all satisfy Capacity Criterion. However, since Scheme 3 does not comply with Error
Performance Criterion, under most channel conditions, it has smaller extrinsic information than
Scheme 2 and 3, i.e., its outage probability of the extrinsic information is larger. It can also be
seen from the ﬁgure, the ﬁrst two schemes signiﬁcantly outperform the third scheme particularly
when the gain of the second transmit antenna is signiﬁcantly smaller than that of the ﬁrst transmit
antenna.
We now consider fading channels. In Fig. 7(a) and 7(b), cumulative distribution functions
(CDFs) of extrinsic information at two extreme cases, i.e. I
E1
(0) and I
E1
(Q), under Rayleigh
ﬂat fading channels are given, respectively. In the ﬁgure, a channel is said to be a “slow” fading
channel if it keeps constant in a coding frame but changes from frame to frame independently,
while a channel is a “fast” channel if it keeps constant in a modulation block but varies from block
to block independently. In the simulation, E
b
/N
0
= 3dB, N
t
= N
r
= 2, QPSK constellation
were applied. It can be seen from the simulation results that all of the three schemes have similar
statistics for I
E1
(0), but signiﬁcantly different statistics for I
E1
(Q). The simulation results for
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
17
I
E1
(Q) in Fig. 7(b) demonstrate that the ﬁrst two schemes outperforms Scheme 3 signiﬁcantly
under both slow and fast fading channels. Although Scheme 2 outperforms Scheme 1 in an
uncoded system, their performance curves in a coded system are almost indistinguishable. For
both I
E1
(0) and I
E1
(Q), the performance in a fast fading channel is signiﬁcantly better than in
a slow fading channel. This is expected because only when the channel varies signiﬁcantly in
a coding frame, the ergodic capacity is possible and the temporal diversity is achieved by the
outer encoder.
Finally, in Fig. 8, the frame error rate (FER) of the three schemes under different Rayleigh
ergodic ﬂat fading channels are compared. In the simulation, N
t
= N
r
= T = 2, QPSK
constellation, 200 symbols per coding frame were assumed. A convolutional code with coding
rate 1/2 and constraint length 4 is used as the outer encoder. Its generator polynomials are
H
1
(D) = 04, H
2
(D) = 13. In consistence with the EXIT chart analysis, the ﬁrst two schemes
perform indistinguishable to each other but outperform the third scheme signiﬁcantly after
sufﬁcient iterations. It is also clear that the three schemes perform closely after the ﬁrst iteration
since they all comply with Capacity Criterion. Again, the performance of all these schemes in
a fast fading channel is signiﬁcantly better than that in a slow fading channel.
VI. CONCLUSION
A coded spacetime modulation scheme with conventional outer encoder for MIMO wireless
communications has been investigated. Using the EXIT chart technique, the design of the inner
spacetime modulator has been studied under the assumption of a joint iterative receiver. Two
design criteria are derived that relate to the channel capacity and error performance, respectively.
To guarantee the convergence of the iterative receiver, the uncooperated sum capacity of the inner
ST modulations must be maximized. Once convergence is achieved, the error performance is
optimized by maximizing the rank and determinant of the dispersion matrix of each individual
symbol. The latter ErrorPerformance Criterion is much easier to apply than the wellknown
Tarokh’s Rank and Determinant Criteria in [3]. The proposed two criteria together allow a
complete design of the system concerning both the data rate and error performance. Speciﬁcally,
it is shown that for a given inner ST modulation rate in bit, constellation size shall be minimized
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
18
till the maximum symbol rate, i.e. N
t
, is reached. The proposed design criteria have been veriﬁed
by design examples and simulation results.
APPENDIX I
PROOF OF THEOREM 1
Under the assumption of i.i.d. Gaussian input symbols {x
i
}, we have R
G
≡ E(Gxx
H
G
H
) =
GG
H
. Since R
G
is nonnegative deﬁnite, it can be decomposed as R
G
= Q∆Q
H
, where Q is
unitary matrix and ∆ = diag[δ
i
], ∀i = 1, 2, ..., N
t
T. Since R
G
= Q∆Q
H
will have the same
uncooperated sum capacity as ∆, we need only consider
R
G
= GG
H
= ∆. (23)
For the energy constraint, we have
NtT
i=1
δ
i
= N
t
T.
By substituting (13) into (12), we obtain
I(x
i
; yH) = log
_
1 + P/N
t
·
˜
h
H
i
_
P/N
t
·
H
I
H
H
I
+ σ
2
z
I
_
−1
˜
h
i
_
(24)
where
H
I
is deﬁned in (6). Further, substituting (4) and (23) into (24) and using the inverse of
a smallrank adjustment of a matrix in [30], we can further write
I(x
i
; yH) = −log
_
1 −P/N
t
· δ
i
¯
h
H
i
¯
R
−1
¯
h
i
_
(25)
where
¯
h
i
is the i
th
column vector of H in (3) and
¯
R = P/N
t
·
NtT
j=1
δ
j
¯
h
j
¯
h
H
j
+ σ
2
z
I = P/N
t
· H∆H
H
+ σ
2
z
I (26)
Hence, the uncooperated sum capacity I
sum
can be expressed as
I
sum
= max
∆
_
−E log
_
NtT
i=1
_
1 −P/N
t
· δ
i
¯
h
H
i
¯
R
−1
¯
h
i
_
__
(27)
Noting that 1−P/N
t
·δ
i
¯
h
H
i
¯
R
−1
¯
h
i
is the i
th
diagonal entry of matrix I−P/N
t
·∆
1/2
H
H
R
−1
H∆
1/2
,
we seek to minimize
J(∆) = E log Φ
_
I −P/N
t
· ∆
1/2
H
H
¯
R
−1
H∆
1/2
_
(28)
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
19
where Φ(X) denotes the product of the diagonal entries of matrix X. Substituting (26) into (28)
and using the inverse of a smallrank adjustment in [30], we have
J(∆) = E log Φ
_
_
_
I +
P
N
t
σ
2
z
∆
1/2
H
H
H∆
1/2
_
−1
_
_
(29)
It can be easily proven that (δ
i
− δ
j
)
_
∂J
∂δ
i
−
∂J
∂δ
j
_
≥ 0, ∀1 ≤ i, j ≤ N
t
T. This, with the fact
that J(∆) is symmetric with respect to δ
i
, ∀1 ≤ i, j ≤ N
t
T, shows that J(∆) is Schurconvex
[27][28]. Hence, ∆ must be of the form αI
NtT
. By the energy constraint tr(GG
H
) = N
t
T, this
is possible only if (15) is satisﬁed.
APPENDIX II
PROOF OF THEOREM 2
If the a priori information is perfect, we can obtain from (6)
I
E1
(Q) = log
_
1 +
P
N
t
σ
2
z
˜
h
H
i
˜
h
i
_
(30)
From (30), maximizing P
r
(I
E1
(Q) ≥ ρ) is equivalent to maximizing P
r
(
˜
h
i
2
≥ ξ). Noting that
˜
h
i
= Hm
i
, we have
˜
h
i
2
=
Nr
m=1
h
H
m
M
i
M
H
i
h
m
(31)
where h
m
is the mth column vector of H
H
. The following decomposition is assumed
M
i
M
H
i
= UΛU
H
(32)
where Λ = diag[λ
n
], ∀n = 1, 2, ..., N
t
. By Lemma 5 in [1], since U
H
h
m
has the same distribution
as h
m
, we need only consider M
i
M
H
i
= Λ. Then we have
˜
h
i
2
=
Nt
n=1
λ
n
Nr
m=1
h
mn

2
(33)
For the power constraint, we have
Nt
n=1
λ
n
= 1.
By [29], since the random variable
Nr
m=1
h
mn

2
in (33) is identically chisquare distributed
with 2N
r
degrees of freedom, the outage probability P
r
(
˜
h
i
2
≥ ξ) is maximized if all the
eigenvalues of M
i
M
H
i
are equal. With tr(M
i
M
H
i
) = 1, it implies that λ
i
= 1/N
t
, ∀1 ≤ i ≤ N
t
.
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
20
REFERENCES
[1] I. E. Telatar, “Capacity of multiantenna Gaussian channels,” Eur. Trans. Telecom., vol 10, pp. 585595, Nov. 1999.
[2] G. J. Foschini, M. J. Gans, “On limits of wireless communications in a fading environment when using multiple antennas,”
Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 311335, 1998.
[3] V. Tarokh, N. Seshadri, and A. Calderbank, “Spacetime codes for high data rate wireless communications: Performance
criterion and code construction,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 44, pp. 744765, Mar. 1998.
[4] V. Tarokh, H. Jafarkhani, and A. R. Calderbank, ”Spacetime block code from orthogonal designs,” IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, vol. 45, pp. 14561467, July 1999.
[5] S. Alamouti, “A simple transmitter diversity scheme for wireless communications,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol.
16, pp. 14511458, Oct. 1998.
[6] Y. Liu and M. Fitz, “spacetime turbo codes,” 13th Annual Allerton Conf. on Commun. Control and Computing, Sep. 1999.
[7] D. Cui and A. M. Haimovich, “Design and performance of turbo spacetime coded modulation,” IEEE GLOBECOM’00,
vol. 3, pp16271631, Nov. 2000.
[8] D. Tujkovic, “Recursive spacetime trellis codes for turbo coded modulation”, Proc. of GlobeCom 2000, San Francisco.
[9] G. J. Foschini, “Layered spacetime architecture for wireless communication in fading environments when using multiple
antennas,” Bell labs. Tech. J.,vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 4159, 1996.
[10] G. D. Golden, G. J. Foschini, R. A. Valenzuela, and P. W. Wolniansky, “Detection algorithm and initial laboratory results
using VBLAST spacetime communication architecture,” Electron. Lett., vol. 35, pp. 1416, Jan. 1999.
[11] H. El Gamal and A. R. Hammons Jr., “A new approach to layered spacetime coding and signal processing,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 47, pp. 23212334. Sep. 2001.
[12] B. Hassibi and B. Hochwald, “Highrate codes that are linear in space and time,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 48,
pp. 18041824, July 2002.
[13] X. Ma and G. B. Giannakis, “FullDiversity FullRate ComplexField SpaceTime Coding,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing,
vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 29172930, July 2003.
[14] C. Berrou, A. Glavieux, and P. Thitimajshima, “Near Shannon limit error correcting coding and decoding: Turbo codes,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., vol. 2, pp. 10641070, Geneva, Switzerland, May 1993.
[15] B. M. Hochwald and S. ten Brink “Achieving NearCapacity on a MultipleAntenna Channel,” IEEE Trans. Comm., vol.
51, pp. 389399, Mar 2003.
[16] S. ten Brink, “Convergence of iterative decoding,” Electron. Lett., vol. 35, no. 13, pp. 11171118, Jun. 1999.
[17] S. ten Brink, “Convergence behavior of iteratively decoded parallel concatenated codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 40,
pp. 17271737, Oct. 2001.
[18] A. van Zelst, R. van Nee, and G. A. Awater, “TurboBLAST and its performance,” in Proc. Vehicle Technology Conf., vol.
2, pp. 12821286, May 2001.
[19] X. Li and J. A. Ritcey, “Bitinterleaved coded modulation with iterative decoding,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Communications,
pp. 858862, June 1999.
[20] A. M. Tonello, “Spacetime bitinterleaved coded modulation with an iterative decoding strategy,” in Proc. Vehicle
Technology Conf., pp. 473478, Sept. 2000.
[21] X. Wang and H. Poor, “Iterative (turbo) soft interference cancellation and decoding for coded CDMA,” IEEE Trans. Comm.,
vol. 47, pp. 10461061, July 1999.
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
21
[22] M. T¨ uchler, A. Singer, and R. Koetter, “Minimum mean square error equalization using a priori information,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Processing, vol. 50, pp. 673683, Mar. 2002.
[23] L. Bahl, J. Cocke, F. Jelinek, and J. Raviv, “Optimal decoding of linear codes for minimizing symbol error rate,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol 20, Issue: 2, pp.284287, Mar. 1974.
[24] U. Fincke and M. Pohst, “Improved methods for calculating vectors of short length in a lattice, including a complexity
analysis,” in Math. Comput., vol. 44, pp. 463471, Apr. 1985
[25] B. Vucetic and J. Yuan, Turbo Codes: Principles and Applications, Kluwer, 2000
[26] L. Zhang and D. Tse, “Diversity and mutiplexing: A fundamental tradeoff in multiple antenna channels” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. 49, pp. 107396, May 2003.
[27] A W. Marshall and I. Olkin, Ineqalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Application, Academic Press, Inc. (London)
Ltd., 1979.
[28] H. Boche and E. A. Jorswieck, “On Schurconvexity of expectation of weighted sum of random variables with applications”,
Journal of Inequalities in Pure Applied Mathematics, vol. 5, Issue 2, Article 46, 2004.
[29] M. E. Bock, P. Diaconis, F. W. Huffer and M. D. Perlman, “Inequalities for linear combinations of Gamma random
variables”, Canada J. Statistics, vol. 15, pp. 387395, 1987.
[30] R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1985.
[31] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, New York: Wiley, 1991.
[32] T. Rapaport, Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, 2001
[33] J. Proakis, Digital Communications, 4th ed. New York: McGrawHill.
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
22
Fig. 1. System Block Diagram.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
I
E
1
(
I
A
1
)
w
h
e
r
e
o
u
t
p
u
t
I
E
1
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
i
n
p
u
t
I
A
2
I
E2
(I
A2
) where output I
E2
becomes input I
A1
I
E1
=(I
E1
’
+I
E1
’’
)/2
I
E2
c
Outer Decoder
I
E1
c
I
E1
’’
of symbol group 2
I
E1
’
of symbol group 1
I
E1
c’’
I
E1
c’
Fig. 2. A typical EXIT chart of joint iterative demodulation/decoding receiver for QPSK constellation: two input symbols per
modulation block.
Fig. 3. BCJR/MAP decoding with different a priori LLR inputs: I(La; x) =
1
2
[I(La1; x) +I(La2; x)]
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
23
(a) Case 1: var1=0.4,var2=9.0 and var=1.4 (b) Case 2: var1=2.0,var2=4.0 and var=2.7
Fig. 4. Histograms of ¯ x for the BCJR/MAP decoder (a) and (b). “¯ x1”, “¯ x2” and “¯ x” are the soft outputs corresponding to
Le1, Le2 in BCJR/MAP decoder (a) and Le in BCJR/MAP decoder (b), respectively. “var1”,“var2” and “var” are the associated
variances of the AWGN.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
P/σ
2
z
(dB)
U
n
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
S
u
m
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
(
b
i
t
s
/
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
u
s
e
) Gaussian−opt
QPSK−opt
Gaussian−orth1
8PSK−orth1
Gaussian−orth2
8PSK−orth2
(a) Target Rm = 3 bits per channel use
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
P/σ
2
z
(dB)
U
n
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
S
u
m
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
(
b
i
t
s
/
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
u
s
e
)
Gaussian−opt
QPSK−opt
Gaussian−orth1
16QAM−orth1
Gaussian−orth1
16QAM−orth2
(b) Target Rm = 4 bits per channel use
Fig. 5. Uncooperated sum capacity versus P/σ
2
z
for Nt = Nr = T = 2 under the Rayleigh ergodic ﬂat fading channel. Dash
curves correspond to Gaussian inputs and solid lines correspond to speciﬁc constellations. “opt”, “orth1” and “orth2” correspond
to Scheme 1, Alamouti scheme, the orthogonal scheme (a subset of Scheme 1), respectively.
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
24
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
I
A
(a priori info.)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
I
E
(
e
x
t
r
i
n
s
i
c
i
n
f
o
.
)
γ=0.2
Scheme 1:θ=10
o
Scheme 2:θ=10
o
Scheme 3:θ=10
o
Scheme 1:θ=90
o
Scheme 2:θ=90
o
Scheme 3:θ=90
o
θ=90
o
θ=10
o
(a) when γ = 0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
I
A
(a priori info.)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
I
E
(
e
x
t
r
i
n
s
i
c
i
n
f
o
.
)
γ=1.0
Scheme 1:θ=10
o
Scheme 2:θ=10
o
Scheme 3:θ=10
o
Scheme 1:θ=90
o
Scheme 2:θ=90
o
Scheme 3:θ=90
o
θ=90
o
θ=10
o
(b) when γ = 1.0
Fig. 6. The EXIT characteristics of the three schemes under various channels H.
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
I
E1
(0) (extrinsic info. without a priori)
C
D
F
Scheme 1−slow
Scheme 2−slow
Scheme 3−slow
Scheme 1−fast
Scheme 2−fast
Scheme 3−fast
(a) IE1(0)
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
I
E1
(Q) (extrinsic info. with perfect a priori)
C
D
F
Scheme 1−slow
Scheme 2−slow
Scheme 3−slow
Scheme 1−fast
Scheme 2−fast
Scheme 3−fast
(b) IE1(Q)
Fig. 7. CDFs of IE1(0) and IE1(Q) comparisons for the three schemes under the different Rayleigh ergodic ﬂat fading
channels. “fast” indicates fast fading channel and “slow” indicates slow fading channel.
October 26, 2006 DRAFT
25
0 2 4 6 8 10
10
−3
10
−2
10
−1
10
0
Eb/No (dB)
F
E
R
Scheme 1:1st it
Scheme 1: 8th it
Scheme 2:1st it
Scheme 2: 8th it
Scheme 3:1st it
Scheme 3: 8th it
fast
slow
slow
fast
Fig. 8. FER comparison of the three schemes under different Rayleigh ergodic ﬂat fading channel. “fast” indicates fast fading
channel and “slow” indicates slow fading channel.
October 26, 2006 DRAFT