MIMO Wireless Communication

• BLISS, FORSYTHE, AND CHAN
MIMO Wireless Communication
MIMO Wireless
Communication
Daniel W. Bliss, Keith W. Forsythe, and Amanda M. Chan
■ Wireless communication using multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO)
systems enables increased spectral efficiency for a given total transmit power.
Increased capacity is achieved by introducing additional spatial channels that are
exploited by using space-time coding. In this article, we survey the environmental
factors that affect MIMO capacity. These factors include channel complexity,
external interference, and channel estimation error. We discuss examples of
space-time codes, including space-time low-density parity-check codes and space-
time turbo codes, and we investigate receiver approaches, including multichannel
multiuser detection (MCMUD). The ‘multichannel’ term indicates that the
receiver incorporates multiple antennas by using space-time-frequency adaptive
processing. The article reports the experimental performance of these codes and
receivers.
M
- multiple-output (MIMO) sys- After an introductory section, we describe the con-
tems are a natural extension of developments cept of MIMO information-theoretic capacity bounds.
in antenna array communication. While the Because the phenomenology of the channel is impor-
advantages of multiple receive antennas, such as gain tant for capacity, we discuss this phenomenology and
and spatial diversity, have been known and exploited for associated parameterization techniques, followed by ex-
some time [1, 2, 3], the use of transmit diversity has amples of space-time codes and their respective receivers
only been investigated recently [4, 5]. The advantages and decoders. We performed experiments to investigate
of MIMO communication, which exploits the physi- channel phenomenology and to test coding and receiver
cal channel between many transmit and receive anten- techniques.
nas, are currently receiving significant attention [6–9].
While the channel can be so nonstationary that it can- Capacity
not be estimated in any useful sense [10], in this article We discuss MIMO information-theoretic performance
we assume the channel is quasistatic. bounds in more detail in the next section. Capacity in-
MIMO systems provide a number of advantages creases linearly with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at low
over single-antenna-to-single-antenna communication. SNR, but increases logarithmically with SNR at high
Sensitivity to fading is reduced by the spatial diversity SNR. In a MIMO system, a given total transmit power
provided by multiple spatial paths. Under certain envi- can be divided among multiple spatial paths (or modes),
ronmental conditions, the power requirements associ- driving the capacity closer to the linear regime for each
ated with high spectral-efficiency communication can mode, thus increasing the aggregate spectral efficiency.
be significantly reduced by avoiding the compressive re- As seen in Figure 1, which assumes an optimal high
gion of the information-theoretic capacity bound. Here, spectral-efficiency MIMO channel (a channel matrix
spectral efficiency is defined as the total number of in- with a flat singular-value distribution), MIMO systems
formation bits per second per Hertz transmitted from enable high spectral efficiency at much lower required
one array to the other. energy per information bit.
VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 97

Spectral efficiency (bits/sec/Hz)

The information-theoretic bound on the spectral ef- 20
M= 16
ficiency is a function of the total transmit power and M= 8
the channel phenomenology. In implementing MIMO 15
M= 4
systems, we must decide whether channel estimation M= 1
information will be fed back to the transmitter so that 10
the transmitter can adapt. Most MIMO communica-

5
tion research has focused on systems without feedback.
A MIMO system with an uninformed transmitter
0
(without feedback) is simpler to implement, and at high –5 0 5 10
SNR its spectral-efficiency bound approaches that of an Eb /N0 (dB)
informed transmitter (with feedback).
One of the environmental issues with which com- FIGURE 1. Spectral-efficiency bound as a function of noise-
munication systems must contend is interference, ei- spectral-density-normalized energy per information bit
(Eb /N0 ). The graph compares four different M × M multiple-
ther unintentional or intentional. Because MIMO sys-
input multiple-output (MIMO) systems, assuming channel
tems use antenna arrays, localized interference can be matrices with flat singular-value distribution.
mitigated naturally. The benefits extend beyond those
achieved by single-input multiple-output systems, that
is, a single transmitter and a multiple-antenna receiver, of these characteristics [11]. Preliminary ideas are dis-
because the transmit diversity nearly guarantees that cussed elsewhere [6].
nulling an interferer cannot unintentionally null a large A simple and elegant solution that maximizes diver-
fraction of the transmit signal energy. sity and enables simple decoupled detection is proposed
in Reference 12. More generally, orthogonal space-time
Phenomenology block codes are discussed in References 13 and 14. A
We discuss channel phenomenology and channel pa- general discussion of distributing data across transmit-
rameterization techniques in more detail in a later sec- ters (linear dispersive codes) is given in Reference 15.
tion. Aspects of the channel that affect MIMO system High SNR design criteria and specific examples are giv-
capacity, namely, channel complexity and channel sta- en for space-time trellis codes in Reference 16. Unitary
tionarity, are addressed in this paper. The first aspect, codes optimized for operation in Rayleigh fading are
channel complexity, is a function of the richness of scat- presented in Reference 17. Space-time coding without
terers. In general, capacity at high spectral efficiency the requirement of channel estimation is also a com-
increases as the singular values of the channel matrix mon topic in the literature. Many differential coding
increase. The distribution of singular values is a mea- schemes have been proposed [18]. Under various con-
sure of the relative usefulness of various spatial paths straints at the transmitter and receiver, information-
through the channel. theoretic capacity can be evaluated without condition-
ing on knowledge of the propagation channel [19, 20].
Space-Time Coding and Receivers More recently, MIMO extensions of turbo coding have
In order to implement a MIMO communication sys- been suggested [21, 22]. Finally, coding techniques for
tem, we must first select a particular coding scheme. informed transmitter systems have received some inter-
Most space-time coding schemes have a strong connec- est [23, 24].
tion to well-known single-input single-output (SISO)
coding approaches and assume an uninformed trans- Experimental Results
mitter (UT). Later in the article we discuss space-time Because information-theoretic capacity and practical
low-density parity-check codes, space-time turbo codes, performance are dependent upon the channel phenom-
and their respective receivers. Space-time coding can enology, a variety of experiments were performed. Both
exploit the MIMO degrees of freedom to increase re- channel phenomenology and experimental procedures
dundancy, spectral efficiency, or some combination are discussed in later sections. Experiments were per-
98 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

WA T E R F I L L I N G
W   is a metaphor for the solution

of several optimization problems related to
channel capacity. The simplest physical example is
Noise
perhaps the case of spectral allocation for maximal

total capacity under a total power constraint. Let xk
denote the power received in the kth frequency cell,
which has interference (including thermal noise) de-
noted nk . If the total received power is constrained
Power
to be x, then the total capacity is maximized by
solving
max
{ xk :∑ xk = x } k
∑ log(1 + x k /nk )
Frequency
k
FIGURE A. Notional water-filling example.
= max ∑ log(n
{ xk :∑ xk = x } k
k + xk ) − ∑ log(n ).k
k
k in each frequency cell. The volume of the water is
Use Lagrange multipliers and evaluate the total received power of the signal. Note that cells
with high levels of interference are not used at all.
∂   
∂x k  ∑ log(n j + x j ) − µ 
 ∑ x j − x 
 
A similar solution results when the capacity is ex-
pressed by
 j j 
to find a solution. The solution satisfies xk + nk = ∑ log(1+ g x ) k k
–1 k
µ for all nonzero xk . Figure A illustrates the solu-
tion graphically as an example of water filling. The for gains gk . One can write the gains as g k = nk−1
difference between the water level (blue) and the and use the water-filling argument above. In this
noise level (red) is the power allocated to the signal context, cells with low gains may not be used at all.
formed in an outdoor nonstationary environment in a spectral-efficiency bounds in frequency-selective envi-

mixed residential, industrial, and light urban settings. ronments. Finally, we summarize alternative channel
Intentional high-power interference was included. performance metrics.
Information-Theoretic Capacity Informed Transmitter

The information-theoretic capacity of MIMO systems For narrowband MIMO systems, the coupling between
has been widely discussed [7, 25]. The development of the transmitter and receiver for each sample in time can
the informed transmitter (“water filling”) and unin- be modeled by using
formed transmitter approaches is repeated in this sec- z = Hx + n , (1)
tion, along with a discussion of the relative performance
of these approaches. (The concept of “water filling” is where z is the complex receive-array output,
explained in the sidebar entitled “Water Filling.”) In
H ∈  nR × nT
addition, we introduce the topic of spectral-efficiency
bounds in the presence of interference, and we discuss is the nR × nT (number of receive by transmit antenna)

channel matrix, x is the transmit-array vector, and n is

zero-mean-complex Gaussian noise. Po + tr{D−1 }
C IT = log 2 D. (6)
The capacity is defined as the maximum of the mu- n+
tual information [26]
A water-filling argument establishes that the entries dm
 p(z|x , H) 
I (z, x|H) = log 2   , (2) in the diagonal matrix
 p(z|H) 
D ∈ n+ × n+
over the source conditional probability density p( x|H) contain the n + top-ordered eigenvalues of HH†. The
subject to various transmit constraints, where the ex- values dm must satisfy
pectation value is indicated by the notation  . Not-
n+
ing that the mutual information can be expressed as the dm > . (7)
difference between two conditional entropies Po + tr{D−1 }
I (z, x|H) = h(z|H) − h(z|x , H), (3)

If Equation 7 is not satisfied for some dm , it will not be
that satisfied for any smaller dm .
h(z|x , H) = h(n ) = nR log 2 (π eσ n2 ), In this discussion we assume that the environment is
stationary over a period long enough for the error asso-
and that h(z|H) is maximized for a zero-mean Gauss- ciated with channel estimation to vanish asymptotically.
ian source x, the capacity is given by In order to study typical performance of quasistationary
channels sampled from a given probability distribution,
2 †
σ n InR + H x x H† capacity is averaged over an ensemble of quasistationary
C = sup log 2 2
, (4) environments. Under the ergodic assumption (that is,
x x† σ n InR
the ensemble average is equal to the time average), the
mean capacity C IT is the channel capacity.
where the notation  indicates determinant, † indi-
cates Hermitian conjugate, and InR indicates an identity Uninformed Transmitter
matrix of size nR . A variety of possible constraints ex- If the channel is not known at the transmitter, then
ist for x x † , depending on the assumed transmitter an optimal transmission strategy is to transmit equal
limitations. Here we assume that the fundamental limi- power from each antenna P = Po / nT In [7]. Assum-
T
tation is the total power transmitted. Optimization over ing that the receiver can accurately estimate the chan-
the nT × nT noise-normalized transmit covariance ma- nel, but the transmitter does not attempt to optimize its
trix, P = x x † /σ n2 , is constrained by the total noise- output to compensate for the channel, the uninformed
normalized transmit power Po . By allowing different transmitter (UT) maximum spectral efficiency bound
transmit powers at each antenna, we can enforce this is given by
constraint by using the form tr{P} ≤ Po. The informed
Po (8)
transmitter (IT) channel capacity is achieved if the C UT = log 2 InR + HH† .
channel is known by both the transmitter and receiver, nT
giving This is a common transmit constraint, as it may be dif-
ficult to provide the transmitter channel estimates. The
C IT = sup log 2 InR + HPH† . (5)
P; tr( P )= Po
sidebar entitled “Toy 2 × 2 Channel Model” discusses
an example of IT and UT capacities for a simple line-
To avoid radiating negative power, we impose the addi- of-sight environment.
tional constraint P > 0 by using only a subset of channel
modes. Capacity Ratio
The resulting capacity is given by At high SNR, CIT and CUT converge. This can be ob-

served in the large Po limit of the ratio of Equations 6

and 8, {
h(z|x , H) ≤ log 2 π e σ n2I + σ n2R , }
Po +tr{D−1 }
log 2 nmin D and σ n2R is the spatial-interference covariance matrix.
C IT
→ P Equality is achieved if and only if the interference am-
C UT log 2 Inmin + n o D (9)
T plitudes have a Gaussian distribution. Thus the worst-
log 2 ( Po ) − log 2 (nmin ) + case informed capacity, the maximum-minimum mu-
log 2 D
nmin
→ tual information,
log 2 ( Po ) − log 2 (nT ) +
log 2 D
nmin (12)
C int = sup inf I (z, x |H) ,
→ 1, p( z |H ) p(η )
becomes
where the nmin diagonal entries in D contain all non- (13)
C IT, int =    † |,
sup log 2 | I + HPH
zero eigenvalues of H†H. If nT > nR , then the conver-
P ; tr( P )= Po
gence to one is logarithmically slow. using
At low SNR the ratio CIT /CUT is given by  ≡ (I + R )−1/ 2 H .
H (14)
C IT log 2[( Po + 1 / d max ) d max ] Gaussian interference corresponds to a saddle point of
→
C UT P
log 2 InR + n o HH† the mutual information at which the maximum-mini-
T
mum capacity is achieved. The capacity in the pres-
log(1 + Po maxeig{HH† }) (10) ence of Gaussian interference has a form identical to
=  , where
 
tr  log  InR + n o HH†  
P Equation 6 under the transformation D → D
 T   contains the eigenvalues of HH
D   . The transmitted
†
maxeig{HH } † noise-normalized power covariance matrix P is calcu-

≈ 1 †
, lated by using H  . Similarly, the uninformed transmit-
n tr{HH }
T
ter spectral-efficiency bound in the presence of noise is
given by the same transformation of H → H .
using Equation 6 with n + = 1 and Equation 8. Given In the limit of high spectral efficiency for nJ infinite
this asymptotic result, we can make a few observations. J/S jammers, the loss in capacity approaches
The spectral-efficiency ratio is given by the maximum
min(nT , nR − n J )
to the average eigenvalue ratio of H†H. If the channel C int → C. (15)
is rank one, such as in the case of a multiple-input sin- min(nT , nR )
gle-output (MISO) system, the ratio is approximately
equal to nT . Finally, in the special case in which H†H In general, the theoretical capacity is not significantly
has a flat eigenvalue distribution, the optimal transmit affected as long as the number of antennas is much
covariance matrix is not unique. Nonetheless, the ratio larger than the number of jammers. This resistance to
CIT/CUT approaches one. the effects of jammers is demonstrated experimentally
later in the article.
Interference
By extending the discussion in the previous section [8, Frequency-Selective Channels
27], we can calculate capacity in the presence of unco- In environments in which there is frequency-selec-
operative (worst case) external interference η , in additive fading, the channel matrix H(f ) is a function of
tion to the spatially-white complex Gaussian noise n frequency. Exploiting the orthogonality of frequency
considered previously. The mutual information is again channels, the capacity in frequency-selective fading can
given by Equations 2 and 3, where entropy h(z|x , H) be calculated by using an extension of Equations 6 and
in the presence of the external interference becomes 8. For the uninformed transmitter, this leads to the fre-
h(n + η ) , quency-selective spectral-efficiency bound

TOY 2 × 2 C H A N N E L MODE L
B    of channel matrix

eigenvalues is essential to the effectiveness of
multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) commu-
beamwidths closely approximates many ad hoc
definitions for physical arrays. Figure A displays the
eigenvalues µ1 and µ 2 as a function of generalized
nication, we employ a toy example for the purposes beamwidth separation. When the transmit and re-
of introduction, and we discuss the eigenvalue dis- ceive arrays are small, indicated by a small separa-
tribution of a 2 × 2 narrowband MIMO system in tion in beamwidths, one eigenvalue is dominant.
the absence of environmental scatterers. To visualize As the array apertures become larger, indicated by
the example, we can imagine two receive and two a larger separation, one array’s individual elements
transmit antennas located at the corners of a rect- can be resolved by the other array. Consequently,
angle. The ratio of channel matrix eigenvalues can the smaller eigenvalue increases. Conversely, the
be changed by varying the shape of the rectangle. larger eigenvalue decreases slightly.
The columns of the channel matrix H (in Equation Equations 6 and 7 in the main article are em-
1 in the main article) can be viewed as the receiver- ployed to determine the capacity for the 2 × 2 sys-
array response vectors, one vector for each transmit tem. The “water-filling” technique (explained in a
antenna, previous sidebar) must first determine if both modes
in the channel are employed. Both modes are used
H = 2 ( a1v 1 a2 v 2 ) ,
if the following condition is satisfied,
where a1 and a2 are constants of proportionality 2
(equal to the root-mean-squared transmit-to-receive µ2 > ,
Po + µ1 + µ1
attenuation for transmit antennas 1 and 2 respec- 1 2
tively) that take into account geometric attenuation 1 1 v 1† v 2

and antenna gain effects, and v 1 and v 2 are unit- Po > − > ,
norm array response vectors. For the purpose of this
µ2 µ1 a 2 1 − v 1† v 2 2

discussion, we assume a = a1 = a2 , which is valid if

the rectangle deformation does not significantly af- assuming µ1 > µ 2.
fect overall transmitter-to-receiver distances. If the condition is not satisfied, then only the
The capacity of the 2 × 2 MIMO system is a
function of the channel singular values and the total
transmit power. Eigenvalues of HH † are given by
0
(1 ± ),
Eigenvalue/a 2 (dB)
2
µ1,2 = 2a v 1† v 2
–10
where the absolute value is denoted by  . The –20

separation between receive array responses can be
–30
described in a convenient form in terms of general-
ized beamwidths [40],
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
b12 =
2
π
arccos { v 1† v 2 }. Generalized beamwidth separation
†
FIGURE A. Eigenvalues of HH for a 2 × 2 line-of-
For small angular separations, this definition of sight channel as a function of antenna separation.

Spectral efficiency (b/sec/Hz)

stronger channel mode is employed and the capac-
10
ity, from Equation 6, is given by
5
C IT = log 2 (1 + µ1Po ) ,
 (
= log 2 1 + 2a 2 1 + v 1† v 2 ) P ;
o
2
1
otherwise, both modes are used and the capacity is 0.5
given by
–10 –5 0 5 10 15 20
Po + µ1 + µ1  µ1 0 a 2P
C IT = log 2 1 2
, 0 (dB)
2  0 µ 
2
FIGURE B. The informed transmitter capacity of a
 µ µ P + µ + µ  1  2 2 × 2 line-of-sight channel, assuming antenna beam-
= log 2  1 2 o 1 2  , width separations of 0.1 (solid line) and 0.9 (dashed
 2  µ1µ 2  line).

{ 
= 2 log 2 a 2 1 − v 1† v 2

2
 Po

+1} 2 v1† v 2
2
 2  2
− log 2 1 − v 1† v 2  . 2a Po + ,
  1 − v † v 2
 1 2 
Figure B displays the resulting capacity as a func-
tion of a 2Po (mean single-input single-output SNR) when using two modes, where Po is the total noise-
for two beamwidth separations, 0.1 and 0.9. At low normalized power. In both cases, the total received
values of a 2Po the capacity associated with small power is much larger than a 2Po .
beamwidth separation performs best. In this regime, In complicated multipath environments, small
capacity is linear with receive power, and small arrays employ scatterers to create virtual arrays of
beamwidth separation increases the coherent gain. a much larger effective aperture. The effect of the
At high values of a 2Po large beamwidth separation scatterers upon capacity depends on their number
produces a higher capacity as the optimal MIMO and distribution in the environment. The individual
system distributes the energy between modes. antenna elements can be resolved by the larger ef-
The total received power is given by fective aperture produced by the scatterers. As dem-
onstrated in Figure A, the ability to resolve antenna
2 v1† v 2 a 2 Po
elements is related to the number of large singular
when using one mode, and values of the channel matrix and thus the capacity.
C UT,FS =
∫ df C UT ( Po ; H( f ))
≈
1 P  
log 2 I + o HH† ,
∫ df nf nT (16)
∑
nf P
∆f log 2 I + n o H( f n ) H† ( f n ) where the distance between frequency samples is given
n =1
≈ T
∑
nf
∆f by ∆f and the nf -bin frequency-partitioned channel
n =1 matrix is given by

 H( f1 ) 0 0 0  all the entries in the channel matrix are sampled from

   identical independent complex Gaussians H  G . This
H≡  0 H( f 2 ) 0 0
.
(17)
assumption corresponds to an environment with com-
      plicated multipath scattering. While this approach is
 0 0  H( f n f )
 convenient from the perspective of performing analytic
calculations, it may provide a channel eigenvalue distri-
For the informed transmitter channel capacity, pow- bution that is too flat. At the other extreme, channels
er is optimally distributed amongst both spatial modes can be characterized by a diversity order [30], which is
and frequency channels. The capacity can be expressed used to indicate an effective cut-off in the eigenvalue
1  (18) distribution induced by spatial correlation. A number of
C IT, FS ≈ max
 log 2 I + HP H† , approaches that introduce spatial correlations have been
P nf
suggested. One approach uses the form
which is maximized by Equation 6 with the appropriate H = ML G MR . (19)
substitutions for the frequency-selective channel, and
diagonal entries in Din Equation 7 are selected from The above model results in a (nT ⋅ nR ) × (nT ⋅ nR ) link-
the eigenvalues of HH† . Because of the block diagonal by-link covariance matrix of the Kronecker product
structure of H, the (nT ⋅ n f ) × (nT ⋅ n f ) space-frequency
 form (ML M†L ) ⊗ (MR M†R )∗ for the entries in the chan-
noise-normalized transmit covariance matrix H is a nel matrix H. This product structure can arise from a
block diagonal matrix, normalized so that spherical Green’s function model of propagation, pro-
 vided several additional conditions are met. First, scat-
tr{P} ≤ nf Po .
terers are concentrated around (but not too close to) the
Other Performance Metrics transmitter and receiver. Second, multiple scattering of
a particular kind (from transmitter element to trans-
The information-theoretic capacity is not the only pos- mitter scatterer to receiver scatterer to receiver element)
sible metric of performance. As an example, another dominates propagation. Third, scatterers are sufficient-
useful performance metric is the outage capacity [16], ly separated in angle when viewed by their associated
or the achievable spectral-efficiency bound, assuming a array.
given probability of error-free decoding of a frame. In
many practical situations this metric may be the best Received Power
measure of performance, for example, in the case in It is often convenient to parameterize the incoming
which the system can resend frames of data. signal power in terms of a 2Po , where a 2 is the mean-
squared link attenuation. It can be employed to eas-
Channel Phenomenology ily compare performance by using different constraints
In this section we describe tools for modeling, estimat- and environments. This choice corresponds to the typi-
ing, and characterizing MIMO channels. These topics cal noise-normalized received power for a single receive
are discussed in greater detail elsewhere [25, 28]. First and single transmit antenna radiating power σ n2 Po .
we introduce the standard model and simple modifica- However, this choice can be mildly misleading because
tions to it. Then we discuss the simplest channel char- the total received power will, in general, be much larger
acterization, which is mean receive power, followed by a than a 2Po . In general, a 2 is defined by the Frobenius
description of channel estimation techniques, methods norm squared of the channel matrix normalized by the
for determining how much channels have changed, and number of transmitters and receivers,
channel parameterization and estimation techniques.
tr{HH† } (20)
a2 = .
Standard Model nT nR
A variety of techniques are used to simulate the channel The total received noise-normalized power produced
matrix [29]. The simplest approach is to assume that by a set of orthogonal receive beamformers is given by

tr{HPH† }. The uninformed transmitter rate is maxi- trix. The maximum-likelihood estimate of H is given
mized by sending equal power to all transmit antennas by
so that tr{HPH† } becomes Po /nT tr{HH† } = nR a 2Po . Hˆ = Z T† (TT† )−1 , (25)
It is worth noting that P is not in general optimized by
the informed transmitter to maximize received power assuming that the reference signals in T are known and
but to maximize capacity. TT† is nonsingular.
The total received power for the capacity-optimized The previous channel-estimation discussion explicit-
informed transmitter, given an arbitrary channel ma- ly assumed flat fading. However, the frequency-selective
trix, is channels can be estimated by first estimating a finite
 −1  impulse-response MIMO channel, which can be trans-
 P + tr(D )  
tr{HPIT H† } = tr  o D − I formed to the frequency domain.
  n+ 

n+  
 (21) A finite impulse-response extension of Equation 1
tr{D} tr{D−1 }tr{D} − n+2 is given by introducing delayed copies of T at delays
= Po + . δ1, δ 2 , , δntaps ,
n+ n+
 T(δ1 ) 
The first term in Equation 21 is bounded from below  T(δ ) 
by 2
 ≡
T , (26)
†   
tr{D} tr{HH }  T(δ )
Po ≥ Po (22)  ntaps 
n+ min{nT , nR }
≥ max{nT , nR } a 2 Po . so that the transmit matrix has dimension (nT ⋅ ntaps ) × ns .
The resulting wideband channel matrix has the dimen-
The second term in Equation 22 is bounded from be- sion (nT ⋅ ntaps ) × ns ,
low by zero. Consequently, the total received power is ˆ (δ ) H
ˆ (δ )  H
ˆ (δ )]
[H
greater than or equal to max{nT , nR } a 2Po . 1 2 ntaps
(27)
For very small a 2Po , far from the nonlinear regime of   † )−1.
 † (TT
= ZT
the Shannon limit, the optimal solution is to maximize
received power. This is done by transmitting the best Using this form, an effective channel filter is associated
mode only, setting n + = 1. In this regime the total re- with each transmit-to-receive antenna link. By assum-
ceived power is given by ing regular delay sampling, we can use a discrete Fou-
rier transform to construct the explicit frequency-selec-
tr{HPIT H† } → Po maxeig{HH† } . (23) tive form,
2
This result is bounded from above by nT nR a Po , which ˆ(f ) H
ˆ(f )  H
ˆ ( f )]
[H 1 2 ntaps
is achieved if there is only a single nontrivial mode in (28)
the channel. ˆ (δ ) H
= [H ˆ (δ )  H
ˆ (δ )]( ⊗ I ) ,
1 2 ntaps ntaps nT
Channel Estimation where the n-point discrete Fourier transform is repre-

The Gaussian probability density function for a multi- sented by n and the Kronecker product is represented
variate, signal-in-the-mean, statistical model of the re- by ⊗ .
n ×n
ceived signal Z, assuming T ∈  T s is the transmit
sequence, is given by Channel-Difference Metrics
†
R −1 ( Z − HT )]
A variety of metrics are possible. In investigating chan-
e − tr[( Z − HT ) nel variations, no one metric will be useful for all situa-
p(Z | R , H, T ) = ns nR
, (24)
π |R | ns tions. As an example, two completely different channels
can have the same capacity. Depending upon the issue
where R is the noise-plus-interference covariance ma- being investigated, we may wish to think of these matri-

ces as being similar or very different. Here two metrics 2

δ (Ha , Hb ) (32)
are discussed. Both metrics are ad hoc, but motivations min(nT ,nR )
are provided. The first metric measures differences in
channel singular-value distributions. The second metric
≡ ∑ [log 2 λm (Ha H†a ) − log 2 λm (Hb Hb† )] .
m =1
is sensitive to differences in both the singular-value dis-
tribution and the channel eigenvector structure. Fractional Receiver Loss Metric
In this section we introduce a power-weighted mean
Eigenvalue-Based Metric cos 2θ metric. The metric takes into account both the
As was mentioned earlier, MIMO capacity is only a eigenvalue and eigenvector structure of the channels. It
function of the channel singular values. Equivalently, is motivated by the effect of receive-beamformer mis-
capacity is invariant under channel-matrix transforma- match on capacity. Starting with Equation 8, the low
tions of the form SNR uninformed transmitter capacity approximation is
given by
H → W1HW2† , (29)
P
where W1 and W2 are arbitrary unitary matrices. Con- C = log 2 I + o HH†
nT
sequently, for some applications it is useful to employ a
P 
metric that is also invariant under this transformation.  o 
≈ log 2 (e ) tr  HH† 
Because capacity is a function of the structure of the  nT 
channel singular-value distribution, the metric should Po
be sensitive to this structure. = log 2 (e )
nT ∑hm† hm (33)
The channel capacity is a function of HH †. A natu- m
P
∑
2
ral metric would employ the distance between the ca- = log 2 (e ) o †
wm hm
pacity for two channel matrices at the same average to- nT m
tal received power, that is, the same a2Po , hm
wm ≡ ,
a 2 Po †
hm
∆C UT = log 2 I + Ha Ha
nT where hm is the column of the channel matrix associat-
(30)
2
a Po ed with transmitter m, and  indicates the l2 norm.
†
− log 2 I + Hb Hb . In the low SNR limit, the optimal receive beamformer
nT
is given by the matched response given in wm . If some
However, there are two problems with this definition. other beamformer is employed, labeled w m′ , then signal
First, the difference is a function of Po . Second, there is energy is lost, adversely affecting the capacity,
degeneracy in H singular values that gives a particular Po
∑ † 2
capacity. To address the first issue, the difference can be C ′ ≈ log 2 (e ) w ′m h m . (34)
nT
investigated in a high SNR limit, giving m
One possible reason that a beamformer might use the

∆C UT ≈ log 2 H a H†a − log 2 Hb Hb† wrong matched spatial filter is channel nonstationarity.
(31)
min(nT ,nR ) The fractional capacity loss is given by
= ∑ log † †
2 λm (H a H a ) − log 2 λm (Hb Hb ) , 2
∑ ∑ 2 h ′m†
† 2 †
hm
m =1
C′ w ′m h m m
hm h ′m hm
m
≈ =
where λm ( X ) indicates the mth largest eigenvalue of X. C ∑ h m∑ m
2
m
hm
2
To increase the sensitivity to the shape of the eigenvalue (35)

distribution, the metric is defined to be the Euclidean =
∑ h cos θ ,
m
m
2 2
m
difference, assuming that each eigenvalue is associated

with an orthogonal dimension, giving
∑ h m
m
2

which is the power-weighted mean cos 2 θm estimate, F = b UA α U † G ′ VA α V † (37)

where cos θm is defined to be the inner product between †
the “good” and “bad” unit-norm array responses for the = b UA α GA α V
mth transmitter. It is generally desirable for metrics to and
be symmetric with respect to H and H′, thus avoiding diag {α 0 , α 1,, α n −1 }
moral attributions with regard to channel matrices. Us- Aα = n , (38)
tr(diag{α 0 , α 1,, α n −1 }2 )
ing the previous discussion as motivation, a symmetric
form is given by where b is used to set overall scale, n is given by the size
of A α , and U and V indicate random unitary matrices.
γ (H, H′ ) ≡
∑ m
2
h m h ′m cos θm
, (36)
Used here is the fact that arbitrary unitary transforma-
∑ m
h m h ′m tions do not affect the statistics of the Gaussian matrix.
The form of A α given here is somewhat arbitrary, but
where the “power-weighted” expectation is evaluated has the satisfying characteristics that as α → 0 , a rank-
over transmitters. one channel matrix is produced, and as α → 1, a spa-
tially uncorrelated Gaussian matrix is produced. Fur-
Singular Values thermore, empirically this model provides good fits to
The singular-value distribution of H, or the related ei- experimental distributions. The normalization for A α is
genvalue distribution of HH †, is a useful tool for un- chosen so that the expected value of F 2F is b 2nT nR ,
2
derstanding the expected performance of MIMO com- where  F indicates the Frobenius norm.
munication systems. From the discussion earlier, we can
see that the channel capacity is a function of channel Channel Parameter Estimation
singular values, but not the singular-vector structure of An estimate for α̂ associated with particular transmit
the channel. Thus channel phenomenology can be in- and receive locations is given by minimizing the mean-
vestigated by studying the statistics of channel singular- square metric given in Equation 32,
value distributions. 2
^ ^
αˆ = arg min δ [H, F(α )] , (39)
Channel Parameterization where X̂ indicates the estimated value of X. Here the
A commonly employed model assumes the channel is expectation, denoted by  , indicates averaging is over
proportional to a matrix G, where the entries are inde- an ensemble of F for a given α and an ensemble of H for
pendently drawn from a unit-norm complex circular given transmit and receiver sites.
Gaussian distribution. While the distribution is conve- It is worth noting that this approach does not neces-
nient, it does suffer from a singular-value distribution sarily provide an unbiased estimate of α. Estimates of α,
that is overly optimistic for many environments. As was using the metric introduced here, are dependent upon
previously discussed, one solution is to introduce spatial the received SNR. Data presented later in the article
correlations using the transformation F = b ML GM†R have sufficiently high SNR such that α can be estimat-
[29]. While this approach is limited, it produces simply ed within ±0.02.
more realistic channels than the uncorrelated Gaussian
model. The spatial correlation matrices can be factored Space-Time Low-Density Parity-Check Codes
so that ML = UA α L U † and MR = V A α R V †, where U This section of the article introduces low-density parity-
and V are unitary matrices, and A α L and A α R are posi- check (LDPC) codes, which were studied extensively
tive-semidefinite diagonal matrices. by R.G. Gallager [31]. The significance of modern im-
Assuming that the number of transmit and receive plementations of LDPC codes rests on iterative decod-
antennas are equal and have similar spatial correlation ing algorithms that, for LDPC codes, are applications
characteristics, the diagonal matrices can be set equal, of techniques formulated for Bayesian belief networks,
A α = A α L = A α R , producing the new random channel which are introduced below. This section also discusses
matrix F, where a simple application of LDPC to space-time codes.

B AY E SI A N BE L I E F N E T WOR K S
G   is often

based on the Bayesian belief
networks popularized by Pearl, in
For decoding purposes, each
node in the graph maintains an al-
phabet (for example, the symbol al-
each node. Messages that flow from
parent to child are denoted π kP (uk )
and are treated as if they were priors,
the context of machine learning, in phabet for coding applications) and while messages that flow from child
a well-known monograph [1]. An several (probability) distributions to parent are denoted λkC ( x ) and are
interpretation of various decoding over this alphabet. One probability treated as if they were likelihoods.
algorithms in terms of Bayesian be- distribution, denoted π (x), can be At each node, messages received
lief networks is presented elsewhere interpreted as a prior density on the from parents and children are used
[2]. alphabet while another (nonnega- to update the internal (for that
To appreciate the use of belief tive, but not a normalized density) node) prior and likelihood func-
networks for decoding, consider distribution, denoted λ(x), can be tions π (x) and λ(x) for the node’s
the probability density function de- interpreted as a likelihood function alphabet.
noted p( x1, x 2 , x 3 , x 4 ) in Figure A. on the alphabet. Nodes are activated in any order,
This function factors in the man- In addition, each node keeps subject only to the requirement that
ner shown in the figure, expressing track of a belief function that is the all incoming messages are available.
simpler variable dependencies than product of priors and likelihoods: When a node is activated, it calcu-
those allowed by the multivariate π (x) λ(x). The maximum of the be- lates its internal prior and likeli-
notation p( x1,…, x l ) . The factor- lief function can be used as a deci- hood functions and then makes its
ization can be represented by a di- sion on the value of the node’s al- messages available to its parent and
rected acyclic graph as shown, with phabet. child nodes. Initial settings of the
directed arrows expressing condi- To evaluate a consistent set of internal functions are provided (but
tional probabilities of the more gen- distribution functions, messages not shown in the figure) to enable
eral form p( x | u1,…, ul ). are received and transmitted from the process to start.
involved in only a few parity-check equations. Con-

Low-Density Parity-Check Codes sequently, most entries in the parity-check matrix are
LDPC codes were developed by Gallager, who studied zero. Regular LDPC codes have nC parity-check equa-
their distance properties and decoding in a well-known tions for each symbol, and each parity-check equation
monograph [31]. With the advent of graphical decod- involves nR symbols. Thus, if the dimensionality of the
ing techniques, soft-decision decoding of LDPC codes parity-check matrix is r × c, we have rnR = cnC for regu-
became practical, resulting in renewed interest in these lar LDPC codes. As an example, the LDPC code used
codes. Subsequent developments in code design and for some of the experiments described later satisfies (r, c)
decoding have led to codes that achieve levels of per- = (512, 1024) and (nR , nC ) = (8, 4). More powerful
formance astonishingly close to the Shannon capacity codes that are not regular are also known [33].
[32], albeit at the cost of extremely long codewords.
However, decoding complexity of LDPC codes scales LDPC Decoding
linearly (with a fixed number of iterations) with the Recently, graphical decoding techniques have motivat-
code length, making relatively long codes practical. ed practical code design. Bayesian belief networks [34]
LDPC codes are linear block codes defined by a can be used to formulate decoders for LDPC codes and
parity-check matrix. Each symbol in the codeword is turbo codes (the sidebar entitled “Bayesian Belief Net-

Variable dependencies
For loopless graphs, the order of
x1 Loopless directed acyclic graph (DAG) activation does not matter and the
Directed Markov field process converges. Unfortunately,
Bayesian belief network
x2 x3 for decoding applications, interest-
p(x1, x2, x3, x4) = p(x4|x3)p(x3|x1)p(x2|x1)p(x1) ing graphs have loops, so order of
x4 activation matters and convergence
Parent nodes (alphabets uk ∈ Bk ) Messages passed Received Sent is not guaranteed. Typically, nodes
are activated in a repetitive pattern
likelihoods λC λP for a certain number of iterations
Update node
(alphabet x ∈ A)
until a stopping criterion is met.
Symbol decisions are based on the
Child nodes priors πP πC
belief function.
Node calculations and messages
s
References
1. J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in In-
π (x) = Σ p(x|u1,…,us ) Π πkP(uk )
u k=1 telligent Systems: Networks of Plausible
Inference (Morgan Kaufmann, San
λ (x) = Π λkC (x) Belief Mateo, Calif., 1988).
k
λ(x) π (x) 2. R.J. McEliece, D.J.C. MacKay, and
π jC (x) = π (x) Π λ kC(x) J.-F. Cheng, “Turbo Decoding as an
k≠j Instance of Pearl’s ‘Belief Propagation’
λjP(uj) = Σ
x,uk :k≠j
λ (x)p(x|u1, …, us ) Π
k≠j
πkP(uk ) Algorithm,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Com-
mun. 16 (2), 1998, pp. 140–152.
FIGURE A. Bayesian belief networks provide a framework for representing conditional probabilities in a graphi-
cal manner. Each node has a symbol alphabet on which it maintains a belief function that factors as a product of a
prior-like function and a likelihood-like function. Beliefs are updated by passing messages among nodes in a man-
ner suggested by the terminology. Initial states and a node update order must be chosen. Only in special cases do
the iterations converge to a Bayesian decision, but for many interesting applications, the iterative technique is both
practical and effective. Turbo codes and low density parity-check codes have decoders based on this paradigm.
works” provides more information). However, beyond Decoding occurs by treating the graph as a Bayes-
connecting the decoding algorithm of LDPC codes to ian belief network using the conditional probabilites
Bayesian belief networks, a thorough explanation of the p( z k | c k ), which express the likelihood ratios, and
(∑ c ),
steps in this algorithm is outside the scope of this ar-
ticle; we present only a concise summary. p(0 | c i1 ,…, c il ) = δ
k ik
For LDPC codes, Figure 2 shows a graph illustrat-
ing data and parity-check dependencies for the code- which expresses the parity-check relation. The resulting
words. In general, each nonzero entry in the parity- algorithm can be viewed as sweeping through the rows
check matrix indicates the edge of a graph connecting a and columns of the parity-check matrix, updating like-
parity-check node (row index) and a codeword symbol lihood ratios lk for each nonzero entry in the matrix.
(column index). The example in Figure 2 is a single par- The notation below denotes l ij as the likelihood ratio
ity-check code on four symbols. The graph shows the stored with the ij-th (nonzero) entry in a fixed (for the
symbol nodes c 1,…, c 4, the data nodes z 1,…, z 4, and given step) row or column of the parity-check matrix. In
the parity-check nodes, labeled by zeroes. Each edge this form, the iterative steps of the algorithm are sum-
between a parity-check node and a symbol node corre- marized for the simple case of a binary symbol alphabet
sponds to a nonzero entry in the parity-check matrix. by the equations:

1 1 0 0
Parity-check matrix 0 1 1 0
0 0 1 1
Bayesian belief network

z1 z2 z3 z4 Evidentiary nodes
(observations)
c1 c2 c3 c4 Codeword
p(z|c) component
p(0|ci , . . . ,ci ) = δ (
1 s
Σk cik) 0 0 0 Parity checks
Some initialization
Flat priors for codeword nodes: π (ci ) Node firing order: z 0 c z 0 c ···
Fixed likelihoods for Stopping rule: parity check satisfied

evidentiary nodes: λ k(x) = δ (x − zk)
FIGURE 2. Application of Bayesian belief networks to low-density parity-check codes. Soft-decision

decoding of low density parity-check codes can be based on Bayesian belief networks. Both the re-
dundancies in codewords ck and the relationship between the codewords and the data zk can be rep-
resented graphically. The data-codeword relationship is expressed through the probability densities
p(z|c), which are assumed to be independent sample-to-sample. Redundancies in the codewords are
expressesed in a similar notation as p(0|ci1,…, cis) where the symbols cik , 1 ≤ k ≤ s, are involved in a par-
ity check. In this manner, all depedancies are expressed graphically through conditional probability
densities as required for the formalism of Bayesian belief networks.
1. Row sweeps implemented in any order or in parallel. This allows

 l i(new )   l i(old )  considerable acceleration of hardware decoders. Decod-
tanh  k
 2 
= ∏ j ≠k
tanh 
 2 
j
 ing can be halted after a fixed number of iterations or
after the parity-check equations are satisfied.
2. Column sweeps [column c with log-likelihood ra- Some simplifications that are not possible for nonbi-
tio l c(LLR ) ] nary symbol alphabets are involved in the binary case.
l i(knew ) = ∑l ( new )
ij + l c(LLR )
In this more general context, the row/column sweeps
are expressed by:
j ≠k
1. Row sweeps
3. Bit decisions (column c)
π ( βi ) pi
( new )
= 2n Un j ≠ k Un π ( βi j ) p(iold )
  k k  j 
sign 

∑l ik + l c(LLR )  .
 2. Column sweeps
k
For the code used in the experiments, each row sweep p(inew ) ∝ j ≠ k p(iold )  p(cLF )
k  j 
involves eight l ij per row and each column sweep four l ij
per column. 3. Symbol decisions
Each of the row (column) operations is independent
of any other row (column operation) and hence can be ( p )  p
m im
( LF )
c .

The components of the vector pk express probabilities GF(16). The remaining two transmitters send the oth-
for the values of the kth symbol, the permutation πk in- er two bits of the same symbol. Decoding is based on
dicates the effect of a particular nonbinary coefficient likelihood functions built over GF(16) using estimates
in the parity-check equation, Un is a Walsh-Hadamard of the channel matrices. Again, differential frequencies
matrix, and the notation  denotes the Hadamard among transmitters enable spatial diversity.
(component by component) product.
Space-Time Turbo Code and Multichannel
Space-Time Extension LDPC Multiuser Detectors
There are a variety of extensions of LDPC codes to While the theoretical performance is determined by
space-time codes, which are introduced and explained the channel phenomenology, practical MIMO perfor-
in the sidebar entitled “Space-Time Codes.” For the ex- mance requires the selection of a space-time code and
periments described below, only one type of extension an appropriate matched receiver. In this section we dis-
was considered. cuss the space-time turbo code used in this example.
Each space-time channel transmits one of several We develop a maximum-likelihood formulation of a
possible quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK) wave- multiple-antenna multiuser receiver, and we discuss
forms with slightly offset carrier frequencies. The dif- suboptimal implementations of the receiver. We also
ferential frequencies are sufficiently large to effectively introduce minimum-mean-squared-error extensions of
decorrelate the transmitted waveforms over the length the receiver, and we discuss the value and use of train-
of a codeword (1024 bits) even if the data sequences in ing data.
each channel are identical. These differential frequen-
cies are also large compared to the expected Doppler Space-Time Turbo Code
spreads and small compared to the signal bandwidth. Turbo codes, introduced elsewhere [35], illustrate that
In the simplest example of such a code, the I and codes constructed with simple components, such as
Q components of a transmitter represent, respectively, with interleavers and convolutional encoders, combined
two different LDPC codewords. Each transmitter sends with an iterative decoding process can achieve near-
the same complex baseband sequence (QPSK) shifted Shannon capacity performance. The iterative decod-
in frequency. The transmitter outputs, viewed collec- ing process, taking advantage of information exchange
tively as a vector at any instant, vary in time and thus among component decoders, provides a feasible way to
effectively probe the environment characterized by the approach optimal performance. For each component
channel matrix. Since the transmitted vector varies sig- decoder, the best decoding algorithm is the maximum
nificantly over the duration of a codeword, the coding a posteriori (MAP) algorithm or the BCJR algorithm
provides spatial diversity. Decoding occurs by forming [36], which is derived from the MAP principle. Modi-
likelihood ratios based on channel-matrix estimates and fications of the MAP algorithm include log-MAP and
then using the iterative decoder described above. Note max-log-MAP [37]. Recently, implementation of turbo
that the channel matrix can change during the code- decoders has been carried out and high data-rate decod-
word, in which case channel-matrix estimates can vary ing is possible [38].
sample to sample. A number of space-time extensions of turbo coding
The LDPC space-time code just described exhibits have been suggested [21, 22]. The approach used here,
full spatial redundancy among all transmitters. Less which was introduced elsewhere [39], provides a 2-bit/
redundancy, and therefore higher data rates, can be sec/Hz link for a 4 × 4 MIMO system with independent
achieved by dividing the transmitters into subsets, each QPSK waveforms from each transmitter. A single data
of which is fully redundant yet different from any other stream is turbo encoded and the encoded data stream is
subset. For example, the space-time code discussed lat- distributed redundantly amongst the transmitters. The
er, in the section on experiments, uses four transmitters. turbo encoder employs a rate-1/3, 16-state convolution-
The first two transmitters send two bits (redundant al encoder twice with two different 4096-bit random
in I and Q) of a symbol of an LDPC codeword over interleavers. The distribution of systematic bits is such

S PA C E -T I M E C O D E S
S -  are used with

multiple transmitters to provide
spatial as well as temporal redun-
contained in S. The information
bits are encoded in matrices that
are constrained to lie in the class S.
S = [S0 S∗0 ] with
s − s2 − s3 − s4 
dancy in the data received by an ar- This class is defined by the property  1 
s s1 s4 − s3 
ray of antennas. There are two basic that SS† is proportional to the iden- S0 =  2
 .
approaches to space-time coding. tity matrix with a fixed (indepen-  s3 − s4 s1 s2 
 
In the first approach, the transmit- dent of S) proportionality constant.  s
4 s3 − s2 s1 
ter can be informed of the propa- The maximum-likelihood decision
gation channel by the receiver and for S is based on finding Space-Time Trellis Codes
thus adjust its coding accordingly. argmin Z − HS
2 Figure A provides an example of a
This approach offers the largest in- S∈S space-time trellis code. A pair of bits
formation-theoretic capacity but = arg max Re tr(ZS†H† ) , ( I t1, I t2 ) at time t enters a convolu-
can be difficult to accomplish in a S∈S tional encoder with integer coeffi-
p
dynamic environment. The second which involves a linear function in cients akp and bk at the pth lag in
approach, which is taken here, uses the entries of S. For some simple the kth channel. The input bits are
fixed codes of various rates that of- classes S, linearity of the likelihood interpreted as the integers 0 or 1.
fer good performance on average function decouples decisions on the Computations occur modulo 4 and
(over all channels). These codes data symbols. For example, consid- result in an integer value between
share transmitted power equally er the Alamouti code [1]. 0 and 3 for each channel. A fixed
among all spatial channels. mapping between these four inte-
The number of different types of   s1 − s 2∗   gers and the quadrature phase-shift
S = S : S =   .
space-time codes is too large to pro-  s2 s1∗   keying (QPSK) alphabet completes

vide a useful overview here. Instead the coding and modulation.
we briefly describe two important The information symbols s1 and The trellis code is defined by
categories of space-time codes that s2 are sent redundantly over both the coefficients {akp , bkp }. These are
are not treated in the text. channels. The likelihood function often chosen under one of several
is linear in each sk , decoupling de- design criteria, also shown in the
Block Orthogonal Codes modulation decisions. figure. Each codeword is a matrix
For data Z and channel matrix H, Another example of an orthogo- symbol C. The probability of an er-
consider a set of matrix symbols S nal matrix code is ror in deciding between two such
that each systematic bit is sent twice on two different

transmitters. The parity bits are sent once, distributed Multichannel Multiuser Detector
randomly amongst the transmitters. The difference in The multichannel multiuser detector (MCMUD) algo-
weighting between the systematic and parity bits pro- rithm, discussed elsewhere [3, 39, 40], is a minimum-
vides an effective puncturing of the code. Because more mean-squared-error (MMSE) extension to an iterative
energy is dedicated to systematic bits, remodulation er- implementation of a maximum-likelihood multiple-an-
rors have a reduced effect on subtraction performance, tenna receiver. The MCMUD algorithm employed for
in principle improving the performance of the iterative this analysis iteratively combines a blind space-time-fre-
multiuser detection for a given bit error rate. quency adaptive beamformer with a multiuser detector.

symbols can be bounded by (Bhat-

Notation: rank r matrix codeword C tacharyya bound)
− E ( C1 − C 2 )† H†H( C1 − C 2 )
pe ≤ e 4 N 0 .
†
nT transmitters nR receivers The approximation H H ≈ nR I nT
motivates one of the design crite-
ria shown in the figure. Integrating
Design criteria for space-time trellis codes (4 ≤ rnR or rnR ≥ 4)
over H motivates the other.
r
–nR –rnR In both cases r denotes the rank
Π 1
pe ≤ – e –nR 4N0 tr[(C1– C2)(C1– C2) ]
E †
pe ≤ λk [(C1 – C2)(C1 – C2]
† E
|
of the matrix difference C1 – C2 .
|
k=1 4N0 4
Constrained searches over the code
coefficients are commonly used to
Example of space-time trellis code (ak , bk ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3})
kth transmitter find codes with the smallest pos-
v1 v2 sible error between closest code-
(It1, It2 ) Σ
p=0
It1– p apk + Σ It2– q bqk mod4
q=0
xtk
k
i xt words under either criterion. When
data: bit pair trellis coding codeword QPSK
4 ≥ rnR , it is important to ensure
symbol modulation that the rank of the matrix differ-
ence is not too small. When 4 < rnR ,
FIGURE A. Space-time trellis codes introduce spatial as well as temporal maximizing the Euclidean distance
redundancy in the transmitted data. Code design often involves a pruned between the two codewords Ck be-
search over a class of codes based on a simple figure of merit. For exam-
ple, the minimum least-squares distance between codewords (represent-
comes important.
ed by space-time matrices Ck) can be maximized. In the example shown,
an alphabet consisting of the integers modulo 4 is used for convolutional Reference
1. S.M. Alamouti, “A Simple Transmit Di-
encoding at each transmitter. The resulting output symbols are mapped to versity Technique for Wireless Com-
a QPSK alphabet. The coefficients ak, bk determine the code. Note that the munications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Com-
spectral efficiency is 2 bits/sec/Hz. mun., 16 (8), 1998, pp. 1451–1458.
We present here the results of the maximum likeli- where R indicates the spatial covariance matrix of the
hood (ML) formulation of MCMUD, employing a interference plus noise, |  | indicates the determinant
quasistatic narrowband MIMO-channel model. The of a matrix, † indicates the Hermitian conjugate, and tr
number of receive antennas nR by number of samples, ns indicates the trace of a matrix. Maximizing the prob-
data matrix, Z ∈  nR ×ns , is given by ability density with respect to H is equivalent to mini-
Z = HT + N , (44) mizing the tr{} in Equation 41,
where the channel matrix H ∈  nR ×nT contains the {

tr (Z − HT )(Z − HT )† R −1 , } (42)
complex attenuation between each transmit antenna which is satisfied by
and receive antenna; T ∈  nT ×ns is the transmitted se- ˆ = ZT † (TT † )−1 ,
n ×n H (43)
quence; and N ∈  R s is additive Gaussian interfer-
†
ence plus noise. The probability density for a multivari- assuming TT is not rank deficient. Substituting Ĥ ,
ate signal-in-the-mean model is given by
e
{
− tr ZPT⊥ Z† R −1 }
e
{ † −1
− tr ( Z − HT ) R ( Z − HT ) } p→ ns nR
,
p(Z | R , H, T ) = , (41) π |R |ns (44)
ns nR
π |R |ns
where the matrix PT ≡ T † (TT † )−1 T projects onto the

row space spanned by T, and PT⊥ = Ins − PT projects ond term can be simplified and interpreted in terms of
onto the orthogonal complement of the row space of T. a beamformer
Maximizing with respect to an internal parameter of R
Ins − PTX PZ X = 1 − (TX TX† )−1 TX PZ X TX† ,
gives
tr{R −1 ZPT⊥ Z † R −1 R } − ns tr{R −1 R } = 0 , (45) w †A Z X TX†
= 1− ,
ns (50)
where R indicates the derivative of R with respect to
some internal parameter. This relationship is satisfied w †A ZPT⊥B TA†
= 1− ,
when ns
ˆ ZPT⊥ Z † where
R= , (46)
ns w A = Rˆ −X1 H
ˆ ,
A
1 1
assuming that R is not rank deficient. Using these re- Rˆ X ≡ Z X Z †X = ZPT⊥B Z † ,
sults, the ML statistic for estimating T is given by ns ns
(51)
Hˆ ≡ Z T † (T T † )−1
− ns nR A X X X X
 πe 
max p(Z | R , H, T ) =   | ZPT⊥ Z † |−ns . (47) = ZPT⊥B TA† (TA PT⊥B TA† )−1 .
R ,H  ns 
The nR × 1 vector wA contains the receive beamforming
The determinant of ZPT⊥ Z †
is minimized to demodu- weights, R̂ X is the interference-mitigated signal-plus-
late the signals for all transmitters jointly. noise covariance matrix estimate, and Ĥ A is the chan-
Although it is theoretically possible to use the statis- nel estimate associated with TA . It is worth noting that
tic ZPT⊥ Z † directly for demodulation, an iterative ap- the form for Ĥ A is simply the column of Ĥ , given in
proach is much more practical. We define T ≡ (TA† TB† )† Equation 43, associated with TA .
to be a partitioned form of T, where the nA × ns ma-
trix TA contains the signals associated with a particular ˆ = ZT † (TT † )−1
H
subset of nA transmit antennas and the (nT – nA) × ns 
−1
matrix TB contains the signals associated with all other  † †  A A
T T† TA TB† 
= Z  TA TB   
transmit antennas. By factoring PT⊥B = X † X , the rows  T T
B A
†
TBTB† 
of X form an orthonormal basis for the complement −1
M M1,2 
of the row space of TB such that X X † = I , where the ≡  † † 
Z  TA TB   †
11, 
 (52)
symmetric identity matrix has a dimension of ns minus  M1,,2 M2,2 
the number of rows in TB. By defining Z X ≡ ZX † and
TX ≡ TA X † , we can show that = Z  TA† TB† 
ZPT⊥ Z † = Z X PT⊥X Z †X . (48)

 (M11, − M1,2 M−2,12 M1†,2 )−1 
⋅ −1 † −1 † −1 .
The determinant can be factored into terms with and − M2,2 M1,2 (M11, − M1,2 M2,2 M1,2 )  
without reference to TA ,
By focusing on the first column and substituting in for
Z X PT⊥X Z †X = Z X Z †X Ins − PTX PZ X . M1,1, M1,2, and M2,2, we can find Ĥ A .
(49)
ˆ = ZT † (T T † − T T †[T T † ]−1 T T † )−1
H
Because the first term is free of TA , demodulation is per- A A A A A B B B B A
formed by minimizing the second term. This form sug- − ZTB†[TB TB† ]−1 TB TA†
gests an iterative approach, where the signal associated (53)
with each transmitter, in turn, is considered to be user × (TA TA† − TA TB†[TB TB† ]−1 TB TA† )−1
A and is demodulated by minimizing Ins − PTX PZ X . = ZPT⊥B TA† (TA PT⊥B TA† )−1 ,
If TA is a row vector, such that nA = 1, then the sec-

which is the same form found in Equation 51. codes require relatively long block lengths to be effec-
Demodulation is performed by maximizing the tive, they are particularly sensitive to Doppler offsets.
magnitude of the inner product of the beamformer out- Extending the beamformer to include delay and Dop-
put w †A Z and the interference-mitigated reference sig- pler corrects this deficiency. With this approach, the
nal TA PT⊥B . spatial-beamformer interpretation presented in Equa-
tion 50 is formally the same, but all projectors are ex-
Suboptimal Implementation tended to include delay and Doppler spread. The data
A variety of suboptimal but computationally more ef- matrix is replaced with
ficient variants are possible. In general, these approxi-
Z STF ≡ [Z †X (δ t1, δ f1 ) Z †X (δ t1, δ f 2 ) (57)
mations become increasingly valid as the number of
samples in the block increases.  Z †X (δ t1, δ f nδ f )Z †X (δ t nδt , δ f nδ f †
)] ,
The first computational simplification is found by
noting that the normalization term of the channel esti- which is a (nR ⋅ nδ f ⋅ nδt ) × ns matrix that includes pos-
mate in Equation 51 can be approximated by sible signal distortions. The new channel estimate has
dimension (nR ⋅ nδ f ⋅ nδt ) × nT , but T remains the same.
ˆ = Z P ⊥ T † (T P ⊥ T † )−1
H A TB A A TB A The MMSE beamformer is given by
= Z PT⊥B TA† (TA TA† )−1// 2 (54) w STF = argmin w †STF Z STF − TX
2
× (I − [TA TA† ]−1/ 2 TA PTB TA† [TA TA† ]−1/ 2 )−1 (58)
= (Z STF Z †STF )−1 Z STF TX† .
× (TA TA† )−1/ 2
Figure 3 shows a diagram for this demodulator (MC-
≈ Z PT⊥B TA† (TA TA† )−1 . MUD).
(We did not assume that TA is a row vector in the previ-

Block for each transmitter
ous discussion.)
The second approximation reduces the computation
cost of the projection operator. The operator that proj-
subtraction
Space-time-
beamformer
Temporal
frequency
adaptive
demultiplexer
ects on the orthogonal complement of the row space of Info
Space-time
decoder
bits
Turbo
M is given by
⊥
PM = I − M† (MM† )−1 M . (55)
This operator can be approximated by
Channel
∏ I − M
⊥ † −1 estimation
PM ≈ †

m ( Mm Mm ) Mm  , (56)
Space-time
multiplexer
m
encoder
Turbo
where m indicates the mth row in the matrix. By re-

peating the application of this approximate projection
operator, we can reduce the approximation error at the
expense of additional computational complexity. FIGURE 3. Diagram of a multichannel multiuser detector
(MCMUD) space-time turbo-code receiver. The receiver
MMSE Extension iteratively estimates the channel and demodulates the sig-
Because of the effects of delay and Doppler-frequency nal. The space-time frequency-adaptive beamformer com-
ponent compensates for spatial, delay, and frequency-off-
spread, the model given in Equation 40 for the received
set correlations. By iteratively decoding the signal, previous
signal is incomplete for many environments, adversely signal estimates can be used to temporally remove contri-
affecting the performance of the spatial-beamformer butions from other transmitters, which is a form of multius-
interpretation of the ML demodulator. Because turbo er detection.

20
Training Data
10
In principle, there is no need for training data, because
a 2 (dB)
0
the channel and information can be estimated jointly.
Furthermore, the use of training data competes directly –10
with information bits. For reasonably stationary chan- –20

nels, the estimate for the previous frame can be em- –30
ployed as an initial estimate for the demodulator. How- 0 500 1000 1500 2000
ever, for more quickly moving channels some training Link range (m)
data is useful. Here, a small amount of training data
FIGURE 4. Scatter plot of the peak-normalized mean-
is introduced within a frame (20%). This provides an
squared single-input single-output (SISO) link attenuation
initial channel estimate for the space-time-frequency a 2 versus link range for the outdoor environment near the
adaptive beamformer. PCS frequency allocation. The error bars indicate a range
In the experiment, knowledge of the encoded sig- of plus or minus one standard deviation of the estimates at
nal is used to provide that training data. Because the a given site.
number of training samples is relatively small, it is use-

ful to use a small number of temporal and frequency high-performance sixteen-channel receiver system that
taps during the first iteration. Larger dimension space- can operate over a range of 20 MHz to 2 GHz, sup-
time-frequency processing is possible by using estimates porting a bandwidth up to 8 MHz. The receiver can
of the data. be deployed in the laboratory or in a stationary “bread
truck.”
Phenomenological Experiment
This section presents channel-complexity and channel- MIT Campus Experiment
stationarity experimental results for MIMO systems. The experiments were performed during July and Au-
We introduce the experiments and then discuss chan- gust 2002 on and near the MIT campus in Cambridge,
nel mean attenuation and channel complexity. We then Massachusetts. These outdoor experiments were per-
discuss the variation of MIMO channels as a function formed in a frequency allocation near the PCS band
of time and as a function of frequency. (1.79 GHz). The transmitters periodically emitted 1.7-
sec bursts containing a combination of channel-probing
Experimental System and space-time-coding waveforms. A variety of coding
The employed experimental system is a slightly modi- and interference regimes were explored for both mov-
fied version of the system used previously at Lincoln ing and stationary transmitters. The space-time-coding
Laboratory [3, 41]. The transmit array consists of up to results are discussed later in the article [39, 40]. Chan-
eight arbitrary waveform transmitters. The transmitters nel-probing sequences using both four and eight trans-
can support up to a 2-MHz bandwidth. These transmitters were employed.
mitters can be used independently, as two groups of The receive antenna array was placed on top of a
four coherent transmitters, or as a single coherent group tall one-story building (at Brookline Street and Henry
of eight transmitters. The transmit systems can be de- Street), surrounded by two- and three-story buildings.
ployed in the laboratory or in vehicles. When operat- The transmit array was located on the top of a vehicle
ing coherently as a multiantenna transmit system, the within two kilometers of the receive array. Different
individual transmitters can send independent sequences four- or eight-antenna subsets of the sixteen-channel re-
by using a common local oscillator. Synchronization ceiver were used to improve statistical significance. The
between transmitters and receiver and transmitter geo- receive array had a total aperture of less than 8 m, ar-
location is provided by GPS receivers in the transmitters ranged as three subapertures of less than 1.5 m each.
and receivers. The channel-probing sequence supported a band-
The Lincoln Laboratory array receiver system is a width of 1.3 MHz with a length of 1.7 msec repeated

ten times. All four or eight transmitters emitted nearly the number of transmit antennas, and the estimated α
orthogonal signals simultaneously. for the transmit site. Uncertainty in α is determined by
using the bootstrap technique [42]. The CDF values re-
Attenuation ported here are evaluated over appropriate entries from
Figure 4 displays the peak-normalized mean-squared Table 1. The systematic uncertainty in the estimation
SISO attenuation averaged over transmit and receive of α caused by estimation bias, given the model, is less
antenna pairs for a given transmit site for the outdoor than 0.02.
environment. The uncertainty in the estimate is evalu- Figure 5 displays CDFs of a 2 = tr{HH† }/(nT nR )
ated by using a bootstrap technique. estimates normalized by mean a 2 for each transmit site.
CDFs are displayed for narrowband SISO, 4 × 4, and
Channel Complexity 8 × 8 MIMO systems. Because of the spatial diversi-
We present channel complexity by using three differ- ty, the variation in mean antenna-pair received power
ent approaches: variation in a2 estimates, eigenvalue cu- decreases dramatically as the number of antenna pairs
mulative distribution functions (CDF), and α estimate increases, as we would expect. This reduction in varia-
CDFs. Table 1 is a list of transmit sites used for these tion demonstrates one of the most important statistical
results. The table includes the distance (range) between effects that MIMO links exploit to improve commu-
transmitter and receiver, the velocity of the transmitter, nication link robustness. For example, if we wanted to
Table 1. List of Transmit Sites
Site Location Range Velocity Number of α

(m) (m/sec) antennas
1 Henry and Hasting 150 0.0 8 0.79 ± 0.01
2 Brookline and Erie 520 0.0 8 0.80 ± 0.01
3 Boston University (BU) 430 0.0 8 0.78 ± 0.01
4 BU at Storrow Drive 420 0.0 4 0.72 ± 0.01
5 Glenwood and Pearl 250 10.0 4 0.85 ± 0.01
6 Parking lot 20 0.1 4 0.78 ± 0.02
7 Waverly and Chestnut 270 0.2 4 0.67 ± 0.02
8 Vassar and Amherst 470 0.7 4 0.68 ± 0.02
9 Chestnut and Brookline 140 0.1 4 0.70 ± 0.02
10 Harvard Bridge 1560 11.6 4 0.69 ± 0.02
11 BU Bridge 270 2.7 4 0.83 ± 0.04
12 Vassar and Mass Ave 1070 7.6 4 0.59 ± 0.01
13 Peters and Putnam 240 9.1 4 0.87 ± 0.05
14 Glenwood and Pearl 250 5.2 4 0.76 ± 0.02
15 Brookline and Pacific 780 7.2 4 0.86 ± 0.03
16 Pearl and Erie 550 0.1 4 0.71 ± 0.04
17 Storrow Drive and BU Bridge 410 9.2 4 0.85 ± 0.03
18 Glenwood and Magazine 370 0.0 4 0.78 ± 0.02

CDF of channel eigenvalues

1.0 1.0
0.8 4×4 0.8

8×8
CDF of a 2
0.6 SISO 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
–15 –10 –5 0 5 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20
a 2 (dB) Eigenvalue (dB)
FIGURE 5. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of chan- FIGURE 6. CDF of narrowband channel eigenvalue distribu-
nel a 2 estimates, normalized by the mean a 2 for each site, for tions for 4 × 4 MIMO systems.
SISO, 4 × 4, and 8 × 8 MIMO systems.
CDF of channel eigenvalues

1.0
0.8
operate with a probability of 0.9 to close the link, we
would have to operate the SISO link with an excess 0.6
SISO SNR (a 2Po ) margin of over 15 dB. The MIMO 0.4
systems received the added benefit of array gain, which
0.2
is not accounted for in the figure.
Figures 6 and 7 present CDFs of eigenvalues for 4 × 4 0
and 8 × 8 mean-squared-channel-matrix-element-nor- –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20
malized narrowband channel matrices, eig{HH†}. The Eigenvalue (dB)
CDFs are evaluated over all site lists. Some care must be FIGURE 7. CDF of narrowband channel eigenvalue distribu-
taken in interpreting these figures because eigenvalues tions for 8 × 8 MIMO systems.
are not independent. Nonetheless, the steepness of the
CDFs is remarkable. We might interpret this to indicate eigenvalues of the stationary transmitter do vary some-
that optimized space-time codes should operate with a what. While the transmitters and receivers are physi-
relatively high probability of success. cally stationary, the environment does move. This effect
Figure 8 shows the CDFs for α estimates. The mean is particularly noticeable near busy roads. Furthermore,
values of α for each environment are 0.76 for 4 × 4 sites while the multiple antennas are driven with the same lo-
and 0.79 for 8 × 8 sites, where the form x ± y indicates cal oscillator, given the commercial grade transmitters,
the estimated value x with statistical uncertainty y es- there are always some small relative-frequency offsets.
timated by using a bootstrap uncertainty estimation The example variation is given for transmit sites 7 and
technique. While we might expect smaller variation in 14 from Table 1.
the 8 × 8 systems because of the much larger number of
1.0
paths, this effect may have been exaggerated in Figure 8
4×4
because of the limited number of 8 × 8 sites available in 0.8
8×8
CDF of α
the experiment. 0.6
0.4
Channel Stationarity
Figure 9 displays the temporal variation of eigenvalues 0.2
of HH† for stationary and moving transmitters. In this 0

figure the normalization is fixed, allowing for overall 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
α
shifts in attenuation. As we would expect, the eigenval-
ues of the moving transmitter vary significantly more FIGURE 8. CDF of α estimates for 4 × 4 and 8 × 8 MIMO sys-
than those of the stationary environment. However, the tems.

20 eigenvalues tends to be more stable. In the example, the

stationary transmitter is located at site 7, and the mov-
10
ing transmitter is located at site 14. Over the same pe-
λ (dB)
0 riod the stationary transmitter is relatively stable. Fig-

ures 11 and 12 display CDFs for stationary and moving
–10 transmitters. The significant variation of the moving
transmitter is an indication that implementing an in-
–20
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 formed transmitter MIMO system would be very chal-
Time (sec) lenging for the moving transmitter, but might be viable
(a) for some stationary MIMO systems.
20
Frequency-Selective Fading
10 Figure 13 gives an example of the frequency variation of
the power-weighted mean cos 2θ. The variation is indi-
λ (dB)
0
cated by using the metric presented in Equation 36. In
–10 the example, the stationary transmitter is located at site
–20 1.0
0 0.05 0.10 0.15
γ{H(t0), H(t )}
Time (sec) 0.8

(b) 0.2
0.6 0.1
FIGURE 9. Eigenvalues (λ) of HH† as a function of time for 0.4
(a) stationary and (b) moving transmitters. The same over-
all attenuation, estimated at t = 0, is used for all time sam- 0.2
ples.
0 0.02 0.04 0.06
While the moving-transmitter eigenvalues fluctuate Time (sec)
more than those of the stationary transmitter, the values
FIGURE 11. CDF of time variation of power-weighted mean
are remarkably stable in time. Conversely, an example
cos 2 θ , γ {H(t0 ),H(t)}, for a stationary 4 × 4 MIMO system. The
of the time variation of the power-weighted mean cos2θ graph displays contours of CDF probabilities of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3,
metric (from Equation 36), displayed in Figure 10, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9. Because there is little variation,
varies significantly for the moving transmitter within all curves are compressed near a γ value of 1.0
10 msec. This variation indicates that the eigenvector
structure varies significantly, while the distribution of
1.0 0.9
0.7
1.0 0.5
γ{H(t0), H(t )}
0.8
0.3
0.8 Stationary 0.1
γ{H(t 0 ), H(t)}
Moving 0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Time (sec)
Time (sec)
FIGURE 12. CDF of time variation of power-weighted mean
FIGURE 10. Example time variation of power-weighted mean cos 2 θ, γ {H(t0 ),H(t)} , for a moving 4 × 4 MIMO system. Con-
cos 2 θ, γ {H(t0 ),H(t)} , for stationary and moving 4 × 4 MIMO tours of CDF probabilities of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8,
systems. and 0.9 are displayed.

1.0 van several hundred meters away from an array of re-

ceivers situated on a one-story building. The environ-
γ{H(f0), H(f )}
0.8
ment consists predominantly of two- and three-story
0.6 residential buildings and some commercial buildings of
0.4 similar heights in an urban setting. Propagation delay
spreads are typically several microseconds and Dop-
0.2
pler spreads are at most a few hundred hertz. There is
typically no identifiable line-of-sight component in
–600 –400 –200 0 200 400 600
the propagation. The signal has a pulse-shaped QPSK
Frequency (kHz)
modulation and bandwidth of about 100 kHz. Coding
FIGURE 13. Example of frequency-selective variation of the provides a spectral efficiency of 2 bits/sec/Hz.
power-weighted mean cos 2 θ , γ {H(f0 ),H(f )} .
The receiver consists of sixteen channels fed by low-
gain elements with wide azimuth beamshapes. The
elements are oriented in various directions, not neces-
1.0
sarily pointing at the sources. For the example below,
γ{H(f0 ), H(f)}
0.8 four element subarrays are chosen at random to provide

0.6
multichannel receivers. In other words, C(16, 4) 4 × 4
0.9
0.4 0.7
0.5 0.25
0.2 0.3
0.1
Measured
Simulated
0.20
–600 –400 –200 0 200 400 600
Frequency (kHz)
Bit-error probability
• Spectral efficiency
FIGURE 14. CDF of frequency-selective variation of the 0.15
2
2 bits/sec/Hz
power-weighted mean cos θ , γ {H(f0 ),H(f )} . The graph dis-
plays contours of CDF probabilities of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5,
0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9. 0.10
7. Relatively small frequency offsets induce significant

0.05
changes in γ {H( f 0 ), H( f )}. Figure 14 shows the CDF
of the frequency-selective channel variation. This sen-
sitivity indicates that there is significant resolved delay 0
spread and that, to safely operate with the narrowband 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Excess Eb /N0 (dB)
assumption, bandwidths less than 100 kHz should be
employed. We note that delay spread, and the result- FIGURE 15. Measured and simulated results in bit error
ing frequency-selective fading, are both a function of rate probability for a space-time low-density parity-check
environment and link length. Consequently, some care (LDPC) code at a spectral efficiency of 2 bits/sec/Hz. Bit
error rates are evaluated for an ensemble of 4 × 4 MIMO
must be taken in interpreting this result.
systems. The estimated channel matrices are used in the
simulation to model propagation. Each estimated channel
Space-Time Low-Density
matrix suppports a theoretical capacity that can be in ex-
Parity-Check-Code Experiments cess of 2 bits/sec/Hz. The matrix is scaled until it supports
A low-density parity-check code over GF(16) provides a capacity of exactly 2 bits/sec/Hz. The resulting scale fac-
tor is used to evaluate the excess (beyond Shannon) Eb /N0
the basis of the example of experimental and simulated
associated with the (unscaled) channel matrix. Agreement
results shown in Figure 15. The code used is half rate between measured and simulated results are good to about
with length 1024. The MIMO wireless link is realized 1 dB. About 4 to 5 dB excess Eb /N0 is required to reliably
with four cohered transmitters located on a stationary complete the link.

MIMO links can be evaluated. The channel transfer ent transmit locations. In both examples the link does
matrices have a random structure that varies from sub- not have line of sight. Different four-antenna subsets of
array to subarray. the sixteen-channel receiver were used to improve statis-
Figure 15 shows symbol-error probability as a func- tical significance.
tion of excess Eb /N0, which is related to the excess spec- Example 1. In this example, the transmitter was lo-
tral efficiency (beyond 2 bits/sec/Hz) predicted by a cated in the parking lot at Boston University (Universi-
capacity bound, given the measured channel transfer ty Road and Storrow Drive) with about a half-kilometer
matrix. For this example, in a comparatively station- separation between the transmitter and receiver. Figure
ary environment, the channel transfer matrices are used 16 shows the geometry of the experiment. Traffic on
both for the simulated results and for the computation Storrow Drive is typically heavy and the posted speed
of excess Eb /N0. As the figure shows, about 4.5 dB ex- limit of 45 mph is generally misinterpreted as the mini-
cess Eb /N0 is required to complete the link at 2 bits/sec/ mum allowed speed. While the transmitter is stationary,
Hz. Simulations agree to within about 1 dB. the environment is nonstationary because of the traffic.
Example 2. The transmitter was moving at 10 m/sec
Space-Time Turbo-Code Experiments at a range of 500 m. Figure 17 shows the geometry of
In this section we present the experimental performance the experiment. To simulate the effects of local oscilla-
of a space-time turbo code. We begin by discussing the tor errors, we introduced artificial frequency offsets at
experimental parameters, and then we summarize the the transmitters. These errors were within ±80 Hz.
performance of the MIMO system with stationary Two wideband jammers were transmitting at a range
transmitter and receiver in a dynamic environment. Ad- of 100 m. Each jammer was received at a jammer-to-
ditionally, for an even more complicated environment, noise ratio (JNR) of approximately 25 dB. Figure 18
we describe performance results with a mobile transmit- shows the eigenvalues of the noise-normalized interfer-
ter and multiple strong interferers. ence-plus-noise spatial covariance matrix. The “noise”
eigenvalues of the jammer spatial eigenvalue distribution
Experimental Parameters
Outdoor experiments were performed in a frequency
allocation near the PCS band, using a sixteen-channel
receiver. A variety of coding and interference regimes
Cambridge
were explored for both moving and stationary transmit-
ters. Channel-probing sequences and four- and eight-
transmitter space-time codes were transmitted. This Receive MIT
section reports on the outdoor performance results of array
space-time turbo codes for 4 × 4 MIMO systems. The
outdoor experiments were performed during July and
August 2002 on and near the MIT campus. The receive
antenna array was placed on top of a one-story building
(at Brookline Street and Henry Street) surrounded by
two- and three-story buildings.
Transmit
For the examples discussed in this article, quadra- array Boston
ture-phase-shift-key (QPSK) signals were transmitted University
on four antennas at 123 × 103 chips per second for a
total data rate of 246 kb/sec, using the space-time code
discussed earlier. A 160-kHz spectral limit was enforced
by using a root-raised-cosine pulse shaping. Total trans- FIGURE 16. Example 1: map of MIMO communication exper-
mit power was approximately 100 mW, radiated from iment near the MIT campus, including the locations of the
0-dBi antennas. We discuss two examples with differ- transmitter and receiver.

40
Relative power (dB)

Transmitter
25 mph 30
20
Receive
array Jammers 10
25 dB JNR
100 m
0
1 2 3 4
Eigenvalue number
FIGURE 17. Example 2: map of MIMO communication ex-
periment near the MIT campus, including the locations of FIGURE 18. Eigenvalue distribution of the noise-normalized
the transmitter, receiver, and jammers at a fixed jammer-to- interference-plus-noise spatial covariance matrix.
noise ratio (JNR).
are slightly higher than we would naively expect, given ing (three turbo iterations; Doppler taps: {–4/3, –2/3,
the 0-dB noise normalization. This behavior is probably 0, 2/3, 4/3}; temporal taps: {–1/2, 0, 1/2}), and where
an indication of either delay spread or nonstationarity in Doppler taps are represented in resolution cells (60
the received jammer signal. Either of these explanations Hz).
presents additional challenges to the receiver. Performance improves with receiver complexity; the
Both the delay and the Doppler spread affect the algorithm, however, must bootstrap up in complexity
design and performance of the receiver. Here a space- iteratively. Starting with the highest complexity on the
time-frequency adaptive processor is employed. The first iteration increases the probability of converging to
number of delay and frequency taps in the adaptive pro- the wrong solution. Because the channel contains sig-
cessor depends upon the phenomenology. Delay spread nificant Doppler spread, the spatial beamformer per-
was found to be less than ±4 µsec. For the stationary forms poorly. With the relatively long block lengths of
environment, in quiet regions (no nearby traffic), no the turbo code, Doppler beamforming is required in
Doppler spread was detected. For the stationary trans- this environment. We note that experimental perfor-
mitter near heavy traffic in experimental example 1, the mance is essentially the same as was found in simula-
Doppler spread was found to be within ±150 Hz. For tions. Furthermore, the experimental performance is
the moving transmitter in experimental example 2, the
Doppler spread was found to be within ±180 Hz.
10 –1
Experimental Example 1 Spatial beamforming
Bit error rate
Training-data-based
Bit error rates for various detector alternatives are re- 10 –2 SFAP
ported as a function of mean single-input single-output STFAP

(SISO) SNR, a 2Po . Here, a 2 is the mean-squared link 10 –3 MCMUD
attenuation. Figure 19 displays the results for four de-
tection variations: 10 –4
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
1. Training-data-based adaptive spatial beamform- 2
a Po (dB)
ing (three turbo iterations).
2. Coarse training-data-based space-frequency beam- FIGURE 19. Bit error rate of 4 × 4, 2-bit/sec/Hz space-time
forming (one turbo iteration; Doppler taps: {–1, 0, 1}). turbo code as a function of mean SISO signal-to-noise ra-
3. Space-time-frequency beamforming employing tio (SNR) (a 2Po ) for a Boston University transmit location,
using adaptive spatial beamforming, coarse training-data-
decision-directed channel estimation without multiuser
based space-frequency adaptive beamforming (SFAP),
detection (three turbo iterations; Doppler taps: {–4/3, space-time-frequency adaptive beamforming (STFAP) em-
–2/3, 0, 2/3, 4/3}; temporal taps: {–1/2, 0, 1/2}). ploying decision-directed channel estimation, and MCMUD
4. MCMUD with space-time-frequency beamform- with space-time-frequency adaptive beamforming.

communication. Performance bounds assuming either

10 –1 an informed transmitter or an uninformed transmitter
were presented for flat-fading, frequency-selective, and
Bit error rate
10 –2
jammed environments. A channel phenomenology pa-
rameterization was introduced. Experimental phenom-
10 –3
enological results were reported, the results indicating
that the observed channels can be typically character-
10 –4
–21 –20 –19 –18 –17 ized by high degrees of complexity. Furthermore, for
SISO SINR (dB) environments with transmitters on moving vehicles,
FIGURE 20. Bit error rate of 4 × 4, 2-bit/sec/Hz space-time
the channel varies significantly on a time scale less than
turbo code using the MCMUD receivver with space-time- 10 msec. Two space-time coding techniques were in-
frequency beamforming as a function of mean SISO signal- troduced, one based on LDPC and the other on turbo
to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR). codes. Experimental demodulation performance results
were presented for a variety of environments, including
similar to the simulated performance of the best space- those with wideband jammers. In the presence of the
time codes. jammer, the MIMO system (using the MCMUD re-
ceiver) operated dramatically better than SISO systems.
Experimental Example 2
The experimental data includes the effects of two high- Acknowledgments
power wideband jammers, a moving transmitter, and The authors would like to thank Peter Wu of Lincoln
local oscillator errors. Experimental performance of this Laboratory for his help developing the space-time turbo
space-time turbo code for a stationary transmitter in the code, and Naveen Sunkavally of MIT and Nick Chang
absence of interference is discussed elsewhere [39]. of the University of Michigan for their help with the ex-
Figure 20 shows the bit error rate of the space-time periment. The authors would also like to thank the ex-
turbo code using the MCMUD receiver. The bit error cellent Lincoln Laboratory staff involved in the MIMO
rate is displayed in terms of the mean SISO signal-to- experiment, in particular Sean Tobin, Jeff Nowak, Lee
interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR). This is the aver- Duter, John Mann, Bob Downing, Peter Priestner, Bob
age SINR at a given receive antenna, assuming that Devine, Tony Tavilla, and Andy McKellips. We also
all power of the transmit array is transmitted from a thank Ali Yegulalp of Lincoln Laboratory and Vahid
single transmit antenna. We note that this experimen- Tarokh of Harvard University for their thoughtful com-
tal system in this difficult environment operates at an ments, and Dorothy Ryan of Lincoln Laboratory for
SINR that is 25 dB better than the information-theo- her helpful comments. Finally, the authors would like
retic SISO bound, and operates probably at least 35 dB to thank the MIT New Technology Initiative Commit-
better than a practical SISO system. Furthermore, there tee for their support.
is only approximately a 3-dB loss in a 2Po performance
compared to the performance in an environment with-
out jammers. The effectiveness of the receiver is due in
part to its ability to compensate for delay and frequency
spread. The MCMUD employs a space-time-frequen-
cy adaptive processor that uses a four-antenna receiver
with temporal and frequency taps that cover a range of
±4 microseconds and ±200 Hz.
Summary
In this article we addressed information-theoretic, phe-
nomenological, coding, and receiver issues for MIMO

pp. 2041–2052.
19. K.W. Forsythe, “Capacity of Flat-Fading Channels Associat-
R EFER ENCE S ed with a Subspace-Invariant Detector,” 34th Asilomar Conf.
on Signals, Systems and Computers 1, Pacific Grove, Calif., 29
1. W.C. Jakes, Microwave Mobile Communications (Wiley, New Oct.–1 Nov. 2000, pp. 411–416.
York, 1974). 20. K.W. Forsythe, “Performance of Space-Time Codes over a
2. R.A. Monzingo and T.W. Miller, Introduction to Adaptive Flat-Fading Channel Using a Subspace-Invariant Detector,”
Arrays (Wiley, New York, 1980). 36th Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers 1, Pa-
3. K.W. Forsythe, D.W. Bliss, and C.M. Keller, “Multichan- cific Grove, Calif., 3–6 Nov. 2002, pp. 750–755.
nel Adaptive Beamforming and Interference Mitigation in 21. A. Stefanov and T.M. Duman, “Turbo Coded Modulation
Multiuser CDMA Systems,” Thirty-Third Asilomar Conf. on for Wireless Communications with Antenna Diversity,” Proc.
Signals, Systems & Computers 1, Pacific Grove, Calif., 24–27 IEEE Vehicular Technology Conf. 3, Amsterdam, 19–22 Sept.
Oct. 1999, pp. 506–510. 1999, pp. 1565–1569.
4. A. Wittneben, “Basestation Modulation Diversity for Digital 22. Y. Liu, M.P. Fitz, and O.Y. Takeshita, “Full Rate Space–Time
SIMULCAST,” Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conf., St. Turbo Codes,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 19 (5), 2001, pp.
Louis, Mo., 19–22 May 1991, pp. 848–853. 969–980.
5. V. Weerackody, “Diversity for Direct-Sequence Spread Spec- 23. H. Sampath and A.J. Paulraj, “Joint Transmit and Receive
trum Using Multiple Transmit Antennas,” Proc. IEEE Int. Optimization for High Data Rate Wireless Communication
Communications Conf. 3, Geneva, 23–26 May, 1993, pp. Using Multiple Antennas,” Conf. Record Thirty-Third Asilo-
1775–1779. mar Conf. on Signals, Systems & Computers 1, Pacific Grove,
6. G.J. Foschini, “Layered Space-Time Architecture for Wire- Calif., 24–27 Oct. 1999, pp. 215–219.
less Communication in a Fading Environment When Using 24. N. Sharma and E. Geraniotis, “Analyzing the Performance
Multi-Element Antennas,” Bell Labs Tech. J. 1 (2), 1996, pp. of the Space-Time Block Codes with Partial Channel State
41–59. Feedback,” Proc. Wireless Communications and Networking
7. I.E. Telatar, “Capacity of Multi-Antenna Gaussian Chan- Conf. 3, Chicago, 23–28 Sept., 2000, pp. 1362–1366.
nels,” Eur. Trans. Telecommun. 10 (6), 1999, pp. 585–595. 25. D.W. Bliss, K.W. Forsythe, A.O. Hero, and A.F. Yegulalp,
8. D.W. Bliss, K.W. Forsythe, A.O. Hero, and A.L. Swindle- “Environmental Issues for MIMO Capacity,” IEEE Trans.
hurst, “MIMO Environmental Capacity Sensitivity,” Thir- Signal Process. 50 (9), 2002, pp. 2128–2142.
ty-Fourth Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems & Computers 1, 26. T.M. Cover and J.A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory
Pacific Grove, Calif., 29 Oct.–1 Nov. 2000, pp. 764–768. (Wiley, New York, 1991).
9. D.W. Bliss, K.W. Forsythe, and A.F. Yegulalp, “MIMO 27. F. R. Farrokhi, G. J. Foschini, A. Lozano, and R.A. Valen-
Communication Capacity Using Infinite Dimension Ran- zuela, “Link-Optimal Space–Time Processing with Multiple
dom Matrix Eigenvalue Distributions,” Thirty-Fifth Asilo- Transmit and Receive Antennas,” IEEE Comm. Lett. 5 (3),
mar Conf. on Signals, Systems & Computers 2, Pacific Grove, 2001, pp. 85–87.
Calif., 4–7 Nov. 2001, pp. 969–974. 28. D.W. Bliss, A.M. Chan, and N.B. Chang, “MIMO Wireless
10. T.L. Marzetta and B.M. Hochwald, “Capacity of a Mobile Communication Channel Phenomenology,” IEEE Trans. An-
Multiple-Antenna Communication Link in Rayleigh Flat tennas Propag., 52 (8), 2004, pp. 2073–2082.
Fading,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 45 (1),1999, pp. 139–157. 29. D. Gesbert, H. Bölcskei, D.A. Gore, and A.J. Paulraj, “Perfor-
11. L. Zheng and D.N.C. Tse, “Diversity and Freedom: A Fun- mance Evaluation for Scattering MIMO Channel Models,”
damental Tradeoff in Multiple-Antenna Channels,” IEEE Thirty-Fourth Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems & Computers
Trans. Inf. Theory 49 (9), 2003, pp. 1076–1093. 1, Pacific Grove, Calif., 29 Oct.–1 Nov. 2001, pp. 748–752.
12. S.M. Alamouti, “A Simple Transmit Diversity Technique for 30. H. Bölcskei and A.J. Paulraj, “Performance of Space-Time
Wireless Communications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 16 Codes in the Presence of Spatial Fading Correlation,” Thirty-
(8), 1998, pp. 1451–1458. Fourth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers
13. V. Tarokh, H. Jafarkhani, and A.R. Calderbank, “Space– 1, Pacific Grove, Calif., 29 Oct.–1 Nov. 2000, pp. 687–693.
Time Block Codes from Orthogonal Designs,” IEEE Trans. 31. R.G. Gallager, Low-Density Parity-Check Codes (MIT Press,
Inf. Theory 45 (5), 1999, pp. 1456–1467. Cambridge, Mass., 1963).
14. G. Ganesan and P. Stoica, “Space–Time Block Codes: A 32. S.-Y. Chung, G.D. Forney, Jr., T.J. Richardson, and R. Ur-
Maximum SNR Approach,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 47 (4), banke, “On the Design of Low-Density Parity-Check Codes
2001, pp. 1650–1656. within 0.0045 dB of the Shannon Limit,” IEEE Commun.
15. B. Hassibi and B. Hochwald, “High-Rate Linear Space-Time Lett. 5 (2), 2001, pp. 58–60.
Codes,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech, and Sig- 33. T.J. Richardson, M.A. Shokrollahi, and R.L. Urbanke, “De-
nal Processing 4, Salt Lake City, Utah, 7–11 May 2001, pp. sign of Capacity-Approaching Irregular Low-Density Pari-
2461–2464. ty-Check Codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 47 (2), 2001, pp.
16. V. Tarokh, N. Seshadri, and A.R. Calderbank, “Space–Time 619–637.
Codes for High Data Rate Wireless Communication: Perfor- 34. R.J. McEliece, D.J.C. MacKay, and J.-F. Cheng, “Turbo De-
mance Criterion and Code Construction,” IEEE Trans. Inf. coding as an Instance of Pearl’s ‘Belief Propagation’ Algo-
Theory 44 (2), 1998, pp. 744–765. rithm,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 16 (2), 1998, pp. 140–
17. B.M. Hochwald and T.L. Marzetta, “Unitary Space–Time 152.
Modulation for Multiple-Antenna Communications in Ray- 35. C. Berrou, A. Glavieux, and P. Thitimajshima, “Near Shan-
leigh Flat Fading,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 46 (2), 2000, pp. non Limit Error-Correcting Coding and Decoding: Turbo-
543–564. Codes,” Proc. IEEE Int. Communications Conf. 2, Geneva,
18. B.M. Hochwald and W. Sweldens, “Differential Unitary 23–26 May 1993, pp. 1064–1070.
Space-Time Modulation,” IEEE Trans. Com. 48 (12) 2000, 36. L.R. Bahl, J. Cocke, F. Jelinek, and J. Raviv, “Optimal De-

coding of Linear Codes for Minimizing Symbol Error Rate,”

IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 20 (2), 1974, pp. 284–287.
37. P. Robertson, E. Villebrun, and P. Hoeher, “Comparison of
Optimal and Sub-Optimal MAP Decoding Algorithms Op-
erating in the Log Domain,” Proc. IEEE Int. Communications
Conf. 2, Seattle, 18–22 June 1995, pp. 1009–1013.
38. P. H.–Y. Wu and S.M. Pisuk, “Implementation of a Low
Complexity, Low Power, Integer-Based Turbo Decoder,”
Proc. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conf., San Antonio,
Tex., 25–29 Nov. 2001, pp. 946–951.
39. D.W. Bliss, P.H. Wu, and A.M. Chan, “Multichannel Mul-
tiuser Detection of Space-Time Turbo Codes: Experimental
Performance Results,” Thirty-Sixth Asilomar Conference on
Signals, Systems & Computers 2, Pacific Grove, Calif., 3–6
Nov. 2002, pp. 1343–1348.
40. D.W. Bliss, “Robust MIMO Wireless Communication in the
Presence of Interference Using Ad Hoc Arrays,” MILCOM
2003, 2, Oct. 2003, pp. 1382–1385.
41. C.M. Keller and D.W. Bliss, “Cellular and PCS Propagation
Measurements and Statistical Models for Urban Multipath
on an Antenna Array,” Proc. 2000 IEEE Sensor Array and
Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop, Cambridge, Mass.,
16–17 Mar. 2000, pp. 32–36.
42. B. Efron, The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling
Plans (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Phil-
adelphia, 1982).
43. K.W. Forsythe, “Utilizing Waveform Features for Adaptive
Beamforming and Direction Finding with Narrowband Sig-
nals,” Linc. Lab. J. 10 (2), 1997, pp. 99–126.
44. J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Net-
works of Plausible Inference (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo,
Calif., 1988).

 .   .   . 

is a a staff member in the is a senior staff member in the is an associate staff member
Advanced Sensor Techniques Advanced Sensor Techniques in the Advanced Sensor Tech-
group. He received M.S. and group. He received S.B. and niques group. She received
Ph.D. degrees in physics from S.M. degrees, both in math- MSEE and BSEE degrees in
the University of California ematics, from MIT. In 1978 electrical engineering from
at San Diego, and a B.S.E.E. he joined Lincoln Laboratory, the University of Michigan.
in electrical engineering from where he has worked in the Her interests are in chan-
Arizona State University. areas of spread-spectrum com- nel phenomenology. She
Previously employed by Gen- munication, adaptive sensor- has previously worked with
eral Dynamics, he designed array processing, and syn- implementation of synthetic
avionics for the Atlas-Centaur thetic aperture radar (SAR) aperture geolocation of cel-
launch vehicle, and performed imaging. His work on spread- lular phones. Most recently,
research and development spectrum systems includes she has worked on the imple-
of fault-tolerant avionics. As electromagnetic modeling mentation of MIMO channel
a member of the supercon- (geometric theory of diffrac- parameterization.
ducting magnet group, he tion) of antennas mounted on
performed magnetic field an airframe, error-correction
calculations and optimization coding, jam-resistant synchro-
for high-energy particle-accel- nization techniques, and digi-
erator superconducting mag- tal matched-filter design and
nets. His doctoral work was in performance. In the area of
high-energy particle physics, adaptive sensor-array process-
searching for bound states of ing he helped develop a num-
gluons, studying the two-pho- ber of signal-processing algo-
ton production of hadronic rithms that exploit waveform
final states, and investigating features to achieve levels of
innovative techniques for performance (beamforming,
lattice-gauge-theory calcula- direction finding, geolocation,
tions. At Lincoln Laboratory and other forms of parameter
he focuses on multiantenna estimation) beyond those
adaptive signal processing, attainable by nonexploitive
primarily for communication techniques. His work on SAR
systems, and on parameter imaging involves techniques
estimation techniques and for resolution enhancement
bounds, primarily for geolo- and interference rejection for
cation. His current research foliage-penetration systems.
includes ultrawide bandwidth
communication, geoloca-
tion techniques using vector
sensor arrays, multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO)
radar concepts, algorithm
development for multichannel
multiuser detectors, MIMO
communication channel phe-
nomenology, and information
theoretic bounds on MIMO
communication systems.

MIMO Wireless Communication - MIT PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MIMO Wireless Communication - MIT PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

• BLISS, FORSYTHE, AND CHAN

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 97

Spectral efficiency (bits/sec/Hz)

the transmitter can adapt. Most MIMO communica-

98 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

W   is a metaphor for the solution

perhaps the case of spectral allocation for maximal

formed in an outdoor nonstationary environment in a spectral-efficiency bounds in frequency-selective envi-

Information-Theoretic Capacity Informed Transmitter

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 99

channel matrix, x is the transmit-array vector, and n is

I (z, x|H) = h(z|H) − h(z|x , H), (3)

100 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

served in the large Po limit of the ratio of Equations 6

maxeig{HH } † noise-normalized power covariance matrix P is calcu-

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 101

B    of channel matrix

tively) that take into account geometric attenuation 1 1 v 1† v 2

discussion, we assume a = a1 = a2 , which is valid if

where the absolute value is denoted by  . The –20

102 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

Spectral efficiency (b/sec/Hz)

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 103

 H( f1 ) 0 0 0  all the entries in the channel matrix are sampled from

104 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

Channel Estimation where the n-point discrete Fourier transform is repre-

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 105

ces as being similar or very different. Here two metrics 2

One possible reason that a beamformer might use the

To increase the sensitivity to the shape of the eigenvalue (35)

difference, assuming that each eigenvalue is associated

106 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

which is the power-weighted mean cos 2 θm estimate, F = b UA α U † G ′ VA α V † (37)

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 107

G   is often

involved in only a few parity-check equations. Con-

108 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 109

Bayesian belief network

Fixed likelihoods for Stopping rule: parity check satisfied

FIGURE 2. Application of Bayesian belief networks to low-density parity-check codes. Soft-decision

1. Row sweeps implemented in any order or in parallel. This allows

110 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 111

S -  are used with

that each systematic bit is sent twice on two different

112 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

symbols can be bounded by (Bhat-

where the channel matrix H ∈  nR ×nT contains the {

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 113

ZPT⊥ Z † = Z X PT⊥X Z †X . (48)

114 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

(We did not assume that TA is a row vector in the previ-

where m indicates the mth row in the matrix. By re-

VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 115

with information bits. For reasonably stationary chan- –20

number of training samples is relatively small, it is use-

116 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1, 2005

Table 1. List of Transmit Sites

Site Location Range Velocity Number of α

1 Henry and Hasting 150 0.0 8 0.79 ± 0.01

2 Brookline and Erie 520 0.0 8 0.80 ± 0.01